• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

7Hz x Crinacle Zero:2 IEM Review

Rate this IEM:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 7 1.6%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 12 2.8%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 53 12.3%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 358 83.3%

  • Total voters
    430
If it's not tuning then it's distortion (there's really not much else that can affect sound quality on IEMs). I haven't seen any measurements of the T10, but considering how very low the distortion of the Zero 2 are my guess would be that the T10 have higher distortion that might "spice" it up in a way that you prefer, though objectively that would make them have less clarity.
Though I'm pretty sure the tonality of the the Zero 2 and T10 do differ as well, so then I guess it's a combination of both frequency response and distortion.
You make good points. Please hear me out.

1. Frequency Response is definitely important and the graphs of most of the devices, we discuss on ASR, are out there for us to compare. on Squig.link, if one of the reviewers has measured any two devices we wish to compare.

2. Distortion. Unfortunately, there has not been any really detailed measurements of the T10, and it would be instructive, if one could check the measurements of other similar planar magnetic IEM's that have been measured on ASR, or elsewhere, cos, if the anecdotes of many online reviewers, is to be believed, most of the Chinese designed and manufactured planar magnetic IEM's use very similar drivers, made by the same source. They add their own shells, and maybe customise the driver a bit differently, using vents, and nozzles, and the specific eartips supplied, but the fundamentally the drivers are very similar. So one may deduce the kind of distortion that the T10 is likely to have, by examining any available data, from its siblings. I'll try and find the time to trawl through ASR's archive to see what is there.

So here we are talking about Harmonic Distortion, i.e typically some kind of resonance, where certain frequencies are amplified abnormally. But the challenge with distortion as I understand it, from the world of speakers, is that the human ear is quite tolerant of a lot of distortion.

Furthermore distortion is usually worse, when audio is played back louder, so much of the distortion in the kinds of measurements published on ASR, are kind of theoretic, cos, at normal listening levels, most IEM's have negligible distortion. And its only when measured above like 100dB SPL, that any appreciable distortion is seen in the published data. So for IEM's predominantly distortion, is a bit of a non-issue, as some would say, academic. Nice for education discussion, but in reality, does not have an audible impact.

I bought the Zero 2, cos of its really low published distortion, expecting that to be a significant factor, but as my own listening has confirmed, this low distortion does NOT confer on the Zero 2, the superior transparent sound signature, that I had hoped for.

3. Time Domain. For some reason, I keep trying to narrow down the observation of a transducers (i.e something that converts electric energy to audio) behaviour in speakers, headphones, IEM's etc, etc, and something that keeps ringing in my mind is this - how come two different products, even when they have been tuned to the same target curve, using EQ, in my case, I use AutoEQ.app, how come they still sound different. So Frequency Response alone, and this is why all the attempts to EQ budget IEMs, cannot introduce the quality of higher value products, there has to be something more than just frequency response.

I am familiar, in the speaker world, with time domain measurements like the waterfall and impulse response, which provide additional information about two things.

3.1 The coherence of bass and treble - probably also better visualised via something known as the group delay. Poor group delay implies that the bass is kind of slow, and you hear it a little bit later than the treble. Good group delay, implies that the timing, i.e the start of the production of bass and treble sounds, is closer, ideally this delay should not exist, i.e bass sounds and treble sounds are produced instantaneously at the same time. I posit that the technology of some products, limits their ability to achieve this ideal, and that is what some of us are hearing in the Zero 2. What I would call a sluggish driver. So what we hear is NOT in sync. Our ear then has to work harder to reconstruct the cohesion of the bass and treble, cos of the time delay, and this affects how we hear the audio.

3.2 The waterfall show us if we have any ringing, also a kind of resonance, but this one is time based, in any frequencies, like an extension of the sound. I.e when a sound should have stopped, it does not, and what is known as the decay, is extended. It could be that many of us are too familiar with this over extension in the time domain, especially of bass frequencies, which is common in dynamic drivers. We hear this as MORE bass, but actually what this is, is MORE inaccurate bass. But if we are accustomed to this. when we hear more accurate bass from products like the T10, at first it sounds insufficient, cos the problem is - we have been listening to the wrong thing for many years, and we now need to relearn, what proper bass should sound like - quick attack, and also a quick decay. 3.1 above deals with the attack, and 3.2, this paragraph, deals with the decay.

