True Wireless Earbuds

This article is TDS Studio’s fifteenth piece on SSPAI, and as always, it debuts across all platforms simultaneously.

We previously hinted that we planned to publish a mid-range TWS comparison during the Double 11 period. However, right in the middle of testing, vivo and iQOO released their updated TWS models, so we added the new contenders to the lineup. That pushed our schedule back a bit — thanks for your patience.

Our selection criteria for the five contenders this time were as follows: First, their original retail prices fall within the 300–500 RMB range — shopping-festival discounts or government subsidies are not considered. Second, the models must be popular choices within this price segment. Third, we need to have covered their experience before (though not necessarily on SSPAI; coverage of their previous generations also counts). Following the usual logic of TDS REVIEW’s wireless comparisons, we focused on six major categories: fit and comfort, controls and app experience, signal performance, battery life, overall ANC performance, and sound quality. All evaluations are based on the newest firmware available at the time of writing. We removed redundant sections related to design, packaging, and spatial audio performance — the latter being something most products in this price bracket don’t do particularly well anyway.

Our lineup this round includes: vivo TWS 5 / iQOO TWS 5 — the latest models, with the vivo TWS 5 represented by the Hi-Fi edition. For context, iQOO’s TWS lineup used to correspond with vivo’s numbering: TWS 1 aligned with vivo’s third generation, TWS 2 aligned with vivo’s fourth. This year, both brands jumped directly to the fifth generation in sync. We have previously reviewed the iQOO TWS 2, which we introduced as a strong example of low-frequency noise reduction and wide codec support. For this round, we focus on the subtle differences between the two TWS 5 models, and where they have progressed or regressed compared with their predecessors. OPPO Enco Free4 is included because — prior to the release of the TWS 5 series — it was the unavoidable ANC benchmark in this price range. Moondrop’s Dreamback 2, meanwhile, is the essential pick when discussing sound quality in this segment. With these five models, we cover old vs. new, different strengths, and a diverse lineup.

We also maintain long-term evaluation notes for many other models consistently sold within this price tier — including TEZO Que, vivo TWS 4, Edifier Lolli Pro 5, Beats Solo Buds, CMF Buds 2 Plus, TOZO NC20, Redmi Buds 6 Pro, Sony WF-C510, BGVP Q3, among others. These may be referenced in the comparison summary, and you’re welcome to discuss any specific questions in the comments.

Fit

All five earphones in this comparison use a stem-style pods design. The shells of the Enco Free4 and Dreamback 2 are noticeably fuller vertically than the AirPods Pro 2, which means they occupy more space in the concha and feel more present when worn. The three vivo/iQOO models are nearly identical in shell structure and are flatter by comparison, closer to the AirPods Pro 2. Their horizontal length isn’t significantly different from one another, so for users with larger auricles or conchas, the Enco Free4 and Dreamback 2 may feel more substantial and secure — while users with smaller ears may find the AirPods Pro 2 and vivo-series models much easier to adapt to.

Overall, all five models use relatively conventional shell shapes and should fit most people well. If you have small ears, the vivo models are the safest choice. If your pods-style TWS earphones tend to slip out during daily wear, remember to choose the glossy version — matte finishes actually feel more slippery.

Controls

The TWS 2 uses a control area located toward the front of the stem, supporting pinch gestures and vertical sliding. In real-world use, it’s very difficult to trigger correctly — sliding is often misread as a playback command before your finger even moves. In the current firmware, the required pinch force is higher than that of similar implementations from Apple, Xiaomi, Baseus, and others. Another issue is the delayed feedback tone, which makes the interaction feel less responsive.

Both TWS 5 models use a touch-sensitive area on the upper outside of the stem — a more traditional design. Feedback responsiveness has improved significantly compared with the previous generation, though there’s still a slight perceptible delay. The default volume of voice prompts isn’t very loud, though it is clear enough — just remember to increase it in the app.

The Free4 also uses a touch area on the upper outside of the stem, with a clear groove design. The stem itself is flat, so touching or pressing it never feels awkward. Feedback is quick, and the default prompt volume is moderate yet clear — you can even change the prompt sound or adjust its loudness. Wear detection is also reasonably responsive, and even frequent on-off actions rarely lead to misdetection.

