Thanks for sharing.
I wouldn't say that he hates them, he just doesn't like them, and he explains quite well his motives.
I have the Clairvoyance and I really like them. I agree about the three main points that he states.
First, the upper mids, lower treble might be slightly higher than my preferences. It makes for an exciting and vivid sound, but it can be slightly too forward to me, making them too exciting instead of relaxed. But I consider it to be just a preference, not a tonal imperfection.
Second he says that the bass lacks texture. I also can agree with that. Compared with the Audeze LCD2C, the Campfire Cascade and the Fostex Ebony (all of them praised because of their bass) I could consider the Clairvoyance bass slightly untextured, that means, sometimes all the bass sounds more or less equal, I don't why is that, but I can agree. I would say that its bass is better for rock and live music than for electronic music.
Third he speaks about the treble sounding unnatural. And, again, I also could agree on that. At the beginning I just thought that the treble was too high for my taste and details were over emphasized. However, after a while I can also agree that these IEMS have that EST treble sound that some people criticize, that can sound somewhat artificial...
So, yeah, the Clairvoyance have some weak points, and I think that he does a good review by detecting and explaining them. However I don't think, at all, that this should be a deal-breaker. He is, in my opinion, exaggerating these issues and he is leaving aside all the virtues that these IEMS have. They sound amazing for their price (to be fair I don't have a lot of experience with IEMS, more with headphones). They are very well tuned, balanced, with an exciting approach. They have an amazing technical performance (instrument separation, imaging, soundstage) they sound very spacious, in particular if I compare them with my headphones. Everytime I listen music with them I got that "wow" reaction, music becomes very exciting and alive.