Juzear Harrier - The Missing (Squig)Link?

2.5⭐️

+ Warm, dark, inoffensive U-shaped tuning makes for easy all-day listening

+ Sub-bass focused with a clean texture and nice rumble

+ Smooth midrange with good vocal and instrument timbre

+ Treble is never bright or fatiguing 

+ Takes well to EQ

+ Solid accessory package 

- Such a safe tuning can also come across quite boring; lacks engagement 

- Veiled vocals

- Treble sounds incomplete due to the lack of air

- Inadequate technical performance for the price

- Highly tip and source dependent 

- Potential QC issues with the stock cable

- Faceplate design could use refinement

thaslaya's star rating system:

☆☆☆☆☆ - Fantastic!

☆☆☆☆ - Recommended

☆☆☆ - There are buyers but not for me

☆☆ - Can't see the appeal

☆ - Product is a failure

Disclaimer: 

This product was provided to me by HiFiGO in exchange for my impartial and honest review. I receive no compensation and all thoughts and opinions are my own.

Non-affiliated link for those interested:

https://hifigo.com/products/juzear-harrier

Gear used: 

●Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra

●HiBy R3 II

●Various DAC/amps

Source:

●Listening was done using Amazon Music HD/Ultra HD and local FLAC files. 

Introduction: 

Juzear is an IEM manufacturer based out of China, and they are not new to the collaboration game. They recently released the Defiant IEM earlier this year, which was tuned in part by YouTuber Zeos of Z Reviews. Before we talk about Juzear's latest IEM, some of you may be asking, "What is Squiglink?" For the uninitiated, if you've ever seen a graph of an IEM included with one of my reviews or on forums such as Head-Fi, it's very likely that it came from Squiglink. Squiglink is an open database for those with the means to measure the frequency response of IEMs or headphones to share it in a place where people can easily find and reference it. The project is managed by Mark Ryan Sallee, whom many know better as the face of the YouTube channel Super*Review. Mark is an audiophile, an avid YouTube reviewer, and an indispensable asset in the hobbyist measurement game. Without his management of Squiglink, it would be much more difficult for people like me to compare the tunings of multiple IEMs based on their frequency response. So, let me just extend a thank you to Mark for his hard work and dedication to the Squiglink project. Now, Juzear is a smaller IEM manufacturer, but they've seen their fair share of success with releases like the 41T, 61T Butterfly, 81T Dragonfly, and most recently, the Defiant. This new Harrier model features a single dynamic, six balanced armature, and two microplanar driver tribrid configuration, and it's priced at $300. Without further ado, let's break down this latest release from Juzear and see how it stacks up in today's market. 

Build, fit, ergonomics:

The Harrier comes in a medium-sized box with some attractive and colorful graphics on the front. Upon opening the box, the contents are well-packaged and the shells are safely positioned in the foam inserts. The amount of accessories Juzear managed to cram in is actually impressive. The shells themselves are made of resin, and I'd say the size is just north of average, which is somewhat expected for housing nine drivers per side. According to Juzear, the "Harrier is named after the Harrier Hawk, a symbol of courage, focus, and fearlessness." The hawk theme is pretty prevalent in the overall design, and the faceplates are made of CNCed Hawk's Eye stone. The faceplate is available in your choice of blue or yellow, and it also features some nickel accents. The left side includes Juzear's logo and the tip of a bird wing, while the right has the company name and a hawk's eye motif. I received the blue colorway for review and was not thrilled with the result. They look much darker than others I've seen, and the faceplates have a lot of brown and yellow specs with very little blue to speak of. Honestly, the design doesn't really appeal to me, and I think it looks kind of messy, but at least the nickel accents keep it interesting. From what I've seen, the yellow variant has a more cohesive and polished look. As for the fit, the Harrier is decently comfortable and features a slightly deeper insertion depth. The metal nozzle measures 6.1mm at the lip, which may be a bit big for those with smaller ears. There's a single large vent hole located on the back of the shell behind the flat 2-pin connection to alleviate pressure issues. The stock cable is made of 6N SPOCC+SCCW and features a screw on locking modular termination system. It's silvery white in color, decently pliable, and feels good in hand. It's a nice cable, but unfortunately, the left and right ear hooks are mislabeled, so the connections have to be switched. Other than that, it works fine, but it does raise questions about quality control. I chose to substitute it with the NiceHCK SnowAg cable instead. The Harrier comes with a pretty generous array of tips. There are four different styles and eleven pairs in total: three wide bore, three narrow bore, four with a sticky texture, and one foam. They also come packed into two plastic tip holders, which I always appreciate having. One very minor gripe I have is that the number of tips doesn't match the number of slots in the cases. It's a very small thing, but how hard would it be to throw in an extra pair to satisfy my OCD? Speaking of tips, I tried so many different varieties with this set and finally landed on the Penon Liqueurs. The case is small, brown, leather-bound, and hard-shelled with a magnetic lid. It's easily pocketable, feels well-built, and offers decent protection, but I do wish it was a little bigger to more easily accommodate the size of the shells and cable. The case also features a small metal ring on the side that I'm guessing is for use with the included red wrist strap. The only other accessory to note is a cleaning cloth. Overall, besides the cable connectors being mislabeled, the Harrier's accessories are more than adequate for the price, though I wouldn't mind a slightly thicker cable or one extra pair of tips to make an even dozen.