The Dreamback 2 uses a touch area on the upper part of the stem. Out of the box, both sensitivity and recognition accuracy are excellent, and the controls feel very responsive. Thanks to a newly added physical bump in the structure, blind operation accuracy is also improved. Voice prompt clarity is good, and you won’t have trouble hearing notifications in most environments. Unfortunately, the Dreamback 2 does not include a wear-detection sensor.

App Features

All five products come with their own apps, and we tested them on third-party Android systems.

The vivo earphones app and OPPO/OnePlus’s “Huanlü” app share a similar UI style with their respective system interfaces. One issue with vivo’s app is that when multiple earphones are connected, sometimes only one device’s settings can be adjusted, and even after the audio output has switched to another earphone in the background, the app may still fail to recognize the correct device. Occasionally, after a device successfully connects and its status is shown, the settings may remain unadjustable for a long time due to a bug.

The main features worth introducing are two sound-related options. The first is DeepX Stereo Sound—though called “stereo,” it’s essentially a frequency-band adjustment based on the original audio, similar to an EQ. The different modes generally match their names in terms of perceived sound, and they’re worth trying.

The second is Personalized Hearing Compensation, which seems to tailor audio output based on the user’s hearing condition. There are three default presets, designed according to age groups—presumably because hearing degradation patterns vary across ages. But to be honest, judging from the quality of the sample audio, the perceived compensation is minimal. As for the custom compensation option, it determines whether certain frequency bands need boosting by testing your ability to recognize subtle tones. Still, with the sample tones provided, it feels like the compensation does almost nothing—since I can clearly hear all the test tones anyway.

The Huanlü app allows seamless switching between sound effects when the device is connected to two sources simultaneously, which is very convenient for users who frequently switch between a phone and a computer. My only complaint about Huanlü is that the reboot and reconnection time during firmware updates can be somewhat inconsistent. As for the equalizer, the Enco Free4 supports ±6 dB adjustments across six frequency points, though it does not offer any Q-factor controls.

As for the so-called “AI features,” the vivo Earbuds app and OPPO’s Huanlü app do not have these capabilities built in, so they still rely on OriginOS / ColorOS for support. Third-party systems cannot access these features.

The Moondrop app interface is comparatively more minimalistic. Introduced alongside the Dreamback 2 during the launch event were Moondrop’s AI Tuning Assistant and the interactive DSP that first appeared on the Space Travel 2. You can now adjust three gain levels, three presets, and access a graphical EQ interface that supports tuning five frequency bands from +3 dB to –12 dB, along with Q-value adjustments. However, it’s important to note that DSP tuning is currently unavailable under LDAC / LHDC. Fortunately, after switching back to LDAC, all previously configured DSP settings are preserved.

A new addition is AI Lab, also known as the Moondrop Yuki AI Tuning Assistant. It allows natural-language conversations and uses an online large model to interpret your intentions. You can tell it the subjective direction you want to adjust toward, or even ask it to emulate the sound signature of another headphone model. It will offer EQ suggestions based on its database and can even explain the subjective listening changes corresponding to those EQ settings. In our tests, asking it for simulations returned surprisingly complete and thoughtful recommendations.

In summary, among all the companion apps, OPPO’s Huanlü is currently the most stable in day-to-day use, while Moondrop’s app offers the richest set of sound-related features.

Noise Cancellation, Transparency, and Call Quality Overview

Setting aside existing noise-cancellation reviews, this section focuses purely on comparison. Following the usual TDS REVIEW workflow, we tested the earbuds subjectively across several environments, including:

Subway commute scenarios with loud, stable low-frequency noise and some human voices, used to judge differences between modes and low-frequency noise-reduction depth
Busy café environments dominated by human voices and complex noise, used to judge noise-cancellation bandwidth
Quiet library scenarios without obvious stable noise, used to evaluate noise floor and ear pressure
Street-corner scenarios with complex but generally low-pressure noise and occasional sudden peaks, used to evaluate the naturalness of transparency mode
Wind-noise simulation, speech scenarios, and call-simulation tests

Noise-Cancellation Depth

In terms of overall perceived noise reduction, all five earbuds are very usable in common daily environments such as public buses, subways, subway stations, and shopping malls. With deep ANC enabled and without choosing specific scenario-based modes, the strongest low-frequency performance comes from the sibling duo: iQOO TWS 5 and vivo TWS 5 Hi-Fi Edition. They most noticeably suppress stable low-frequency noise, approaching the level of AirPods Pro 2.

