• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Moondrop Blessing 2 Review (IEM)

Rate this IEM:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 90 45.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 91 46.2%

  • Total voters
    197

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
578
Likes
726
It graphs quite similarly to the Tripowin Lea which I just tried (and interestingly liked best with the Moondrop Spring Tips, the very same tips the Chu here comes with). I think I'll like this slightly better than the Lea as it is more evenly filled out in the treble region, which the Lea has audible dips in. Still, too little bass for my low listening level :) (I prefer a level somewhere closer to the Aria's for the same level of mids and treble)
Really, the FR of the Blessing 2 and the Tripowin Leá are very similar as well (as the Chu). One could argue that the bigger dip of the Leá between 8 and 12 kHz, is some audible disadvantage, but the region beween 3 and 5 kHz is better accounted for, so I would consider it as a draw and don't see if the more than 10 fold price is justified. I have the Leá, the sound is very good and with EQ even amazing, especially for the price ($26). The Blessing 2 Dusk at least offers this extra bass.

Frequency response Tripowin Leá vs Moondrop Blessing 2 (sehr ähnlich!).png
 

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
578
Likes
726
People also would like to see much cheaper gems. Thank you.
Blon BL-03, Tripowin Leá, Moondrop Chu all below $50. If you come across an original Sony MH755 or MH750 or MH1 for less than $10, these are also very good.
 

SalutaryGraveness

New Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
4
Likes
4
Location
Baltimore
Really, the FR of the Blessing 2 and the Tripowin Leá are very similar as well (as the Chu). One could argue that the bigger dip of the Leá between 8 and 12 kHz, is some audible disadvantage, but the region beween 3 and 5 kHz is better accounted for, so I would consider it as a draw and don't see if the more than 10 fold price is justified. I have the Leá, the sound is very good and with EQ even amazing, especially for the price ($26). The Blessing 2 Dusk at least offers this extra bass.

It looks to me that dip in the treble region of the Lea is a significant audible imbalance compared to the Blessing 2.

Screen Shot 2022-07-07 at 1.15.16 PM.png
 

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
578
Likes
726
It looks to me that dip in the treble region of the Lea is a significant audible imbalance compared to the Blessing 2.

View attachment 216969
Well, first of all one should emphasize that up to 3kHz both have a virtually identical FR. And between 3 and 5 kHz the Leá is more compliant. And this large dip is close to the ear canal resonance, which is usually between 7 and 9 kHz, so the audibility in this region is not so clear.
 

jameswilson

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
20
Likes
7
This is the first IEM review I have seen on here and I really like this! @amirm
Gives a different perspective from a popular IEM reviewer I heavily used when deciding on IEM purchases.
Thanks for all you do!
 

JanesJr1

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
384
Likes
306
Location
MA
This might be my last reply, I'll try to sum it up. All you perceive in terms of headphone sound or any other sound is the frequency response at your eardrum. This is affected by the measured frequency response of the headphone (on a dummy head, lets say GRAS), it's measured distortion/compression, and "headphone transfer function" (we'll call it) when you wear the headphone on your own head (which is how your own ear & head anatomy influence the headphones transmitted frequency response when measured at your own eardrum vs that of the dummy head). Your "micro & macro dynamics" that you mention, is literally just a semantic label you've put on an element of what you yourself experience when you listen to headphones, but whatever that is....it's explainable by the frequency response that is being received at your eardrum which is a result of all the stuff I underlined in this paragraph.

The other stuff you have to be mindful of when comparing frequency responses you find on the internet (Amir/Oratory/Resolve/Crincacle/etc) of headphones/IEM's, is what I mentioned in an earlier post to you. Namely the following:
  • Unit to unit variation (ie manufacturing variance) - can significantly affect frequency response, and sometimes distortion, all depending on whether the headphone you're measuring has low or high unit to unit variation. Some manufacturers are better than others at this, Sennheiser do very well in this in my experience - low unit to unit variation.
  • Headphone Pad Wear - affects frequency response. Are your headphone pads worn, were the pads worn when the person measured them.
  • Measurement Procedure/Protocol: for best comparative accuracy when comparing frequency responses between 2 headphones, then this has to be the same. So hopefully you'd be comparing measurements from the same person, as each measurer will have their own way of placing the headphones, measuring them & deriving a "publishable" frequency response that represents their many individual measurements.
So given all these variables I've mentioned in the prior paragraphs you can see there can be some significant differences between a published measurement you find on the internet for your model of headphone vs what you are actually experiencing with the individual unit you are listening to. So I think you can't be coming up with theories about "micro & macro dynamics" (which you mentioned & which I think is largely a made up/irrelevant term)....you can't be coming up with theories about "micro & macro dynamics" based on your own experience listening to headphones vs the published measurements you find on the internet....you can't be using that information to try to say well the frequency response is near-as-damn-it the same between these two models of headphone yet they sound different to me so therefore it's not the frequency response it's something else called micro & macro dynamics that explains the differences (or whatever theory you have concocted as to why two headphones sound different to you). In fact the reason you hear differences between headphones has been explained in this post - ultimately it's the frequency response you receive at your eardrum which is influenced by all the variables discussed in this post.