I am pretty confident, if I, an untrained amateur audio sleuth, can think of this, the experts here and elsewhere are fully aware of what I am talking about, and it could be that this is one of the reasons the impulse response and waterfall are NOT published. They would immediately let the cat out of the bag.

In my experience, with speakers, simply looking at about 4 or 5 measurements, tells you everything you need to know. Frequency Response, Waterfall, Impulse Response, Group Delay, Harmonic Distortion, and Directivity, and without listening to a speaker, you can make a well informed decision to shortlist, which speakers are worth auditioning OR NOT, and probably make a purchase decision, without hearing the speaker, and NOT be disappointed. Cos these measurements strongly correlate to perceived audio quality.

I suspect - if we had these kinds of measurements for IEM's, its game over, we would have similar objective data, that explains, exactly why one should avoid or buy an IEM.

I am confident, we will get there soon. If enough of us badger people like AmirM, about this.

On a positive note, the kind of testing he has done, and others also have done, on DACS and Amps, has achieved a similar objective, we can purely on the basis of measurements, confidently pick what to buy, cos the measurements correlate to what we expect to hear. This has forced the manufacturers to stop playing around and focus on improving their products.

I am very confident, with savvy buyers like many here, and increasingly more savvy reviewers, like AmirM, the gang at Headphones.com, and others, over the next period, we will eventually arrive at a point where we do not need comments about how something sounds, just a look at the measurements, tells us what we need to know. No need for all that subjective mumbo jumbo, of many reviewers. Well their mumbo jumbo subjective opinions are good for entertainment. !!

The better sounding IEM's will also have better time domain behaviours, and I so look forward to reading and seeing these measurements., which will put to bed, all the arguments and differing opinions, in the same way that that has already occured with DACs and AMPs.

I look forward to when we have even more breakthroughs in personalised HRTF's. From those who have had the opportunity to have theirs measured, I understand that this takes headphone listening to another level, more. So maybe the IEM in future just has to be flat frequency, and with a personalised HRTF, via DSP(i.e EQ in DSP), we can conform this to what sounds best for us. Maybe the IEM is NOT the ideal place for simulating HRTF's which is what's taking place, at this time.
 
Last edited:
Again I can only guess since I haven't seen any measurements of the Volare, but you most probably prefer the tuning of them compared to the Zero 2, and this subjective difference can very much be EQed. So of course you get better subjective performance for more money if you're not interested in tweaking anything yourself, but on an objective scale there's really hard to get anything better by spending more than the Zero 2 :)
Oddly , these 2 iem measure very closely together , certainly up to 4k. But add in sighted listening , possible fit and comfort differences and of course the possibility it was pure trolling , it illustrates the pointlessness of simply comparing iem a and b
graph.png
 
Gotta love it when people are talking about soundstage in iems.
I feel the same about the wonderful flying experience I get from bicycles.
There is an important discussion to be had with regard to sound stage. Some of this is academic, cos there is not much we can do about it., in the IEM/Headphone.

Clearly compared to speakers, the stereo field of headphones and iems, is just so much wider. With speakers, one has a much smaller angle, with headphones/IEM's its 180 degrees or almost 180 degrees apart, from left to right. No one places speakers 180 degrees apart.

Then to state the obvious, there is no crossfeed to our other ear, as we have with speakers. There is nothing any headphone designer can do about it. Nothing.

What I also think makes it worse, is that, the more accurate and resolving, the device one is listening to, the easier it becomes to hear this super wide stereo field. My better or best IEMs, are the ones that, because of their refined accuracy, and exactness, make the difference between left and right, so much more audible, and seemingly wider, in a virtual sense, cos at the end of the day, all of this is psychoacoustics after all. Our brains have to reconstruct these stereo signals into some virtual perception of reality.