Next is the iQOO TWS 2. Its perceived low-frequency depth is close to the first two, but its mid-low-frequency attenuation is slightly weaker. When we previously recommended it, its peak low-frequency ANC performance was a major reason. Following that is the OPPO Enco Free4. Its overall low-frequency ANC depth is not as aggressive as the three vivo-system models.
Lastly, the Moondrop Space Travel 2 shows a more balanced ANC depth overall, though its low-frequency and mid-low-frequency transitions are not as pronounced as the others.

Noise-Cancellation Bandwidth & Mid-Frequency Performance

All five earbuds demonstrate clear improvement in ANC bandwidth, and all can cover the main vocal frequency range to a significant extent—though generally still slightly behind the AirPods Pro 2.

After direct comparisons, we believe the best bandwidth coverage and mid-frequency attenuation still come from the vivo/iQOO TWS 5 models. Next are the Moondrop Space Travel 2 and OPPO Enco Free4. The iQOO TWS 2 ranks last.

The two TWS 5 models perform well in both bandwidth extension and mid-frequency attenuation. The Enco Free4 has bandwidth coverage similar to the Space Travel 2, but its mid-frequency noise-reduction perception is stronger, reducing more vocal energy. The iQOO TWS 2, being a previous-generation product, already lagged behind the Free4 in mid-frequency depth during earlier evaluations, and within these five models it remains the weakest performer in this category.

Ear Pressure Control

In terms of actual ear pressure experience, the lightest is the Shuiyueyu Dreamback 2, which uses feedforward noise cancellation and has a moderate depth of noise cancellation, resulting in almost no noticeable ear pressure and allowing for longer, more comfortable listening. The next in line is the iQOO TWS 2, which, in its initial firmware, already had minimal ear pressure, and the current firmware has improved this further. The OPPO Enco Free4 and iQOO TWS 5 have a moderate ear pressure feel, which is more noticeable compared to the first two. For first-time noise-cancelling headphone users, this might be more perceptible. The worst ear pressure control is on the vivo TWS 5 Hi-Fi version, which may be due to it being a new product, and there is still significant room for improvement in its ear pressure management.

Wind Noise Suppression

In terms of wind noise suppression, all models were tested under their default noise cancellation settings without any dedicated wind noise suppression mode. The Enco Free4 performed excellently, automatically adjusting to a lower depth of noise cancellation when wind noise was detected. The effect on wind noise suppression is quite noticeable, and it quickly returns to the original noise cancellation depth once the wind disappears. The vivo TWS 5 and iQOO TWS 5 also have adaptive capabilities, but their response times are a bit slower than the Free4, and some wind noise still remains after the adjustment.

The Dreamback 2 and iQOO TWS 2 are relatively average in wind noise suppression in their default modes, but the Dreamback 2 has a dedicated manual wind noise suppression option. When enabled, it provides the strongest wind noise reduction among these five models, although this comes at the cost of further reducing noise cancellation depth. Therefore, considering the overall noise cancellation experience and wind noise suppression, the Enco Free4 is sufficient for most scenarios, while those who want to avoid wind noise affecting their listening experience can opt for the Dreamback 2 with the wind noise suppression feature activated.

Transparency Mode / Ambient Sound

In terms of ambient sound reproduction, the iQOO TWS 2 gives a noticeably “screened” feel, while the others are similar in terms of naturalness. Among them, the iQOO TWS 5 and Enco Free4 have a slight emphasis on high frequencies, creating a peak-like effect, while the Dreamback 2 has more emphasis on human voices. The adaptive logic of both TWS 5 models can trigger frequent adjustments, especially when the environment’s noise falls into a completely different frequency range, creating a lagging adjustment effect.

In terms of voice clarity, the Free4 and both TWS 5 models are better, with almost no muffled feel to the speaker’s voice, while the Dreamback 2 and TWS 2 have a more noticeable muffling effect.

Call Performance

For calls, we tested in a mobile operator’s VoLTE environment. The best call clarity is from the Shuiyueyu Dreamback 2, followed by the OPPO Enco Free4, with the Free4’s voice slightly thinner in tone. The iQOO TWS 5’s call noise cancellation is not as effective at suppressing surrounding noise as the vivo TWS 5 Hi-Fi version, but both are comparable in performance, though the sound is more muffled. The iQOO TWS 2 has less muffling but overemphasizes low frequencies, making sibilant sounds and breath noises more pronounced.

