It's normal because inherently this needs to take sound input from the microphones and invert it. So if you have wind against the microphone, you are getting inverted wind noise which is audible.

The Galaxy Buds Pro have a wind shield and are better at this than others (and I think the new Buds 2 Pro also although I haven't tested it). They are better than any other TWS I have, like the Buds+, Buds2, or Sony XM4.

While these are better at it, they still probably have more noise with ANC on if moving, than just having it off. There will still be the occasional whoosh from the wind.

I would question the advisability of using ANC while biking, for me it's the opposite, I would use the transparency mode because I want to hear around me, but the wind shield also affects that. Transparency is sort of usable while biking with the Buds Pro, but totally unusable with other stuff, it's just constant static.

Spinfit sizing is different than Spring Tips, they are larger. But Spring Tips are designed to fit the nozzle deeper in your ear, so they need to be smaller. I usually use L in both, but some IEMs I use M.

CRA+ is another option for CRA with less subbass. Very similar to the EDA balanced but I think a bit better overall, better bass, sounds more dynamic, better upper mids/clarity and more technical with better treble. A bit more expensive as well though.

https://pw.squig.link/?share=PaulWasabii_Target,KZ_EDA_Balanced,CCA_CRA_Plus

There is remarkably wide acceptance of the over-ear target as good sound among reviewers.

There is next to no acceptance of the in-ear target, I can't offhand think of anyone who thinks it is optimal. Most lean far closer to some variant of IEF neutral + bass, or Oratory 1990's USound, i.e. less shouty ear gain, slightly more mid-bass, and a flat rather than dipping transition through the mid-bass to the sub-bass.

Oratory I believe is talking about the over-ear targets there. I'm not talking about them, and they are widely accepted. There is actually a big difference with the in-ear target, the original one of that was super out there, it went WAY up and then dropped absolutely off a cliff. They revised that in 2019 to something far more sane.

• 2017
• 2019

It's still too much ear gain, IMO, but it's at least more sane a shape than it used to be.

Also, if you are saying you like the Chu, you don't like Harman in the bass then. The Chu is nowhere near Harman bass. I actually do like Harman bass- the Variations, the Galaxy Buds 2 Pro, these are great.

I just take issue with this idea that Harman IE is a broadly preferred target. I don't think it is, there is a very consistent trend of people who have issues with it, far more than the over-ear curve, and I can't think of a single reviewer who takes Harman IE as their ideal IEM target.

> statistically speaking the majority of listeners will generally prefer the Chus (At least according to the Harman research) over pretty much Moondrop's entire midrange lineup (KATOs, Arias, Arias Snow, etc.)

Except that just isn't the case, I don't think there are many who would. I certainly would rank the Kato, Starfield, Aria above the Chu. And many of the other IEMs they have below it, like, I don't know... the Monarch Mk2.

I'm not convinced by Harman's in-ear target. Over-ear, yes, I EQ my over-ears to Harman. But in-ear, no, it's too shouty, the bass boost is too far down, and it has that dip below in the mid-bass which makes it sound unnatural with many genres.

It's close, but it's not quite right. Many others also don't think Harman IE is quite there. And it's not as if there's only one, either, Harman themselves pretty radically changed it. So the first one was "wrong". I prefer either Oratory1990's USound IEM target, or IEF neutral+bass. And the reality I think is most people prefer this over Harman, too, and a lot more IEMs are tuned in that direction.

I'm also somewhat unconvinced with AutoEQ's rankings. Even if we are ranking Harman target compliance, should the Chu be higher than the Variations? Chu doesn't follow Harman in the bass at all, while the Variations nails it. The Variations is also a much better IEM.

I don't get good results with the AutoEQ presets, I don't know why but a lot of them just sound outright wrong.

I get much better results with Oratory1990's targets, I tend to like Harman for overears and his own target for IEMs.

Try these if you haven't.

AutoEQ is totally algorithmic and I think sometimes gets it wrong, it can be trying to EQ the high treble, or EQing small peaks or dips, based off measurements that may not have them in the same place you have them on your head. A narrow filter applied to a narrow peak just 500Hz off can make things worse rather than better.

Oratory's EQs are checked manually by listening and tweaked by ear. He doesn't try to EQ anything specific over 10kHz or so, just uses broad high shelf filter. I haven't ever heard one that sounded as egregiously wrong as many of the AutoEQ ones do (particularly the IEM ones).