Sound impressions:

I'd describe the Harrier's tuning as generally U-shaped, with a touch of meta flavor sprinkled in due to the mid-bass dip, somewhat flatter midrange, and a fairly sharply rolled-off treble. I might actually consider it to be within the bounds of neutral if it weren't for the treble dropping off, which can make the tuning sound a bit constrained or restricted. Frankly, it's a very safe tuning, and for me, it's missing something special or an "it" factor. This set is easy enough to drive from a simple dongle and doesn't necessarily require amplification, though I typically use one. The note's weight is a bit thicker than average, but that's how I prefer it, so it suits me well. The detail retrieval is a little disappointing. The presentation isn't as clear or concise as I expected for the price, and it underperforms compared to others. The soundstage height and depth are great, but the width is where I take issue. It simply sounds too narrow, like there's an invisible wall keeping the music, and specifically the vocals, from expanding outward. The shape of the stage is more ovoid than spherical, in that it tends to project higher and further in front and back than it does left to right, leading to a less cohesive presentation. I will admit that it makes for a unique experience because it can come across as both intimate and expansive at the same time, but my mind has a hard time reconciling the presentation, and it just sounds off. The timbre has a minor issue for me. It actually sounds quite natural, but that less-than-ideal treble presentation kind of dilutes the whole experience. The imaging is accurate and precise, but the limited stage width also means it could be better with distance detection. The dynamics are also an area where the Harrier could be improved, which could help breathe a bit more life into the tuning. The tuning lacks a bit in terms of layering and cohesion, but the separation is well-executed, and it's able to handle complex tracks without getting bogged down. Overall, the technicalities of the Harrier are disappointing, and there are a few key areas where it needs improvement to compete with its peers, particularly the soundstage, treble timbre, detail retrieval, and dynamics.

When it came to sources, the Harrier and I embarked on a bit of a journey before I found the best synergistic pairing. I started with the iFi GO link Max because I felt the Harrier needed a bit more energy, as the tuning is on the relaxed side. The Max really helps the bass rumble and reverberation feel more visceral and fun, but it doesn't really help the midrange or treble in the same way. The Questyle M18i definitely brings out great technical performance, but again, the tuning didn't really connect with me. Finally, I switched over to the GO blu, and the pieces just seemed to fall into place. What I was missing was a grounded and natural feeling to the tuning, which became more obvious with the added note weight provided by the blu. It also serves to bring the lower mids forward just a bit more and add a level of emotional connection that was missing. Of my 10+ DAC/amps, the blu is the only one that manages to breathe life into the Harrier's tuning, so I'd say this set is very source-sensitive, at least for me.

●Lows - First, let me start by saying that the bass is my favorite part of the Harrier's tuning. It's elevated and strong but not overpowering, and it has what I consider to be a typical clean DD style of response. It's more sub-bass focused over mid-bass and there's good extension and a satisfying rumble that makes its presence known in bassier tracks. The attack is quick but so is the decay. I wish bass notes were sustained longer and the decay was slower which would help it sound much more natural to my ears. The texture is Clean but not overly so and the bass is decently resolving though it could be further improved. Unfortunately what the Harrier really lacks is mid-bass impact and presence, especially with kick drums, which doesn't help it perform well with rock tracks. At least there's no bleed into the midrange to contend with so that's a plus. Overall, the Harrier's bass is nicely elevated, which I enjoy, and the sub-bass has decent rumble even if it's not sustained. However I do it very much lacking in the way of mid-bass impact and presence. Also, evwn though it's boosted ot doesn't really feel like its boosted due to it generally sounding a bit characterless or blasé. Like I said, the bass is actually the aspect of the Harrier's tuning I like most, and if this is how we start, things are looking a bit grim already, so hold on to your hats.

