Katovs.Project Meta

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.

Meta Ratings

Project Meta delivers distinctly better sound reproduction, offering a more immersive and engaging experience overall. Its tonal balance, clarity, and spatial imaging stand out clearly compared to Kato (7 vs 5). For comfort fit, It performs markedly better (6.5 vs 4.5). Craftsmanship-wise, Kato feels barely more meticulously assembled, reflecting a level of engineering and attention to detail that elevates the product. Project Meta’s cable appears subtly more premium in both aesthetics and function, from its braid quality to termination. Accessory-wise, Kato includes slightly more practical and high-quality items, enhancing both protection and usability.

Sound Characteristics

Project Meta produces sub-bass that is a more textured and present in cinematic or bass-heavy tracks (6 vs 3). It offers d stronger and more impactful bass response, adding weight and presence where Kato feels less assertive (6 vs 4). The bass in It feels c more physical and textured, with improved rumble and body compared to Kato (6.5 vs 3). It renders lower mids a more naturally, giving male vocals and instruments a fuller tone than Kato (6.5 vs 4). In the upper mids, It sounds a clearer and more articulate, highlighting vocals and lead instruments better than Kato (5.5 vs 4). It offers c greater shimmer and nuance in the lower treble, revealing micro-details that Kato misses (7.5 vs 5). The highest frequencies on It feel m more natural and less rolled-off compared to Kato (6.5 vs 5). The stereo field on It feels m wider and more holographic, whereas Kato sounds more intimate (6 vs 4). The retrieval of faint audio cues on It is a more convincing, while Kato tends to gloss over them (6 vs 4). In complex arrangements, It separates layers d more distinctly, preventing overlap that Kato occasionally suffers (6.5 vs 4.5). Instruments remain intelligible on It even during busy sections, showing s better handling of masking than Kato (5.5 vs 4). Notes on It feel overwhelmingly more grounded and weighty, whereas Kato can sound thin or hollow (6 vs 2). It hits with overwhelmingly more authority during transients, creating a more explosive effect than Kato (6 vs 2). It controls harsh sibilant peaks a more effectively, making vocals smoother than on Kato (6.5 vs 4). It renders timbres with a better harmonic balance, preserving the character of instruments more accurately than Kato (6 vs 5). Across the frequency range, It stays a more consistent in tonal balance, resulting in a smoother listen than Kato (6 vs 5). The grain and surface of instruments are rendered a more vividly by It, while Kato feels flatter (5.5 vs 5).

Tonal Signature

// Nothing to compare yet.