Overall Noise Cancellation Assessment

Overall, all five products meet the basic standard required for daily commuting, representing a significant improvement compared with sub-¥500 models from just a few years ago. From the perspective of noise cancellation perception alone, we recommend prioritizing the two TWS 5 models and the Enco Free4. If you care more about comfortable noise cancellation, minimal ear pressure, and the least impact on sound quality, the Dreamback 2 is the better choice.

Compared with the iQOO TWS 2, the new TWS 5 models show clear improvements: deeper mid-to-low-frequency noise reduction, better adaptive behavior, improved wind-noise handling, and largely resolved background noise issues. The Free4 provides a balanced approach, paying equal attention to wind-noise control and cancellation depth. Dreamback 2 does not achieve the same cancellation depth as the new models from major smartphone brands, but its lower ear pressure and feedforward ANC—designed to minimize distortion of the sound—make it ideal for users who prioritize comfort and audio integrity. Ultimately, your choice should depend on your own needs and usage scenarios.

In this same price segment, the Edifier Lolli Pro 5 and TOZO NC20 also offer strong noise-cancellation depth, while the BGVP Q3 and Beats Solo Buds prioritize passive isolation—great options for users who do not need active noise cancellation but prefer the buds-style fit.

Connectivity & Battery Life

Signal Stability

iQOO TWS 2:

Equipped with Qualcomm’s second-generation S3 audio platform, the TWS 2 already has a strong foundation for reliable wireless performance, which is reflected in real-world usage. Under Snapdragon Sound + aptX Adaptive at 96 kHz, as well as LDAC in “Best Effort” mode, its connection to an Xperia 5 III remains very stable, with no disconnections and only rare stutters. However, with WLAN enabled and LDAC pushed to 990 kbps, stuttering and packet loss become quite common.

vivo TWS 5 Hi-Fi Edition / iQOO TWS 5

When connected to the standard test device Xperia 5 III using LDAC in “Signal Priority” or “Best Effort” mode, both models exhibit very few stutters or packet loss regardless of whether WLAN is enabled or disabled. Even at a distance of 5 meters with a load-bearing wall in between, performance remains largely stable without noticeable degradation. Only when the distance exceeds around 6.5 meters through a wall do stutters and dropouts begin to appear.

On the same device, switching to “Sound Quality Priority” mode changes the situation slightly. In RF-dense environments, enabling LDAC Sound Quality Priority may cause occasional stutters, which become a bit more frequent when WLAN is active. When both conditions—wall obstruction and WLAN enabled—occur together, packet loss increases further. In extremely congested environments such as train stations, noticeable stuttering is expected.

For LHDC testing, we used the LHDC One standalone transmitter—the standard testing device that supports the full LHDC-V 1 Mbps specification. With a wall and roughly 9 meters of separation, dropouts occur. Without obstruction at around 10 meters, stability is generally not an issue. For users of the Hi-Fi edition, we recommend switching to LHDC in complex wireless environments.

OPPO Enco Free4

As a TWS earphone that supports the LHDC-V 1 Mbps specification, the Enco Free4 was tested using the LHDC One standalone transmitter. However, just as some users previously experienced with the Enco X2, when connected to the universal LHDC transmitter, the Free4 only engages the older LHDC mode at a 48 kHz sample rate.

Under LHDC 48 kHz and AAC, the Free4’s basic signal stability is acceptable. When connected to the Xperia 5 III, dropouts occur at around 5 meters with a wall in between. Without obstructions, stability is generally fine within a 10-meter range. As for “Fluid Bluetooth,” it is only available when paired with an OPPO smartphone.

ShuiYueYu DreamBack 2

When connected to the standard test device Xperia 5 III using LDAC in “Signal Priority” or “Best Effort” mode, both WLAN on and off, there is minimal stutter or packet loss. Even at a distance of 5 meters with a load-bearing wall between, the performance remains stable with no noticeable increase in stuttering. It is only after 7 meters of separation with a wall that stuttering and packet loss become apparent.

With the same device, switching to “Sound Quality Priority” mode causes occasional stuttering in signal-dense areas when LDAC Sound Quality Priority is activated. This effect is slightly increased when WLAN is on. When both wall obstructions and WLAN are active, packet loss and stuttering increase further. In highly signal-dense environments, such as train stations, there is noticeable stuttering.