Clearly we need tools such as crossfeed emulators, to alter our virtual perception we receive from compromised devices, like headphones/IEMs, to counteract this extreme wideness. But that is outside the scope of the headphones or IEM's themselves. This is a work in progress, and like all human endeavour, anytime soon, we may have products that do this extremely well. Hint Hint. Research in ambisonics and binaural representation of multi-channel audio, to headphones, is getting better. e.g some of what Apple has already achieved.

These products address the missing crossfeed, possibly also add some room reflections simulation, as in a real room, move the sound out of our heads to somewhere outside the head - virtually, from a psychoacoustic perception point of view. Finally they can also modify the azimuth, which is the height of the audio image. Cos it's psychoacoustics, research is ongoing, cos we are still learning about human hearing.

There is a wonderful free product (well its good to donate to him, cos that' show he makes a living), by a maverick - Chris @ AirWindows - a plugin called CANS, which I highly recommend. Using this in my audio chain, takes how I hear audio on IEMs/Headphones, up a notch. Unfortunately like many things, there is a learning curve, and each person has to dial in the settings that work best for their own ears. The defaults did not work for me. But I'm happier with my own custom settings.


If I may conclude, the IEM is just one thing in the chain. Eartips, proper placement in the ear, EQ and crossfeed/room virtualisation, take even the best device, to another level., and on ASR we place far too much emphasis on the Headphone/IEM itself.

In real life, we would not install speakers in a room with highly reflective surfaces, without putting up some absorption/diffraction, so same thing with IEM's, they are just one of the things we need to deal with, just one. Wish there was much more focus on the opportunities that these other factors in the audio chain, can introduce.
 
There is an important discussion to be had with regard to sound stage. Some of this is academic, cos there is not much we can do about it., in the IEM/Headphone.

Clearly compared to speakers, the stereo field of headphones and iems, is just so much wider. With speakers, one has a much smaller angle, with headphones/IEM's its 180 degrees or almost 180 degrees apart, from left to right. No one places speakers 180 degrees apart.

Then to state the obvious, there is no crossfeed to our other ear, as we have with speakers. There is nothing any headphone designer can do about it. Nothing.

What I also think makes it worse, is that, the more accurate and resolving, the device one is listening to, the easier it becomes to hear this super wide stereo field. My better or best IEMs, are the ones that, because of their refined accuracy, and exactness, make the difference between left and right, so much more audible, and seemingly wider, in a virtual sense, cos at the end of the day, all of this is psychoacoustics after all. Our brains have to reconstruct these stereo signals into some virtual perception of reality.

Clearly we need tools such as crossfeed emulators, to alter our virtual perception we receive from compromised devices, like headphones/IEMs, to counteract this extreme wideness. But that is outside the scope of the headphones or IEM's themselves. This is a work in progress, and like all human endeavour, anytime soon, we may have products that do this extremely well. Hint Hint. Research in ambisonics and binaural representation of multi-channel audio, to headphones, is getting better. e.g some of what Apple has already achieved.

These products address the missing crossfeed, possibly also add some room reflections simulation, as in a real room, move the sound out of our heads to somewhere outside the head - virtually, from a psychoacoustic perception point of view. Finally they can also modify the azimuth, which is the height of the audio image. Cos it's psychoacoustics, research is ongoing, cos we are still learning about human hearing.

There is a wonderful free product (well its good to donate to him, cos that' show he makes a living), by a maverick - Chris @ AirWindows - a plugin called CANS, which I highly recommend. Using this in my audio chain, takes how I hear audio on IEMs/Headphones, up a notch. Unfortunately like many things, there is a learning curve, and each person has to dial in the settings that work best for their own ears. The defaults did not work for me. But I'm happier with my own custom settings.


If I may conclude, the IEM is just one thing in the chain. Eartips, proper placement in the ear, EQ and crossfeed/room virtualisation, take even the best device, to another level., and on ASR we place far too much emphasis on the Headphone/IEM itself.

In real life, we would not install speakers in a room with highly reflective surfaces, without putting up some absorption/diffraction, so same thing with IEM's, they are just one of the things we need to deal with, just one. Wish there was much more focus on the opportunities that these other factors in the audio chain, can introduce.

