Moondrop x Crinacle DUSK

[USER]

If you guys want a much cheaper wireless and Bluetooth alternative that to my ears is less likely to have bloaty bass, find some of the last remaining JBL Club Pro+s. These were Sean Olive's favorite ear buds a few years ago. They are fantastic and its funny to see that Harman got this right years ago.

 

[Doodski]

If you guys want a much cheaper wireless and Bluetooth alternative that to my ears is less likely to have bloaty bass, find some of the last remaining JBL Club Pro+s. These were Sean Olive's favorite ear buds a few years ago. They are fantastic and its funny to see that Harman got this right years ago.
View attachment 360955

View attachment 360956

That looks very good. How about the new Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro? How do they look?

 

[USER]

That looks very good. How about the new Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro? How do they look?

I found this. If we are being real all these small IEM companies are way behind the big dogs these days. I know no one wants to talk about it as the market is the real market if that makes sense. I feel as though it is not enough to buy IEMs nowadays but you have to review them as well, lol.

For reference, below is how their measurements compare to Amir's, which are the second, uploaded ones. The results are a bit different up to 1kHz but there seems to be very good consistency. I do find that a lot of these more random squig.link measurements oversell bass so the differences make sense as cheap third party hardware was used. (Some reviewers use even worse couplers that undersell treble, which I think has given Harman a bad name in some circles.)

I do not like to post these types of measurements without some comparison or context. But in the end here we have a decent match as far as these things go and I may make a correction curve if I see more consistency with other measurements. I'd just assume the Buds 2 Pro have a bit less bass. Happy to have found these files.

Edited for clarity.

.

 

[Doodski]

I found this. If we are being real all these small time IEM companies are way behind the big dogs these days. I know no one wants to talk about it as the market is the real market if that makes sense.

View attachment 360959
For reference, here is how their measurements compare to ASR. There is good consistency. I do find that a lot of these more random squig.link measurements oversell bass so it makes sense as they often use cheap third party hardware. I do not like to post these without some comparison or context, like above. Pretty decent match as far as these things go and I may make a correction curve if I see more consistency on their part. Happy to have found them.

View attachment 360960.View attachment 360961

What's up with this graph? The top end hits a brick wall.

 

[USER]

What's up with this graph? The top end hits a brick wall.

Couldn't tell you. I don't even look at that end with these things as they aren't reliable and I didn't even see it, lol.

 

[Doodski]

Couldn't tell you. I don't even look at that end with these things as they aren't reliable and I didn't even see it, lol.

IC... well it's interesting to see what I did see.

 

[Brian Hall]

That looks very good. How about the new Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro? How do they look?

They have a bit of a matte finish compared to the shiny Buds Pro and the shape is a little different.

The Buds 2 Pro have a more balanced sound than the Buds Pro which have more bass -- maybe too much. I like bass and the Buds 2 Pro sound better to me when I don't want to deal with wires.

 

[Doodski]

They have a bit of a matte finish compared to the shiny Buds Pro and the shape is a little different.

The Buds 2 Pro have a more balanced sound than the Buds Pro which have more bass -- maybe too much. I like bass and the Buds 2 Pro sound better to me when I don't want to deal with wires.

I have the Buds2 Pro and tuned them for high end and they sound pretty good to me.

 

[MacClintock]

What exactly is the unique value proposition of this IEM supposed to be?

Making Crinacle richer

 

[MacClintock]

Well, beyond that, texture, timbre, dynamics, they’re all separate from frequency response/extension, so I feel like just comparing FR curves doesn’t say a lot. Or are there people who would dispute this and only look at FR and nothing else (from an acoustic standpoint)?

-Ed

All these characteristics that you mentioned, texture, timbre, dynamics, are completely entailed in the FR, the dynamical ones via FFT. So if you have a good fit and no crazy things happen with your HRTF, that is all the information that counts. There are individual details like ear canal form and length, that might cause resonances to happen at slightly different frequencies, but that's all.

 

[MacClintock]

Absolutely no need:

 

[MacClintock]

What quantifiable properties of transducers would be described as "texture" and "timbre"?

According to the ASA (via Wikipedia):

The Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Acoustical Terminology definition 12.09 of timbre describes it as "that attribute of auditory sensation which enables a listener to judge that two nonidentical sounds, similarly presented and having the same loudness and pitch, are dissimilar", adding, "Timbre depends primarily upon the frequency spectrum, although it also depends upon the sound pressure and the temporal characteristics of the sound".

Could we determine how well a transducer handles these qualities of sound from FR + THD measurements?

Timbre is just the sound of a specific instrument playing a certain tone. The same tone will sound differently from a piano, a trumpet or a violin, because of the structure of harmonics each instrument has. All of this is completely given by FR.