Under LHDC 48kHz, packet loss and stuttering occur at around 8.5 meters with a wall in between. Compared to the first generation, DreamBack 2 shows a significant improvement in signal stability. In daily usage, you can reliably use LDAC or LHDC, but in signal-dense areas where your phone isn’t kept close, switching to AAC is more reliable.

For all five of the tested earphones, after switching to AAC, the test results with both Xperia 5 III and iPhone 14 were stable, even when WLAN was on or off, ensuring smooth signal performance over considerable distances.

Latency

Following our latency testing process, in a traditional Bluetooth (non-LE Audio) environment, when low-latency mode is enabled, the connection to the standard test devices Xperia 5 III (LDAC, aptX series, AAC), LHDC One (LHDC), and iPhone 14 (AAC) was tested with streaming video playback. The subjective experience is as follows.

Battery Life & Charging

For battery life support, our standard testing procedure is as follows:
Connect to the Xperia 5 III using LDAC in “Best Effort / Signal Priority” or AAC codec, enable ANC, disable spatial audio and low-latency mode, keep all other settings at default, set volume to 50%, and continuously play streaming music (Apple Music Lossless) and podcast programs (Xiaoyuzhou). Playback continues until one side of the earbuds fully depletes its battery.
Each earbud undergoes at least three full test cycles to avoid anomalies caused by single-sample outliers.

Sound Performance

Specifications

Subjective Evaluation – iQOO TWS 2

Based on ANC off, LDAC codec, all sound effects disabled.

The low frequencies have a moderate amount, with slightly emphasized thickness and fullness. You can sense a mild mid-bass hump. Sub-bass extension is decent, with good elasticity. Attack and decay speed are moderate, with very minimal lingering resonance. Atmosphere is not overly colored, and smearing is minimal—just enough to set the tone. Instruments with fundamentals in the lower midrange do not lean forward excessively.

The midrange places vocals at a slight distance, with a slightly smaller mouth shape than usual. In most tracks, you will not encounter an exaggerated “big mouth” effect, and the imaging is refined. TWS 2 presents vocals with a slightly textured, weightier quality. It handles male and female voices similarly well, though it suits thicker vocal timbres slightly better, while maintaining only a moderate amount of grain. The throat region is slightly elevated in presence, with more breathiness and some retained sibilance. Vocal transparency is good—there is no muffled coloration.

Regarding instruments, their texture and definition do not lean strongly in any particular direction. For string instruments such as violins, violas, and guitars, body resonance is not heavily emphasized, while bowing and plucking details are a bit pronounced but not protruding unnaturally. Cellos have a solid sense of body, but still slightly thinner than standard. Electronic instruments—synths, electric guitars—can sound relatively stimulating. Brass instruments have adequate grandeur; trumpets and other bright brass exhibit slightly elevated brilliance. Woodwinds perform reasonably and without surprises. Harmonics are not the most natural, but the quantity is quite sufficient for this price range. Percussion presence is appropriate, though upper-frequency impact—especially from cymbals—can feel somewhat sharp.

The treble region has moderate brightness overall, with detectable peaks in certain bands that add刺激感 to cymbals and similar transients, occasionally affecting long-term listening comfort. Fortunately, it stops just short of turning into “shattered glass.” Upper-treble extension is impressive for this price class, with roll-off not arriving too early, though still a bit faster than ideal.

Soundstage size is not large but remains well-structured, with relatively equal width and depth. Vocal–instrument separation is decent, and overall coherence is maintained. Resolution is above average for its class, with a slightly emphasized “sense of detail.” Dynamics are good, and transients are responsive.

Additional Note: Differences Between iQOO TWS 2 and vivo TWS 4 Hi-Fi Edition

Subjective Evaluation – vivo TWS 5 / iQOO TWS 5

Based on ANC off, LDAC codec, Hi-Fi edition, all sound effects disabled.

The low frequencies have a moderate amount, with some added thickness and fullness. Elasticity is decent, and sub-bass extension is good. Attack and decay speeds are moderate, retaining a light touch of resonance. The overall ambience has mild bloom and a slightly richer character. In default tuning, the TWS 5 Hi-Fi edition delivers a rather solid low end—less in quantity than the Enco Free4 and TWS 4 Hi-Fi edition, but with healthier energy distribution, while still clearly leaning toward a pop-oriented tuning. Instruments with fundamentals in the lower midrange lean forward slightly.