“Then to state the obvious, there is no crossfeed to our other ear, as we have with speakers. There is nothing any headphone designer can do about it. Nothing.”

There are multiple crossfeed DSP solutions you can try. I started out with the Mathaudio Headphone EQ VST plug-in on Windows, and now I use a Qudelix 5K amp/dac.
 
Oddly , these 2 iem measure very closely together , certainly up to 4k. But add in sighted listening , possible fit and comfort differences and of course the possibility it was pure trolling , it illustrates the pointlessness of simply comparing iem a and b View attachment 415425
But those differences can clearly affect what we perceive as clarity and spatial effect, and incidentally that 5k-10k boost combined with the light recession in 60-300hz region is precisely what I normally perceive as more clear and expansive.
 
Oddly , these 2 iem measure very closely together , certainly up to 4k. But add in sighted listening , possible fit and comfort differences and of course the possibility it was pure trolling , it illustrates the pointlessness of simply comparing iem a and b
And, even if measured on a B&K 5128, it still doesn’t say much about (human) heads sensitivity: without EQ, one may find the Volare better—closer to ideal, personal target—or not than the Zero:2.
 
2. Distortion. Unfortunately, there has not been any really detailed measurements of the T10, and it would be instructive, if one could check the measurements of other similar planar magnetic IEM's that have been measured on ASR, or elsewhere, cos, if the anecdotes of many online reviewers, is to be believed, most of the Chinese designed and manufactured planar magnetic IEM's use very similar drivers, made by the same source. They add their own shells, and maybe customise the driver a bit differently, using vents, and nozzles, and the specific eartips supplied, but the fundamentally the drivers are very similar. So one may deduce the kind of distortion that the T10 is likely to have, by examining any available data, from its siblings. I'll try and find the time to trawl through ASR's archive to see what is there.

We have something to compare here

DD (Zero:2)
index.php


Planar (MP145)
index.php


Both excellent

3. Time Domain. For some reason, I keep trying to narrow down the observation of a transducers (i.e something that converts electric energy to audio) behaviour in speakers, headphones, IEM's etc, etc, and something that keeps ringing in my mind is this - how come two different products, even when they have been tuned to the same target curve, using EQ, in my case, I use AutoEQ.app, how come they still sound different. So Frequency Response alone, and this is why all the attempts to EQ budget IEMs, cannot introduce the quality of higher value products, there has to be something more than just frequency response.

I am familiar, in the speaker world, with time domain measurements like the waterfall and impulse response, which provide additional information about two things.

3.1 The coherence of bass and treble - probably also better visualised via something known as the group delay. Poor group delay implies that the bass is kind of slow, and you hear it a little bit later than the treble. Good group delay, implies that the timing, i.e the start of the production of bass and treble sounds, is closer, ideally this delay should not exist, i.e bass sounds and treble sounds are produced instantaneously at the same time. I posit that the technology of some products, limits their ability to achieve this ideal, and that is what some of us are hearing in the Zero 2. What I would call a sluggish driver. So what we hear is NOT in sync. Our ear then has to work harder to reconstruct the cohesion of the bass and treble, cos of the time delay, and this affects how we hear the audio.
here too

DD (Zero:2)
index.php


Planar (MP145)
index.php


practically identical response (as almost all iems tested)

It's a very limited sample that can't have significance, but as it is, this says that the great difference you perceive between Zero 2 and T10 and that you automatically generalize to DD vs Planars should not be related to distortion\group delay.
 
Oddly , these 2 iem measure very closely together , certainly up to 4k. But add in sighted listening , possible fit and comfort differences and of course the possibility it was pure trolling , it illustrates the pointlessness of simply comparing iem a and b View attachment 415425
Close yes, but enough difference to be heard as a difference in "clarity" and can as I said be EQd to match eachother.
 
With that exception, things like speakers and headphones, and IEM's have had, and continue to have, so much room for improvement. And that is where we have to separate ourselves from nostalgia. Many of the speakers made in recent times, are either cheaper, smaller or better (or all of the above), compared to some of the speakers made many years ago. And the same thing applies to headphones and IEMs.