 

[Guermantes]

Timbre is just the sound of a specific instrument playing a certain tone. The same tone will sound differently from a piano, a trumpet or a violin, because of the structure of harmonics each instrument has. All of this is completely given by FR.

Indeed, it's about the formants/harmonic content of a sound source. Surely then, this is (hopefully) not a quality of the transducer itself, unless the "oil-can" resonance of metal tweeters or woofer cone break-up counts. But we can ask how the transducer reproduces timbre (FR) without adding further harmonic information (THD).

 

[MacClintock]

Indeed, it's about the formants/harmonic content of a sound source. Surely then, this is (hopefully) not a quality of the transducer itself, unless the "oil-can" resonance of metal tweeters or woofer cone break-up counts. But we can ask how the transducer reproduces timbre (FR) without adding further harmonic information (THD).

Sure, if different transducers add different types or amounts of distortion, they might sound differently. But this is more of a problem with speaker, or badly designed IEMs (which are often the expensive ones like 64 audio and the like). Even very cheap IEMs like the 7Hz Salnotes Zero 2 have crazy low levels of distortion, even at absurd high levels in bass, so it is a non-issue.

 

[MacClintock]

I own the Moondrop Variations, which I traded in for a headphone I didn't need anymore and had paid $300 used years ago. At the time, it was the most Harman compliant IEM without EQ, especially for the price. Nowadays, there are the Truthear Nova, which is even more compliant and many, many cheap IEMs which have all kinds of different tunings close to Harman. So there is really not much justification to spend much for an IEM. It seems that the last resort is going into the jewelery direction, especially from Moondrop. The very expensive Solis II ($2700), the Dark Saber ($800), there is also the Beautiful World ($777, replacing the Illumination) and now the Moondrop Crinacle Dusk ($360). If it weren't for the materials and the design, they would be pointless.

 

[InfiniteJester]

My thinking is that details, texture, spatial retrieval come from FR. But the in situ FR is augmented by fit and individual anatomy, measurement rigs can't account for every situation.

If anyone want to know for themselves they can buy multiple inexpensive IEMs that measure similarly, or EQ multiple IEMs to the same target. Then ask a friend to help you make a blind test.

I agree with the rest, but I think that spatial retrieval is a little more complicated. Of course, it would affect FR, but you can't get good soundstage by just tweaking the FR.

I can tune any headphone to HD800's FR, but that doesn't make them spacious, just bright and thin.

Two IEMs EQed to the same target can sound radically different in spatial retrieval. I tune everything to the USound target, and EW200s, FH9s, MP145s and Zero:2s still sound radically different.

Maybe it is because the measurements are imprecise and they are not really giving the same FR after EQ. But I suspect that there is more to the whole deal.

Rtings methodology may be onto something when it comes to measuring this aspect of sound, in my opinion.

 

[InfiniteJester]

What's up with this graph? The top end hits a brick wall.

It looks like some kind of high-cut filter. Doesn't seem to be present in other measurements.

 

[MacClintock]

I agree with the rest, but I think that spatial retrieval is a little more complicated. Of course, it would affect FR, but you can't get good soundstage by just tweaking the FR.

I can tune any headphone to HD800's FR, but that doesn't make them spacious, just bright and thin.

I totally agree.

Two IEMs EQed to the same target can sound radically different in spatial retrieval. I tune everything to the USound target, and EW200s, FH9s, MP145s and Zero:2s still sound radically different.

Here I disagree, because no IEM as any significant soundstage, they all sound "in the head", as there is no pinna interaction. So FR is sufficient. But clearly every IEM reacts different to EQ and there is also unit variation.

Maybe it is because the measurements are imprecise and they are not really giving the same FR after EQ. But I suspect that there is more to the whole deal.

Rtings methodology may be onto something when it comes to measuring this aspect of sound, in my opinion.

Maybe, but again, that is for over-ear headphones, not for IEMs.

 

[InfiniteJester]

I totally agree.

Here I disagree, because no IEM as any significant soundstage, they all sound "in the head", as there is no pinna interaction. So FR is sufficient. But clearly every IEM reacts different to EQ and there is also unit variation.

Maybe, but again, that is for over-ear headphones, not for IEMs.

Yes, I should have made more clear when I'm referring to headphones and when to IEMs.

Still, I appreciate differences in soundstage among IEMs too. Although they cannot compete with open headphones.

MP145s give me an out of my head sound.

In my experience, large shells give better "soundstage" in an IEM, and metal is better than resin. I speculate that there may be some kind of reverberation going on inside the shells that contribute to a widening of the sound.

 

[jannek]

What's up with this graph? The top end hits a brick wall.

I suppose it's due to the used Bluetooth codec. A brick wall like this is typical for AAC (at 17kHz to be precise).