r/NoStupidQuestions: theoretically, could one access the Moondrop Quarks DSP's DSP code and edit it, changing its sound, in the manner of a "native EQ"?thatcarolguy t1_j6niexi wrote
I'mma sell my Dusk cause of this thing.
keynzeev t1_j6nuops wrote
omg! the DSP Quarks is that good? I really was just thinking that thing was just another cheap hyped chifi shit...
69001001011 t1_j6o41m8 wrote
It's not. I wasn't a huge fan of the tuning, but my main issue is that it has an audible noise floor.
Basically you plug it in and it starts going shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Great bargain, but not a replacement for anything high end
thatcarolguy t1_j6or574 wrote
The noise floor doesn't matter when you are listening to music. It is a replacement for high end. Now I can get rid of my Dusk, have a much more stable/comfortable fit and never worry about breaking my fragile $330 IEM.
69001001011 t1_j6orn99 wrote
I mean yeah if you're listening to extremely compressed stuff or super loud then if you won't hear it. But I absolutely hear the noise floor during quiet passages.
szymonhimself t1_j6ooxt0 wrote
It is just another hyped cheap chifi IEM.
It is better than cheap IEMs from a year or two ago, but really nothing groundbreaking. Still loses to Moondrop SSR in the technical department, and tonality wise it's just a well executed V-Shape, it you're into those things. It's definitely a good IEM, but doesn't really come close to things like Titan S, P1 Max or Starfield.
thatcarolguy t1_j6oqjwb wrote
It is incredibly groundbreaking. It completely Destroyed the Chu and made it obsolete while the Chu already did that to the $20 price bracket.
And there is no such thing as the technical department. It's imagined by people who can't accept that a $20 IEM is the real deal.
szymonhimself t1_j6otq44 wrote
I'll give you the first point. Chu was garbage, Quarks were pretty good, Quarks DSP are even better than that.
And lmao cope harder.
thatcarolguy t1_j6p3n0l wrote
No need to cope. I've got my end game IEM until something better eventually comes for $20.
Bal_u t1_j6otyiq wrote
You might like its frequency response very much, but there's absolutely nothing groundbreaking about it. It's just another $20 IEM, much like the Chu was just another $20 IEM. Technicalities existing is not something that can even be debated.
thatcarolguy t1_j6p3zbv wrote
Why do you call it a $20 IEM as if it is an insult? That just makes it all the more groundbreaking. It is an extreme revolution in price/performance as it is better than the vast majority of IEMs including ones that are 100x the price.
What kind of thing are you looking for to qualify as "groundbreaking"?
Bal_u t1_j6p9srh wrote
You mentioned the price the exact same number of times as I did. It's nice that we're clarifying the bracket they're competing in - the Chu most certainly didn't have a shot of competing with more expensive IEMs, and I very much doubt the Quarks DSP does. Hell, the Chu is quite far from my preferred $20 IEMs, even.
There's just a limit to how much you can do at this price point, the significantly better technicalities in more expensive earphones are related to their better drivers.
Benay148 t1_j6oxxk0 wrote
They are very good, but also my issue apart from the noise floor is the noisy cable. They are really that good sound wise though
thatcarolguy t1_j6nwu08 wrote
It is. The best frequency response in your ear wins. It doesn't matter if it's $2 or $2000.
Rogue-Architect t1_j6oieic wrote
You can’t EQ detail, slam, soundstage, etc. and any smoothed graph you are looking at won’t tell you that. So if it sounds good to you, that is awesome but even with DSP they are lacking quite a bit. I would be curious of your thoughts on the Dusk if you EQd them to the same target.
thatcarolguy t1_j6op2kj wrote
You can EQ all of those things if you have no un-EQable flaws. For example the Quarks DSP and the Dusk are the only 2 IEMs I have heard that do not have a timbre killing treble spike somewhere after 10k.
As for EQing them to the same target, it doesn't matter. I would never get it perfectly right and they are already close enough that it comes down to a matter of preference which one I think is better for what music depending on the production (EG, if there is tons of sub bass already I will prefer the Dusk, if there is a lot of warmth in the lower mids I will prefer the Quarks) but mostly I can take either so by default it goes to the one that is 1/20th the price, fits more comfortably and is not fragile.
If I were actually able to EQ them exactly the same they would just be the same IEM and sound exactly the same.
Rogue-Architect t1_j6p6d11 wrote
So let’s see here, you absolutely cannot EQ those technicalities with our current extremely smooth graphs because you cannot even tell me where they are. So that is an outright lie.
Yes, if your hearing is not capable of discerning details then I would certainly buy the one that costs way less. Also, if they are already close enough then why would one be better than the other given a certain song?
Yes I would agree that they would be the same if we could perfectly measure a headphone (we cannot) and we could perfectly EQ a headphone (we cannot) so why even make the statement? If they both had the same FR, they would be the same headphone. The point is that even if you EQd the to try to match the smooth target you are missing the fine grained details that make all of the difference.
The quarks are a great budget IEM with excellent tonal balance. Nothing more.
It sounds like tonal balance is all that matters to you which makes sense why the quarks are all you need. Makes you look like a fool for owning those HD800 though. Why even own it?
purplehaze619 t1_j6o307k wrote
Downvoted for speaking facts
thatcarolguy t1_j6oak95 wrote
Lol It's gonna happen a lot more. I was initially careful not to make too many hasty claims about the Quarks being as good as the Dusk but I've given it some time and have been comparing them recently and I'm just about ready to come out with it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments