Audeze Euclid

I don't review on FR and stuff, i review on what i feel in my brain when i put stuff on my ears.
So this is a FEELINGS review, nothing more. This is a planar IEM, this is going to be important later, but not for a brouchure approach.

First off, using "Life On Mars" i tested the voice and dinamic extension of the Euclids. As you know the song has strings, lows, highs, voice, a big mix of sounds and sources that make for a complex song. The thing that at first turned me off from my own hard-money-earned purchase was that it felt kinda meh. Then i compared to other IEMs, though of lower cost. And then i started listening. As many would know, first impressions can be deceiving, and this was one such case. The thing that "turns off" from the Euclids is the same that actually shows the kind of gear you have.
In this case, the fact that NO part of the sound was overwhelming or overwriting the rest of the frequencies. Meaning that piano, voice and the bass strings ALL had their own space, never to be trampled by others. That which at first made me think they were underwhelming was actually them being as true as they could to the source song. No bass-boost nor shrilling highs, they are there for one job: giving you the song you feed them.

So, let's go to something completely different: Bach Toccata and Fugue straight from Chesky Record's Rendition. I can say that it's one of those bass-heavy songs where the organ shows all its might. In the Euclid, you'll hear THE organ, complexity of its dinamics and the low end are ALL there. I have never, ever heard any misstep or sound distortion in its more deep parts. I think the use of a planar drive helps immensely with covering the whole FR spectrum with as reliable as possible rendition of every single HZ. Also, i am kinda "spoiled" in my basses with the Kennerton Heartland, and yet in the Euclid there's nothing hidden, just more evened out with the rest of the FR.

Ending with Beethoven Symphony No9 in B Flat, Op.60: Adagio, Euclid shows again coherency in its FR, with no overwhelming of the FR between Bass and Highs. The sound's enveloping and powerful.

So here's the end of this simple review. I started out thinking i would ditch them in favour of other IEMs, but ended up re-listening to them critically and fell back in love with their sound.
I guess people can get used to something very good and risk ignoring it only because it's something they grow accustomed to.
Don't be like that, enjoy it all you have!

Also, one could say a 5/5 would be in order but i do think they could be improved, so i look forward to Euclids Mk2 that go even higher!

Hi guys,


Today we are taking a look at a product which is a bit of a change of pace, an interesting pair of IEMs from Audeze called the Euclid. In traditional Audeze fashion, these feature a planar magnetic driver, similar to their open back LCDi4, iSINE, and LCD-i3 siblings. Now, in the past I have owned Audezes LCD-i4 open backed IEMs, which were more of a miniature headphone, than a true IEM. Having had a good experience with their sound quality, I was curious if Audeze had managed to capture some of their sound in a closed back model. For all the LCDi4 sounded great, its open back nature did limit its use case compared to a traditional closed IEM, and the fit was also something I struggled with. If the Euclid could improve upon those areas, but continue to be a very capable driver, then I felt it had a ton of potential.


Thankfully, the Euclid are much more traditional in their form and fit. The driver itself has shrunk compared to the LCDi4, which has a 30mm driver, whilst the Euclid has an 18mm driver. In comparison to the group of planar magnetic driver options from Chi-Fi land that have been released in the last couple years, this is slightly bigger, with most of those options featuring a 14mm or 14.5mm driver.


The Euclids use an MMCX terminated cable, weigh 15g per side without the cable, and come in a nicely presented box with a handy small pelican case for storage. Included are Audeze silicon tips, SpinFit silicon tips, and Comply foam tips. I ended up preferring the Audeze silicon tips, though the Spinfit are certainly worth trying to find your ideal fit. I usually don’t enjoy foam tips, so I only tested the comply tips in terms of sound, and not as my preferred overall fit. As far as I understand the Euclid come with a 3.5mm cable, a 4.4mm Pentaconn Cable, and a bluetooth cable is available separately. At 12 ohms impedance and 105db/mw in terms of sensitivity, the Euclid are not the most sensitive IEMs on the market, but entirely serviceable and can be driver well from most DAPs, laptops, dongles, etc…You certainly do not need a large desktop amp to get the best out of the Euclid. They seems to play well over a wide variety of sources, and I will mention some pairings I enjoyed later on in the review.


