u/tallgeeseR

I notice a few eartips brands (such as Azla), they have standard/regular tips and TWS tips.

• Standard/regular variant: tip height ~8-8.5mm, bore/stem height same as tip height.
• TWS variant: tip height ~6-7mm, bore/stem height ~3.5-5mm.

Help:

How's your in-ear experience of AZ80 + TWS eartips, in terms of comfort, passive isolation, ANC effectiveness, sound signature? Which model of eartips is that? Thank you :)

Context:

My deduction for TWS tips, insertion in canal will be 3-5mm shallower than standard variant, or it may not even go inside canal. This is exactly what I want to try - I purchased few set of standard tips including two brands that often recommended by redditors for great comfort, pretty much concluding I have sensitive canals. Now have to explorer shallow insertion instead.

With shallow insertion, I bet there'll be difference in passive isolation, ANC effectiveness, sound signature. If it's too bad I might have to sell my AZ80 for a mid range buds instead.

Some earbuds comes with feature in companion app, to test if we're wearing the buds with airtight seal. This depends on whether we're wearing the buds properly, and we have the right tip for our unique ears.

Do you bother about the seal test?

Quite often, I felt I have the right tips and seal, experiencing noticeable noise reduction, but failed to pass the test. Once I passed the test after further adjustments, I do notice even stronger bass and noise reduction, but the in-ear pressure becomes quite uncomfortable (personal experience). Despite stronger bass response, I find sound of instruments and vocal become more suppressed, more in-head, probably caused by the air chamber or increased pressure (or model specific behavior).

Although in-ear buds are designed to be used with airtight seal, and most buds review use sealed condition as baseline, I wonder how common buds users care about the seal.

View Poll

The terms Technical EM and Non-Technical EM, although they're commonly used in software field discussion, I've always been reluctant to use them as I'm still confused even today.

Are they referring to specific type of role? or specific person's candidacy/expertise?

Take one of my jobs as example. In that specific company, EM is a people manager role, who manages people, team, and team's operation, but not tech and engineering. Naturally in hiring, solid understanding in engineering and good knowledge in techs are nice to have bonus but not must-have criteria, many EMs in the company is not much diff from an average junior developer in terms of technicality. My hiring EM was one of the outliers, who used to be architect in few companies and "CTO" for a startup, published books about tech stack and infrastructure. He's still pretty sharp and stay connected in technicality, despite been in people focus role for years.

Rephrase:
So... is he a Technical EM (by candidacy/expertise) or a Non-Technical EM (by role)?

Whenever you come across the term "non-technical EM" in conversation, how would you interprete the message?

1. EMs who're not well versed in tech/engineering? or
2. EM role that's designated to be people focus (regardless of candidacy/expertise)? or
3. No standard definition. He/she could mean either #1 or #2.