KZ Castor Harman Target IEM Review

[Robbo99999]

will the android app poweramp let me eq my headphones the same as you?

You could try Neutron Player instead - that one is fully compatible with parametric EQ and does a bunch of other stuff besides.

 

[muza_1]

Poweramp EQ have a Parametric EQ you just have to select it in the settings, what is more of a problem is for the software to recognize all of your audio apps but it can be done via chrome browser and adicional permissions.

 

[Jimster480]

I feel like they tried to do way too much in a low price tier...

 

[DrZingo]

It's funny, the tweet is from 6 months ago, but time in the IEM market goes so fast, I already consider them not competetive. It looks like "muddy" upper bass / lower midrange and bit spiky treble.

Yes. I can personally live without the accented hump in the low bass in the Harman target curve. The most important feature of the curve in my view is its gentle rise all through the middle, from 300 Hz upwards.

 

[DanTheMan]

Yes. I can personally live without the accented hump in the low bass in the Harman target curve. The most important feature of the curve in my view is its gentle rise all through the middle, from 300 Hz upwards.

And I think that's the worst part LOL, but I too could live without the deep bass bump if there wasn't the the gentle rise from 300Hz up. That gentle rise makes the deep bass bump necessary to my ear. Otherwise it's just too thin and bright. It seems everyone has their own take on it. Something more like the USound, HEAD Acoustics, or Sony curve sounds more balanced to my ear.

 

[ZolaIII]

And I think that's the worst part LOL, but I too could live without the deep bass bump if there wasn't the the gentle rise from 300Hz up. That gentle rise makes the deep bass bump necessary to my ear. Otherwise it's just too thin and bright. It seems everyone has their own take on it. Something more like the USound, HEAD Acoustics, or Sony curve sounds more balanced to my ear.

Neither there is a "target" or that is the curve. It's a try to represent natural response of speakers in room on to earphones/headphones. It's preference picked up on mid 70's SPL listening from listeners based on let's call them like traditional tone controls (not great methodology, sim and bias). However they ware not very good or to the equal loudness contours (ISO 226 2003 or later) of the time. Transistant frequency whose a miss and low pass filter at 100 Hz Q 0.71 (Butterwort) doese a better job regarding bass adoption. The highs are still undisclosed based on progress of mics, materials used for, shape and depth of ears and ear chenel, HATS aren't there yet but lots of the progress on the way.

 

[DrZingo]

And I think that's the worst part LOL, but I too could live without the deep bass bump if there wasn't the the gentle rise from 300Hz up. That gentle rise makes the deep bass bump necessary to my ear. Otherwise it's just too thin and bright. It seems everyone has their own take on it. Something more like the USound, HEAD Acoustics, or Sony curve sounds more balanced to my ear.

I actually agree with you - there is less need for a rise if you don't have that bass hump. If you don't, flat is OK too in that region to my ears. The problem is that so many headphones actually go down all through the midrange - that JBL in-ear goes downwards all the way to 800 Hz which usually results in an unnaturally "thick" sound. Many continue even further.

 

[TabCam]

Two years ago:

"Wow, I can't believe we can get this level of performance from a $50 IEM"

One year ago:

"Wow, I can't believe we can get this level of performance from a $25 IEM"

Today:

"Wow, I can't believe we can get this level of performance from a $16 IEM"

So next year, we can expect a $9 IEM that outperforms many ~$1,000 models?

I have heard those "claims", but I have yet to hear that sub $50 (excl VAT) / €75 (incl VAT) that really puts a kind of realism in piano's high hats / trumpets. On paper they measure more than OK, but when listening (subjective, I know) I found they are very very nice for the price but the more expensive models (I know, no proof and I am maybe biased) I find lacking.

I always use different tips and even with my most preferred tips they do not sound close to as real like something not too expensive as e.g. a SIMGOT EA500lm or a more expensive Kiwi Ears Quintet.

 

[SuicideSquid]

I have heard those "claims", but I have yet to hear that sub $50 (excl VAT) / €75 (incl VAT) that really puts a kind of realism in piano's high hats / trumpets. On paper they measure more than OK, but when listening (subjective, I know) I found they are very very nice for the price but the more expensive models (I know, no proof and I am maybe biased) I find lacking.

I always use different tips and even with my most preferred tips they do not sound close to as real like something not too expensive as e.g. a SIMGOT EA500lm or a more expensive Kiwi Ears Quintet.

I've got a pair of Linsoul 7Hz x Crinacle Zero 2 IEMs and they're the best IEM's I've ever heard. They put Altec Lansing and Ultimate Ears models I have that cost 5-10x as much to shame.

