CrinEar IEMs by Crinacle

[inselwissen]

apart from the upper treble/air, what makes you say they dont measure relatively similar?

View attachment 513092
They're the same till 6k, daybreak has a more extended treble in the air region and that's pretty much it. The younger you are and the better hearing you have, the more you'll appreciate daybreak. Otherwise the zero 2 is superb if you dont care too much about 15khz+

I said they do measure similarly. It's just that I usually hear more of a difference between sets that look similar on paper. Maybe due to HRTF differences and the general unreliability of measurements in the treble region?

Between these two sets, I hear exactly what the graph says. You summed it up well: The Daybreak extends further in the high treble. My hearing is okay for my age, so that makes a difference to me. Also, the Zero:2 is spicier in the mid treble, which accounts for the sibilance issues I sometimes have with it in stock form.

Both are easily remedied via EQ but it's commendable that Crinacle refined his recipe so that these adjustments aren't needed at all with his newest release.

 

[Jiraya369]

I said they do measure similarly. It's just that I usually hear more of a difference between sets that look similar on paper. Maybe due to HRTF differences and the general unreliability of measurements in the treble region?

Between these two sets, I hear exactly what the graph says. You summed it up well: The Daybreak extends further in the high treble. My hearing is okay for my age, so that makes a difference to me. Also, the Zero:2 is spicier in the mid treble, which accounts for the sibilance issues I sometimes have with it in stock form.

Both are easily remedied via EQ but it's commendable that Crinacle refined his recipe so that these adjustments aren't needed at all with his newest release.

sorry it seems im legally blind

 

[inselwissen]

sorry it seems im legally blind

No worrries. "Similar" is a moving target anyways. I feel the devil is in the details more often than not.

 

[heraldo_jones]

apart from the upper treble/air, what makes you say they dont measure relatively similar?

View attachment 513092
They're the same till 6k, daybreak has a more extended treble in the air region and that's pretty much it. The younger you are and the better hearing you have, the more you'll appreciate daybreak. Otherwise the zero 2 is superb if you dont care too much about 15khz+

I own both, and I can confidently say they don’t sound alike at all. The Daybreaks have a much more refined and detailed sound, along with a much better soundstage and stereo imaging. You can hear microdetails far more clearly on the Daybreaks.

The Zero 2 cost me €23, while the Daybreaks were €128… and for me, the difference is absolutely justified, especially if you’re someone who doesn’t just hear music, but truly listens to it. Still the Zero 2 are a great value for the price and has been a daily driver for me and still are for a lot of people I've gift them.

PS: AZLA SednaEarfit Origin eartips are a great partner with Zero 2.

 

[inselwissen]

I own both, and I can confidently say they don’t sound alike at all. The Daybreaks have a much more refined and detailed sound, along with a much better soundstage and stereo imaging. You can hear microdetails far more clearly on the Daybreaks.

The Zero 2 cost me €23, while the Daybreaks were €128… and for me, the difference is absolutely justified, especially if you’re someone who doesn’t just hear music, but truly listens to it. Still the Zero 2 are a great value for the price and has been a daily driver for me and still are for a lot of people I've gift them.

PS: AZLA SednaEarfit Origin eartips are a great partner with Zero 2.Confirmation bias?

This reads a bit like confirmation bias, especially if we're using vague terms like "microdetails" and "imaging". If anything, the Zero:2 should have a MORE detailed sound than the Daybreak because of the sharper mid treble profile.

I do agree that the Daybreak sounds more refined than the stock Zero:2 due to the relaxed mid treble and airier presentation. Saying they don't sound alike at all is going a bit far, though. The general sound profile is very similar.

 

[heraldo_jones]

This reads a bit like confirmation bias, especially if we're using vague terms like "microdetails" and "imaging". If anything, the Zero:2 should have a MORE detailed sound than the Daybreak because of the sharper mid treble profile.

I do agree that the Daybreak sounds more refined than the stock Zero:2 due to the relaxed mid treble and airier presentation. Saying they don't sound alike at all is going a bit far, though. The general sound profile is very similar.

