InfiniteJester
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2024
- Messages
- 438
- Likes
- 460
-
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!
June 2024 - Need a good transparent sounding IEM - budget $60 max
- Thread starter OK1
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #82
Now with the EQ targets sorted. Struggling to justify - why I need another IEM.
Please where do I find the curve settings, for the Usound target, ideally as a csv or txt file I can upload into AutoEQ?
InfiniteJester
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2024
- Messages
- 438
- Likes
- 460
I usually use Squig.com for that. Some users have USound1v1, others just have Oratory1990. Should be the same thing.
Squiglink - IEM frequency response database by Paul Wasabii
Compare hundreds of frequency response graphs between IEMs and earphones from manufacturers like Moondrop, Sony, 64 Audio, Fiio, and more.
pw.squig.link
For example, Paul Wasabi has measured CCA CRA and CCA CRA+ and allows equalization to Oratory1990.
- Thread Starter
- #84
Compared the CCA CRA's to a new pair of Apple Earbods, I just took out of its box. Can't shrug off a perception that the CCA CRA's either impose a veil reducing the clarity, or the Apple Earpods are adding distortion making things sound more pleasant. The CCA CRA's all of a sudden sound dull by comparison, not as resolving as the Earpods. I am aware that the Earpods do not reach as low into the depths of the sub bass region.
If only I could have both, the low end heft I'm getting from the CCA CRA's with the openness and top end clarity of the Apple Earpods in the same headphone.
I'll spend some time listening to both of them, and also bring in my AKG K702's, into the comparison. It is certainly a journey. I love the intimacy of the CCA CRA, the isolation, but this discovery that it lacks a certain clarity when compared to another headphone, was unexpected.
Love the IEM format. Wondering what to do? Unable to listen to what these products sound like, until one owns them... Which one of these headphones is telling me the truth, or are there simply different versions of the truth. Love the non fatiguing sound of the CCA CRA, and the authority of the bottom end slam, but even at that, the low end now feels woofy and imprecise, to my ears, after listening to the Apple Earpods. Not sure where the truth lies.
If only I could have both, the low end heft I'm getting from the CCA CRA's with the openness and top end clarity of the Apple Earpods in the same headphone.
I'll spend some time listening to both of them, and also bring in my AKG K702's, into the comparison. It is certainly a journey. I love the intimacy of the CCA CRA, the isolation, but this discovery that it lacks a certain clarity when compared to another headphone, was unexpected.
Love the IEM format. Wondering what to do? Unable to listen to what these products sound like, until one owns them... Which one of these headphones is telling me the truth, or are there simply different versions of the truth. Love the non fatiguing sound of the CCA CRA, and the authority of the bottom end slam, but even at that, the low end now feels woofy and imprecise, to my ears, after listening to the Apple Earpods. Not sure where the truth lies.
- Thread Starter
- #85
This has to do with EQing headphone
Tried something out with the CCA CRA's.
1. On lots of commercial music, I no longer felt that the results of eqing with AutoEQ, did the headphone more good than harm. My take is unless you have the exact measurements of the specific headphone you are using, there is a possibility that any correction efforts based on either an average, or another sample of the same headphone, you'll end up with a strange result. Cos of the variance of your own specific headphone from the samples(s) measured.
2. It could also be that the impulse response based EQ method I had been using, was too aggressive. The results tended to be "grainy" and crunchy sounding. Degrading the music. Someone had mentioned that the EQ in Melda Production's plugin were directly compatible with the corrections generated for Equaliser APO, but the Melda Production EQ plugin has only 6 parametric bands, by default, and I could not find a way to add more bands. to apply the full set of EQ bands.
If only one had an approach with AutoEQ, where I could specify Global % correction, where 100% would be the usual correction, but like in Morphit, I could reduce or increase this below 100% or above 100%
3. So I disabled any EQ options, I had used.
4. Decided that from now on I'd limit any changes to broad strokes. No more than 3 bands, with peaks or dips of no more than 3 dB, at the turning frequency. The idea being not to change the fundamental FR of the headphone, but simply to tilt it a little in the right direction. As the headphone already has a V shape without any EQ applied. tried out a 1. dB peak, with broad slope, centered at 2.26 Khz and that seemed to do the trick
EDIT.
