Short answer: the 64 Audio Nio. Both are rated 3.1/5 for sound quality (#976 and #979 of 1291 in-ear headphones), and the 64 Audio Nio costs $1,699 against $1,999 for the Ice Lab Spectrumica, with sound quality a draw, the lower price decides it.
What the 64 Audio Nio does well: A warm, bass-forward tuning with sub-bass about 2 dB and mid-bass about 3 dB above target gives kick drums and bass lines real weight, and the response holds within 6 dB of target all the way down to 20 Hz. The catch: Across 7 hobbyist measurements on squig.link it reaches a preference score of only 63, held back by a 5.8 dB dip near 3.2 kHz and a presence region about 3.4 dB low, which pushes vocals and guitars back and dulls their edge.
The case for the Ice Lab Spectrumica: Bass is lifted about 2.7 dB with extension to 20 Hz, giving kick drums and bass lines extra weight. Watch for: Presence sits about 6 dB low with an 8.2 dB dip near 3.5 kHz, so vocals and instruments lose some bite.
Buy the 64 Audio Nio. Both are rated the same for sound quality, and it costs $300 less than the Ice Lab Spectrumica.
Want more options? Browse the full Headphones rankings.
A warm, bass-forward tuning with sub-bass about 2 dB and mid-bass about 3 dB above target gives kick drums and bass lines real weight, and the response holds within 6 dB of target all the way down to 20 Hz.
Bloom Audio $1,699.00 eBay
Bass is lifted about 2.7 dB with extension to 20 Hz, giving kick drums and bass lines extra weight.
Bloom Audio $1999 eBayPrices on this page were last checked October 16, 2026 at 5:46 PM UTC. Product prices and availability are accurate as of that date/time and are subject to change; the price and availability shown on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.
As an eBay Partner, we may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Specifications Side By Side
| 64 Audio Nio | Ice Lab Spectrumica | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $1,699.00 | $1999 |
| Ranked | #976 of 1291 in In-Ear Headphones | #979 of 1291 in In-Ear Headphones |
| Form Factor | In-ear | In-ear |
| Back | Closed | Closed |
| Harman Preference Score | 63 (median of 7 squig.link measurements, calibrated to AutoEQ) | 62 (median of 13 squig.link measurements, calibrated to AutoEQ) |
| Deviation From Target | 2.51 dB standard deviation | 2.88 dB standard deviation |
| Tonal Tilt | -1.01 (negative is warmer, positive brighter) | -0.62 (negative is warmer, positive brighter) |
| Sub-bass Extension | Within 6 dB of target down to 20 Hz (+1.0 dB at 30 Hz) | Within 6 dB of target down to 20 Hz (-1.9 dB at 30 Hz) |
| Connection | Wired | Wired |
| Driver Type | Hybrid (1 dynamic + 8 balanced armature) | Hybrid |
| Drivers | 1 x 9mm dynamic + 8 x balanced armature | 1 x dynamic + 4 x balanced armature + 2 x electrostatic + 1 x bone conduction |
| Impedance | 6 ohms | 7 ohms |
| Sensitivity | 108 dB/mW | - |
| Frequency Response | 10Hz - 20kHz (Manufacturer specified) | 10Hz - 40kHz |
Frequency Response Compared
Both headphones’ measurements overlaid on the Harman target. Above the target sounds louder in that range, below it quieter. Each curve is the median of several independent measurements, shifted so its 500 Hz to 2 kHz average sits at 0 dB, so only the tuning is compared.
Measurement data: the 64 Audio Nio from adri-n, bloomaudio, ekaudio, hu-fi, listener, precog and superreview; the Ice Lab Spectrumica from aden, aftersound, bassaudio, bloomaudio, ducbloke, eliseaudio, fahryst, gadgetgenerations, gadgetrytech, harutohiroki, jaytiss, joycesreview, superreview, theaudiostore, treblewellxtended and zerostresslevel, all via squig.link.
Related Headphone Comparisons
More top alternatives to 64 Audio Nio: