7Hz x Crinacle Zero:2 IEM Review

[Heinrich]

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

My Zero:2, e/q’ed to older Harman, is currently used by somebody else. She complained about too much clarity, flipping over to hardness with choral works, recorded in an elder European cathedral.

The original tuning of the Zero:2, very much like the :Red, follows Crinacle‘s individual preferrence for less ‚clarity‘ centered at 6kHz. Some recordings may have this area exaggerated for artistic reasons, while speakers and even headphones benefit from this trick. Once You e/q the IEM to ‚flat‘ the very direct sound of it, no additional diffusors, reflections, makes the extra trick stand out as ‚hard‘. Confirmed by us via sighted listening test

 

[staticV3]

My Zero:2, e/q’ed to older Harman, is currently used by somebody else. She complained about too much clarity, flipping over to hardness with choral works, recorded in an elder European cathedral.

Is she certain that she's getting a good seal?

If the eartips do not fully seal, then bass response is lost and the sound becomes unbalanced.

 

[Heinrich]

Is she certain that she's getting a good seal?

If the eartips do not fully seal, then bass response is lost and the sound becomes unbalanced.

Thank‘s, and sure, it is a subtle effect only. We concluded it is the recording with a quite common trick to make it sound sharp over speakers/headphones. IEMs seem to reveal it as that trick it is.

 

[OK1]

Is she certain that she's getting a good seal?

If the eartips do not fully seal, then bass response is lost and the sound becomes unbalanced.

So true. 1st law of IEM's, and headphones - Fit.

May I again, point others to your wonderful StaticV3 Target, which is what my ARTTI T10 EQ correction, targets.

 

[OK1]

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

The UK have this wonderful saying. You cannot polish a turd. Me I have given up. Saving up for potential augments, if I can justify the expense.

Better to start with a good product, then use EQ to make it even better, or refine to one's personal preference. There seems to be a consensus, if one believes what is touted by public opinion, why I do not know, that planars respond better to EQ.

If I could afford it.

Step up to things like, one of these :

1. Letshouer S12 2024
2. 7Hz Timeless 2
3. Artti T10 Pro
4. Letshouer S15
5. Hidizs MP145 (if one has large enough ear canal openings, to accomodate this big baby)

If budget does not permit, then one may make do with :

1. KZ PRX
2 KZ PR3 - for those who like bright sounding planar timbre, albeit anecdotally, the PR3 needs a long break-in period - of several weeks to tame some of the harsh high end, according to a respected U-Tube reviewer.
3. Sgor Lunar

Of course there are others, these are the ones I immediately recall., to mind.

 

[CedarX]

The UK have this wonderful saying. You cannot polish a turd. Me I have given up. Saving up for potential augments, if I can justify the expense.

Better to start with a good product, then use EQ to make it even better, or refine to one's personal preference. There seems to be a consensus, if one believes what is touted by public opinion, why I do not know, that planars respond better to EQ.

If I could afford it.

Step up to things like, one of these :

1. Letshouer S12 2024
2. 7Hz Timeless 2
3. Artti T10 Pro
4. Letshouer S15
5. Hidizs MP145 (if one has large enough ear canal openings, to accomodate this big baby)

If budget does not permit, then one may make do with :

1. KZ PRX
2 KZ PR3 - for those who like bright sounding planar timbre, albeit anecdotally, the PR3 needs a long break-in period - of several weeks to tame some of the harsh high end, according to a respected U-Tube reviewer.
3. Sgor Lunar

Of course there are others, these are the ones I immediately recall., to mind.

So all these posts in the Zero:2 thread to end up saying that planar IEMs are the only good products and the only viable step-up from these inexpensive, turd (your word) IEMs?

 

[OK1]

So all these posts in the Zero:2 thread to end up saying that planar IEMs are the only good products and the only viable step-up from these inexpensive, turd (your word) IEMs?

Only giving examples, I am confident of. Of course there are others. I obviously have not heard ALL the IEM's in the world, but after hearing the T10, and knowing that the other "budget" planar IEM's are all based around the same or similar drivers, confident that any purchase from that list will NOT be a disappointment. i.e based on the T10 that I have heard myself and am quite satisfied with.