What a person can do though (in terms of language & understanding frequency response), is they can relate roughly what certain parts of the measured frequency response of a headphone can contribute to in terms of subjective experience and the often-used terms that describe changes to the frequency responses in those areas, the following graph for instance which comes from Solderdude's website:
descriptors2.png

I'm not sure that the graph above is a 100% sure thing, it's difficult to attribute words/phrases to what we hear, as a lot of it is semantics, but through my EQ experiments with various models of headphone I can say that I can relate to some of that graph. So it all comes down to frequency response, and you can put whatever words you want down to describe how your headphones sound, but hopefully whatever elements you decide to describe you've identified as being a property of a part of the frequency response. It's hard to do this as ideally you'd have your own measurement device to validate the frequency response of your own unit of headphone(s) to remove the element of Unit to Unit Variation & Pad Wear, and/or it would take a fair bit of EQ experimentation and related music listening to start to understand the ways in which certain par"ts of the frequency response influence the music elements that you hear. But it's all in the frequency response received at your eardrum.
Robbo999, I know this is now an old-ish post, but granting your premise that FR at the eardrum determines the headphone's perceived sound, there are still differences from the audio signal as conveyed to the transducer. There may be (1) head-transfer modifications to the original signal; and (2) timing (attack/decay) differences from the original signal based on the electromechanical characteristics of the transducer. Those "dynamics" affect the received FR/SPL characteristics of the signal received at the eardrum. I'm not sure why the premise of "microdynamics" and the premise of "FR at the eardrum" cannot co-exist. I have compared transducers a lot lately equalized to Harman and SPL and it is simply true that different transducers sound systematically different, and the subjective/impressionistic differences relate mostly to "slam" or "speed" or "separation", which may all be time-domain modifications to the original signal as transmitted vs the final FR/SPL at the eardrum. Fidelity is fidelity in the time domain as well as the FR domain. What am I missing?
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,382
Likes
4,042
Location
UK
Robbo999, I know this is now an old-ish post, but granting your premise that FR at the eardrum determines the headphone's perceived sound, there are still differences from the audio signal as conveyed to the transducer. There may be (1) head-transfer modifications to the original signal; and (2) timing (attack/decay) differences from the original signal based on the electromechanical characteristics of the transducer. Those "dynamics" affect the received FR/SPL characteristics of the signal received at the eardrum. I'm not sure why the premise of "microdynamics" and the premise of "FR at the eardrum" cannot co-exist. I have compared transducers a lot lately equalized to Harman and SPL and it is simply true that different transducers sound systematically different, and the subjective/impressionistic differences relate mostly to "slam" or "speed" or "separation", which may all be time-domain modifications to the original signal as transmitted vs the final FR/SPL at the eardrum. Fidelity is fidelity in the time domain as well as the FR domain. What am I missing?
Hi, I think it's off-topic to be honest, mods deleted a load of posts because it was off-topic, they probably kept in the ones that they thought were informative so I don't want to resurrect the discussion. My thoughts are already in my prior posts that I put in a fair bit of effort composing & trying to re-explain a number of times to try to get my point across to a few specific individuals that I was in discussion with.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
3,994
Likes
2,995
The same FR = the same sound is simply not true, as you neglect transient behavior, i. e. CSD and any time based errors in general as the FR plot is a purely static thing. And spatial differences as well. Being objectivist and scientific does not mean being simplistic.
Basically what you're saying is that if you ran a spinorama at a high enough level, you would see compression. Of course. All speakers have limits. That is why this phenomena shows itself in compression tests - and in frequency response.

As for CSD, Toole's research shows that resonances which exist on a plot like that are also in the frequency response. They're all different ways of looking at the same thing.
 