Reduced the 1 dB peak @ 2.26 Khz, first to 0.6dB then to 0.4dB. What surprised me was contrary to my impression that the CCA CRA's lacked detail and resolution, I was in a pseudo blind test, where I have a random number of mouse clicks with my eyes closed, could tell when this filter - of just 0.4dB broad slope, was enabled or NOT, almost every time. In other words, the headphones are able to let me know something has changed. Not bad.
Added a low shelf -1.0 dB tilt @ 155hz.
These two "filters" alone introduce a bit more neutrality. Just gives the headphones a bit more mid focus, adds a bit of clarity.
Tried something out with the CCA CRA's.
1. On lots of commercial music, I no longer felt that the results of eqing with AutoEQ, did the headphone more good than harm. My take is unless you have the exact measurements of the specific headphone you are using, there is a possibility that any correction efforts based on either an average, or another sample of the same headphone, you'll end up with a strange result. Cos of the variance of your own specific headphone from the samples(s) measured.
2. It could also be that the impulse response based EQ method I had been using, was too aggressive. The results tended to be "grainy" and crunchy sounding. Degrading the music. Someone had mentioned that the EQ in Melda Production's plugin were directly compatible with the corrections generated for Equaliser APO, but the Melda Production EQ plugin has only 6 parametric bands, by default, and I could not find a way to add more bands. to apply the full set of EQ bands.
If only one had an approach with AutoEQ, where I could specify Global % correction, where 100% would be the usual correction, but like in Morphit, I could reduce or increase this below 100% or above 100%
3. So I disabled any EQ options, I had used.
4. Decided that from now on I'd limit any changes to broad strokes. No more than 3 bands, with peaks or dips of no more than 3 dB, at the turning frequency. The idea being not to change the fundamental FR of the headphone, but simply to tilt it a little in the right direction. As the headphone already has a V shape without any EQ applied. tried out a 1. dB peak, with broad slope, centered at 2.26 Khz and that seemed to do the trick
EDIT.
Reduced the 1 dB peak @ 2.26 Khz, first to 0.6dB then to 0.4dB. What surprised me was contrary to my impression that the CCA CRA's lacked detail and resolution, I was in a pseudo blind test, where I have a random number of mouse clicks with my eyes closed, could tell when this filter - of just 0.4dB broad slope, was enabled or NOT, almost every time. In other words, the headphones are able to let me know something has changed. Not bad.
Added a low shelf -1.0 dB tilt @ 155hz.
These two "filters" alone introduce a bit more neutrality. Just gives the headphones a bit more mid focus, adds a bit of clarity.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #86
Revised Shortlist
IEM's :
TRN Conch
Artti T10 - Seems that there is a demand for this item which has bumped the cost above my budget for an IEM. Available options within budget do not ship to the UK.!
Simgot EW200
Salnotes 7hz Zero
(Salnotes) 7hz Zero 2
Kefine Delci
Truthear Zero - Red
Truthear Gate
Tin T3 Plus
Tin T2 Plus
Tin T4
Moondrop LAN
Moondrop Chu II
Moondrop Aria (refurbished)
KZ PR1,PR2, or PR3 (manufacturing consistency is a bit of an issue here, due to alleged changes in the design over time, so prior reviews/measurements/user opinions, and what one receives from current orders, may differ) - This risk does apply to pretty much any product, but is particularly highlighted for he KZ PR series, from my brief investigation.
KZ ZVX
KZ ZSX
KZ ZS 10 Pro X
KZ ZS 10 Pro 2 - revision of the Pro X
KZ Castor - Harman or Bass tuning version
CCA C10 - curious - never heard of these until a day or two ago
CCA C12 - curious - never heard of these until a day or two ago
CCA Pianist
Blon BL03
My goodness, how many models do KZ and CCA make!!, so hard to choose?
Headphones :
Hifiman HE400se (stealth magnet)
Sennheiser HD600
Sennheiser HD650
Sennheiser HD589
Sennheiser HD560
Current inventory :
CCA CRA -
Current daily drivers. I think they give me the most accurate impression of the audio so far, and while many a time, I get the impression that there is something lacking, over time, I get the impression that these are simply portraying what's in the audio. i.e. far more important than the headphones, is the need for the highest quality set of reference tracks when auditioning. I've abandoned the AutoEQ. Reasoning, my specific copy of the headphone has variations, from the copy measured on any popular database, so any attempt to correct will introduce anomalies. The un-equalised sound is definitely better than any attempt using AutoEQ. Only very slight broad Q EQ, to tune to taste, but predominantly, even this, I avoid. Well produced music - does not need this.
