Moondrop Chu II IEM Review

[mc.god]

You know what would be the next thing for the crafty IEM designers to invent? is a mini inbuilt bass vibrator so one could feel as well as hear the low bass.

https://www.linsoul.com/products/cvj-konoka

 

[VMAT4]

Assuming you are not putting on an incredulous act, you are giving me many reasons to thing you are. If you own an hifi amp or receiver fully dial up the bass control and fully dial back the treble control. Let me know if you are happy with the sound reproduction after listening like this for a whole day .

You need to start making sense soon if you wish to win this argument!

 

[OldManMatt]

I have purchased 3 pairs of the original Chu in the past. Each time from the online superstore. Taking anywhere from 1 to 3 months for arrival. As far as sound quality goes I liked them a lot.

None of them lasted very long. The first pair I used them as I would any IEM. I'd walk around with them attached to my phone while I did all types of things around the house. They lasted maybe a month before one side died. I figured maybe it was a bad batch and ordered another. I believe there was a sale going on so even cheaper than the listed $19. That pair lasted 2 months.

Even though I told myself I'm done with this certain model I ended up buying another pair a few months later. I babied this pair. I was very delicate with the wires & only listened to them when I was seated in one spot with the headphone amp. 3 months until the left driver went out & I was barely even using them. It was the left driver each time that went out first.

That is my experience with the original Chu. Pretty good sounding IEM but not even worth $19 in my opinion. Hopefully, for others sake, the Chu II Is of better quality.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

If you read the article or the latest literature on the topic, you will see that placebo effect has been mainly disproven as a real phenomenon beyond regression to the mean.

I’ve read the article. It’s most certainly not an academic paper in an official journal which has been peer reviewed.

It reads like someone with an axe to grind whose bought a web domain to spew out word salads.

 

[InfiniteJester]

I’ve read the article. It’s most certainly not an academic paper in an official journal which has been peer reviewed.

It reads like someone with an axe to grind whose bought a web domain to spew out word salads.

I elaborated further here:

Moondrop Chu II IEM Review

If you read the article or the latest literature on the topic, you will see that placebo effect has been mainly disproven as a real phenomenon beyond regression to the mean. Then why you can spend hours equalizing and listen how the sound changes just to realize that the EQ was off. Or...

www.audiosciencereview.com

But I believe that your assessment is non-charitable to the point of bordering a straw man argument.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I elaborated further here:

Moondrop Chu II IEM Review

If you read the article or the latest literature on the topic, you will see that placebo effect has been mainly disproven as a real phenomenon beyond regression to the mean. Then why you can spend hours equalizing and listen how the sound changes just to realize that the EQ was off. Or...

www.audiosciencereview.com

But I believe that your assessment is non-charitable to the point of bordering a straw man argument.

No, whatever your view, it has in no way a StrawMan argument, as I’m not pretending he’s saying one thing when he’s saying another, then attacking the but I made up.

If you’re going to use terms like Straw Man, please do so accurately.

 

[InfiniteJester]

No, whatever your view, it has in no way a StrawMan argument, as I’m not pretending he’s saying one thing when he’s saying another, then attacking the but I made up.

If you’re going to use terms like Straw Man, please do so accurately.

If you are going to argue, please, read carefully what you are arguing against:

I believe that your assessment is non-charitable to the point of bordering a straw man argument.

English is not my first language, so correct me if I'm wrong, but saying that something borders on other thing only means that it is close without being exactly that other thing.

I studied Philosophy and I specialized in Logic. Maybe it is different in Spanish, but here calling something:

It reads like someone with an axe to grind whose bought a web domain to spew out word salads.

Would be, in fact, considered at least close to a straw man. Because you present yourself disputing a "word salad", instead of engaging with the arguments.

With a pinch of ad hominem, of course. Giving that the author is, apparently, "someone with an axe to grind".

You disputed none of the arguments and instead interpreted both the arguments of the blogger and mine in the least charitable way.

Trying to interpret other's arguments in the most charitable way would be a "steel man", which is something that helps, in my opinion, the debate.

https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

No, it’s not even bordering on.

 

[InfiniteJester]

No, it’s not even bordering on.

Then why are you disputing a vague "word salad" instead or his specific arguments and references?

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Then why are you disputing a vague "word salad" instead or his specific arguments and references?

Sorry, you must have missed this.

I was disputing it as evidence on the grounds that it wasn’t a proper, published, peer reviewed study.

I then noted, as a separate point that it looks like a word salad.

 

[InfiniteJester]

Sorry, you must have missed this.