JanesJr1

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
384
Likes
306
Location
MA
Hi, I think it's off-topic to be honest, mods deleted a load of posts because it was off-topic, they probably kept in the ones that they thought were informative so I don't want to resurrect the discussion. My thoughts are already in my prior posts that I put in a fair bit of effort composing & trying to re-explain a number of times to try to get my point across to a few specific individuals that I was in discussion with.
Yes, saw some of them. I'm not sure it's just a case of imprecise language, but is probably more straightforward than it seems. But go ahead, kill this horse.
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,382
Likes
4,042
Location
UK
Yes, saw some of them. I'm not sure it's just a case of imprecise language, but is probably more straightforward than it seems. But go ahead, kill this horse.
Well, from my point of view, I tried to use as precise & succinct language as possible and to lay my posts out using bullet points and subheadings so as to provide a logical structure, so I feel like I've upheld my side of the bargain. PM me if you want to discuss it further re the points I was making.
 

JanesJr1

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
384
Likes
306
Location
MA
Well, from my point of view, I tried to use as precise & succinct language as possible and to lay my posts out using bullet points and subheadings so as to provide a logical structure, so I feel like I've upheld my side of the bargain. PM me if you want to discuss it further re the points I was making.
I will pick it up with a very specific case once I've done some research and thought about it. And I wasn't speaking of your imprecise language, I was just referring to your own aversion to impressionistic language. No really, I do care about the subject and appreciate your extraordinary commitment to engaging helpfully with many members of ASR, including myself. I just want to do it thoughtfully and when I am not distracted by other responsibilities (which I am at the moment), Thank you for reaching out.
 

JanesJr1

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
384
Likes
306
Location
MA
Here are some thoughts about the EQ.


Notes about the EQ design:


  • The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
  • The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
  • A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
  • The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve (and other constrains) with a fixed complexity.
    This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score.
    It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be therefore more neutral.
  • The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF and maybe at HF).
  • The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
  • I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
  • With some HP/amp combo, the boosts and preamp gain (loss of Dynamic range) need to be carefully considered to avoid issues with, amongst other things, too low a Max SPL or damaging your device. You have beed warned.
  • Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit. YMMV with regards to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.
  • I sometimes use variations of the Harman curve for some reasons. See rational here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-review-headphone.28244/page-5#post-989169 NOTE: the score then calculated is not comparable to the scores derived from the default Harman target curve if not otherwise noted.

  • Occluding IE devices generally must have very good fitting/seal in the user's ear canal for best performance.
    please spend a few minutes to pick up the best ear tip... Be sure to perform this step otherwise the FR/Score/EQ presented here are just worthless.
  • 1. more bass = better seal
    2. More isolation from the outside world = better fit
    3. Comfort

Perfect L/R match.

I have generated one EQ, the APO config file is attached.

Score no EQ: 78.6
Score Amirm: 90.5
Score with EQ: 97.1

Code:
Moondrop Blessing 2 Full APO EQ [email protected] 96000Hz
April072022-170340

Preamp: -0.0 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 33.61 Hz Gain 2.32 dB Q 0.83
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 223.72 Hz Gain -2.75 dB Q 1.08
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 564.29 Hz Gain 0.96 dB Q 1.33
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1369.27 Hz Gain -2.47 dB Q 1.19
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2964.03 Hz Gain -1.07 dB Q 4.22
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 6133.86 Hz Gain -2.97 dB Q 1.80

View attachment 198245
I recently bought the Moondrop Blessing 2 and have been tinkering with EQ. I'm very happy with the IEM. My only problem has been getting an EQ for the bass that seems consistently right. Sometimes it sounds just perfect, sometimes boomy, and sometimes a little thin, with the familiar selections I use to evaluate things.

Everyone has different ear shapes and tastes and so on. However, I find that I like this Maiky76 EQ as a starting point. It does a lot of the things that the Oratory/Harman EQ does. However, it tames the bass a little more strongly where some boominess occasionally appears. (Oratory tuning for headphones can over-emphasize bass when applied to IEM's, which are assisted by ear-canal "amplification" of bass, and sometimes I hear this with the Blessing 2 when tuned to Oratory's values.) Oratory also gives more lift at about 4200 Hz, which may satisfy a preference for a brighter treble, although I personally find that treble a bit too "hot". YMMV.

