Truthear x Crinacle Zero:RED IEM Review

[asrUser]

But I JUST got the Blues...

I returned them.

 

[mc.god]

Sep 14, 2022 TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero
May 20, 2023 Truthear x Crinacle Zero:RED
It only takes 9 months for a new generation with notable improvement.

Well, the exact opposite of human race

(me being grumpy old fart)

 

[Jimbob54]

Do you have a link for that eq post please? (or do you mean you would like him to do one?)

The eq from zero to red in crins vid is this btw

 

[Aperiodic]

Happy little accident! I'm more agreeable with AE/OE 2018 than any of the IE targets anyways...

Would the 100Ω impedance at low fequencies present a problem to what is referred to in these parts as the "$9 phone dongle"? That device, which always goes unnamed here despite earning a recommendation, puts 31-32mw into 32Ω... Is that going to be enough? Sounds as if the tweaks to the signature would be to my liking (I have the 1st gen). I do have an amp but also use my phone direct and have more limited power there and no practical parametric EQ option.

 

[Aperiodic]

Any out of phase reflection causes nulls that are non-minimum phase.

The difference between 'minimum phase' and 'linear phase' might be a good topic for a video

 

[Tks]

What is the point in showing measured group delay over excess group delay? Isn't anything in measured group delay visible in the magnitude response for minimum phase systems?

I saw your video the other day, I got a quesiton. Why do any of your complaints matter in the slightest with respect to all the "harshness" you talk about? With distortion this low, you can basically EQ this to your hearts content. Given someone does this - can there even be any sound complaints after that point?

Also how can you hear beyond 20kHz given that you're in your early 20's I assume?

 

[markanini]

I never got the Kiwi Ears Cadenza, but it is only $35 and damn close to the Red:View attachment 286962

If your subjective sound impressions are like mine, the Cadenza is just OK compared to similarly priced Truthear and Moondrop products.

 

[Robbo99999]

@amirm I have observed something for which I'd like to know what your opinion on it would be, and if you would be interested in doing a little experiment to clarify it if you don't mind.

First I'd like to single out the rather low sample variation among the samples @crinacle has measured so far, this seems to be quite excellent ! Congrats to Truthear and Crinacle for this.

View attachment 286998

What I noticed is that in the 1-6kHz region, ASR's measurements seem to deviate quite a bit from the rest of the measurements that have been published so far :
View attachment 286999
Now unless ASR stumbled on an outlier, I think that it can be presumed for now that sample variation isn't causing this.

A few precisions first on the measurement rigs (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) :

- Crinacle uses a clone coupler with metal canal extension, but has the means to compare it to an original GRAS coupler I believe, and can compare the metal canal extension with the pinna (KB500x, 43AG).
- Resolve uses a GRAS RA0402 high res coupler with the metal ear canal extension, but can also compare the results with a KB500x anthropometric pinna, mounted in a 43AG.
- Listener uses a clone coupler with the metal ear canal extension
- VSG uses a clone coupler with the metal ear canal extension, but can also compare the results with a clone KB0065 pinna.
- ASR uses a GRAS 45CA with high-res coupler and anthropometric KB501x pinnae. Interestingly, unless I'm mistaken, these are directly coupled to the coupler with a fairly simple screw-in thread that is different from how the KB500x couples to GRAS couplers when using the 43AG / KEMAR format.

Other precisions :
- "A" is the part of the spectrum I'm mostly interested in here.
- I would ignore the wiggles pointed by the arrows ("B"). They could possibly be caused by the IEMs not being stabilised well enough in the anthropometric pinna. This can usually be more or less successfully be solved by using putty to better couple IEMs to the pinna or metal canal extension.
- The differences seen at higher frequencies ("C") can arise from various factors such as insertion depth, use of a high-res original coupler vs regular original coupler or clone couplers (different damping), or the use of different tips. I would not over-analyse this region, this isn't what I'm concerned with here.

A few months ago I purchased a couple of the newer, softer clone pinnae that have recently appeared on Aliexpress. Unlike the previous, stiffer pinnae that aimed at cloning the KB0065 pinnae, these are a copy of the KB501x anthropometric pinnae (not the KB500x anthropometric pinnae !). Just like the original KB501x pinnae (don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong here !), they directly couple to the clone couplers via a simple screw in system :
View attachment 287019

Well I found myself quite puzzled by the results when comparing these clone KB501x pinnae with the metal canal extension, as they seemed to boost the response in the 1-6kHz region - sufficiently so that I have so far found them not useful for IEM measurements. Here is one of my clone couplers (not a good one, but that's not important for this post's subject), with one of my Moondrop Chu, comparing the response using the metal canal extension and the clone KB501x pinna :

View attachment 287023

Two observations :
- The use of the clone KB501x pinna dampens the resonance around 8kHz, compared to the metal ear canal extension.
- More relevant to the subject : it boosts the response in the 1-6kHz region in a way that trends strikingly similarly to ASR's measurements of the Zero Red vs other measurements.