I was disputing it as evidence on the grounds that it wasn’t a proper, published, peer reviewed study.

I then noted, as a separate point that it looks like a word salad.

You must provide a peer review study of it not being a peer reviewed study if you think that that is the only valid epistemological approach.

The truth is that the article is a review of many studies, incluying this one:

We assemble a unique data set of 126 RCTs covering 23 million individuals, including all trials run by two of the largest Nudge Units in the United States.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA18709

So I strongly suspect that you didn't interact with the text successfully.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

You must provide a peer review study of it not being a peer reviewed study if you think that that is the only valid epistemological approach.

And there you are, ladies and gentlemen.

You ask for evidence, and you’re told you must provide evidence that it’s not evidence.

I’d have thought that, if you had a degree in philosophy and logic, you’d know that this is a burden of proof fallacy.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

That’s two logical fallacies in as many posts. From someone claiming to have a degree in logic.

I’d suggest “Sitacuisses philosaphus mansisses.”

 

[InfiniteJester]

And there you are, ladies and gentlemen.

You ask for evidence, and you’re told you must provide evidence that it’s not evidence.

I’d have thought that, if you had a degree in philosophy and logic, you’d know that this is a burden of proof fallacy.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

That’s two logical fallacies in as many posts. From someone claiming to have a degree in logic.

I’d suggest “Sitacuisses philosaphus mansisses.”

You think that a joke is proof of me not understanding onus probandi? Which, by the way, is not as clear in Philosophy as it is in Law.

But I don't think that you are arguing in good faith, and I think that we are derailing the topic with our senseless conversation.

Have a nice day.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

You think that a joke is proof of me not understanding onus probandi? Which, by the way, is not as clear in Philosophy as it is in Law.

But I don't think that you are arguing in good faith, and I think that we are derailing the topic with our senseless conversation.

Have a nice day.

No, I think the well-respected concept of the burden of proof fallacy is a proof of your lack of good faith in your argument.

 

[markanini]

Moondrop is selling the FreeDSP and CDSP aftermarket cables with PEQ support. JIU, the Chu-II-DSP predecessor, was a version of the OG Chu with a (non removable) USB-C / DSP cable. Variants of the FreeDSP cable are used on Moondrop MAY and DUSK/Crinacle IEMs.

Besides Moondrop, Tanchjim has had USB-C / PEQ versions of their Zero, One, and Tanya IEMs for quite some time.
Not a cable, but Fiio has recently introduced their Jade-Audio JA11, a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter with 5x PEQ (wonder if it's the same KTmicro chip as Moondrop CHU-II, CDSP, JIU and Tanchjim's ???).

These cables/adapters definitely have limitations and their measurements may not be TOTL. But they make a lot of sense for entry-level IEMs: either to "correct" a less-than-perfect FR or, like Chu-II, to change its FR to whatever "target" you desire if Harman is not your thing. With Chu-II-DSP, you get 5x available PEQs through the app., then it carries over to whatever source supporting UAC-1/2... pretty much everything.

Thanks for the heads up on Jade JA11. I like that you can use any analogue cable you already own.

 

[ergre]

The Zero Twos were a real eye-opener for me, where the measurements shined through on tracks that were slow or simple, but the sound completely fell apart for stuff that was fast and complex. I'm not a true believer in measurements anymore when it comes to IEMs. The small drivers just aren't as flexible as the ones you get on speakers and full-sized headphones.

Are you sure that the seal is correct? Complex music contains more bass in general. Maybe you are missing that. In ears are unbelievably finicky. That does not mean measuring them is useless.

 

[56 X]

Good IEM from an acoustic point of view, but the brass nozzle spoils the product very much.

---

 

[herr.jemine]

purely subjectively, the Chu II just doesn't sound good to me, just as bad as the 7hz Sonus, it's terrible to enjoy music with them

 

[markanini]

purely subjectively, the Chu II just doesn't sound good to me, just as bad as the 7hz Sonus, it's terrible to enjoy music with them

Did you try EQ? Assuming you didn't have any other issue with fit or function, might be worth trying at least the manufacturers official profile.

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 25 Hz Gain -4.7 dB Q 0.300
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 200 Hz Gain -5.0 dB Q 0.700
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1400 Hz Gain -2.5 dB Q 1.600
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3500 Hz Gain -4.8 dB Q 1.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 9000 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 1.600

 

[AdamG]

For the two arguing over what words mean. Please take your conversation to pm or start a new thread. This is a review thread and your continuing back and forth is off topic. Next post that’s off topic will be the lucky winner of a thread ban! I don’t want to do that.