A TEST -- Install the Maiky76 EQ and then:

First, EVEN IF you don't listen much to classical, or especially if you do, find the streaming versions of Deutsche Grammophon's 1990 "Signature" album of Karajan-conducted Bruckner symphonies, Pick out the 3d movement (adagio) of the 8th Symphony and listen to the movement, which is a highpoint of Bruckner's work. The tonality through the Blessing 2 is as wonderful as I have ever heard, just seductive and romantic. (Take in the whole symphony if you like Bruckner. Although Bruckner and Karajan are a familiar combination, this collection has both Bruckner's best conductor and wonderful sonics on several of the symphonies. With Bruckner recordings, it's important to have the right tonal balance so that his horns don't burn too brightly, and this is another place where the Maiky76 EQ works better for me than the Oratory/Harman. This balance is also a virtue of the Blessing 2, I think.)

Second, if you grew up loving the Who's "Live at Leeds" (1970) album, but always felt like you were putting up with a weak live recording, go to your streaming service and pick out the 2010 40th anniversary re-master. Put on "The Magic Bus" and crank it up just a little. Catch the progression of John Entwhistle's bass as it starts to phase in. It's a richer, clearer, more tonally-balanced version of this classic (and the others on the album) that may surprise you. That said, I'm so used to the slightly-thin tonality (not to mention poor recording fidelity) of the earlier versions of Live at Leeds that I'm not sure but what the 2010 re-master is a little upper-bass heavy on the Moondrop -- or perhaps it's just right, depending on your taste. In any event it's a big improvement over the early LP and CD issues. (My EQ'd DCA Closed X and Noire phones absolutely nail the bass tonality on this album, however.)

The Blessing 2 can be a little magical on the right material, but I am not sure that the bass is as consistent and refined from-sub-bass-to-lower-mid's as good, low-distortion planar phones -- but it's pretty darned good for an IEM, and sometimes just-right.

Anyway, after some EQ tinkering, I like the Maiky76 bass on the Blessing 2 as a starting point, and might tame it a touch more to my taste.
 
Last edited:

alexzax

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2022
Messages
8
Likes
0
Guys, i am new to iems and i wanna replace my galaxy buds pro (s22u), desktop am4 amp hd board.
what should i get between fd5,moondrop b2, 7hz timeless + ustw5 or anything that works with usbc phone good sound quality?
 

staticV3

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
2,075
Likes
2,951
Guys, i am new to iems and i wanna replace my galaxy buds pro (s22u), desktop am4 amp hd board.
what should i get between fd5,moondrop b2, 7hz timeless + ustw5 or anything that works with usbc phone good sound quality?
With that budget (and if I had large enough ears QQ), I'd get the B2 Dusk
 
  • Like
Reactions: RHO

alexzax

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2022
Messages
8
Likes
0
i can t get b2 dusk in europe, b2 are used also. what i can get here easy and with warranty are some fiio and some ibasso which also come from another country in europe. main sites are avstore ro or muziker
 

Somafunk

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
710
Likes
1,466
Location
Scotland
I doubt you’ll be unimpressed with the 7hz timeless, buy from Amazon and you can always send them back if you don’t like them, but that’s not gonna happen. ;)
 

alexzax

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2022
Messages
8
Likes
0
I doubt you’ll be unimpressed with the 7hz timeless, buy from Amazon and you can always send them back if you don’t like them, but that’s not gonna happen. ;)
what i hate about amazon is service and the long procedure to get my iems repaired if anything happens. that s why i m towards fiio cause is a renamed local shop. they have fiio fh3 fd5 fh5s fh5s pro fa7 fh7 fd9 fh9 but i dunno what to pick.
i had like 4 years ago some audeze isine10 new for my birthday, with cipher for my iphone and didn t pay much attention for like a year cause i prefer closed back, also isine broke after 6 months of usage (left broke, easy as that) and started to like that flat crispy clear sound..
 

JanesJr1

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
384
Likes
306
Location
MA
Guys, i am new to iems and i wanna replace my galaxy buds pro (s22u), desktop am4 amp hd board.
what should i get between fd5,moondrop b2, 7hz timeless + ustw5 or anything that works with usbc phone good sound quality?
I concur on the B2. Whether you should get the B2 without the "Dusk" tuning, my hip-shooting response is "absolutely!". Even Crinacle rated the tonality of the regular Blessing as "S" or best.

Getting more into the detail, I ask two questions.