I’m sorry, but I think you’re quite mistaken about how sound is represented — and it has very little to do with the frequency response curve alone. Let me explain:

1. Having more treble does not automatically mean something will sound more detailed. It will simply sound brighter. Detail and brightness are not the same thing.
2. Two headphones (and this applies to speakers as well) can measure identically in frequency response yet still sound different if they use different driver configurations. When properly implemented, as I believe is the case with the Daybreak, having a dedicated driver for a specific frequency range can improve perceived microdetail in that region. Of course, the ability to perceive that microdetail varies from person to person, but I personally can hear it.
3. The same principle applies to imaging/soundstage (their ability to represent depth and spatial layering) and stereo width. In my experience, a single dynamic driver IEM will never match the imaging capability of a well-implemented hybrid. The Zero 2 have rather poor imaging, while the Daybreak perform noticeably better. And others, like the Punch Audio Martilo, are simply exceptional, at a level you wouldn’t typically expect from an IEM.

Honestly, people who assume that perceived detail directly correlates with frequency response either haven’t had much hands-on experience with a wide range of gear — especially higher-end equipment, or simply don’t have the trained listening ability to distinguish those differences.

pd: no pun intended.
pd2: for me refined means detail, not relaxed.

 

[Jiraya369]

I own both, and I can confidently say they don’t sound alike at all. The Daybreaks have a much more refined and detailed sound, along with a much better soundstage and stereo imaging. You can hear microdetails far more clearly on the Daybreaks.

The Zero 2 cost me €23, while the Daybreaks were €128… and for me, the difference is absolutely justified, especially if you’re someone who doesn’t just hear music, but truly listens to it. Still the Zero 2 are a great value for the price and has been a daily driver for me and still are for a lot of people I've gift them.

PS: AZLA SednaEarfit Origin eartips are a great partner with Zero 2.

you believe in technicalities, if you want to talk about made up terms head-fi is the best place

but if you want to talk about what actually happens, best start believing in FR, most importantly the FR that hits your ear drums as that is what you hear. Everything else is just placebo.

 

[inselwissen]

This post reads a little Head-Fi, from the unsubstantiated claims to the casual personal attacks on my scope of reference/experience with audio. Why is that always the first line of defense?

Maybe your ears hear more than a measurement rig does or maybe it's confirmation bias coupled to a false sense of self worth. ("I personally can hear it")

I don't even disagree that FR measurements, however accurate, don't tell the whole story. Soundstage/imaging is also down to the distance and angle of the drivers, openness of the baffle etc., but that's specific to over-ears.

What mechanism is there for two different closed IEMs with similar insertion depths to differ in their sense of space if not frequency response?

 

[heraldo_jones]

you believe in technicalities, if you want to talk about made up terms head-fi is the best place

but if you want to talk about what actually happens, best start believing in FR, most importantly the FR that hits your ear drums as that is what you hear. Everything else is just placebo.

I don't know your audio journey but, sadly, you have literally learned nothing.

 

[heraldo_jones]

This post reads a little Head-Fi, from the unsubstantiated claims to the casual personal attacks on my scope of reference/experience with audio. Why is that always the first line of defense?

Maybe your ears hear more than a measurement rig does or maybe it's confirmation bias coupled to a false sense of self worth. ("I personally can hear it")

I don't even disagree that FR measurements, however accurate, don't tell the whole story. Soundstage/imaging is also down to the distance and angle of the drivers, openness of the baffle etc., but that's specific to over-ears.

What mechanism is there for two different closed IEMs with similar insertion depths to differ in their sense of space if not frequency response?

Then why is it that if I EQ all of them to the META curve, using the same tips and the same insertion depth, they still retain different sonic characteristics and their technical performance remains different?
According to your logic, they should sound identical and have the same spatial presentation and technical capabilities, but they clearly don’t.

 

[Jiraya369]

I don't know your audio journey but, sadly, you have literally learned nothing.

I don't know YOUR audio journey but, sadly, you have literally learned nothing

 

[inselwissen]

Then why is it that if I EQ all of them to the META curve, using the same tips and the same insertion depth, they still retain different sonic characteristics and their technical performance remains different?
According to your logic, they should sound identical and have the same spatial presentation and technical capabilities, but they clearly don’t.