In terms of general overall tonal balance, the Euclid seemed a bit more even keeled than the LCDi4 which I used to owned. Still, with that being said, in its stock tuning the Euclid is not my favourite. I think that for many listeners it may actually work very well, but I did end up preferring it after doing a bit tweaking via EQ. Audeze themselves seem to be a big supporter of the idea of EQ, going as far as releasing their “Reveal” (a software program they created) presets for their headphones and IEMs. Now, I prefer just figuring out what I prefer and doing it myself, but the reveal presets are always there, should you be interested in trying them out, and not interested in trying out EQ on your own. The drivers of the Euclid really do seem to be a level above the cheaper Chi-Fi planar magnetic options in term of technical performance, and take to EQ very well.


In terms of the bass response of the Euclid, it did seem to be slightly elevated, and I actually really enjoyed it in its stock tuning. I didn’t feel an overall need to ad any bass or that I was lacking low end. There is more of a sub bass focus than a mid bass focus, and it seems to be a somewhat easy going low end response. I mean that in the sense that some IEMs really just go for it in terms of bass, and also have tons of slam and punch in terms of dynamic drivers. Some of the Campfire Audio’s like the Atlas are like that. The Audeze seems more polite and technically capable than those IEMs however. Perhaps this is due to the Planar Magnetic driver in use here, but there is a real sense of speed and delicacy that a lot of IEMs don’t have on show, not just in the low end but in terms of the overall performance.


The mids of the Euclid did seem a little bit nasal and forward in the upper mids to me at times. I ended up preferring to reduce the 2khz area a little bit, which seemed to help with that nasal quality. I also found that snare drums and clap (or similar) type noises could be a bit too much, being piercing and grating. The Euclid's lower mids seemed mostly neutral, not really being forward and warm and mushy, or pulled back, being cold and clinical. They struck a fairly good balance between the two extremes, and I never bothered with tweaking them via EQ in the lower mids.


The treble response of the Euclid was where I had the most problems. The lower treble was actually entirely ok, I just felt that for my personal preferences, the upper treble (lets say 8.5Khz and above) was way too dark. There just wasn’t enough energy, air, and sparkle. I also feel that through this recessed upper treble, it seemed to be masking how truly capable the drivers themselves were in terms of presenting detail and technical performance. Now, a darker treble obviously doesn’t mean that the detail isn’t there, and an overly hot treble can also make you think there is detail that isn’t really there, but I did end up feeling that with a boost in the highs, the Euclid really came into their own, and showed what they were truly capable of.


Which brings me to my next point. Although the Euclid did not seem to be as large sounding and technically impressive as their LCDi4 siblings, they were incredibly capable IEMs. Lots of detail, lots of dynamic capability, with decent soundstage width and height for a closed back IEM. The tonal balance in its stock form may not be my favourite and treble in particular may not show off what the Euclid are capable, but after I got them dialled in, they really did impress me. The LCDi4 does have a much “bigger” sound, and a wider soundstage, and I think that is due to its larger driver and open back nature. That whilst Audeze has done a great job with the rear chamber and optimization of the Euclid to get a good sounding closed planar IEM, they just can’t out physics, physics, to beat the LCDi4s performance. To be fair though, the Euclid is vastly more affordable than the LCDi4, and I think it is the most technically capable IEM I have heard for the price (which I will mention more about after I speak about the build quality)


Now, the Euclid are made of a metal shell, feel fairly substantial at 15g. Thankfully, they don’t need ear hooks like the open back IEMs from Audeze, and do have a much better overall fit. Once I did some experimenting with the Eartips they came with, settling on the stock Audeze silicon tips, they were entirely comfortable for long listening sessions. There are more comfortable smaller IEMs on the market, but in terms of accommodating the driver size of the Euclid, their comfort is absolutely ok, for me and my ears. If you have very small ears you may have some issues with the fit, so I would recommend trying to get your ears on a demo pair, if at all possible. The build of the stock cables was also absolutely acceptable, and I haven’t had any problems with the MMCX termination thus far. The Euclid's feel like a well built product overall, being substantial, but not too heavy to cause comfort issues.


The bluetooth cable that Audeze makes for the Euclid, which I believe originally came with them stock, but is now an additional add on, works very well. Pairing the cable with your bluetooth source is very easy to do, and the whole process seemed smooth and worked well. The cable itself actually doesn’t have a ton of power or gain so if you want to really rock out, you would be better off with a DAP or dongle with a bit more power. However, if you want to be free to move around, with no attached cables or things to worry about, the bluetooth cable is worth considering. It sounds totally fine for a bluetooth option, but of course, for ultimate sound quality, I found that other sources did improve upon its performance. EDIT: I have since found out the Bluetooth cable is no longer available.


