TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero IEM Review

[MajoloBama]

Sorry I meant earjaculate......

 

[julian_hughes]

I think we've reached the point in the conversation where only pictures will do

 

[respice finem]

Sorry I meant earjaculate......

You mean, as a sure sign of an eargasm?

But seriously, there is nothing containing liquid in the IEMs themselves, so it can come only from the outside - mix of earwax and sweat after prolonged use?

 

[Jimbob54]

You mean, as a sure sign of an eargasm?

But seriously, there is nothing containing liquid in the IEMs themselves, so it can come only from the outside - mix of earwax and sweat after prolonged use?

The darker side of iem listening. We don't talk about the gunk.

 

[Pegwill]

Hi Guys
Many thanks for the comments it seems to have gone away now. Never had a problem before with earwax so I will monitor the situation.

Thanks again

Pegwill

 

[Robbo99999]

There are 2 issues with the UK/ EU version (as opposed to the US and other region 2049) . One is that its max output is 0.5V (the 2049 is 1v) and the second is how to access that full power on Android as Static describes.

Jimbob, do you know if it measures as well as the US version, apart from the max output of course? I suppose SINAD would have to be lower if it's got a lower output, as you'd kind of think the noise floor would be the same between the two. @staticV3 , any information you've seen on how the EU/UK version measures?

EDIT: I found the following post from you Static where you say the only difference is the max output, so for any given output up to the max of 0.5V of the EU/UK version then it will have same SINAD as the US version - but how do you know this, were measurements done & where?

Review: Apple vs Google USB-C Headphone Adapters

That looks superb. I guess volume adjustments are controlled by host software (Android, Windows, etc?) It also souds suberb. Been listening Dawn 3.5 couple a week now. It also have just enough power to drive my HE400se headphones.

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[MajoloBama]

I think I know what this is.....you've been listening to Julio Igliesias!

 

[staticV3]

but how do you know this, were measurements done & where?

I have and have measured both. Never posted a full suite of measurements here on ASR though.
It's a bit annoying to do at the moment due to a broken hand, but I can make a THD+N vs Vrms sweep with both versions overlaid if you'd like
Keep in mind that the A2049 will clip below 20Ω:


Edit: here are some graphs of the two:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-9038s-bal-portable-dac-amp.8424/post-1083380

 

[SuperMJ]

so, are the tips that come with the iem international size? if I like the medium size, I buy any aftermarket medium tips that will be the same besides the manufacturer's materials?

 

[staticV3]

@SuperMJ there are no size standards for ear tips. Everyone makes their sizes as they see fit. If you want to compare ear tip sizes, compare the diameter in mm.

 

[SuperMJ]

@SuperMJ there are no size standards for ear tips. Everyone makes their sizes as they see fit. If you want to compare ear tip sizes, compare the diameter in mm.

thank u for the info , witch spinfit will be good for the zero > CP155 ? the smaller sazie that came with the iem hurts my ears , my use is tv show and gaming .

 

[Jimbob54]

thank u for the info , witch spinfit will be good for the zero > CP155 ? the smaller sazie that came with the iem hurts my ears , my use is tv show and gaming .

The 155 fit like a charm. Doesn't help if you don't know whether you need s, m or l size though.

 

[GaryH]

Dr Sean Oliver shared his own measurements of the TE Zero.
(With foam tips)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1601316207239450626

His sample has more bass and less treble than the sample measured by @amirm

View attachment 249021

As already said Sean measuring and saying they have too much bass is due to Truthear's poor impedance design choices combined with an output impedance that isn't low. And the decreased upper midrange / treble, somewhat alleviating the Zero's broadband excess over the Harman target there (which is the cause of their 'shouty' sound to many), could well be due the use of the foam rather than silicone tips for that measurement.

£1000 he doesn't complain about the impedance of the cable

Pay up

 

[Robbo99999]

I have and have measured both. Never posted a full suite of measurements here on ASR though.
It's a bit annoying to do at the moment due to a broken hand, but I can make a THD+N vs Vrms sweep with both versions overlaid if you'd like
Keep in mind that the A2049 will clip below 20Ω:
View attachment 249315

Edit: here are some graphs of the two:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-9038s-bal-portable-dac-amp.8424/post-1083380

So the European A2155 is more consistent than the US A2049 in terms of offering same performance at all impedances, albeit at a lower output for all. Taking a look at your EDIT link I can see that both of those graphs in that post are pretty much identical between the A2155 and A2049, so I'd say you wouldn't need to overlay them on each other, rest that hand - how'd you break that hand?!