Measurement rigs are still not 100 % reliable in the treble frequencies and show differing results from seating to seating because positioning and seal is slightly different every time. Then there's curve smoothing and also unit variation to contend with. Your specific IEM might not be identical to the IEM of the same model someone else measured, however well. Just look at the L&R variations on Squiglink. Even well-matched pairs differ slightly from side to side.

And that's not even introducing the HRTF stemming from your unique anatomy. You hear differently from everyone else in the world, including the B&K 5128 that was likely used to measure your set of IEMs.

Plus, AutoEQ is great but not infallible. The typical 10 bands might not be enough to match the curve 100 %.

Even if you managed to match one IEM to another 100 %, the way you are presenting on here tells me you probably wouldn't be able to leave your biases at the door. You're hearing with your eyes, based on ad copy and conventional audiophile wisdom (read: subjectivist nonsense).

As Jiraya369 said: In the end, it's the frequency response that hits your eardrums. How the specific audio product goes about producing that response says nothing about its quality.

FR measurements are not infallible but they are the best tools we have to quickly and objectively assess the performance and sound profile of a piece of audio hardware. They are also great starting points for EQ when paired with a preference curve you know appeals to you. In the end, everything needs to be hand-tweaked to the way you yourself hear sound. No tool can do that for you, you gotta learn to do it yourself.

In the end, not being able to match one IEM to another for your own ears is a skill issue. But you seem to have a more expensive list of gear than me, which I guess equates to more miles traveled on the AUDIO JOURNEY™ so what do I know?

 

[sq225917]

Well, noise, sensitivity, FR, volume dependant harmonic distortion, IMD, ear fit, driver delay offset, and a whole bunch of other things.

You could have two different iems that measure with identical FR in-fixture, but each could give totally different FR in your ear based solely on geometric differences in their fit...

 

[CedarX]

Well, noise, sensitivity, FR, volume dependant harmonic distortion, IMD, ear fit, driver delay offset, and a whole bunch of other things.

You could have two different iems that measure with identical FR in-fixture, but each could give totally different FR in your ear based solely on geometric differences in their fit...

Correct. Though totally different FR may be a little exaggerated for IEMs.

 

[muza_1]

I leave this link here it explains a lot and the bibliography (all sorts of related scientific papers, studies and tests) is in the "pages" link on top.

Myths & Misconceptions

The following section covers a few myths and misconceptions that are popular, and whether or not they have any validity.

iem-eq-guide.pages.dev

Personally I think is better to learn how to EQ than buying endless sets trying to find one that works perfectly for you (a lesson that cost me a lot of time and money).

 

[FTB]

CrinEar Meta measurements from Oratory.

index/list_of_presets - oratory1990

r/oratory1990: Mostly covering topics like headphones, in-ear headphones, acoustics, electroacoustics, acoustic tuning, headphone design …

www.reddit.com

 

[Somafunk]

The meta was a nice sounding iem but I sold mine on here recently as I had only used it for a few hours at most, I’m now down to 3 iem’s and to be honest after not listening to any of them for the previous 6+months I could quite happily go down to just one.

 

[inselwissen]

I leave this link here it explains a lot and the bibliography (all sorts of related scientific papers, studies and tests) is in the "pages" link on top.

Myths & Misconceptions

The following section covers a few myths and misconceptions that are popular, and whether or not they have any validity.

iem-eq-guide.pages.dev

Personally I think is better to learn how to EQ than buying endless sets trying to find one that works perfectly for you (a lesson that cost me a lot of time and money).

Oh, that's a great resource. Would have saved me from typing up the post above. Bookmarked.

 

[confucius_zero]

Bumping the DRE-off question again. Can it be turned off on this dongle?

 

[Bernard23]

Fwiw I've got old ears and prefer the daybreak over the Zero 2. I also prefer the Zero Red over the Zero 2 as well. Although I use EQ on one portable system I don't on the other as it's a real faff to change between IEMs. The zero 2 are sat in my drawer barely used.