In terms of pairings, you don’t need a desktop amp to enjoy the Euclid. I’ve tried them with lots of portable sources, and the iFi GoBar was a great option. I also enjoyed my Fiio Q3. Basically, whichever portable DAP or amp you prefer the sound of, as long as its moderately powerful, will sound good with the Euclid. They are not very picky about what they are paired up with.


My main comparison with the Euclid was the 7Hertz Timeless, another planar magnetic IEM. The Euclid is better in terms of technical performance, build quality, and comfort but the stock tuning of the 7hertz is better for my personal preferences. As I am not opposed to EQ use, the Audeze are the clearly superior choice especially given the pricing problems I will mention in the next section. The 7Hertz were a great option when they came out, but things have changed in a very quick way since their release, so I would hesitate to recommend them at this point.


Now, I need to talk about the price of the Euclid as it’s a complicated issue and has caused some problems in terms of what to recommend. The Euclid released at an MSRP of $1299USD. Compared to the $2500USD MSRP of the LCDi4, whilst also being closed back, was an interesting addition to Audezes line up. There were a few sales here and there with the Euclid going for around $1000USD. Then, Audeze had B-stock models at around about $650USD two years in a row during their B-Stock sale. Most recently, Adorama.com, a US based online retailer, has had them on sale, B-Stock new models, for $299USD. They are also showing as being sold out on Audezes website. I’m not sure if that means they are going to be discontinued, or what is going on. With that being said, if you can get a pair of these for $299USD, and either like their stock tuning or don’t mind playing with EQ, then this is the EQ to get for the money in my opinion. Its technical performance for $299USD blows anything else out of the water at that price point, and many above that price point. At its MSRP, it's still a great sounding IEM, which is comfortable and well built, but has a much larger number of competitors to go up against. I would have even recommended the Euclid at its MSRP with caveats, but if you can get a pair from Adorama or used at $299, it's a no brainer in my opinion for those looking for an IEM.


Overall, the Euclid is a very technically capable IEM, albeit with a stock tuning that is not my favourite. The accessories that come with the Euclid are great, equally well built, and make it an overall well done package. If you are willing to EQ the Euclid’s frequency response to be more in line with your personal preferences, their technical performance is very good, with good comfort and build quality as well. If you were paying MSRP, and don’t like to EQ, I would recommend trying them prior to purchase if at all possible to make sure you like the stock tuning. However, if you were able to get a pair from Adorama or similar at $299USD for a new A stock pair, and that is within your budget, I would recommend giving them a try regardless of your sonic preferences as you may end up really enjoying them, and the financial risk is much lower.


I’m curious if Audeze will ever be able to come up with a higher performing closed back IEM, similar in sound and performance to the LCDi4. Would it be possible to do a bigger driver in a closed back model? With even more technical performance? I’m really not sure, but if Audeze does indeed ever release a “V2” or a model above the Euclid, I’d certainly be very interested to hear them and see what they are like. Overall, I’d recommend the Euclid, especially if you can get it at the bargain basement pricing they have been going for lately.

Today, I’ll be reviewing something from a brand I’ve long been aware of, but only recently became acquainted with; namely Audeze, with this review being for their new Euclid IEM.

All details can be found on Audeze’s official webpage page (link below), and the IEM can be purchased there (including with cryptocurrencies!) and delivered to locations around the globe.

https://www.audeze.com/products/euclid

There is also a page on the website listing their international dealers, for those who wish to save time and perhaps money.

For my fellow UK-based Head-Fi’ers, and with this in mind, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the IEM can also be purchased directly in the UK from Hifi Headphones (other dealers are available):

https://www.hifiheadphones.co.uk/products/audeze-euclid-closed-back-planar-magnetic-in-ear-earphones

The Euclid features whopping 18mm planar magnetic drivers – with no crossovers - and precisely nothing else (in terms of drivers at least!)

The RRP at time of writing was $1’299 (£1’249 in the UK), placing it – financially speaking - at what I suppose these days would be around the lower end of TOTL segment pricing.

My sincere thanks to John at KS Distribution and the team at AUDEZE, for providing me with a review unit to keep in exchange for an honest review.