It took me a while to start having an idea as to what could cause that, until I had an epiphany and introduced a ring of soft silicone deep into the metal ear canal extension :
View attachment 287024

This is the result, compared to the two traces above :
View attachment 287025
This isn't a 1:1 equivalent to the use of the pinna, but similar trends have emerged : a dampening of the resonance, and a boost around 1-6kHz (mainly 3-6kHz here).

I observed that when screwing the clone KB501x pinna into the clone coupler, it would create a choke point that is not too dissimilar from the choke point the silicone ring creates inside the metal canal extension. This is a photo of the clone KB501x pinna screwed into the external body of a disassembled clone coupler, seen from the coupler's point of view :
View attachment 287026

Now I'd be surprised that an original GRAS test rig would suffer from such an issue, and at first I simply put the issues I encountered with these clone couplers and pinnae to the most plausible hypothesis that "clones suck". I also am not certain that a similar discrepancy exists between all 45CA-10 measurements and measurements performed with metal canal extensions or 43AG/KB500x combos, so maybe this is just a coincidence. But some issues with pinna to ear simulator coupling have already been experienced with original GRAS equipment, so I don't think that it can be fully ruled out either.

Do you you confirm that the 45CA + KB501x system uses a similar, plain screw-in system to couple the pinna to the coupler ? Do you think that it would be interesting to check how the Red Zero would measure using only the coupler and metal canal extension, and compare the results with how they measure using the KB501x pinna ?

Nice post! But a simple question, which is the most relevant setup to use when deciding to use the IE 2019 v2 Target Curve that Amir is using? If both metal canal extension and KB501x pinna differ that significantly in 1-6kHz then which is the one that is relevant to the IE 2019 v2 Target Curve, and I suppose that would come down to which version was used during the creation of the IE 2019 v2 Target Curve?

 

[markanini]

Nice post! But a simple question, which is the most relevant setup to use when deciding to use the IE 2019 v2 Target Curve that Amir is using? If both metal canal extension and KB501x pinna differ that significantly in 1-6kHz then which is the one that is relevant to the IE 2019 v2 Target Curve, and I suppose that would come down to which version was used during the creation of the IE 2019 v2 Target Curve?

Valid question. I though the Harman IE target was developed on a GRAS RA0045 coupler, but I'm going of memory so I can't be 100% certain.

However, I believe the meat or MayaTlabs post was about modifying a IEC 60318-4 coupler to prevent movement that causes erroneous treble energy in the graph.

 

[MayaTlab]

Nice post! But a simple question, which is the most relevant setup to use when deciding to use the IE 2019 v2 Target Curve that Amir is using? If both metal canal extension and KB501x pinna differ that significantly in 1-6kHz then which is the one that is relevant to the IE 2019 v2 Target Curve, and I suppose that would come down to which version was used during the creation of the IE 2019 v2 Target Curve?

The latest published article (2017 IE target) used a GRAS RA0045 + metal ear canal extension. To my knowledge silicone pinnae were never used by Harman for their IEM research.

I really want to emphasise the "if" bolded above : I'm just openly speculating here and it's entirely possible that the difference noticed between Amir's measurements and others has a different origin. But for once we can presume that we have a low enough sample variation with a particular IEM that it's not entirely unfounded to raise the question "why are the results different ?".

Valid question. I though the Harman IE target was developed on a GRAS RA0045 coupler, but I'm going of memory so I can't be 100% certain.

However, I believe the meat or MayaTlabs post was about modifying a IEC 60318-4 coupler to prevent movement that causes erroneous treble energy in the graph.

I'm just wondering, based on my experience with sh*tty clone couplers and pinnae using a similar direct screw-in coupling mechanism as original GRAS couplers + KB501x anthropometric pinnae, whether, quite surprisingly to me if that were proven (would GRAS really let such a thing happen ?), ASR's system is facing the same issue or not around 1-6kHz.

GRAS couplers + KB500x anthropometric pinnae are mounted differently.

In addition to this, ASR could experiment with putty to stabilise the IEMs in the pinna, but that's just in an attempt to address the wiggles you can occasionally see at low frequencies (typically around 100-200Hz), and is good practice when measuring IEMs, whether in any pinna on any test fixture, or in the metal canal extension. Not the main subject of my post .

Since Amir is well positioned to directly compare the KB501x pinna and the metal canal extension, perhaps this could enlighten us in regards to the cause of that difference. Or maybe my hypothesis is wrong, it's much ado about nothing, and the difference is caused by something else.