I think one should not sell all old gear. But keep one or two of the best examples, so that when we compare them to what is new, and current, we can appreciate the improvement.

I love the Zero 2, for only one major reason, it helps me appreciate how good, the alternative like the ARTTI T10 is. And how much better the Zero 2 is, compared to some other inferior IEMs like the KZ ZVX. In the same way that we have museums, that make us appreciate the progress of humanity, by keeping a record of the past, I think it is important to keep some example from the past, to appreciate how much better, things can be.
Idk if IEM manage to improve to the point, that they can get more from smaller size, but I tried to mimic a bit the sound of my tuned EX1000 and I found great results.
I have my eye on ARTTI T10 or mp145, but rumors about the lack of consistency pains me.

I am buying stuff mostly after selling others to not freeze to much cash in gadgets, so I have excuse for buying them ;)

My love for Zero2 is starting to grow after experimenting with EQ. I tried to make EQ to somehow match my tuned ex1000 and another EQ based on some online stuff.
EQ from Qudelix 5k:
Bypass some filters, especialy bass, coz the hangoutaudio`s graph did not give results like I wanted
CH: 0
TYPE: PEQ
Preamp: 0.0 dB
Xfeed: 1 0
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 20 Hz Gain -3.0 dB Q 0.500 can be decent, but turn it off (1)
Filter 2: ON LS Fc 145 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 0.880 turn it off (1)
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 200 Hz Gain -1.7 dB Q 1.200 keep it most of the time, based on amirm review. (2)
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3179 Hz Gain -2.1 dB Q 1.300
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5270 Hz Gain 4.0 dB Q 3.500
my error which is bypassed
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 7100 Hz Gain -1.2 dB Q 5.500
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7671 Hz Gain -0.6 dB Q 5.000
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8245 Hz Gain 3.3 dB Q 9.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 10800 Hz Gain 9.0 dB Q 5.000 Bring it down to 7.8 (2)
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 1400 Hz Gain 0.4 dB Q 2.000 not important, but it stays (2)
My second saved EQ is with these, but turned off "(1)" and switched values to "(2)", so I fastly can switch between them. But probably I need to tune bass somehow, coz without (1) it makes music to heavy at times.
Here is a screenshot of my last result - (2). I have to use blue tips for better fit. When keeping (1) for light sound then it gets a lot of space to breath, when you compare turned off and on EQ. It is day and night difference to me.... exaggerated a bit ;)
1734803164628.png
 
Last edited:
There is an important discussion to be had with regard to sound stage. Some of this is academic, cos there is not much we can do about it., in the IEM/Headphone.

Clearly compared to speakers, the stereo field of headphones and iems, is just so much wider. With speakers, one has a much smaller angle, with headphones/IEM's its 180 degrees or almost 180 degrees apart, from left to right. No one places speakers 180 degrees apart.

Then to state the obvious, there is no crossfeed to our other ear, as we have with speakers. There is nothing any headphone designer can do about it. Nothing.

What I also think makes it worse, is that, the more accurate and resolving, the device one is listening to, the easier it becomes to hear this super wide stereo field. My better or best IEMs, are the ones that, because of their refined accuracy, and exactness, make the difference between left and right, so much more audible, and seemingly wider, in a virtual sense, cos at the end of the day, all of this is psychoacoustics after all. Our brains have to reconstruct these stereo signals into some virtual perception of reality.

Clearly we need tools such as crossfeed emulators, to alter our virtual perception we receive from compromised devices, like headphones/IEMs, to counteract this extreme wideness. But that is outside the scope of the headphones or IEM's themselves. This is a work in progress, and like all human endeavour, anytime soon, we may have products that do this extremely well. Hint Hint. Research in ambisonics and binaural representation of multi-channel audio, to headphones, is getting better. e.g some of what Apple has already achieved.

These products address the missing crossfeed, possibly also add some room reflections simulation, as in a real room, move the sound out of our heads to somewhere outside the head - virtually, from a psychoacoustic perception point of view. Finally they can also modify the azimuth, which is the height of the audio image. Cos it's psychoacoustics, research is ongoing, cos we are still learning about human hearing.