As I draw this introduction elegantly to its inevitable conclusion, we shall proceed onwards to the equally inevitable ‘Photos’ section.

Photos:







(Pictured with the iFi Gryphon)

Unboxing, packaging and accessories:

The packaging and accessories are proficiently done and acceptable at this price point.
There’s a Pelican case (1010 model size, for those familiar with such things) that looks classy and solid as a rock.
The cable has clear L and R markings (blue and red respectively) - courtesy of a clearly visible strip of colour around the tops of the MMCX connectors - which I really like.
One thing to note is that, with these IEMs, the connectors stick out from midway down the IEM’s leading (forward facing) edge and slope upwards at a 45 degree angle, rather than emerging from the top of this edge and facing horizontally forward; this is different from many other IEMs and hence at first confused me about how to insert the Euclid correctly and whether I was even using the correct IEM in each ear!

The IEMs themselves are a classily understated design, a rounded and smooth feel with matte black anodised metal shells and carbon fibre patterned inserts with the Audeze logo printed on top. Other colour options are available on their website.


The Fit:

The shells are smooth and whilst the inner shell is fairly ergonomic, the IEMs as a whole are comparatively large and bulky. I can see this being one of those IEMs where the fit is going to be great for some people and tricky for others.
I personally managed to get a comfortable fit using memory foam tips, but as ever, your mileage may vary, so I do recommend to demo these if at all possible.


The Sound:

In all that follows, I’m trying to judge the Euclid according to its merits and bearing in mind the price point and the other IEMs I’ve heard (and to a lesser extent, read about) in and around the same price range.
I tested the Euclid with music from a wide range of genres, mostly in lossless FLAC, with about 40% of the files in hi-res HDTracks, DSD or similar.
I noticed that the Euclid’s sound signature seemed to vary significantly depending on the sources it was paired with.
As such, I ended up separating my breakdown of the sound into sub-sections based on the specific source being used.

As such, I will also provide here a quick description of the sources used and their innate sound signatures. This will enable you to compare which ones are most similar to your own, such that you can get a better idea about how the Euclid will sound with your own setup, as well as perhaps inspiring you to explore other setups if that is an option for you.

iBasso DX220MAX:
This offer something like the iBasso ‘House sound’ on steroids.
It starts with a fairly neutral-reference signature and adds a powerful sub-bass, a fair lift in the upper-mids, and a tinge of warmth and musicality. It also boasts impressive note weight.

Sony WM1Z:
Effortlessly smooth, organic, warm and musical, this DAP in my opinion isn’t as noticeable of a technical performer as other TOTL DAP’s these days, but that’s not to say it’s lacking in this area. I find the details tend to reveal themselves still, but in a more organic and natural way.
It is not a high-powered source.

iFi Gryphon (no effects):
With the sound-tweaking settings disengaged, this is a fairly transparent and neutral source that serves to amplify whatever is fed into it. It does offer an excellent technical performance that has been described as being on a par with (or at least only slightly behind) most TOTL DAPs.

iFi Gryphon (X-Bass, Presence and X-Space functions engaged):
Note that these functions are carried out by the hardware of the Gryphon, so they are NOT digital effects (DSP based). This makes the addition of these effects rather natural sounding and seamless.
In terms of the sound signature of this setup, it’s largely the same as the Gryphon with no effects, except that the low end has substantially more impact, slam and rumble, there’s a bit more note weight overall, and the separation and soundstage size are increased.
There’s a slight lift in the upper-mids too.

Now onto the IEMs themselves:

Low end:

DX220MAX:
Being an unrepentant bass-head, I’d say that for my tastes there’s just enough low end to stop things being anaemic and provide a faint tinge of warmth and grounding to the Euclid.
I found this a little bit unsatisfying to be honest.
It’s not only the comparatively small amount of slam and rumble, but also simply what I felt was a lack of the general weight and musicality that a solid low end brings to the experience.

Gryphon (no effects):
Quite a change here; the low end now has a fair amount of weight and a decent amount of rumble and slam. Overall, the low end is now providing more of a grounding foundation to the rest of the sound signature and the overall musicality and engagement factor is increased.

WM1Z:
More warmth and rumble than with the DX220MAX and Gryphon (no effects).
Slightly less slam and weight than Gryphon (no effects).
Overall, this setup is more of an all-rounder than the DX220MAX and Gryphon (no effects), and fans of rock, metal, hip-hop and so forth will find this kind of setup more friendly to their tastes. I know I did.

