Chu 2vs.May
Sound & Specs Comparison
Information
Both IEMs are widely regarded in the audiophile community. See how they differ in terms of sub-bass response, upper mids, clarity, and overall tonality. Spider charts and rating breakdowns included.
Objective Comparison
Facts, details, stuff.
| General Info | Chu 2 | May |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | Moondrop | Moondrop |
| Country | China | China |
| IEM Description | – | – |
| Price Level | < 100 | < 100 |
| Housing & Driver | ||
|---|---|---|
| Driver Config | – | Hybrid |
| Driver Types | – | – |
| Shell Material | – | – |
| Cable | – | – |
| Technical | ||
|---|---|---|
| Freq Range | – | – |
| Impedance (Ω) | – | – |
| Sensitivity (dB) | – | – |
| Crossover | – | – |
| Platform Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comments | 0 | 0 |
| Visit Count | 41 | 36 |
| External Reviews | 0 | 0 |
Meta Ratings
May reveals microdetails and transient responses with evidently better articulation, helping listeners uncover nuances often missed with Chu 2. For comfort fit, It performs markedly better (10 vs 7.8). Craftsmanship-wise, It feels evidently more meticulously assembled, reflecting a level of engineering and attention to detail that elevates the product. It’s cable appears decisively more premium in both aesthetics and function, from its braid quality to termination. It's accessories are vastly better curated, reflecting greater attention to usability, presentation, and value-added content compared to Chu 2.
| Chu 2 | May | |
|---|---|---|
| Sound | 5.8 | 7.0 |
| Comfort Fit | 7.8 | 10.0 |
| Build Quality | 7.8 | 9.0 |
| Stock Cable | 6.0 | 10.0 |
| Accessories | 5.0 | 9.0 |
Sound Characteristics
May delivers s deeper and more extended sub-bass, reaching lower frequencies with greater authority than Chu 2 (5.5 vs 2.5). It renders bass with n greater punch and separation, where Chu 2 sometimes feels bloated (8 vs 4.5). The bass in It feels overwhelmingly more physical and textured, with improved rumble and body compared to Chu 2 (10 vs 3). It renders lower mids m more naturally, giving male vocals and instruments a fuller tone than Chu 2 (8 vs 6.5).
| Chu 2 | May | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub Bass | 2.5 | 5.5 |
| Bass | 4.5 | 8.0 |
| Bass Feel | 3.0 | 10.0 |
| Lower Mids | 6.5 | 8.0 |
| Upper Mids | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| Lower Treble | 8.0 | – |
| Upper Treble | 8.0 | – |
| Sound Stage Width | – | – |
| Detail | – | – |
| Layering | – | – |
| Masking | – | – |
| Note Weight | – | – |
| Slam | – | – |
| Sibilance | – | – |
| Timbre Color | – | – |
| Tonality | – | – |
| Texture | – | – |
Tonal Signature
// Nothing to compare yet.