>>106479037
>>106479065
I still don't think the handwavey FR stuff is convincing. It seems to me that because that's the only hard data available, you're asking it to do way too much. I get that it's better than just believing manufacturers' complete BS like "we used more exotic graphene in the driver cone than the other guy", but it's almost as useless as that statement. Especially if we go all the way to "the curve completely changes once it's in the ear." Then, uh, what do I do with it? I do want some actionable information about either the curve, or the physical technology, or the digital processing, so I know what to buy next or to recommend people other than the approach of "buy 20 different expensive pairs of earphones, return 19 of them, everything is a mystery."

I mean, look at this thing, the one I use for running right now. You gonna tell me this has a specially ideal path for the audio to get into the ear, or what? It's not even a 3D shape. Clearly there is something in the driver or some technology they've used that works well. Someone's gotta have one of these so they can back me up, kek. I was shocked when I turned them on for the first time. Maybe it's just that bluetooth connection tech (TWS, LDAC, batteries, whatever) is getting better and Nothing is benefiting from that by accident.