Gryphon (X-Bass, Presence and X-Space all engaged):
Finally, bass like God intended, hurrah!
By now the Euclid is sounding something like a UM MEST Mk II (pretty much my personal number 1 IEM at around this price range); big holographic soundstage, outstanding detail retrieval, great timbre, rich mids and a powerful low-end anchoring everything.



Mids:

DX220MAX:
I hear the mids as being comparatively on the lean side, rather than lush or warm. Accurate and detailed, with what felt to me like quite a lift in the upper-mids. I felt the sound to sometimes feel a touch sibilant or glaring, although in fairness I should add that I was listening to these IEMs using the DX220MAX, which I always feel brings a lift in the upper mids of whatever IEM I’m listening to. On a more positive note, the timbre and detail levels on display here are excellent. As I mentioned in the low end, I can’t help feeling that even a touch more richness, impact and warmth from the low end would make the timbre even better and reduce that glare/sibilance effect. Vocals take centre stage here, pushed forwards and spotlighted in a way that mostly works delightfully well. It gives proceedings a slightly ‘live performance’ feeling and is quite immersive.

Gryphon (no effects):
Mids more balanced here, definitely a reduction in how forward the upper-mids feel.
More warmth and more analogue feeling. Vocals pulled back somewhat (compared with how they sound on the DX220MAX), which is to say they now sound dead-centre, rather than centre-forward. Timbre is improved further and detail retrieval is still excellent, but not quite as noticeable as when those upper-mids were being pushed forwards.
The sibilance and sharpness I was hearing with the DX220MAX has pretty much disappeared.

WM1Z:
Seems the most balanced setup. Mids overall seem very slightly more forward than when paired with Gryphon (no effects), with also just a tiny lift in the upper mids. I had to crank the volume up enormously (90-100, vs 30-70 with most IEMs) as the Euclid, with its planar magnetic drivers, requires a good amount of power just to operate at even a base level.
A bit less separation and the soundstage seems a little bit more intimate (again, due to the reduction in power from the source). Mids more rich and analogue, and all sibilance or sharpness completely gone. More smooth and non-fatiguing than any other combination.
Vocals a bit more intimate and with a lovely timbre.

Gryphon (X-Bass, Presence and X-Space all engaged):
A fair difference from all the other setups listed above. A touch of the sibilance and sharpness has returned (due to the Presence or X-Space setting) although only a tiny amount, and I am in any case very sensitive to this. Besides, I tried without those settings engaged, and found I preferred the Euclid overall with them both engaged alongside the X-Bass function. It’s not as smooth as with the WM1Z alone, but the level of power the Gryphon provides, along with the effects brought about by the effects all being engaged bring a kind of ‘all dials turned to 11’ rock-tastic joy to proceedings
If you like genres such as rock, metal, EDM, hip-hop and pop, then this combo would work very well for you.
Having said that, those are the attributes that I notice when listening to those genres.
Switching back to my ‘Relaxing’ playlist, which is predominantly acoustic, singer-songwriter material, with some jazz, classical and a few bits of pop (including K-Pop, Chinese and Japanese pop music and Bollywood songs), I feel the sound overall is very balanced and more smooth. Without screeching guitars, cymbal smashes and so forth, the sound is more reminiscent of the setup with Euclid and WM1Z alone, but with more weight and power in the low end and lower-mids and a touch more air and separation.


Treble:

DX220MAX:
The treble on the Euclid sounds to me to be very airy, open and extended (as indeed one might expect from an IEM packing planar magnetic drivers).

Gryphon (no effects):
Now that the low-end is more ‘filled-in’ and the upper-mids are less prominent, the feeling of huge airy openness has diminished to some extent. It still has space and air, and no feeling of congestion. On music that doesn’t have a lot of heavier stuff going on in the low end (e.g. some classical, jazz, acoustic, singer-songwriter etc) the air and space is more prominent, similar to that which I heard with the DX220MAX above.

WM1Z:
The air and openness are reduced a little bit in comparison to other setups, but there’s still more than enough on offer to match most IEMs in this price point.

Gryphon (X-Bass, Presence and X-Space all engaged):
With this setup, I’d say the amount of air, openness and extension are somewhere in between that found with the DX220MAX and Gryphon (no effects) setup.
So basically an impressive amount on offer and a very enjoyable combo overall.