There is a wonderful free product (well its good to donate to him, cos that' show he makes a living), by a maverick - Chris @ AirWindows - a plugin called CANS, which I highly recommend. Using this in my audio chain, takes how I hear audio on IEMs/Headphones, up a notch. Unfortunately like many things, there is a learning curve, and each person has to dial in the settings that work best for their own ears. The defaults did not work for me. But I'm happier with my own custom settings.


If I may conclude, the IEM is just one thing in the chain. Eartips, proper placement in the ear, EQ and crossfeed/room virtualisation, take even the best device, to another level., and on ASR we place far too much emphasis on the Headphone/IEM itself.

In real life, we would not install speakers in a room with highly reflective surfaces, without putting up some absorption/diffraction, so same thing with IEM's, they are just one of the things we need to deal with, just one. Wish there was much more focus on the opportunities that these other factors in the audio chain, can introduce.
Sure you can get a sense of space if you hook your iems or headphones up to something like the Smyth Realiser or similarly to some room plug-in, but then we are not talking about just the sound of the iem as the previous poster was refering to. Soundstage in iems is nonsensical unless you simulate a fake one via dsp or something similar before the signal reaches the iems.
I judge iems purely on sound quality, which also means fit and comfort. Outside of frequency response, your individual ear canals and in some rare cases distortion (we are generally really poor at picking up distortion - especially when music is playing), I’m not sure there are other meaningful parametres to the sound of your iem.
What does seem to play a huge part in all of this is the psychological aspect of sighted listening. When most people know and see that they’re listening to either a super expensive iem or indeed what they consider to be a superior transducer in either planar or BA drivers, the mind has a tendency to do the actual legwork, not the ears.
 
We have something to compare here

DD (Zero:2)


Planar (MP145)


Both excellent


here too

DD (Zero:2)


Planar (MP145)


practically identical response (as almost all iems tested)

It's a very limited sample that can't have significance, but as it is, this says that the great difference you perceive between Zero 2 and T10 and that you automatically generalize to DD vs Planars should not be related to distortion\group delay.
One thing not compared here is IMD with a multitone signal. Personally, I don't believe a multi-driver IEM, or an IEM using using exotic driver tech, would measure that differently from a single DD IEM - but it would be nice to see this proven once and for all.
 
One thing not compared here is IMD with a multitone signal. Personally, I don't believe a multi-driver IEM, or an IEM using using exotic driver tech, would measure that differently from a single DD IEM - but it would be nice to see this proven once and for all.
When deciding for Red versus Hexa versus May the worst in regard to IMD was that with the most drivers, ironically. The investigation was about a second one, while the best in all criteria I know of was already chosen. The Zero:2, namely. In case an e/q is available there seems to be no need to pick another one. Lesson learned, May donated the dsp/dac cable, hindering the return.
 
The sound stage, the clarity and the spatial representation cannot be adjusted with EQ, that is not possible! It is always the same bla bla from the people here.. I can't take the forum seriously.. it is an "ASR Cult".. nothing more.
Have you tried different tips? My ears are crap but similarly crap (albeit different in the low bass) and proper sonics are achieved if a good seal is achieved. If not, the low bass disappears and the sound goes tinny as a result.
 
We have something to compare here

DD (Zero:2)
index.php


Planar (MP145)
index.php


Both excellent


here too

DD (Zero:2)
index.php


Planar (MP145)
index.php


practically identical response (as almost all iems tested)

It's a very limited sample that can't have significance, but as it is, this says that the great difference you perceive between Zero 2 and T10 and that you automatically generalize to DD vs Planars should not be related to distortion\group delay.
I will admit, now I am a bit perplexed. After the excellent comparisons you have presented.

Why? I had no expectations, of what the Zero 2 or the T10 would sound like, NONE. Never owned anything like them before (well except a few KZ/CCA cheapie IEM's). So have to think again, what can it be? My point is, I had no bias, when listening to these. NONE. Really expected the Zero 2 to be superb, cos of the many reviews, so many more than the T10. One sounds just so so much more clear and lifelike and like a veil has been removed, and its the T10. Hopefully one day, I'll discover why it sounds just so much clearer to me. Right now, I cannot think of anything. More study and reflection needed.
 