 

[Heinrich]

So true. 1st law of IEM's, and headphones - Fit.

May I again, point others to your wonderful StaticV3 Target, which is what my ARTTI T10 EQ correction, targets.

The target, and me not taking care of fit, when assessing the sound quality of an IEM. I was talking about the target, and that it might be dependend on the recording. Sound engineers have some tricks under the sleeve which sound different over an IEM compared to speaker/cans.

It is about subjective preferrence, though, and I leave it at that, because I don't see any good reason to prefer a technical construction detail, the 'planar' as such. It lives and is kept tightly hidden in the shell, until the device gets defunct ... but I like it working

 

[CedarX]

Only giving examples, I am confident of. Of course there are others. I obviously have not heard ALL the IEM's in the world, but after hearing the T10, and knowing that the other "budget" planar IEM's are all based around the same or similar drivers, confident that any purchase from that list will NOT be a disappointment. i.e based on the T10 that I have heard myself and am quite satisfied with.

From your list, I own Hidizs MP145 and KZ PR3. I also have the OG 7Hz Timeless, the Artti T10 (non-Pro), 4 other Planar IEMs from various brands, and a few of these micro-planars & unusual configurations using planars.

Have I been disappointed? No… but each one gets better for me with some EQ—sometime quite a bit of EQ!

Are they definitely better than Zero:2 + EQ for me? No, not really… So, my experience does not align with your here (totally fine!).

Would I buy the Arrti T10-Pro? Maybe… but I doubt I’ll hear something revolutionary new.

BTW, my preferred planar—entirely subjective—may be the long discontinued iSine 10 with EQ (without EQ, it just sounds garbage to me).

 

[Dazerdoreal]

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

I dont think it is that close. Comparing @300hz, the differences in tuning are bigger than they seem at first.
The Zero2 looks a bit dull in the mid treble by comparison.

The Volare looks like an extremely well-tuned IEM. I would like to hear it.

Crinacle's 5128 Graph Tool | Hangout.Audio

Compare graphs from the world's largest public database of ITU-T P.57 Type 4.3 IEM measurements, maintained by Crinacle.

graph.hangout.audio

 

[Tell]

The UK have this wonderful saying. You cannot polish a turd.

Yeah that's a good saying, except that no one in their right mind would call the Zero 2 a turd.

 

[Heinrich]

Yeah that's a good saying, except that no one in their right mind would call the Zero 2 a turd.

O/k, thing is, the 'planar' technology is ascribed some not yet measured properties. Those are not even put to terms, let alone meaningful terms. But there is a strong preference for 'planar' anyway. Clear and strong preference is appreciated, but it is subjective, a matter of some individual's set of criteria and their weighting (doesn't need numbers) that conversely cannot be imposed on others.
I don't see the point in discussing potentional shortcomings of the zero:2 if, see above, words are missing except for it not being 'planar'. Actually, its objective excellence in the outcome, the acoustics namely, left me speechless.

btw: I've got two 'planars' at hand, a pair of cans and an IEM also ...

 

[Tell]

O/k, thing is, the 'planar' technology is ascribed some not yet measured properties. Those are not even put to terms, let alone meaningful terms. But there is a strong preference for 'planar' anyway. Clear and strong preference is appreciated, but it is subjective, a matter of some individual's set of criteria and their weighting (doesn't need numbers) that conversely cannot be imposed on others.
I don't see the point in discussing potentional shortcomings of the zero:2 if, see above, words are missing except for it not being 'planar'. Actually, its objective excellence in the outcome, the acoustics namely, left me speechless.

btw: I've got two 'planars' at hand, a pair of cans and an IEM also ...

Oh, so it's the magic argument? And no one can even describe it, it's just there for subjectivists to point to so they can disregard measurements altogether?
Tbh the only "magic" that's in any way real here is our brains with all it's biases, we really don't fully understand it but it's definitely there doing all sorts of weird things.

 

[OK1]

Yeah that's a good saying, except that no one in their right mind would call the Zero 2 a turd.

Maybe it's my copy of the Zero 2 that's faulty.

I gave it one more opportunity yesterday. I volunteer as an audio engineer, for a church. Again I did my best to use the Zero 2 as my headphone for monitoring during the meeting yesterday. It just was not working for me. swapped it out for the T10. Instant joy. Relief.