Technical performance:

DX220MAX:
Transients are quite fast, detail retrieval excellent, layering and imaging also excellent. Soundstage size is very large, wide, tall and deep.
There’s a lot of separation and space within the overall soundstage; this allows background instruments, backing vocals and background effects a nice space in which to make themselves apparent.

Gryphon (no effects):
As above, except that when the music has a heavy low end with plenty of bass and drum action, the separation seems slightly reduced.

WM1Z:
Soundstage and separation reduced a little bit in comparison to other setups here.
Detail retrieval is more organic and natural, meaning I tend to notice it in passing, whilst enjoying the music, rather than feeling as if it’s all standing out noticeably as if it were spotlighted.

Gryphon (X-Bass, Presence and X-Space all engaged):
Similar to Gryphon (no effects), except that the reduction in separation is counterbalanced by the X-Space effect.



Conclusion:

Well, in keeping with its illustrious namesake, the Euclid has certainly led me to explore all the angles!
(mathematics joke; I’ll get my coat)
With some IEMs, you can vary sources of different sound signatures or power levels and still get a (largely) homogeneous sound signature overall.
The Euclid, in my opinion, is not one of those IEMs

In the section where I provide a detailed breakdown of the sound signature, I ended up providing separate sections for each of the source combinations I tried it with, and sometimes having very distinct results.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily.
Firstly, people reading this (assuming there’s more than one person who reads this!) will have different source setups, including in some cases multiple options.
So this review has allowed me to highlight the various use cases of each.
Furthermore, some people might be interested in the IEM, and – assuming it ticks their various boxes, might be open to buying a source which tweaks the sound more to their liking.

For myself, when I first heard the Euclid, I thought it might end up being an IEM I didn’t enjoy. It sounded a bit sharp to me, and I felt the low end was significantly lacking.
Fortunately, experimentation with a variety of sources has happily disabused me of this notion and I can see myself coming back to the Euclid for further enjoyment and exploration. It’s something of a jack of all trades, if you have the source(s) to bring out each change in character. It can be effortlessly smooth and warm, it can be dynamic, powerful and energetic, or open and crystalline.
Overall, I’d personally prefer the Euclid to have a bit more low-end slam, rumble and impact. But of course, I’m a bass-lover and there are those that lean more towards a neutral-reference type of signature who will feel that it has more than enough low-end heft, so I always try to bear in mind such things when reviewing.

I’d say this IEM would be most suited to those that have a setup the same as (or similar to) whichever of mine provided the kind of sound signature they were seeking.
Alternatively, it will be a good IEM for those who have a variety of sources of varying character and power, as this will allow you to fully exploit the different options the Euclid offers.

The only thought I will leave you with is that the $1k - $1.5k price bracket (which used to be the TOTL) has in the last couple of years become a highly competitive segment, offering the first taste of TOTL performance at prices that are at least more accessible than some of the eye-watering $3.5 - $6k products that are now frequently making their appearance and are generally referred to as ‘Summit-Fi’.
But here in the price bracket to which the Euclid belongs, there’s frankly a good deal of competition. Even from the IEM’s I’ve reviewed myself, there’s ones like the UM MEST (Mk I and Mark II), Campfire Audio Dorado 2020 and Solaris 2020, 64 Audio Duo (upcoming review), iBasso IT07, Campfire Audio Supermoon (also a planar IEM, and hopefully also an upcoming review) – most of which I thought were outstanding – as well as other well-known ones that I haven’t reviewed (Helios, V16, Diva, Monarch, to name a few recommended by fellow audiophiles – thank you Lonjam people!), and that’s not even mentioning* IEMs such as the U12t, Sony Z1R, UM Indigo etc, which are available to buy secondhand in this price bracket
*(which I just mentioned)
How the Euclid measures up will of course depend largely on your own personal preferences in terms of sound signature, driveability, fit and aesthetics.
I think it would at least be true to say that there are IEMs around this price point which are more easy-going and maintain a fairly stable character across a variety of sources, and which might provide a more universally good fit in terms of ergonomics.
So whilst I’m happy to recommend the Euclid, based on its performance and the sheer enjoyment I had whilst listening to it, I would certainly encourage potential buyers to have a look around at what alternative options the market has to offer in this price bracket, to be sure that you are getting the IEM which best suits your needs.