 

[JRS]

Sounds reasonable.

Me neither. Higher price, that is, maybe a bit better cable and accessories, but besides that? The market really turned insanly the last 1-2 years. Amazing. We had it for cheap DACs, then IEMs, missing are speakers and partly headphones.

I'd include speakers, not exclude. You look at the Elac Debut Reference--for a while selling at 450/pr (last I looked up to 700). Under a grand you have solid offerings from PSB, Revel, Sonus Faber, SVS, Focal, Magnepan, JBL, Adam, other Elac models, and B&W, along with several plug and play highly rated actives. It's a cornucopia of very high value speakers for one to two times as much as a the cost of a pair of JBL L-100's, AR 3A's, or Advent's in the 70's. Meanwhile 8 bucks today is about a buck then.

 

[johnp98]

Very impressive measurements and product!

I almost did a 'buy now and think later' with these, but since it would take until mid June to get them I did some searching and it seems like there are tons of great IEM. Anyways, I did not want to derail this review thread with comparisons so I started a new thread and poll over here and would appreciate any thoughts or opinions.

 

[Rottmannash]

>Should be a jail able offense.

No more than having your stereo loud. Or, heaven forbid, driving while deaf.

I believe it is illegal to drive with earbuds or HP's on here in backwards Tennessee, but like many laws isn't enforced. I see folks every day driving around w/ Airpods in their ears-maybe Apple should have painted them flesh-colored to cloak these wearers.

 

[maverickronin]

They do look often ridiculous but don't worry about it. If you live in a place with more than a few thousand others then nobody cares how you look Sorry, but they don't. Walk down any city street with different coloured IEMs and see how much notice anyone takes. None. Obviously if you're wearing a Rolex people will notice that and follow you and rob you but IEMs? Nope. Nobody cares.

I don't really care what other people think, but I care how I look and what are practically giant rhinestone earrings are off the table.

Basically I'm just surprised these look like costume jewelry when they are marketed towards young and middle aged men.

I really like the look of the Kato, the shell and the cable. The FR is only okish, but still a classic IEM.

I find those much less offensive (at lease in silver or matte steel), but I recognize it's a personal decision.

Some of us wouldn't be seen dead wearing headphones or these little earphones at all in public. Not into isolating myself from my surroundings when out and about.

You actually get used to wearing them pretty fast and then don't find yourself isolated from your surroundings.

At least if you're not blasting music so loud you couldn't hear your surroundings anyway. I mostly use mine for podcasts and audiobooks.

 

[asrUser]

Very impressive measurements and product!

I almost did a 'buy now and think later' with these, but since it would take until mid June to get them I did some searching and it seems like there are tons of great IEM. Anyways, I did not want to derail this review thread with comparisons so I started a new thread and poll over here and would appreciate any thoughts or opinions.

You never know until you try them. As amirm said just skip some meals and get 'em!

 

[Jimbob54]

I don't really care what other people think, but I care how I look and what are practically giant rhinestone earrings are off the table.

Basically I'm just surprised these look like costume jewelry when they are marketed towards young and middle aged men.

How do you know they aren't marketed towards ladies?

*Looks at packaging*

Oh, right. Yeah. Umm.

On a serious note, the only IEM I can really wear whilst mobile are Ety ER// . Nothing else stays put with my flat footed heavy stomping.

 

[asrUser]

On a serious note, the only IEM I can really wear whilst mobile are Ety ER// . Nothing else stays put with my flat footed heavy stomping.

I had some Jabra Elite TWS and they withstood shaking like no other In-Ears!

 

[Robbo99999]

The latest published article (2017 IE target) used a GRAS RA0045 + metal ear canal extension. To my knowledge silicone pinnae were never used by Harman for their IEM research.
View attachment 287065

I really want to emphasise the "if" bolded above : I'm just openly speculating here and it's entirely possible that the difference noticed between Amir's measurements and others has a different origin. But for once we can presume that we have a low enough sample variation with a particular IEM that it's not entirely unfounded to raise the question "why are the results different ?".



I'm just wondering, based on my experience with sh*tty clone couplers and pinnae using a similar direct screw-in coupling mechanism as original GRAS couplers + KB501x anthropometric pinnae, whether, quite surprisingly to me if that were proven (would GRAS really let such a thing happen ?), ASR's system is facing the same issue or not around 1-6kHz.

GRAS couplers + KB500x anthropometric pinnae are mounted differently.

In addition to this, ASR could experiment with putty to stabilise the IEMs in the pinna, but that's just in an attempt to address the wiggles you can occasionally see at low frequencies (typically around 100-200Hz), and is good practice when measuring IEMs, whether in any pinna on any test fixture, or in the metal canal extension. Not the main subject of my post .