 

[muza_1]

I have heard those "claims", but I have yet to hear that sub $50 (excl VAT) / €75 (incl VAT) that really puts a kind of realism in piano's high hats / trumpets. On paper they measure more than OK, but when listening (subjective, I know) I found they are very very nice for the price but the more expensive models (I know, no proof and I am maybe biased) I find lacking.

I always use different tips and even with my most preferred tips they do not sound close to as real like something not too expensive as e.g. a SIMGOT EA500lm or a more expensive Kiwi Ears Quintet.

The CCA Trio and the Simgot EA500lm are just one filter from each other and the Harman target. Except one is $20 and the other $90.

Trio High-Shelf filter @ 3750Hz/-1.5dB
EA500lm Peak filter @ 200Hz/-2.1dB/Q1
I personally prefer the Harman style of bass I don't like the mid-bass bump on the "gliding" one.
Also I don't have the EA500lm but I do prefer the Trio over the EW200, I think all there is to know about the sound of an IEM is in the frequency response (and distortion to some degree) of course there are other considerations like comfort or in ear resonances caused by angle, insertion depth or design.

 

[OK1]

This headphone/review is not listed with the headphones, here:

Master Audio Review Index

www.audiosciencereview.com

I assumed that all the headphones that have been reviewed are in the list. Also begs the question, is it possible that there are other devices - speakers, DAC's, etc, which have been reviewed but are not included in the list(s).

Any omissions would be a pity, cos when one views the list, one assumes it is 100% up to date. So unfortunately any omission, reduces the value and confidence in the list. If 100% up to date, the list has tremendous value - a highly significant source of truth, on ASR.

 

[Blorg]

I've got a pair of Linsoul 7Hz x Crinacle Zero 2 IEMs and they're the best IEM's I've ever heard. They put Altec Lansing and Ultimate Ears models I have that cost 5-10x as much to shame.

This probably has more to do with a lot of older IEMs, even higher-end ones, being tuned absolutely terribly.

It seems only in the last few years has there been a move to measurement-driven IEM development targeting any sort of actual target and Chinese IEM makers were at the forefront of actually starting to tune IEMs properly. I do think there's room for variance and don't think Harman IE is necessarily entirely ideal but it's in the right direction, if we consider the two basic tenets of you want some level of sub-bass boost and you want some level of pinna gain. How much and exactly where for these two things I think can be varied a bit and still sound right, depending on the individual's HRTF, but that's the general template that most IEMs follow now.

A lot of older IEMs are just so obviously wrong, it's hard to see what they were doing. This Altec Lansing with those huge peaks and no bass I would imagine people found had "detail" or "clarity" as a result and perusing reviews from the period that seems to be impression. But it would also be unnatural and terribly fatiguing. While UE seem to be going for "flat" but without realizing you need have to compensate for bypassing the head and pinna? Did they not know this? I don't know what the logic was, but either way it's wrong, this sort of response will be the exact opposite and sound rich and thick in the mids but also, muffled.

Plenty of cheap IEMs but also higher end IEMs these days that are tuned at least in the right general direction.

Altec Lansing, $199 in 2005:

Ultimate Ears, $1,599 for this:

$25:

$999:

 

[InfiniteJester]

This probably has more to do with a lot of older IEMs, even higher-end ones, being tuned absolutely terribly.

It seems only in the last few years has there been a move to measurement-driven IEM development targeting any sort of actual target and Chinese IEM makers were at the forefront of actually starting to tune IEMs properly. I do think there's room for variance and don't think Harman IE is necessarily entirely ideal but it's in the right direction, if we consider the two basic tenets of you want some level of sub-bass boost and you want some level of pinna gain. How much and exactly where for these two things I think can be varied a bit and still sound right, depending on the individual's HRTF, but that's the general template that most IEMs follow now.

A lot of older IEMs are just so obviously wrong, it's hard to see what they were doing. This Altec Lansing with those huge peaks I would imagine people found had "detail" or "clarity" as a result and perusing reviews from the period that seems to be impression. But it would also be unnatural and terribly fatiguing. While UE seem to be going for "flat" but without realizing you need have to compensate for bypassing the head and pinna? Did they not know this? I don't know what the logic was, but either way it's wrong, this sort of response will be the exact opposite and sound rich and thick in the mids but also, muffled.

Plenty of cheap IEMs but also higher end IEMs these days that are tuned at least in the right general direction.