First, can you equalize or are you interested in finding out how to do it? I started EQing last year using the resources recommended here on the ASR site, and I now can't imagine being an audiophile without it ... plus it's fun. If you are willing to try it, it'll take a little practice to get good at it, but you'll also become a better listener and audiophile. Anyway, small tweaks to tonality like the Crinacle changes would be a minor challenge. (And yes, it can be done with a phone as the source.)

Second, what kind of music do you listen to? Unless you really like bass and listen mostly to metal and electronica, I'm wondering why you'd want the heavier bass of the Crinacle tuning. This is getting into matters of taste, but my problem with the B2 is its occasional "boominess", and I don't regard the B2 bass as always as controlled as some listeners have claimed. In any event, they're already pretty bass-rich, and (to my ears) sometimes have the defect of the cotton-y bloom of dynamic driver bass distortion, especially if you turn the volume up some. That said, my reference point is based on my appreciation for low distortion bass on planar headphones; once you've heard that, you tend to hear bass distortion a lot more easily, especially with dynamic drivers. I generally like the B2 bass .. in fact, I like it a lot for an IEM, but don't understand why you'd want to jack it up. YMMV.

Also, if you listen to acoustic sources (folk, classical, jazz, much of Rock and R&B), then there might be times when you'd want to roll back the mid's a bit like the Crinacle/Dusk changes allow. Doing so puts you more "out in the audience", set back from the stage with possibly better balance among the instruments. That might argue for the Dusk, though you might give up some mid-range warmth (as some have commented about the Dusk). In any event, maybe that's a consideration for you. But I commend it as one of those things you could address in a heartbeat if you used EQ to begin with (e.g. I have 2 EQ profiles for my headphones, one with warmer mids for vocals, R&B, etc,; and the other set back with more recessed mids to get a balanced soundstage on some classical material).

I haven't heard the Timeless, and very much would like to. I only mention that reviewers have said that while the new, planar IEM's like the Timeless are definitely bringing some game to the table technically, I've also read that they haven't gotten their tonality down yet ... suggesting that they might be better for people who are willing to tinker with the EQ. I defer to comments from anyone with first hand experience with the Timeless. But my larger point is that if you don't want to get into EQ'ing your IEM's, the B2 is pretty darned good right out of the box to begin with, and I wouldn't get that hung up on the "Dusk" part.
 
Last edited:

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
578
Likes
726
what i hate about amazon is service and the long procedure to get my iems repaired if anything happens. that s why i m towards fiio cause is a renamed local shop. they have fiio fh3 fd5 fh5s fh5s pro fa7 fh7 fd9 fh9 but i dunno what to pick.
i had like 4 years ago some audeze isine10 new for my birthday, with cipher for my iphone and didn t pay much attention for like a year cause i prefer closed back, also isine broke after 6 months of usage (left broke, easy as that) and started to like that flat crispy clear sound..
Maybe you want to make it the other way around as I did. I firstly bought some IEMS in the $100-300 range (7Hz Timeless, Fiio DF5, Moondrop Kato) and then, more out of curiosity, bought some cheaper, but still highly recommended, ones like Blon Bl-03 and Tripowin Leá. I must say that these cheaper ones, especially with EQ, are hardly worse than the others, only in the accessories.
 

alexzax

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2022
Messages
8
Likes
0
first, most of these iems are hard for me to get and afraid of chi fi only because of warranty. second, getting into audiophile is another expensive hobby; cause i know i am picky. i just raised from sony wf1000mx4 budget to 500$ and i want to stay here. anything above will have me thinking why shouldn t i upgrade my pc further more than investing in iems.. for sure i will not get any iems,but i m just getting these for a 5 min walk to work and to let my gf sleep tight.
i currently own s880db which i don't use 5% of their power. Desktop pc has Aorus pro V2 which has an amp for headphones, and also works with speakers, in level 3 and just one volume up click, the sound (max windows)is already at 97db+ and i keep that volume around 20%. . i am not volume up guy, i prefer to hear all instruments at a very low volume where these speakers are shinning.
i don't wanna get a habit of iems, just pick one which sound pretty damn good with s22ultra. and i won't carry a dac amp in pockets. utws5 i think is enough.
i listen to anything. what i prefer is long violin notes, articulated quitar, tight piano, vocals, and boomy orchestra.

anyway tomorrow i ll go and see if i can check fd5 and fh7; i ll let you know what i ve picked.
 
Top Bottom