Since Amir is well positioned to directly compare the KB501x pinna and the metal canal extension, perhaps this could enlighten us in regards to the cause of that difference. Or maybe my hypothesis is wrong, it's much ado about nothing, and the difference is caused by something else.

The metal ear canal extension seems like the more bonafide method then, and yes it would be interesting for Amir to do that work you suggested to see what's going on.

 

[Maiky76]

Here are some thoughts about the EQ.


Notes about the EQ design:

• The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
• The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
• A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
• The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve (and other constrains) with a fixed complexity.
  This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score.
  It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be therefore more neutral.
• The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF and maybe at HF).
• The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
• I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
• With some HP/amp combo, the boosts and preamp gain (loss of Dynamic range) need to be carefully considered to avoid issues with, amongst other things, too low a Max SPL or damaging your device. You have beed warned.
• Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit. YMMV with regards to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.
• I sometimes use variations of the Harman curve for some reasons. See rational here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-review-headphone.28244/page-5#post-989169
• https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-review-headphone.28244/page-6#post-992119
• NOTE: the score then calculated is not comparable to the scores derived from the default Harman target curve if not otherwise noted.
• Occluding IE devices generally must have very good fitting/seal in the user's ear canal for best performance.
  please spend a few minutes to pick up the best ear tip... Be sure to perform this step otherwise the FR/Score/EQ presented here are just worthless.
• 1. more bass = better seal
  2. More isolation from the outside world = better fit
  3. Comfort

Good L/R match.


I have generated thre EQ, the APO config file is attached.

Score no EQ: 82.4%
Score Min EQ: 92.5%
Score Full EQ: 97.1%

All you probably need

Truthear x Crinacle Zero RED Harman Min EQ
May202023-214346

Preamp: -3 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 33.26 Hz Gain 2.77 dB Q 0.27
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 8343.57 Hz Gain 3.1 dB Q 0.82
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 13467.71 Hz Gain -4.8 dB Q 4.74

View attachment 286805
Over the Top...

Truthear x Crinacle Zero RED Harman Full EQ
May202023-214121

Preamp: -4.4 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 30.26 Hz Gain 2.82 dB Q 0.27
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 155.16 Hz Gain 1.79 dB Q 1.82
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 909.79 Hz Gain -1.12 dB Q 0.27
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 693.18 Hz Gain 1.83 dB Q 1.77
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2399.17 Hz Gain 1.83 dB Q 3.3
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 8437.11 Hz Gain 6.43 dB Q 1.18
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8163.94 Hz Gain -4.71 dB Q 5.96
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 13464.71 Hz Gain -5.78 dB Q 4.74

View attachment 286807
The following scores are not comparable to the others as the Harman target was substituted by the Knowles target.

Truthear x Crinacle Zero RED Knowles EQ
May202023-213853

Preamp: -9.8 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 27.34 Hz Gain 2.91 dB Q 0.27
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 155.57 Hz Gain 1.85 dB Q 1.71
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1062.22 Hz Gain -1.31 dB Q 0.27
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 701.33 Hz Gain 2.02 dB Q 1.77
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2330.15 Hz Gain 1.32 dB Q 3.56
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 4090.86 Hz Gain -1.66 dB Q 2.64
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 13465.04 Hz Gain 10.78 dB Q 0.52
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 8221.25 Hz Gain -3.64 dB Q 5.91
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 13134.63 Hz Gain -3.55 dB Q 6.3

View attachment 286809

For @GaryH the results of the TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero Red with inline resistor

Scores with the inline resistor
Score no EQ: 82.5%
Score Mini: 92.2%
Score Full EQ: 96.4%

As a reminder here are the scores without the inline resistor
Score no EQ: 82.4%
Score Min EQ: 92.5%
Score Full EQ: 97.1%

TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero Red with inline resistor Harman Min EQ
May222023-012033

Preamp: -3.5 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 9606.9 Hz Gain 3.71 dB Q 0.57
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 13178.15 Hz Gain -5.53 dB Q 5.74



TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero Red with inline resistor Harman Full EQ
May222023-012232

Preamp: -4.6 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 303.84 Hz Gain -1.18 dB Q 3.87
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 11199.57 Hz Gain 3.65 dB Q 0.85
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 11431.43 Hz Gain -3.65 dB Q 2.8
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2449.92 Hz Gain 1.17 dB Q 3.69
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 4200.48 Hz Gain -1.36 dB Q 2.77
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 8600.92 Hz Gain 5.74 dB Q 0.98
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8275.1 Hz Gain -5.17 dB Q 4
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 13388.67 Hz Gain -6.19 dB Q 4.55

Probably all you may need

Probably overkilled

 

[eret9616]

how about truthear hexa compare to this?