In the midrange, vocals sit relatively close but not “in your face,” with a moderate mouth size and good refinement. The tuning emphasizes vocal texture more than contour definition. There isn’t a strong preference toward male or female vocals, but the earbuds tend to suit more robust, firm, and energetic vocal timbres; lighter voices may sound slightly thickened. Grain is noticeably polished, delivering decent smoothness. Timbre coloration is perceptible, leaning a bit warm. The throat region is slightly elevated, with a touch more breathiness. Details like saliva sounds are highlighted, and sibilance is mildly present. Overall vocal transparency is moderate, without artificial brightness.

For instruments, most are also rendered with texture taking priority over definition. String instruments—violins, guitars, violas—have some thickness, sounding fuller rather than sharp or attention-grabbing. Bowing and plucking details are improved from the previous generation, but not heavily emphasized. Cellos have a moderate sense of body, slightly oversized in spatial proportion. Brass instruments offer decent grandeur, though trumpets and other bright brass lean a bit conservative. Woodwinds have acceptable air and a touch of added thickness. Harmonic content is relatively abundant. In percussion, the kick drum is prominent, snares decay at a moderate speed, and cymbal brightness is moderate without harshness.

The treble region overall is not very bright, though there are mildly emphasized peaks. Upper-treble extension is average, with a slightly quick—but not prematurely early—roll-off. Compared to the TWS 2, upper-band energy is more conservative across the board.

Soundstage is moderate in size with clear boundaries, maintaining some width and depth. Combined with a reasonable sense of “height,” it forms a fairly full, flattened-sphere-like space. Separation between vocals and instruments is acceptable, and overall cohesion is good. Resolution is aligned with expectations for this price tier, slightly improved from the previous generation, with only a mild emphasis on “perceived detail.” Dynamics are good, and transients are average.

Additional Note: Differences Between iQOO TWS 5 and vivo TWS 5 Hi-Fi Edition

Compared with the previous generation’s noticeable differences, the TWS 5 lineup is much closer this time. The iQOO TWS 5 adds a bit of thickness in the upper midrange and lower treble, giving some instruments a more pronounced attack and adding a touch more “sweetness” to vocals. Low-frequency solidity and prominence are slightly reduced compared to the vivo model. Broadly speaking, both share a similar tuning style; the vivo Hi-Fi edition sounds a bit warmer, while the iQOO variant leans slightly more colored in the upper mids/treble—nothing drastic. In contrast to standard mode, the Hi-Fi edition’s “Master Pro” profile sounds even more neutral and balanced.

Subjective Evaluation – OPPO Enco Free4

Based on ANC off, AAC codec, Dynaudio edition “Ultimate Sound,” Golden Sound disabled.

The low frequencies have slightly elevated quantity, with notable thickness and fullness. Elasticity is decent, and sub-bass extension is average. Attack and decay speed are moderate, but there is a noticeable amount of lingering resonance. The ambience has little smearing yet still sounds rather rich. The default tuning of the Enco Free4 makes the low end feel a bit overwhelming in the head. The quality itself isn’t bad—there’s no mushiness—but for a lot of recent Western pop, the bass is simply too showy. Low-frequency instruments are pushed prominently forward. Instruments with fundamentals in the lower midrange lean heavily toward the front.

In the midrange, vocals sit slightly close, with moderate mouth size and a somewhat emphasized refinement. Vocal texture is not prioritized as much as contour definition; thickness is limited, and lines are clearly drawn. There’s no strong leaning toward male or female vocals, but in general the tuning favors lighter, more delicate vocal timbres—rough, grainy, thick voices tend to lose their character here. Timbre coloration is minimal, especially in the upper midrange of the vocal fundamental, where accuracy is decent. Grain is noticeably polished, making the sound quite smooth. The throat area sits at a normal height, but breathiness is slightly more abundant. Sibilance is mildly present, and some mouth-noise details (saliva, lip sounds) can stand out. Overall vocal transparency is relatively high without artificial brightness.

For instruments, the Enco Free4 generally balances texture and contour—except for instruments with lower fundamentals, which can sound distinctly off. In the string family, violins, violas, and guitars have an appropriate thickness, with bowing/plucking details mildly emphasized. Cellos feel physically solid, though disproportionately enlarged in the soundstage. Brass has decent power (especially under the Dynaudio tuning), and trumpets or other bright brass have sufficient sparkle. Woodwinds maintain decent timbre accuracy, but the sense of air feels unnatural—too tense and overly highlighted rather than rich. Harmonic content is insufficient and less natural. In percussion, the kick drum is over-present, snares are tightened aggressively, and cymbals skew bright with some metallic tinge.