I will admit, now I am a bit perplexed. After the excellent comparisons you have presented.

Why? I had no expectations, of what the Zero 2 or the T10 would sound like, NONE. Never owned anything like them before (well except a few KZ/CCA cheapie IEM's). So have to think again, what can it be? My point is, I had no bias, when listening to these. NONE. Really expected the Zero 2 to be superb, cos of the many reviews, so many more than the T10. One sounds just so so much more clear and lifelike and like a veil has been removed, and its the T10. Hopefully one day, I'll discover why it sounds just so much clearer to me. Right now, I cannot think of anything. More study and reflection needed.
We still haven't seen any measurements on the T10, but juding from your words I bet they are a few dB louder in the treble. Try doing a high shelf on you Zero 2 and see if you can't get it to sound closer to the T10.
 
We still haven't seen any measurements on the T10, but juding from your words I bet they are a few dB louder in the treble. Try doing a high shelf on you Zero 2 and see if you can't get it to sound closer to the T10.
Trust me, I've tried everything on the Zero 2. Now I'm wondering, maybe I have a bad sample, i.e. my copy of this IEM may be defective, cos I'm definitely NOT hearing the goodness that others revel about on these IEMs. It's not bad, just not spectacular. Who knows what the issue with mine is?

I spent hours, a whole ago trying to improve the stock sound with eartips, and EQ. Eartips helped - I'm using the Clarion TRI - Large. But all the EQ in the world, can't bring the Zero 2 anywhere near the clarity I hear on the T10. I have no regrets, fortunately I did not spend a fortune on the Zero 2 (bought when it was on sale). I'll keep it, as a lesson in IEMs!!
 
We still haven't seen any measurements on the T10, but juding from your words I bet they are a few dB louder in the treble. Try doing a high shelf on you Zero 2 and see if you can't get it to sound closer to the T10.
It's hard to describe, cos the only word I know to describe it is Clarity. Wish there was a way to measure that. Or maybe the T10 fits my own HRTF more. Who knows, I'm exhausted with trying to understand WHY. Given up. Right now I just look forward to spending far too many hours listening to a lot of music, I could not afford to own copies of when I was younger, on streaming platforms like Spotify, and working on building a small collection of the best of them, by purchasing a few of the best on actual CD's so I can listen to them locally, at the highest quality, without the compulsory lossy compression of Spotify.

I.e. Reached a bit of a zenith with IEM's after the T10, and trying out the Zero 2, and now just want to enjoy listening, and give the buying and going down the rabbit hole of quality, a break. Otherwise it becomes a bit like a compulsion, probably like gambling, where the victory is always round the corner.

Have come to a crossroad.

1. DACs - we are fortunate, and thanks to the work done by those on ASR and other review centric folks, the manufacturers have had to listen and respond and up their game. I'm more than satisfied with what I have now. Unless one listens in a cave with no ambient noise whatsoever, investing in any better, the improvement will be most likely be inaudible, subjective or confirmation biased. Yes really good DAC's can be obtained for very little money - less than $50, with definitely more than enough headphone amplification, for most IEM's and many headphones. NO more DAC buying., for a while. And if I do, it's not for any improvements in quality, but maybe convenience, like setting up another listening system, in another part of the house or for when I am out of the house/travelling. There will always be better DAC's which measure better, and better, over time, as DAC chips get cheaper and they keep on piling them into units, as dual, and quad, and octo implementations, which naturally improve the measurable sonics..

2. IEM's - same, the T10 is so far ahead of anything I have ever heard, that I can afford. So no more searching. There will always be better. I'd have loved to get the S12 2024, and I'll probably hate myself for not purchasing it now, cos it is a limited edition, but I just feel I do not agree with the deliberate marketing gimmick of a limited edition. It's just wrong, I do not like to be pressured into doing anything. I'll take the risk, and wait for the non limited version of whatever Letshouer or others, release in the next generation of Planar Magnetics.

