7Hz x Crinacle Zero:2 IEM Review

[Bow_Wazoo]

Yesterday I compared the Zero 2 with the Blessing 3.

The JVC FX9 were used as tips.
Both IEMs were set to Crinacle's 4620 preset.

It was a short fight.

In my opinion, the Blessing 3 doesn't stand a chance. The bass in particular seems much more detached and at the same time, more energetic on the Zero 2. In the highs, the B3 seems just as lacking in detail as its predecessor.

There are tracks, such as Amberland - Oberlisk, where you can hardly believe your ears. At 1:30 min., a "hissing" sample starts. This noise is well above 10 kHz. While it can be heard clearly and distinctly on the Zero 2, it disappears almost completely on the Blessing 3! Even when I increase the FR above 10kHz by 4 dB!
It's hard to believe. I experienced exactly the same thing with the Blessing 2.

This comparison has once again shown me,
how incredibly good the Zero 2 is.
As already mentioned, I consider the FX9 tips and the 4620 preset to be a must.

 

[Doltonius]

Yesterday I compared the Zero 2 with the Blessing 3.

View attachment 364227

The JVC FX9 were used as tips.
Both IEMs were set to Crinacle's 4620 preset.

It was a short fight.

In my opinion, the Blessing 3 doesn't stand a chance. The bass in particular seems much more detached and at the same time, more energetic on the Zero 2. In the highs, the B3 seems just as lacking in detail as its predecessor.

There are tracks, such as Amberland - Oberlisk, where you can hardly believe your ears. At 1:30 min., a "hissing" sample starts. This noise is well above 10 kHz. While it can be heard clearly and distinctly on the Zero 2, it disappears almost completely on the Blessing 3! Even when I increase the FR above 10kHz by 4 dB!
It's hard to believe. I experienced exactly the same thing with the Blessing 2.

This comparison has once again shown me,
how incredibly good the Zero 2 is.
As already mentioned, I consider the FX9 tips and the 4620 preset to be a must.

I think something's wrong; first, they shouldn't sound very different if eq'ed to the same target based on the 4620; second, in crinacle's own measurement of the two iems, blessing 3 clearly has better treble extension out of the box:

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

That's the difference between theory and practice.
There are many members, especially in the ASR, who are of the opinion, that once we've talked about the FR and distortion, everything has been said.
I obviously don't agree with that.

Yesterday I compared the FH3 with the FH5s. Both were also adjusted to the 4620 preset.
And yes, of course, these two sound noticeably different.

But to be honest, I'm actually fed up with this fundamental discussion...

 

[Doltonius]

That's the difference between theory and practice.
There are many members, especially in the ASR, who are of the opinion, that once we've talked about the FR and distortion, everything has been said.
I obviously don't agree with that.

Yesterday I compared the FH3 with the FH5s. Both were also adjusted to the 4620 preset.
And yes, of course, these two sound noticeably different.

But to be honest, I'm actually fed up with this fundamental discussion...

The thing wrong could be about the first part of what I said. Which is that, even the 4620 is not accurate enough, resulting in different frequency responses after eq-ing. With distortion and phase-accuracy out of the way (which is the case with most decently made iems these days), there is really little else that could explain a noticeable difference in perception other than undetected frequency response differences. If they were the same frequency response at your eardrum, then it is literally impossible that a hissing noise is audible on one but not the other even after boosting the treble by 4db.

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

Ultimately, I don't have a better explanation.
And I just accept it as a given.
I use the best measurement results/presets that we have, and transfer them to the corresponding in-ears. But the journey doesn't end here. Because, as I said, I notice differences, which I then evaluate.