Treble brightness is moderate-to-slightly-bright, with both overall sparkle and discernible localized peaks—not the smoothest treble. Upper-treble extension is acceptable; even with AAC there is some retained top-end detail. Under LHDC the roll-off is less abrupt.

The Enco Free4 creates a space that isn’t congested, offering reasonable width and depth with fairly sharp edges and low diffusion. Combined with mildly compressed height, the soundstage forms a slightly flattened, moderately sized sphere. Separation between vocals and instruments is decent—vocals don’t drown despite the strong bass. Cohesion is average. Resolution ranks upper-mid within the sub-¥500 TWS category, with some emphasis on “perceived detail.” Dynamics and transients are respectable.

Overall, the Enco Free4 is a classic “fun tuning” with excessive bass and elevated ends on both sides of the spectrum—immediately impressive, but difficult to listen to for long. I strongly recommend reducing low-frequency gain or switching to the “Pure Vocal” preset.

Additional Note: Differences Among Free4 Preset Tunings

Among the three defaults in the regular (non-Dynaudio) version, “Pure Vocal” is the one I recommend—its bass quantity is the most restrained of the three. However, it also introduces problems: cymbals become more aggressive, brass instruments gain sharper metallic overtones, and vocal breathiness is more pronounced. In terms of frequency balance, though, it’s the healthiest. Compared with the regular version, the Dynaudio edition adds the “Dynaudio Signature” profile, which still retains heavy bass and adds some looseness to the texture. There’s also added room-like reverberation. Honestly, it still isn’t a particularly healthy tuning.

Subjective Evaluation – Moondrop Dreamback 2

Based on ANC off, LDAC codec, default “Pop” sound profile, medium gain.

The low frequencies have moderate quantity, with neither notable thickness nor fullness. Elasticity is good, and sub-bass extension is excellent. Attack and decay lean slightly fast, with very little lingering resonance. Of the three sound modes, this one offers the strongest ambience, though smearing and richness are still relatively low. Dreamback 2’s bass has commendable layering and contributes supportive weight without drawing excessive attention. Even in the “Pop” profile—its highest bass-gain option—the energy distribution remains fairly healthy. Instruments with fundamentals in the lower midrange do not tilt forward.

In the midrange, vocals sit relatively close with a slightly large mouth size and high refinement. Dreamback 2 balances texture and contour well; thickness is moderate, and lines are outlined with some emphasis but not excessively. There’s no strong male/female vocal bias, and it generally suits voices that aren’t too thick or grainy. Grain is lightly polished, giving overall smooth presentation. Timbre coloration is minimal, with only subtle adjustments in the upper mids—neither warm nor cold. The throat region sounds natural, breathiness is mildly highlighted, and mouth-noise details come forward a bit without harming listenability. Sibilance is only noticeable in extreme cases. Vocal transparency is quite high with a slight lift in brightness, yet the tonality remains natural.

For instruments, most maintain a balance between texture and contour, with slight brightening in some cases. In strings—violins, guitars, violas—thickness is moderate, and bowing/plucking details are clear and sufficiently present. Cellos have realistic body and proportional size within the space. Brass has respectable power, and trumpets or other bright brass gain adequate brightness (sometimes slightly too much in certain modes). Woodwinds have good air and decent naturalness. Harmonic content is plentiful for a true wireless earphone. In percussion, the kick drum has moderate presence, snare decay is quick, and cymbals are generally bright without sharpness—metallic overtones stay controlled.

Treble is fairly bright with notable overall energy. Smoothness is respectable, with peaks somewhat polished down. Upper-treble extension is very good for a TWS, with roll-off neither early nor abrupt.

The soundstage is moderate in scale, with slightly sharp boundaries and respectable width and depth. Combined with a reasonable sense of height, Dreamback 2 in its Pop tuning produces a slightly flattened spherical sound field. Separation between vocals and instruments is strong for a TWS, and overall coherence is intact. Resolution is very good thanks to the excellent driver, with a mild emphasis on “perceived detail.” Dynamics and transients are solid.

Additional Note: Differences Among Dreamback 2 Preset Tunings

All three profiles mainly adjust bass levels. My preferred option is the default “Pop” tuning mentioned above. The “Standard” and “Monitor” profiles progressively flatten the low end. Compared with the first-generation Dreamback’s default tuning, Dreamback 2’s default brings a bit more upper-mid gain, resulting in slight added brightness.