I have had a similar experience with the CCA Polaris. My copy sounds like absolute junk, the worst head listening unit I have ever heard, worse than the 1st earbuds I bought in the late 1980's. That bad. Yet reviewers say this is one of the best of the earlier generation of single DD driver IEM's made by KZ/CCA.

Someone else on ASR had to return his own copy of the T10, cos it sounded terrible.

So I am in my right mind, when I say that the Zero 2, the one I have had for over a month, sounds just OK, nothing more. Not spectacular. Your mileage may vary.

There is no need for you to be disrespectful to others, like me, over a discussion on these things. It's just an IEM, nothing more.

This is an important point, the potential of sample variations, in these "budget" listening devices, there is so much opportunity for differences in listening experience, due to inconsistencies, from poor quality control.

These should not lead to rancour here. Please we are better than that.

 

[Heinrich]

Oh, so it's the magic argument? And no one can even describe it, it's just there for subjectivists to point to so they can disregard measurements altogether?
Tbh the only "magic" that's in any way real here is our brains with all it's biases, we really don't fully understand it but it's definitely there doing all sorts of weird things.

I'm not the least against bias, because that's what the preference assessment is about. The only other theory on matching headphones to individuals and to the production in the studio fails, in my honest opinion. But then the preference again, it is a personal choice and cannot, other than statistically, be applied to anybody else. Peoples' brains are not (all) weired, but (mostly) just different, which I actually appreciate.

Maybe it's my copy of the Zero 2 that's faulty.

As suggested before, best to verify the suspect. I literally rolled my own measurement rig. A thick paper cone that at one end encompasses the measurement microphon, the other end gives room to the ear plug of the IEM. for a snug fit The cone hence has openings of about 7mm (mic) and 12mm (IEM) respectively, having a free inner length of 17mm. I hear You laughing, but it's enough to estimate the bass shelf, the general balance in comparison for different models,, undue ringing ('waterfall'), distortion, intermodulation; basically all You asked for before. Let alone indentifying an off-center device in any aspect. In parts I based my recent and final choices on that. The Zero:2 bested, by the way, and the May (a planar) I kept for the equalizable cable.

If You simply don't like the zero:2 for any good, but personal reason, why bother with it so long now, what is the question?

 

[OK1]

I'm not the least against bias, because that's what the preference assessment is about. The only other theory on matching headphones to individuals and to the production in the studio fails, in my honest opinion. But then the preference again, it is a personal choice and cannot, other than statistically, be applied to anybody else. Peoples' brains are not (all) weired, but (mostly) just different, which I actually appreciate.


As suggested before, best to verify the suspect. I literally rolled my own measurement rig. A thick paper cone that at one end encompasses the measurement microphon, the other end gives room to the ear plug of the IEM. for a snug fit The cone hence has openings of about 7mm (mic) and 12mm (IEM) respectively, having a free inner length of 17mm. I hear You laughing, but it's enough to estimate the bass shelf, the general balance in comparison for different models,, undue ringing ('waterfall'), distortion, intermodulation; basically all You asked for before. Let alone indentifying an off-center device in any aspect. In parts I based my recent and final choices on that. The Zero:2 bested, by the way, and the May (a planar) I kept for the equalizable cable.

If You simply don't like the zero:2 for any good, but personal reason, why bother with it so long now, what is the question?

Lucky you. You have measurement gear for IEMs. If we have to go that far, then this hobby had a real problem. I do not measure the validity of colours on my televisions, or computer monitors, and laptop screens, or projectors. We safely assume that the product is not defective.

If I have to measure an IEM, to prove its defective, then as I said, this is a hobby with real problems. One should not have to be an "engineer" to enjoy a product. I think we should have valid expectations of quality control, from manufacturers.

So its either the entire design of the Zero 2 has issues. or my copy does. That is not my responsibility to determine which is which.

Why post here, my impressions?

To warn others, that all that glitters is not gold. This is one person, me, who has not had a spectacular experience with the Zero 2. This is possible. It's important that others know. Some of us do not have a fantastic experience with the ever popular Zero 2., in spite of all our efforts.