I am shocked that a lot of very popular music, e.g tracks on Adele's 2nd album, have quite a bit of "grunge" on them. At 1st you wonder, this headphone is terrible, but no - it's the music/audio that has these crunchy artefacts. The spacial left to right perception of the stereo field, I think is adequate, and I can hear very well into every track. I'd say maybe these are a bit bright, but when I look at my frequency analyzer, it's the music that's bright. If there is bass bloat, its coming from the music - none in Dr Dre's 2001. Vocals are especially good, easy to hear the diction of rap vocals, which normally on many other headphones is difficult. This alone tells me - something must be right about these headphones - the clarity in the vocals.
So these are telling me - the truth, listen to really well produced music, it sounds great, but it is not forgiving of any grunge in the music. Eminem on the 2001 album - wow so clear. Probably more important is the perception of transients, of drums, voices, instruments, and a very fantastic perception of how much reverb has been added, or not added. The edges of any audio are sharp and distinct, no flob - if the music is tight, what I hear is tight. I think one has to listen to a lot of music - especially well produced music, to form a true impression of any headphone - and this investment takes time.
I like these headphones. If you want more bass - just tap in each ear, just a little bit more into each ear. This is the huge challenge with IEM's - all the impressions are so dependent on the insertion depth. But inserting deeper, it gets louder and you need to turn down the volume, to compare equivalently, otherwise louder may seem better. Just one of two millimeters in either direction, can change the frequency response quite drastically. and this is the same issue with measurement, who knows what insertion is used my everyone who measures. So overall, one has to take subjective impressions of IEM, with a pinch of salt, cos "it depends", too many factors that can cause a variation in listener perception, and there is no consistency about exactly what is the right insertion depth. !!
When I think of the kind of music that many reviewers are listening to, I wonder, how can they give a reasonable impression of the headphone, when the source audio is already compromised. We need much more good quality objective measurements for headphones, and I think this tells us more than any subjective opinions. Beyond frequency response, measurements like distortion seem to be even more important. Furthermore the subjective impressions of reviewers do not give us any idea - what level are they listening at, cos the Fletcher Munson phenomena predicts if we listen at a different loudness level, our experience is not consistent with any reviewers subjective opinions.
I am shocked that a lot of very popular music, e.g tracks on Adele's 2nd album, have quite a bit of "grunge" on them. At 1st you wonder, this headphone is terrible, but no - it's the music/audio that has these crunchy artefacts. The spacial left to right perception of the stereo field, I think is adequate, and I can hear very well into every track. I'd say maybe these are a bit bright, but when I look at my frequency analyzer, it's the music that's bright. If there is bass bloat, its coming from the music - none in Dr Dre's 2001. Vocals are especially good, easy to hear the diction of rap vocals, which normally on many other headphones is difficult. This alone tells me - something must be right about these headphones - the clarity in the vocals.
So these are telling me - the truth, listen to really well produced music, it sounds great, but it is not forgiving of any grunge in the music. Eminem on the 2001 album - wow so clear. Probably more important is the perception of transients, of drums, voices, instruments, and a very fantastic perception of how much reverb has been added, or not added. The edges of any audio are sharp and distinct, no flob - if the music is tight, what I hear is tight. I think one has to listen to a lot of music - especially well produced music, to form a true impression of any headphone - and this investment takes time.
I like these headphones. If you want more bass - just tap in each ear, just a little bit more into each ear. This is the huge challenge with IEM's - all the impressions are so dependent on the insertion depth. But inserting deeper, it gets louder and you need to turn down the volume, to compare equivalently, otherwise louder may seem better. Just one of two millimeters in either direction, can change the frequency response quite drastically. and this is the same issue with measurement, who knows what insertion is used my everyone who measures. So overall, one has to take subjective impressions of IEM, with a pinch of salt, cos "it depends", too many factors that can cause a variation in listener perception, and there is no consistency about exactly what is the right insertion depth. !!
When I think of the kind of music that many reviewers are listening to, I wonder, how can they give a reasonable impression of the headphone, when the source audio is already compromised. We need much more good quality objective measurements for headphones, and I think this tells us more than any subjective opinions. Beyond frequency response, measurements like distortion seem to be even more important. Furthermore the subjective impressions of reviewers do not give us any idea - what level are they listening at, cos the Fletcher Munson phenomena predicts if we listen at a different loudness level, our experience is not consistent with any reviewers subjective opinions.