As already said Sean measuring and saying they have too much bass is due to Truthear's poor impedance design choices combined with an output impedance that isn't low. And the decreased upper midrange / treble, somewhat alleviating the Zero's broadband excess over the Harman target there (which is the cause of their 'shouty' sound to many), could well be due the use of the foam rather than silicone tips for that measurement.

Pay up

Yes, he didn't mention "shouty-gate" that Jimbob coined in an earlier post, the increased bass would help avoid that, but he did have around on average 1dB excess energy from 1-5kHz, his y-axis is very zoomed out so it hides the deviations. Truth is this IEM is quite hard to fault, albeit we know it's not totally perfect on Harman. I thought it was excellent sounding out of the box and only improved slightly with EQ over longer listening sessions - to me it's not an IEM to beat up on.

 

[staticV3]

rest that hand - how'd you break that hand?!

Some stupid bicycle accident
No pain or anything, just gotta endure this annoying cast for a few more weeks. Thanks for asking!

 

[Robbo99999]

Some stupid bicycle accident
No pain or anything, just gotta endure this annoying cast for a few more weeks. Thanks for asking!

Ha, could be worse!

 

[GaryH]

Yes, he didn't mention "shouty-gate" that Jimbob coined in an earlier post, the increased bass would help avoid that, but he did have around on average 1dB excess energy from 1-5kHz, his y-axis is very zoomed out so it hides the deviations.

Yeah the extra bass would go some way to decrease any perceived shoutiness - this (plus the probable effect of the foam tips) takes the overall spectral tilt to -0.48 (i.e. an overall warm tilt) as Sean calculated, down from 0.31 (bright tilt) calculated by AutoEQ from Crinacle's measurements. So it's effectively a different headphone. And yes it's not easy to see on Sean's graph, but it peaks at ~2 dB above target at 3 and 5 kHz, and that's with the foam tips likely lowering response there. Maiky's graphs show the Truthear's significant deviation from the Harman target the clearest I find:

Truth is this IEM is quite hard to fault

I wouldn't say the above response is hard to fault...As we know from Toole's work on audibility thresholds of deviations, the lower the Q the more audible a deviation, even at low amplitude, and the Truthear has a very low-Q excess over the Harman target all the way from ~800 Hz to 6 kHz, and I'd argue 2-3 dB isn't even a low amplitude deviation, especially considering it's right where our hearing is most sensitive. It's simply the worst place in the frequency response to deviate from the target, and peaks above it will be more audible and bothersome then dips below it, all of which the designers / 'tuners' should have known and taken into account.

Because many people seem to be consistently misreading such significant low-Q deviations as negligible, I'm even tempted to approximately quantify them in 'HzdB' i.e. the area on the graph between the deviation and the target, as this will correlate better with audibility than just deviation amplitude in dB. That means around a 10 kHzdB deviation (~5 kHz span x average 2 dB amplitude) in the upper midrange / lower treble for the Truthear Zero. To put this into context, here's the frequency response of the Moondrop Quarks:

Many might strongly object to that 3 kHz peak. But it's relatively high-Q and the deviation is actually only around 2 kHzdB (~1 kHz base x ~4 dB height / 2), far less than the Truthear's 10 kHzdB deviation over the Harman target in the upper mids / lower treble as above and so likely less audible and bothersome than the latter. No this isn't very accurate, but it's much better than people only looking at amplitudes of deviations and erroneously saying about the Zero 'it's only 2 dB above the Harman target, that's nothing!' and failing to consider the science that shows us the lower Q the deviation, even if 'small' in amplitude, the more audible it will be. And our current best headphone science tells us the Truthear Zero (with low output impedance and silicone tips) has a somewhat bright overall spectral tilt (caused in no small part by its upper midrange / lower treble excess over Harman), which in turn gives it a very good but by no means 'excellent' (defined by Sean as a score of 90-100%) predicted preference rating of 81%, significantly short of the hyperbolic praise it's been given and reflecting the fact that it's not actually audibly incredibly highly matched to the Harman target.