3 Headphones - tempted to buy one of these - FiiO FT1 Pro, HiFiMan - HE400SE, Sundara, Edition XS, or Ananda Nano. But looks like these will be just a nice to have. The idea of a bulky thing on my head is no longer one I cherish, after experiencing the light weight of IEMs. Maybe sometime in the future. But for now, I'll just make do with what I have - an AKG K702. No more succumbing to the grass is greener elsewhere.

So easy to get sucked into the vortex, chasing the next best thing. There will always be better. And one forgets the purpose for all this gear - actually listening to audio/music. Discovered today, one can get cables which cost a whole lot more than the T10, just for cables. And eartips from Pentaconn with Brass or Aluminium cores, and silicon surrounds, costing a small fortune. (not too expensive - less than $20 - for a left/right pair). Question is, one just has to stop somewhere, and stop the chasing, of what may just be side grades, not really upgrades.

Reminds me of what I read somewhere about audiophiles - as people who using music to test their gear (some witty thing like that), when the real pleasure is not owning the gear, but being able to listen to the music/audio, I hope.

And rather than keep climbing up the IEM price ladder, time to invest some of that money to buy the CD's of the music I enjoy, so I can listen to them at max quality, without having to pay streaming media subscriptions. For anything outside of the library of music I own, the free Spotify will have to do. Its good enough for browsing, and discovering new music.
 
Of course the zero:2 isn‘t spectecular. It‘s supposed to be neutral, right? The goodness is it is not to be heared for itself. You mentioned to have measured speakers once. You may want to do the like with IEMs. Some coupler is easily built. I made one in 5 minutes. It won‘t meet the standards in regard to ear canal length, but that is an individual measure anyway. For some critical comparison of what You accept as superior to what You consider as clearly and doubtless inferior it may be good enough. At least it would clarify if Your personal sample is off. Finally it would for sure save You some hours of listening without the pleasure You long for, collecting speculations on downsides of the marvel in discussion.

ps
: I personally appreciate the effort to scrutinize a product, that may indicate of what can be done at any price, setting a scary final standard of excellence for close to nothing in money and engineering. Nxt may be to address the to a person quite individual pipe resonances in-ear, esther actively or by mech/acoustic filters …
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OK1
It's hard to describe, cos the only word I know to describe it is Clarity. Wish there was a way to measure that. Or maybe the T10 fits my own HRTF more. Who knows, I'm exhausted with trying to understand WHY. Given up.
I got way more clarity on Zero2 with my half assed EQ miminicing graph of mdr-ex1000 up to something like 12000 hz. It is fine enough to the point I do not care, but still there are few problems with this EQ, coz it does not translate so well, especially in some tracks.
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 20 Hz Gain -3.0 dB Q 0.500
Filter 2: OFF PK Fc 145 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 0.880 LShelf for evenless bass if needed
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 200 Hz Gain -1.7 dB Q 1.200
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3179 Hz Gain -2.1 dB Q 1.300
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5270 Hz Gain 4.0 dB Q 3.500
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 7100 Hz Gain -1.2 dB Q 5.500
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7671 Hz Gain -0.6 dB Q 5.000
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8245 Hz Gain 3.3 dB Q 9.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 10800 Hz Gain 7.8 dB Q 5.000
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 1400 Hz Gain 0.4 dB Q 2.000

And here is a preset EQ made for Zero2, which I found in Qudelix 5k. It seems to work better, when the first one has problems:
Filter 1: ON LS Fc 105 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 0.700
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 6290 Hz Gain 4.3 dB Q 0.720
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 182 Hz Gain -2.3 dB Q 1.030
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1916 Hz Gain -1.7 dB Q 0.500
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 855 Hz Gain 1.8 dB Q 1.590
Filter 6: ON HS Fc 10000 Hz Gain 0.9 dB Q 0.700
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 67 Hz Gain 0.4 dB Q 2.530
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7224 Hz Gain -1.2 dB Q 5.840
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 5811 Hz Gain 0.8 dB Q 5.070
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 3871 Hz Gain -0.3 dB Q 2.410
 
Back
Top Bottom