Apple Earpods
JVC Gumy
Sony IEM (cheapie)
AKG K702
Sony Earbuds - these ave terrible quality control, I have three pairs which sound different. And I can imagine that their measured distortion would be terrible.
Overall, think I'll take much more time to study what's available before buying anything, cos the CCA's are now my reference, which I need to get really familiar with 1st.
Reference Music. I think this is really key. I'm listening to Susan Boyle's 1st album, and I can hear so far into the music, to better understand what I've been hearing for over 10 years. What's close is close, what's far is far, what's right is right, what's left is left. If it's bright, it's the audio source, if it's dull , it's the audio source. And more often than not, the headphone will tell you, if you are not listening at the right level - A nudge of the volume fixes this Oh my - what is centered is centered. If its shrill, its from the music, not the headphones. the strings do not sound shrill, but her voice has been eq'd to be a bit shrill, or the microphones used, have this artefact. Same headphone revealing to me the smoothness of the strings, as well as the scrapping sound of the strings, and I can easily distinguish between the smooth and scratchy elements of the music. Love this. Where the elements in the music can sound so different, on the same track - a hint - that this headphone, the CCA - is telling me the truth. If it was colouring the audio, everything would sound "samey", tarred with the same sonic brush.
So next focus will be to re-build my list of references to include both extremely well recorded and mixed music, with not so good ones, and the ability of a headphone to highlight differences between tracks, and hone into details, should be an important criteria, in my subjective evaluation of headphones.
It's shocking how bright some music is. Black eyed Peas - Where is the love, and other tracks on this album. One would be tempted to think there was something wrong with the headphones. But no - its the music that is so bright, and harsh. Fantastic music, but that is the song - it was produced with quite a bit of distortion and High Frequency EQ. Hyped - yes - but this is the reality, nothing wrong with the headphone - the headphone is simply spitting out what is in the music. On the same song there are strings and cello pizzicato, which does not sound harsh and crunchy. So I'm finally hearing exactly how the music should sound, and the headphone the CCA CRA is revealing exactly what is in the music. Forget whatever impressions any other headphone gave me. This has to be pretty close to the truth.
So next focus will be to re-build my list of references to include both extremely well recorded and mixed music, with not so good ones, and the ability of a headphone to highlight differences between tracks, and hone into details, should be an important criteria, in my subjective evaluation of headphones.
It's shocking how bright some music is. Black eyed Peas - Where is the love, and other tracks on this album. One would be tempted to think there was something wrong with the headphones. But no - its the music that is so bright, and harsh. Fantastic music, but that is the song - it was produced with quite a bit of distortion and High Frequency EQ. Hyped - yes - but this is the reality, nothing wrong with the headphone - the headphone is simply spitting out what is in the music. On the same song there are strings and cello pizzicato, which does not sound harsh and crunchy. So I'm finally hearing exactly how the music should sound, and the headphone the CCA CRA is revealing exactly what is in the music. Forget whatever impressions any other headphone gave me. This has to be pretty close to the truth.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #87
Why So Cheap? The Story Of Chi-Fi Earphones (Part 1) • Music For The Masses
A brief history of Chinese Chi-Fi earphones, part 1 (of 3).
www.audioreviews.org
This was entertaining reading.
I also picked that cx dongle for €5.50 in the 3 item bucket, it will go on my office pc hopefully giving less hiss in work calls and some background music with my TRN MT1 workhorse.
Last edited:
The CX chip has a better ADC than other chips of $10 dongles so you made the right choice.
Basic Channel
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2024
- Messages
- 296
- Likes
- 274
I was going to post a wee "review". i cannot hear any hiss but i have tinnitus so it's a worthless point. It's about twice as loud as my Xiaomi Poco c65 phone jack out, although I only tried it on my Monolith m565c. I kinda felt they sound better (i have no other headphone amp) but they were probably just a touch louder.
The downside is it's not very happy with slight movements in the cable, but it seems to be an issue with the usb out rather than the connection itself. It should be fine for you if you aren't moving.
Not sure if that makes sense at all!
Not planning using it with my phone since it has an analog output that fully meets my low audio needing when on the move, it will just stay dangling from a usb port of my office pc, for 5,5€ not a big loss if strain on the connector will cause issue.
I suppose it will easily best the integrated audio output of a Lenovo M920 business small desktop.