Altec Lansing, $199 in 2015:
View attachment 377075

Ultimate Ears, $1,599 for this:
View attachment 377079

$25:
View attachment 377077
$999:
View attachment 377080

Some of those tunnings are laughably terrible.

 

[SuicideSquid]

This probably has more to do with a lot of older IEMs, even higher-end ones, being tuned absolutely terribly.

It seems only in the last few years has there been a move to measurement-driven IEM development targeting any sort of actual target and Chinese IEM makers were at the forefront of actually starting to tune IEMs properly. I do think there's room for variance and don't think Harman IE is necessarily entirely ideal but it's in the right direction, if we consider the two basic tenets of you want some level of sub-bass boost and you want some level of pinna gain. How much and exactly where for these two things I think can be varied a bit and still sound right, depending on the individual's HRTF, but that's the general template that most IEMs follow now.

A lot of older IEMs are just so obviously wrong, it's hard to see what they were doing. This Altec Lansing with those huge peaks and no bass I would imagine people found had "detail" or "clarity" as a result and perusing reviews from the period that seems to be impression. But it would also be unnatural and terribly fatiguing. While UE seem to be going for "flat" but without realizing you need have to compensate for bypassing the head and pinna? Did they not know this? I don't know what the logic was, but either way it's wrong, this sort of response will be the exact opposite and sound rich and thick in the mids but also, muffled.

Plenty of cheap IEMs but also higher end IEMs these days that are tuned at least in the right general direction.

Altec Lansing, $199 in 2005:
View attachment 377075

Ultimate Ears, $1,599 for this:
View attachment 377079

$25:
View attachment 377077
$999:
View attachment 377080

Oh I know. That's my point - $25 now gives you significantly better performance than $250 did a decade ago.

 

[Majster]

Hi. Guys.
Id like to notice that kz castor harman Silver are about 9$ shipped on alie in 3 items section. I like them, they sound neutral (maybe even boring for some) but I dont understand how they can be hard on treble? They have very soft not fatiguing trebles for me. Im using UUDD settings for them. I also just get Zero 2. Zero 2 sound more bright than Castor Silver imo. They also have more resolution and details but Castors are not that bad considering they are 2x cheaper than Zero 2(18$)

 

[markanini]

Hi. Guys.
Id like to notice that kz castor harman Silver are about 9$ shipped on alie in 3 items section. I like them, they sound neutral (maybe even boring for some) but I dont understand how they can be hard on treble? They have very soft not fatiguing trebles for me. Im using UUDD settings for them. I also just get Zero 2. Zero 2 sound more bright than Castor Silver imo. They also have more resolution and details but Castors are not that bad considering they are 2x cheaper than Zero 2(18$)

No one knows if they changed the driver like in the Bass edition.

 

[Blorg]

I dont understand how they can be hard on treble? They have very soft not fatiguing trebles for me. Im using UUDD settings for them. I also just get Zero 2. Zero 2 sound more bright than Castor Silver imo.

I don't have the Zero2 but my Silver Castor on UUDD more or less matches that measurement. It's clearly brighter than the Zero2 which is tuned closer to Harman. Zero 2 is tuned closer to Crinacle's preferred, lower pinna gain. Perhaps they changed it as @markanini suggests, they have form with changing tuning.

 

[Majster]

It is weird for me. I never heard people say it's to bright or has hard treble and I read some reviews and comments (on reddit) before I got them. Actually i heard the opposite I'd say what KZ show is accurate

https://imgur.com/N2p2566

 

[Blorg]

It is weird for me. I never heard people say it's to bright or has hard treble and I read some reviews and comments (on reddit) before I got them. Actually i heard the opposite I'd say what KZ show is accurate

https://imgur.com/N2p2566

That graph from KZ does look more or less right. It's brighter than the Zero2 though, or at least it was on release.

 

[OK1]

With all the competition in the low-end IEM market, I don't see any point in these, particularly given that they are so insensitive.

Also, KZ is famous for unethical business practices. From selling hybrid designs where the additional drivers were muted, to allegedly attempting to pay for positive reviews, to changing the performance on the PR2 after the initial batch without telling anybody... I'm a cheapskate and will jump at a bargain, but there are bargains galore in this space so why bother?

While we're here, does anybody have any opinions on whether multiple driver IEMs make sense any more, other than marketing? My impression is that they were favored in the early days because single dynamic drivers struggled to accurately reproduce the whole spectrum, but now there are single-driver designs with essentially zero distortion anywhere. Do the additional drivers help with IMD, or what's their deal?

What else would you recommend in the budget bracket of the market.