Definitely does not justify investing in analysis gear, to decipher why a $20 IEM, is not meeting expectations.

The forum should be grown up enough to accept dissenting opinions. We are not a herd, who has to accept the popular opinion. I am emphatic, the Zero 2 has not worked for me. But it's not the only IEM, that has not worked. My CCA Polaris, arrived dead on arrival. a horror to listen to. That's the IEM market of 2024, and it's educational to let others know. This is what is going on.

But it's not just IEM's, I've had at least 4 dongle DAC's that are total turds - bought from reputable places including Amazon, 3 which were all advertised as genuine Samsung DAC dongles, and all the 3 were fake. The 4th was a CX31993 based DAC dongle, which I can hear immediately that the frequency response is definitely wonky. I've posted these comments on other threads

So my poor appraisal of the Zero 2 is not exclusive. I have no skin in this game. If the product I got is defective for whatever reason, I'm saying so, so others can know. Same way, I have avoided certain products, having read untoward comments made by others.

This is the current state of the budget "Hi-Fi" market. That is what is out there. Lots of defective products, at last count, for me that's 4 DAC dongles, and 2 IEMs (if I include the Zero 2 cos mine certainly does not sound like anything most others here are reporting !).

Hope it's ok to let others know what is going on, in this marketplace of budget products.

What's interesting is most of the products that have turned out to be a poor experience, were bought based on the tests published here. The 3 Samsung Dongle DACs, and the Zero 2. , all products tested by AmirM

But I have also bought products based on the tests published here, which have turned out to be absolutely fantastic. Like the TempoTec Sonata BHD, which is exactly the same measurements published by the manufacturer, as the TempoTec Sonata BHD Pro, which received an excellent review by AmirM. I have had a fantastic experience with this DAC - awesome sonics. Super reliable, incredible sounding product, that is way better sonically than the Apple dongle(which is not bad - I also bought that based on AmirM's tests.

It's important for all to know, like I said, not all that glitters is gold. AmirM may be supplied with "golden" samples. Who knows. So there is a bit of the luck of the draw involved, when some products he tests, and says are good turn out to be so, and others turn out not to be so, not his fault, but most likely cos there are counterfeit products, or manufactured with poor quality control, in the supply chain. That should not be the consumer's problem. And we need to highlight that here.

Even the most stringent manufacturer, with a perfect watertight supply chain, can have an off day, which is why cars, and other appliances, have recalls!!.

Some of us are not experiencing all the goodness advertised by user comments and disclosed in the objective measurements.

I have proffered a plausible cause. Any products that are well reviewed, are likely to become the subject of counterfeiting, or poor quality control. That may be the cause. In the case of the 3 Samsung dongles, there were tell tale signs, the look of the product did not match, or the sonics were wonky, or the driver did not register in Windows as a Samsung device !!, and things like the stereo were swapped around - Left to Right. Definitely not the same product AmirM tested.!!!

It's 2024. I'm a customer, and I have a right to complain, if the product I bought is unsatisfactory, and does not meet expectations.

 

[CedarX]

Maybe it's my copy of the Zero 2 that's faulty.

Not necessarily…

Zero:2 does not work for you… Fine. Artti T10-Pro works great for you… Also fine! But how are you jumping to an absolute conclusion that Zero:2 is not a good product (a turd…), or you had a defective unit, and Artti T10-Pro and other “reputable” planar IEMs are the only way to go for… everybody?

Zero:2 has a measured FR that is pretty close to the Harman target and has very low distortion. Conditional upon a good fit and good comfort, and based on Harman research (may not be perfect, but still the only science-based reference—not opinion—we have today), Zero:2 should please most, and if not, is EQ-friendly enough (low distortion) to get close to any desired individual target. The fact that it does not please you ‘as-is’ is not unexpected…

Same with CCA Polaris: it didn’t work for you… but it’s probably the best IEM ever for some group of people. How large is that group… I don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter: it’s still ‘a’ group of individuals.

Artti T10-Pro must have an ‘as-is’ FR that matches very well your desired/liked “target”. Great for you, you don’t need to EQ it… but it does not make T10-Pro a superior product.