●Mids - If I'm being honest, the midrange isn't all that bad, but I have more issues with it than with the bass. First, the graph is a bit deceptive. The measurement shows an accentuated upper midrange, so you might think vocals come across as prominent or forward, but they actually sound a touch veiled and recessed for my preferences, though it's more prominent with male artists over females. Vocals are also positioned closer to the head than instruments, which leads to a bit of a disconnect between the two. The midrange is also less than spacious, though not quite claustrophobic; "intimate" might be a better word to describe it. Even though I can and do enjoy a more intimate vocal presentation, something about the Harrier's just doesn't do it for me. I do enjoy that the tonality is slightly warm and natural, maybe even a bit analog-sounding. The midrange is generally smooth and pleasant, though I really wish it were brought forward more to better showcase that sultry vocal quality. The lower mids lack a little weight and presence for me, and I find myself wanting more from the cello and other instruments here. Overall, the midrange could definitely be worse, but it could also be much better. I do find value in the warm tonality, natural timbre, and the fact that there's no shoutiness or thinness to contend with. Unfortunately, the generally hollow and drab presentation manages to undercut the good qualities. The vocal presentation lacks both the emotional engagement and the fun factor that I'm always looking for, and the entire midrange simply comes across as flat, veiled, and uninteresting.

●Highs - Okay, I did warn you it was all downhill from the bass, and here we reach the proverbial bottom (quite literally when you look at the graph). Don't get me wrong, I'm usually a fan of a rolled-off treble response, but the Harrier simply takes it too far. While the extension doesn't quite fall off a cliff, it leaves a lot to be desired, and the lack of air makes Harrier's entire tuning feel somewhat dark and incomplete. The mid to high treble just sounds aloof, like a basement dwelling 30 year old who can't be bothered to take out the trash. Honestly, the choices made by Mark and Juzear in tuning the treble are a bit of a head-scratcher. I do consider myself to be more treble-sensitive than most, and I generally enjoy darker, warmer tunings; however, in this case, the sheer lack of air isn't just dark—the upper treble is nearly gone entirely. Snares lack bite and energy, and cymbals sound recessed, almost like an afterthought. The presence region does fare a bit better. It's not super relaxed like the air, but it's also not particularly energetic. Certain vocal notes can sound a touch thin and sometimes a bit harsh, but it's rare and only at higher volumes. Now, they say every cloud has a silver lining, and in this case, it might be that the Harrier's treble is so inoffensive that I doubt anyone could be bothered by it. This style of tuning may hold value for some—perhaps the most treble-sensitive folk out there—but for me, the severe lack of air and extension makes it feel unfinished and ultimately leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Comparisons: Credit to Audio Amigo for the graphs. 

● Softears Volume S ($320) - Here we have the 2DD (one passive), 2BA hybrid configuration of the Volume S against the Harrier's 1DD, 6BA, 2 microplanar tribrid setup. For this comparison, I utilized the bassier low impedance tuning of the Volume S. When it comes to accessories, both have a modular cable, but the Harrier's is superior, if nothing else, because of the lack of microphonics. The Volume S has a much nicer case, but the Harrier includes more tip options. As for the shells themselves, both sets are similar in size and fit, but the Harrier has a typical resin build with a metal nozzle, while the Volume S is fully made of resin with a carbon fiber faceplate. Design-wise, I like the Volume S a bit more because it has a kind of understated classiness. While these two don't graph extremely close, I feel that both have a generally relaxed and easygoing U-shaped tuning with more in common than appears at first glance. In the bass, the Volume S is fuller and more visceral, with added mid-bass impact and a slightly slower decay that sounds more natural to my ear. The Harrier's more sub-bass-focused low end reaches deeper, but that's a poor consolation prize when the Volume S is generally better on nearly every front. In the midrange, vocals come through more clearly on the Volume S and are further emphasized with an extra layer of musicality, which really helps me connect to the music. It's especially good at representing baritone instruments in orchestral arrangements, which I really appreciate. The Harrier may be a touch warmer and smoother, but it also sounds much more veiled in comparison and generally lacks engagement. The treble is where the Volume S clearly separates itself as the winner. Though it also has a rolled-off treble response, it's much smoother in its descent, which gives it more presence without being devoid of air or extension. Honestly, the Harrier's top end just sounds dark and incomplete in comparison. When it comes to technical performance, the Volume S takes a clear advantage in many categories, most notably timbre, layering, and a more spherical soundstage, but the Harrier does have more stage depth and better separation. For me, this matchup ultimately comes down to execution. Frankly, the Harrier sounds like someone heard the Volume S and said, "Hey, let's make a worse version of that." That may be harsh, but that's really what it feels like when comparing these two directly. Sure, the tunings aren't exactly the same, but both aim for a relaxed and inoffensive sound signature. The biggest difference is that the Volume S accomplishes its goal without sacrificing the musicality of vocals or the crisp, clear nature of the treble. It also has better technical performance and an optional second tuning to boot. Basically, if you're in the market for this style of tuning, do yourself a favor and pick up the Volume S because it's truly one of the best in its price bracket.