Sound Trends of Other Models in a Similar Price Range

TEZO Que: A pleasing balance with good vocal texture. This tuning suits podcast listeners well and also delivers a natural impression for most pop and electronic genres, without particularly strong coloration or emphasis.

Edifier Lolli Pro 5: A fuller, rounder sound with solid mid-bass quality and firm instrumental body. It follows a mildly V-shaped tuning.

beats Solo Buds: Bass elasticity is good with added fullness, vocals are refined, and treble brightness is moderate. Overall energy is a bit concentrated, still fitting into a lightly V-shaped profile.

CMF Buds 2 Plus: Prominent, highly elastic low frequencies—this is a clearly bass-focused tuning.

TOZO NC20: Treble extension is better than CMF’s, and bass quantity is slightly more restrained. It represents a mild V-shaped, pop-oriented tuning.

Redmi Buds 6 Pro: The stock tuning has noticeably elevated bass. It is a classic “V-shape,” though with lower technical performance than CMF.

Sony WF-C510: A traditional Sony-style tuning for their lower-midrange dynamic models—thicker mids and bass, less treble presence, a warm tone, and overall average technicalities.

BGVP Q3: Among all listed models, its technical performance ranks second only to Dreamback 2. As the only dual-mode wired/wireless TWS, its bass is tight and focused, vocals maintain both good listenability and some transparency, and treble smoothness is acceptable.

Summary and Recommendations

Overall, the five main units we selected this round all exceed the average standard. The lineup is based partly on survey data we gathered earlier on Weibo and partly on our own judgment, while doing our best to avoid exaggeration or unfair comparisons.

The noise cancellation performance of the vivo TWS 5 and iQOO TWS 5 is excellent. The sound performance of both versions is generally fine, but it’s recommended to choose your preferred sound profile, as the default mode tends to emphasize both ends of the frequency spectrum. There are no major issues with cross-platform compatibility or signal performance. The Hi-Fi version has good support for LHDC and LDAC, making it a top choice for Android users prioritizing noise cancellation in this price range.

The OPPO Enco Free4 also delivers solid noise cancellation performance, making it one of the most comprehensive noise-cancelling options in this price range, just below the TWS 5. However, the default sound profile emphasizes the bass quite a bit. There are some compatibility issues with LHDC on different devices, so it’s recommended for users of Oppo and OnePlus devices, or those within the OPPO ecosystem.

The iQOO TWS 2 is technically a previous-generation product, but it’s still quite easy to find. It’s a representative of the mid-to-low-range phone brands that started to emphasize deep bass noise cancellation. Compared to the same generation vivo TWS 4 series, it has well-calibrated sound. With good support for LDAC and aptX Adaptive, it remains a solid noise cancellation option for users with Qualcomm-based SoC phones, but it’s not as highly recommended as the first two.

Shuiyueyu Menghui 2 is the only one among these models that prioritizes sound quality. Its overall noise cancellation perception is slightly weaker compared to the others, but its noise cancellation has minimal impact on the sound quality. The sound performance is very high, and it also offers a highly flexible tuning function. It’s the only model in the sub-500 RMB price range that supports spatial audio rendering (see our TDS REVIEW of Menghui 2) and wireless charging. This model is recommended for users who prioritize sound quality, with noise cancellation as a secondary feature.

This is our mid-range TWS comparison for the end of 2025. Compared to the previous two mid-range comparisons, the general level of the models has improved. It’s clear that after hitting a bottleneck in active noise cancellation depth, competition has shifted back to the relatively low-to-mid price market. This comparison covers fewer points than a standard TDS REVIEW, which is something we’ve been thinking about. We’d love to hear your feedback on the aspects you’d like to see in future comparisons in the comments section.

KT MARK and Noise Cancellation Pyramid:

Past products are included, and those that should be downrated in the current market context are marked with an asterisk. The table shows the updated ratings.

For information about the KT MARK scoring system and our “no interference with evaluations” principle, please search for “TDS Studio Scoring Criteria and Content Explanation V202502” on mainstream search engines.

KingTsui, TDS Studio
Nov 2025
It’s a TDS production.

SP-Life

Mid-Range True Wireless Earbuds Roundup and Recommendations (2025 Year-End Edition) – TDS Unfiltered Thoughts