 

[OK1]

Not necessarily…

Zero:2 does not work for you… Fine. Artti T10-Pro works great for you… Also fine! But how are you jumping to an absolute conclusion that Zero:2 is not a good product (a turd…), or you had a defective unit, and Artti T10-Pro and other “reputable” planar IEMs are the only way to go for… everybody?

Zero:2 has a measured FR that is pretty close to the Harman target and has very low distortion. Conditional upon a good fit and good comfort, and based on Harman research (may not be perfect, but still the only science-based reference—not opinion—we have today), Zero:2 should please most, and if not, is EQ-friendly enough (low distortion) to get close to any desired individual target. The fact that it does not please you ‘as-is’ is not unexpected…

Same with CCA Polaris: it didn’t work for you… but it’s probably the best IEM ever for some group of people. How large is that group… I don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter: it’s still ‘a’ group of individuals.

Artti T10-Pro must have an ‘as-is’ FR that matches very well your desired/liked “target”. Great for you, you don’t need to EQ it… but it does not make T10-Pro a superior product.

Maybe I got lucky, that my ARTTI T10 was one of the non defective IEM's I received. As I said earlier, others have had experiences with obviously defective copies of the ARTTI T10, and had to return them - guess what they bought direct from Amazon, in the same way I also bought a defective, supposedly genuine Samsung dongle, direct from Amazon.!!.

So this is not about specific products, but about the specific copies of the products, I have bought. Some great, others, not so.

The Zero 2 I received did not work, as advertised, or as gushingly praised by so many others. Others did not have the ARTTI T10, work for them, in spite of my gushing praise for this IEM.

It's not about me, many of us are experiencing inconsistencies. I'm not the only one. But maybe, I'm one of the few who dares to swim against the tide, and make an issue of it, one of the few who bothers to make a negative opinion public.

Especially if this is a scientific oriented site, it should be far more accomodating of debate, and contradictory opinions. After all is that not how science is progressed?

There's a reviewer on Youtube, who goes to the trouble of purchasing multiple copies of IEM's, and in some cases he does this over a period of time. Buying copies of the same IEM, to determine how consistent their quality control is. Akros. He's also public about his findings, that IEM's have inconsistencies, which in some cases are significant.

So measurements on ASR, are of the sample item tested, and not representative of what the rest of us buy. That is a fact.

 

[CedarX]

But it's not just IEM's, I've had at least 4 dongle DAC's that are total turds - bought from reputable places including Amazon, 3 which were all advertised as genuine Samsung DAC dongles, and all the 3 were fake.

Read your posts… OT, but I think you fell into the Samsung trap here: Samsung is large enough to do its own thing about USB audio—not every “standard” dongle works with a Samsung phone. This, and the size of the Samsung market, has lead multiple OEMs to develop “Samsung dongles”, as a “dongle-that-has-been-confirmed-to-work-with-Samsung-phones”… but it does mean they are genuine Samsung dongles!

Also read your comment about the CX31993 wonky FR: no measurement? Can you even consider that a perception bias may have played a role?

 

[OK1]

Not necessarily…

Zero:2 does not work for you… Fine. Artti T10-Pro works great for you… Also fine! But how are you jumping to an absolute conclusion that Zero:2 is not a good product (a turd…), or you had a defective unit, and Artti T10-Pro and other “reputable” planar IEMs are the only way to go for… everybody?

Zero:2 has a measured FR that is pretty close to the Harman target and has very low distortion. Conditional upon a good fit and good comfort, and based on Harman research (may not be perfect, but still the only science-based reference—not opinion—we have today), Zero:2 should please most, and if not, is EQ-friendly enough (low distortion) to get close to any desired individual target. The fact that it does not please you ‘as-is’ is not unexpected…

Same with CCA Polaris: it didn’t work for you… but it’s probably the best IEM ever for some group of people. How large is that group… I don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter: it’s still ‘a’ group of individuals.

Artti T10-Pro must have an ‘as-is’ FR that matches very well your desired/liked “target”. Great for you, you don’t need to EQ it… but it does not make T10-Pro a superior product.

Point of correction. My product which I have listened to, and gush about, is the ARTTI T10, which is the predecessor to, and not the ARTTI T10 Pro, you refer to.