My pick: Volume S

● Kiwi Ears Astral ($300) - Both of these IEMs actually feature 1DD and 6BAs, but the Harrier adds 2 microplanars as well, making it a tribrid. Both sets come with decent modular cables, but I prefer the Harrier's screw-on locking system. The Harrier includes more tips and a more premium case as well. As for the build quality, both have resin shells with metal nozzles and are comfortable for me, but the Astral is a bit smaller with a deeper insertion. Neither has what I consider to be a great eye-catching design, but the Astral looks better in my opinion. When it comes to tuning, both generally have U-shaped sound signatures and graph fairly closely outside of the treble. The Astral is not what I would call a particularly exciting or engaging tuning, but unfortunately for the Harrier, it's even less so, bordering on just plain boring. In the bass, the Astral not only has deeper-reaching sub-bass but also superior rumble, more body, and a more natural decay. Those big bass notes last longer and sound much more natural, whereas on the Harrier, they end a bit too abruptly. The Astral is more resolving, the mid-bass is more impactful, and the entire bass feels like an improvement over the Harrier, though the latter is better separated from the midrange and has a slightly cleaner texture. The midranges of these two actually sound and measure quite close, though there are a few key differences. The Astral is a bit flatter but better balanced between lower and upper mids. The vocals are smoother and much more engaging, with an added layer of warmth and emotional weight. The Harrier's vocals are positioned closer to the head and sound a bit thinner and colder in comparison. These two have quite different takes on the treble. While the rest of the frequency response measures pretty closely, the 6kHz is where they really go in their own direction. The Astral has a subtle roll-off from the upper mids, whereas the Harrier drops significantly. The Astral has much better extension and a lot more air, which translates to an overall brighter but actually more correct-sounding tuning. To be honest, it can be a little thin for me, and there are a few instances of harshness on certain vocal notes, though it's mostly at high volumes. But I'll gladly take it over the basically airless treble of the Harrier. Cymbals and snares come across much more naturally on the Astral, and the entire tuning sounds more balanced. Even if it's a little bright for my taste, finding the right tip and source synergies can do well for bringing the treble down a touch. In fact, I find it much easier than trying to bring out air and extension where basically none exist. As for the technicalities, the Astral is nearly better across the board, particularly in imaging, detail retrieval, and soundstage, but the Harrier does offer more soundstage depth. For me, this matchup really comes down to the treble. I consider myself to be fairly treble-sensitive, and logic would dictate that the Harrier would be my preference, but its general lack of air and extension in this case hurts much more than it helps. The Astral's tuning, while obviously a little brighter, sounds much more complete and better executed. Those who are extremely treble-averse might opt for the Harrier, but I'd caution them against it because the Astral's bass and midrange are better balanced, and one can always EQ the treble to a more tolerable level. Not to mention, the Astral's added bass extension and rumble, more engaging midrange, and improved technicalities make it an easy choice for me.