I don't always only EQ to Harman, either, although I do use Oratory1990's Harman target on over-ears more than anything else. I also on some stuff just address specific issues, so things like, add bass shelf, smooth over or remove peaks, etc. And leave the rest of it alone.

One thing Harman does, with headphones like the Arya, is it fills in/brings up the 1-3kHz recess. This pulls in the soundstage as well. HD800S has a recess in the same place, it adds to soundstage. So I often listen to the Arya with just a Harman bass shelf (or sometimes less) and leave the rest as the rest is pretty much fine. Or with the HD800, just bring up the bass to flat, and, bring down the 6kHz peak a little.

IEMs I generally listen to stock, but there are some with specific issues, like add mid-bass to the Dioko / Symphonium Helios, remove the mid-bass bloat and smooth over the pinna gain wonkiness on the Fiio FD5, add treble to the Dunu EST112 or Zen, reduce mid-bass and treble peaks on the Beyerdynamic Xelento. I'm far more likely to just go for correcting specific issues like peaks or not enough / too much mid-bass on IEMs.

EQ isn't just Harman or nothing, and it's certainly not just AutoEQ Harman which frankly sounds crap to me a lot of the time.

The old one is fine on solid state, it's a very detailed technical headphone and I think it sounds better on solid state. You can EQ in a bass shelf if you want that, that's the most significant audible difference you'll get from a tube amp.

Like many dynamic drivers the OG Utopia has an uneven impedance curve that peaks in the bass region, this results in a boost in the bass if used with an amp with a high output impedance, like many tube amps have.

Unlike Sennheisers though, where due to the high impedance the boost is subtle, with the lower impedance Focals it's quite a lot, and it's a mid-bass boost rather than a sub-bass boost. This is very audible, but can be leaning towards boomy, as it's mid-bass then with a sharp roll off into the sub bass. If you just EQ it yourself, you can get the bass rise but with less boomy mid-bass and better sub-bass extension.

The 1-1.5kHz rise is a feature of many Focals, that region is identical in the old Utopia and it's also there in the Clear. You can EQ it down, or alternately, smooth it out the other way by EQing up around 2kHz, this is what Amir did with his EQ of the OG Utopia and I think it works well. The new Utopia does seem to have smoothed over that dip at 2k a bit though. I think maybe you get a bit more soundstage if you bring it down, but also a certain thinness, while it has that more typically Focal forward character if you leave it in but smooth it out at 2kHz. Worth trying it both ways.

Interesting that you feel it needs more treble, this was the major change from the old one, they cut the treble, similar to what they did moving from the Clear to the Clear MG.

Sony's product names are nuts, easy to conflate them.

He's talking about the WF-1000XM4 which are the TWS, not the WH-1000XM4 which are the overears. The TWS XM4 are far less egregious than the overears, they do sound a little muffled in the treble to me and I prefer the Galaxy Buds Pro, but they are not bad at all, and look a lot better than the MW07 Pro.

https://crinacle.com/graphs/iems/graphtool/?share=IEF_Neutral_Target,MW07_Plus,WF-1000XM4

> Neutral is what you want buddy.

They don't look anywhere near neutral though, as /u/SupOrSalad posted above, they have +20dB bass over 1kHz. That's insanely bass boosted. And +17dB at 5.5kHz. That's very v-shaped, with very recessed mids, not neutral. The MW07 isn't quite as boosted in the bass but it's still around +12dB in the midbass, and it is about the same boost in the treble. So if that's what you want, you don't want neutral either.

https://crinacle.com/graphs/iems/graphtool/?share=IEF_Neutral_Target,MW07_Plus,MW07

I can hear the clipping on the Clear at high volumes if I go specifically looking for it with test tones or very sub-bassy tracks. These aren't crazy volumes but they are well above what I would actually listen at. I actually thought it was broken when I first got it as it clipped on pink noise (which is bass-weighted) at a loud but not extreme volume.

I never however get it in actual listening, an this includes sub-bass heavy tracks and using Oratory's Harman EQ which has +8.6dB in the bass. So while I can certainly understand why it could be an issue, it's not for my listening volumes, on my specific unit.

Focal say they do this deliberately for dynamics, I think the idea is the diaphragm is very free in its movement but has a hard limit for excursion. I can't say, but the Focal Clear does subjectively seem to have great dynamics, great sense of slam.