Why Talking About Mixing IEMs Is Stupid

Core argument / technological concept

• The speaker argues that mixing/editing on IEMs (in-ear monitors) is generally considered “stupid” or unreliable.
• However, they still do it because they need something small and portable.

Why “real” mixing needs consistency

• Good monitoring should help you create audio that sounds acceptable across multiple playback systems:
  • phones
  • laptops
  • TV speakers
  • theaters
• Therefore, headphone/speaker monitors used for mixing should be “even-keeled”—i.e., have a consistent frequency response.

How “real” mixing is typically done (and why cross-checking matters)

Common engineer workflow described:

1. Prefer speakers over headphones for mixing.
2. Cross-check harsh details, especially sibilance (“S” / “SH”) using a “worst-case” reference headphone that reveals problems.

Examples mentioned

• For the mixing side
  • Sennheiser HD 600 / HD 6XX: good for mixing, but not exactly best for critical editing.
• For worst-case cross-checking
  • Sony MDR-7506: can bring out sibilance to detect worst-case issues.
  • Beyerdynamic DT 770: also mentioned as another option.

Key claim

• If you can make audio sound good on a worst-case monitor (e.g., MDR-7506), it will usually translate elsewhere.
• Some IEMs/headphones can make sibilance seem duller/smoother, reducing diagnostic usefulness for critical editing.

Second use case: voice actors / voice-over critical editing

The speaker shifts to voice work, where audio rejection is high-stakes:

• Voice actors compete against many others.
• Bad audio is an easy rejection.

Main problem: space/reverb isn’t represented well

• Using an Etymotic ER2XR helped detect issues, but it did not reflect the “space”/reverb of the recording environment.
• Result: when played back at home, the performance sounded like it was recorded “in a bathroom”.
  • For voice actor auditions, reverb/room tone is described as “death.”

What they tried to solve

They wanted IEMs that:

• Are good for critical voice-over editing
  • especially catching sibilance/harshness
• Provide enough realism/“honesty”
  • so problems (including sibilance and possibly space artifacts) are noticeable
• Are far more portable than speaker/headphone setups, reducing “bulk” and gear

They also emphasize a belief that newer IEMs may have enough soundstage / technical behavior to help, challenging older assumptions.

IEMs reviewed and characterized (grouped by purpose)

The speaker “rolls through” specific IEMs, mostly evaluating whether they reliably expose sibilance/harshness for critical editing versus whether they smooth/flatten it.

Generally presented as good / more “honest” for critical voice editing

• Dunu Audio Legacy 2
  • good for critical editing
  • spacious
  • slightly bright, but usable
• Cadenza 4
  • enjoyable
  • somewhat U-shaped
  • can be made more reliable by:
    • ear tip changes
    • dipping 6–8 kHz
• Daybreak
  • described as “honest”
  • may be peaky
  • has staging, and is considered better for critical editing than the very small-space Etymotic experience
• Tangzu Origin
  • bright-slanted treble
  • lots of soundstage
  • “very honest” about sibilance
• Westone Mach 60s
  • praised as excellent for mixing + critical editing
  • but extremely overpriced
  • speaker suggests about $300 would be fair versus $1300

Presented as neutral-ish but unreliable for critical editing (often dulling/dampening sibilance)

• Dunu Titan S
  • tends to remove/fizzle out sibilance
  • making it duller
• Tripowin Pure
  • warm and smooth
  • harsh sibilance areas are dulled down
  • not for critical editing, though it’s smooth/liked
• Softears Studio 4
  • very neutral-ish
  • but smooths sibilance too much, so it’s not good for that front

Presented as mainly for enjoyment/monitoring rather than critical editing

• Kinera Imperial
  • bright-slanted treble, but too smooth for reliable critical editing
• Zetian Wu
  • “flattering vocals”
  • you may not hear sibilance clearly
  • not recommended for critical editing
• Etymotic ER2XR
  • reference point from their traveling workflow
  • good for detecting some issues, but not good at conveying recording space/reverb

Their “answer” pick for affordability + their specific workflow

They recommend a compromise IEM:

• Kiwi Ears Orchestra Lite

Claimed traits:

• Even-balanced tuning
  • not crazy bass, not crazy treble
• Some soundstage and technical ability
• Matches their voice closely when wearing a mic
• Lets them detect problems when audio is “spicy” by turning volume up

They frame this as the best tool that “answers the question” for them.

Why they stopped making mixing/editing IEM content (meta-analysis)

They call their continued focus on IEM mixing “dumb”—not because it’s universally wrong, but because it’s a personal workflow constraint.

They describe three opposing feedback groups:

1. Audio engineers: “Don’t mix on IEMs—use speakers.”
   • They argue engineers don’t understand the need for tiny portable setups.
2. People insisting on a specific “neutral” target (e.g., “JM1 neutral”)
   • They dispute that these targets produce results useful for their goal.
3. Budget users: “I have $20, can I mix?”
   • They argue cheap IEMs disprove mixing-on-IEM viability and are a waste of money
   • They frame this extreme case as partially agreeing with engineers

Final conclusion

• The approach works only for them, not everyone.
• So the video’s premise is framed as specific and dumb, rather than universally correct.

---

Main speakers / sources

• Main speaker: the YouTube channel host discussing IEMs, mixing, and voice-over editing.
• Referenced models/brands (not speakers):
  • Sennheiser (HD 600 / HD 6XX)
  • Sony (MDR-7506)
  • Beyerdynamic (DT 770)
  • Audio-Technica (M50X)
  • Etymotic (ER2XR / ER3XR / ER4XR)
  • Dunu (Legacy 2, Titan S)
  • Tangzu (Origin)
  • Kinera (Imperial)
  • Tripowin (Pure)
  • Zetian Wu
  • Westone (Mach 60s)
  • Softears (Studio 4)
  • Kiwi Ears (Orchestra Lite)
  • Moondrop (Spring tips)