 

[Robbo99999]

Yeah the extra bass would go some way to decrease any perceived shoutiness - this (plus the probable effect of the foam tips) takes the overall spectral tilt to -0.48 (i.e. an overall warm tilt) as Sean calculated, down from 0.31 (bright tilt) calculated by AutoEQ from Crinacle's measurements. So it's effectively a different headphone. And yes it's not easy to see on Sean's graph, but it peaks at ~2 dB above target at 3 and 5 kHz, and that's with the foam tips likely lowering response there. Maiky's graphs show the Truthear's significant deviation from the Harman target the clearest I find:

I wouldn't say the above response is hard to fault...As we know from Toole's work on JNDs, the lower the Q the more audible a deviation, even at low amplitude, and the Truthear has a very low-Q excess over the Harman target all the way from ~800 Hz to 6 kHz, and I'd argue 2-3 dB isn't even a low amplitude deviation, especially considering it's right where our hearing is most sensitive. It's simply the worst place in the frequency response to deviate from the target, and peaks above it will be more audible and bothersome then dips below it, all of which the designers / 'tuners' should have known and taken into account.

Because many people seem to be consistently misreading significant low-Q deviations as negligible as above, I'm even tempted to approximately quantify them in 'HzdB' i.e. the area on the graph between the deviation and the target, as this will correlate better with audibility than just deviation amplitude in dB. That means around a 10 kHzdB deviation (~5 kHz span x average 2 dB amplitude) in the upper midrange / lower treble for the Truthear Zero. To put this into context, here's the frequency response of the Moondrop Quarks:

View attachment 249529

Many might strongly object to that 3 kHz peak. But it's relatively high-Q and the deviation is actually only around 2 kHzdB (~1 kHz base x ~4 dB height / 2), far less than the Truthear's 10 kHzdB deviation over the Harman target in the upper mids / lower treble as above and so likely less audible and bothersome than the latter. No this isn't very accurate, but it's much better than people only looking at amplitudes of deviations and erroneously saying about the Zero 'it's only 2 dB above the Harman target, that's nothing!' and failing to consider the science that shows us the lower Q the deviation, even if 'small' in amplitude, the more audible it will be. And our current best headphone science tells us the Truthear Zero (with low output impedance and silicone tips) has a somewhat bright overall spectral tilt (caused in no small part by its upper midrange / lower treble excess over Harman), which in turn gives it a very good but by no means 'excellent' (defined by Sean as a score of 90-100%) predicted preference rating of 81%, significantly short of the hyperbolic praise it's been given and reflecting the fact that it's not actually audibly incredibly highly matched to the Harman target.

That's a good assessment, and I agree with your points, but I still think it's a good IEM, and I can't hide the fact that I thought it was excellent out of the box, it was only on extended listening sessions that I realised Maiky's EQ improved it......but nonetheless I was taken aback by how good the IEM was. Information points to a low unit to unit variation and good channel matching, along with a nice smooth frequency response and very good (not perfect) bass extension at stock plus low distortion - just a tiny bit of EQ makes it perfect. I just think it's a great product. (I'm putting aside the comfort issues I had, and I've decided I don't like sticking stuff in my ears, so this is an IEM problem for me - I really don't want to push the wax back into my ear for one.)

 

[markanini]

We need to better model how different deviations form the target are perceived for a smarter updated score model. First the In-ear target needs to be improved. Find the cause for the mid-elevated result in it's current state, perhaps by using mobile subjects like USound.

 

[GaryH]

That's a good assessment, and I agree with your points, but I still think it's a good IEM

Oh so do I (in terms of sound at least), I just don't think it's excellent, which concurs with its predicted rating.

I can't hide the fact that I thought it was excellent out of the box, it was only on extended listening sessions that I realised Maiky's EQ improved it......but nonetheless I was taken aback by how good the IEM was. Information points to a low unit to unit variation and good channel matching, along with a nice smooth frequency response and very good (not perfect) bass extension at stock plus low distortion - just a tiny bit of EQ makes it perfect. I just think it's a great product. (I'm putting aside the comfort issues I had, and I've decided I don't like sticking stuff in my ears, so this is an IEM problem for me - I really don't want to push the wax back into my ear for one.)

I reckon you (and a lot of other IEM first-timers in this thread) might have been less impressed by it if it wasn't your first, as compared to headphones many IEMs generally have smooth responses, good bass extension (due to pressure chamber conditions), low distortion, and good channel matching. It's a shame the Truthear's poor ergonomics have put you off IEMs though, it really is exceptionally bad in that department compared to most others due to the gigantic bore diameter, and there are even IEMs that are designed for shallow insertion e.g. a lot of Sony's, so earwax compaction shouldn't be an issue with them.