My pick: Astral

● NiceHCK NX8 ($200) - This contest pits the Harrier's 1DD, 6BA, 2 microplanar tribrid configuration against the NX8's 1DD, 6BA, 1PZT. As far as the accessories go, the Harrier's cable is a little nicer and it has modular terminations, but I still expect a little better for the price. It also comes with more tip options, but the carrying case is smaller, and I think the NX8's zipper case is better quality. The Harrier's shells are bigger and feel more solid and better built but the NX8 is actually a little more comfortable for me. From a design standpoint, neither set really appeals to me but I do like the NX8's purple a little better. When it comes to the tuning, the NX8 is a bit flatter and more U-shaped while the Harrier has more of a V-shaped frequency response. In the bass, the Harrier is more sub-bass focused with increased rumble and reverberation, but the decay lasts a touch too long for me and the mid-bass recession leaves me wanting more in the way of impact. Also, the resolution and texture aren't that much better. The NX8's bass is further elevated, fuller, and more impactful, particularly in the mid-bass. In the midrange, despite what the graph shows, vocals on the NX8 are more forward and energetic. The Harrier's midrange sounds somewhat veiled and lacks the same engagement factor the NX8 possesses, but it does have an overall cleaner and smoother presentation plus more weight in the lower midrange. The treble is definitely where the starkest differences lie between these two. The NX8 is not only brighter, it's also crisper and more exciting with better air and extension. The Harrier sounds flat-out dark in comparison, but to its credit, there isn't a lick of harshness or sibilance anywhere, whereas the NX8 does sound a little brittle and harsh, especially at higher volume levels. When it comes to technicalities, the Harrier does take a small win in most categories, save for the dynamics, but the difference is less than I anticipated based on its price. For me, this matchup comes down to the overall presentation and energy level. The NX8 has a certain warmth to it, and even though it has a somewhat relaxing tonality, it's still absolutely engaging and energetic. The Harrier looks like a better match for my preferences on paper, but the tuning simply falls flat in my ears, and I find myself waiting for something to reach out and grab my attention, but it never comes. I'd easily take the NX8 in this matchup and would recommend them over the Harrier to anyone but the most treble-sensitive listeners.

My pick: NX8

● Ziigaat Lush ($180) - Here we have the 1DD, 4BA hybrid setup of the Lush against the Harrier's 1DD, 6BA, 2 Microplanar tribrid configuration. Regarding the accessories, the more expensive Harrier easily wins this matchup. It has better modular cables, many more tip options, and a much more premium-feeling case. Both feature a standard resin build with metal nozzles. They both fit comfortably enough due to similar insertion depths and overall shapes, but the Harrier is a bit larger. I personally prefer Lush's sparkly blue and silver faceplate design over the Harrier's more subtle and somewhat convoluted design. When it comes to tuning, these two do have some commonalities but are also different. Both have some characteristics of the new meta-tuning, but the Lush adheres to it more closely with a flatter midrange and less upper-mids emphasis, while the Harrier is more U-shaped. In the bass, the Harrier is more sub-bass focused and has better extension, rumble, impact, a touch more resolving, and a cleaner texture. The Lush is better balanced between sub- and mid-bass and has a touch more warmth, a slower decay, and a thicker sound that works quite well for me. The midrange is where the Lush really starts to pull away. The vocal presentation is more forward and emotionally charged, but never shouty or intrusive. The Harrier sounds quite recessed in comparison, and vocals simply lack feeling. The Lush also better represents lower-registered instruments and has a definitive smoothness without losing that particularly great engagement factor. The Harrier does have more midrange depth, though, and is better separated from the bass. The treble again goes in favor of Lush. Like the Harrier, the Lush's treble also rolls off, but in a much slower and more controlled fashion that preserves the extension and air. It does sound brighter overall, but it's still non-fatiguing, with a level of sparkle and a crisper texture that the Harrier can't match. The Harrier's treble simply sounds imbalanced and dark to the point that the tuning and frequency response come across as incomplete, but to its credit, there's never any fear of sibilance. As far as the technicalities go, the Harrier has greater soundstage depth, note weight, and better separation, whereas the Lush has a more balanced soundstage, and better timbre, layering, detail retrieval, and imaging. For me, this one comes down to the overall tuning balance and treble extension. The Harrier has good bass extension, and the added depth and impact are nice, but the midrange is too recessed, and the treble extension leaves a lot to be desired. The Lush's more meta-tuned flavoring may not be for everyone, but it does much more right for me than the Harrier, including a more engaging midrange and a more "correct" treble response. The Harrier has much better accessories, but that should be expected for nearly double the price. What's not acceptable is the lackluster technical performance compared to the much cheaper Lush. Ultimately, I'm going with the IEM that actually makes me want to listen to music and not question why one of the key aspects of the frequency response is missing in action.