Basic Channel
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2024
- Messages
- 296
- Likes
- 274
To be clearer the issue seems to be when you twist the headphone cable connector in the jack. The reason I think it's some sort of USB connection or android USB bypass issue is because I can disconnect and reconnect the whole thing without moving the headphone cable / jack and it seems to work fine again. Not sure if this is common as its my first dongle, but as you say for 5.50 I cannot really complain. And I've never plugged it in and the connector doesn't work, like I've had with dodgy line out/rca cables in the past. It's always after movement.
Not ideal for movement, but as you say it should be fine.
- Thread Starter
- #93
I am able to report, with the Tempotec Sonata BHD, it has been a while since I noticed any "noise" on Youtube videos or on Spotify, either during audio playback or in the quiet passages, e.g the attack and tail end of speech or music. Not sure what this is about, but I would describe the quiet parts of the Sonatec BHD, as jet black, nothingness. But compared to the Apple dongle, there is something extra in the Sonata BHD sonic quality, from my subjective opinion.
- Thread Starter
- #94
Just to double check - the CX-31993 chip has an ADC - Analog to Digital Converter, i.e. it can support a microphone?
Why do I ask? I've tried unsuccessfully to check this feature, and on DAC reviews, no mention is made of the ADC, and I have not been able to find any spec sheet, for the CX-31993.
I also have not read in the feature list on online market places, anything about the support for microphones.
The ALC5686 spec sheet definitely includes info on an ADC, and microphone input. So if the CS-31993 does not support microphones, this would be my next best bet.
staticV3
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 11,924
- Likes
- 19,664
FWIW, all CX31993 dongles that I own (mblu HiFi and Lifeme HiFi) support microphones.
ADC performance is not the best:
Recommendation for a USB Audio-interface DAC/ADC for ADC performance
using USB DAC/ADC/Audio Interface with a Raspberry Pi 4B - as a BirdNET Pi (it detects and automatically identifies birds by their song/calls) I am using a Clippy EM272 Microphone via TRS-TTRS converter...
www.audiosciencereview.com
- Thread Starter
- #96
I studied the information you posted on this other thread.FWIW, all CX31993 dongles that I own (mblu HiFi and Lifeme HiFi) support microphones.
ADC performance is not the best:
Recommendation for a USB Audio-interface DAC/ADC for ADC performance
using USB DAC/ADC/Audio Interface with a Raspberry Pi 4B - as a BirdNET Pi (it detects and automatically identifies birds by their song/calls) I am using a Clippy EM272 Microphone via TRS-TTRS converter...
Thank you.
Hitherto I had not been able to view the Apple dongle microphone device, on Windows. But seeing your post, it encouraged me to dig a bit deeper. To understand why my microphone input on the Apple dongle was not working.
Step 1 - uninstalled the driver (the one auto installed by Windows).
Step 2 - Remove the dongle from the USB socket
Step 3 - Reconnect the dongle.
End result - Windows reinstalled the appropriate drivers, which were somewhat different from the former drivers and now the Microphone input for the Apple dongle is working ok.
Thanks a million, and now I have no need for another dongle, with microphone inputs, cos the Apple dongle does everything I need.
Thanks indeed.
Seems CX31993 in the top tier in your own graph.FWIW, all CX31993 dongles that I own (mblu HiFi and Lifeme HiFi) support microphones.
ADC performance is not the best:
Recommendation for a USB Audio-interface DAC/ADC for ADC performance
using USB DAC/ADC/Audio Interface with a Raspberry Pi 4B - as a BirdNET Pi (it detects and automatically identifies birds by their song/calls) I am using a Clippy EM272 Microphone via TRS-TTRS converter...
staticV3
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 11,924
- Likes
- 19,664
This graph shows relative microphone gain. Higher numbers = better.
Last edited:
Let me point out an issue with apple dongle documented by @USER , a high pass filter is applied unannounced depending on the input gain setting. Besides that there's the known issue with with he EU version on Android. Also tons of counterfeits, I'm not sure there's a single genuine one on Aliexpress, and it's not in stock with big Chinese-Hifi retailers. I don't think there's much to put down about CX dongles, given the options for $10. When looking at the differing metrics, you're not technically wrong that apple dongle is better in some metric, att the same time CX isn't that far apart in the sense of the differing metrics being easily detectable in a double blind test.
Last edited:
staticV3
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 11,924
- Likes
- 19,664
From what I can tell, @USER has used four different ADC setups and documented different bass response with each of them:
Neither can I find data that clearly establishes the Apple dongle's response as wrong, nor can I find anything regarding the response being dependent on input gain.