My pick: Lush

● Juzear Defiant ($100) - This contest is a sort of little brother versus big brother battle: the Defiant's 1DD, 3BA hybrid configuration against the Harrier's 1DD, 6BA, 2 microplanars. Regarding the accessories, both sets have modular cables, but the Harrier's are better quality. It also includes more tip options, but I do prefer the Defiant's zipper case. Unsurprisingly, these two have very similar build qualities, with both being made of resin with metal nozzles. They are similarly shaped, but the Harrier is larger, and the Defiant has a deeper insertion, making for a more comfortable fit for me. Design-wise, the Defiant looks so much better to me. Its faceplate is colorful and interesting, whereas the Harrier's is kind of convoluted and bland. When it comes to sound, it's quite clear that these two share similar DNA, and both have U-shaped tunings that measure pretty closely. However, the Defiant is more energetic, while the Harrier is on the more subdued and relaxed side. In the bass, the Defiant has less sub-bass weight and body, but a distinct advantage in mid-bass punch and impact. The Harrier has an added rumble, a cleaner texture, and is better separated from the midrange, but the Defiant simply sounds more interesting and fun. The midrange of the Harrier has somewhat of a veiled intimacy, whereas the Defiant is cleaner, more energetic, and has a greater sense of clarity and space surrounding vocal performances. To its credit, though, the Harrier has an extra layer of depth and a smoother presentation that I like, but I generally prefer a more forward vocal presentation. Also, the Defiant has a better balance across the entire midrange for me. The treble also shows some pretty clear differences. The Defiant sounds a bit brighter and again has superior balance across this part of the frequency spectrum, while the Harrier has about a 10-decibel dip around 12kHz that makes it sound quite weird to my ears. The Defiant also rolls off in the treble, but not as severely, and it has a better sense of sparkle, crispness, and air. Neither set really has sibilance to speak of, but the Defiant is a bit more susceptible to occasional harshness. As for technical performance, the Harrier does offer a small increase in just about every category save for dynamics, but the small step forward is nowhere near the leap I would expect for triple the price. Also, I feel that the Defiant has a better balance of soundstage width and height. For me, this matchup comes down to the overall tuning balance and engagement factor. I really like the Defiant and was hoping the Harrier would just improve upon its great foundation. Unfortunately, the more expensive Harrier simply doesn't stand up to the tuning of the Defiant. Sure, the Harrier's sub-bass boost is nice, the inoffensive treble is a plus (kind of), and the technicalities are a minor improvement, but there's not nearly the same level of emotional connection that I get from the Defiant. In essence, the Defiant does more for my music enjoyment than the Harrier could dream of, and it's easy to see why it still remains my favorite Juzear set.

My pick: Defiant 

In conclusion:

The Juzear Harrier has an inoffensive and safe tuning, but when does safe become boring and disengaging? That's a rhetorical question because the answer is here and now. I understand there are reasons to keep the first IEM in the Tuned with Squiglink program somewhat risk-averse, but in this case, the Harrier misses the mark. I doubt anyone will outright hate the Harrier, because it is tuned so safely, but I also don't foresee it garnering universal praise. This one is quite tip- and source-dependent, too, but even with my best pairings, it's simply not a tuning that I see much value in. Also, there are other IEMs in my collection that accomplish a warm, relaxed tuning much better, like the Volume S and Astral. The Harrier does have a few redeeming qualities though. The clean bass has a nice rumble, the midrange warmth is mostly pleasing, and the lack of harshness or sibilance in the treble ensures that virtually no one will find it bright or fatiguing. Unfortunately, I can't really recommend them to anyone outside of the most treble-sensitive listeners. Even those after a warm, easy-listening set can find other, better options available. For me, the Harrier isn't a great all-rounder either. It sounds okay with pop and electronic music—really, anything sub-bass heavy. However, orchestra and jazz compositions aren't great, and rock sounds especially bad. In its defense, the Harrier does take to EQ well, and I came up with a few changes that address some of my complaints (see the graph below). With EQ, I managed to inject some life and excitement into the tuning while attempting to stay true to the overall sound signature. Based on my personal experience, I'm forced to give the Harrier a pretty mediocre rating of 2.5 stars, which on my personal scale puts it right between "there are buyers, but not for me" and "can't see the appeal." Unfortunately, it's among my lowest-ranked IEMs and a disappointing way to end the year. I truly feel that the bar has been raised in the mid-fi tier over the last year, and the Harrier just doesn't stand up to the competition. For $300+, I was hoping for better, but the Harrier falls well short of the lofty expectations I had built up based on Juzear's last release, the more budget-friendly Defiant. The biggest positive takeaway for me is that the Harrier made me more appreciative of other sets in my collection.