TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero IEM Review

[GaryH]

This isn't why, although I can see why you might think that. The reason is that for me, based on my ear canal, Harman IE2019 just doesn't work. It's also less about preference here and more about variation in anatomy and HRTF. So for example, most 'good' IEMs as far as target compliance goes sound shouty and unnatural to me. Also, it's worth checking out the paper on segmentation from Olive, Welti and Khonsaripour: https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20289 , as well as Design Criteria for Headphones: https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/227875122/1995_M_ller_et_al_AES_Journal_a.pdf

This is extremely important, and often gets missed in these discussions because we just look at deviations from the target and think "that's why you hear it this way". In reality, we shouldn't care as much about strict target compliance, or overly rely on that to explain reports.

In the segmentation paper Harman identified three main groups of preference:

Class 1: “Harman Target Lovers”
They make up the majority of listeners (64%) tested, and prefer neutral sounding headphones equalized to the Harman Target response curve. Membership includes an approximately equal balance of members across gender, age groups, and trained/untrained listeners. The exception is listeners over the age 50 who are more likely to be members of Class 3.

Class 2: “More Bass is Better”
This is the smallest class (15%) of listeners who prefer headphones with 3-6 dB more bass than the Target curve below 300 Hz. Members in this group are predominantly male, and include 30% of the trained listeners in our sample.

Class 3: “Less Bass is Better”
The second largest class (21%) prefers headphones with 2-4 dB less bass than the Harman Target curve below 100 Hz. Membership is comprised entirely of untrained listeners, and predominantly female and older listeners (50+ years).

So if you're male and under 50, you're very likely to fall into Class 1, and it's logical to presume this in the context of listener reports.

When you say you don't like the Harman in-ear target what do you mean exactly? Have you EQed an IEM as close as possible to the target to judge this? Or are you just going on your impressions of IEMs that look like they come close? Because the Truthear actually has a broadband excess over the Harman target all the way from 800 Hz to ~6 kHz:

And as we know from the literature, very low-Q variations like this are more audible, and this region is right where our ears are most sensitive as shown by the equal loudness contours. The predicted preference rating of the Truthear is not actually incredibly high at 81 (thanks to @Maiky76 's calculations and above graphs), confirming it's not in fact extremely highly matched to Harman despite the proclamations on here from casual glances at the FR.

The IEMs with the highest predicted preference rating on AutoEQ's rankings are the AKG N400 at 89 and the Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk at 87 (which of course are just measures of adherence to the Harman target). I don't think you've reviewed the former (but maybe you've heard them?), but you have the latter, and very favourably:

The Dusk's average deviation from the Harman target is just 0.89 dB according to Oratory's calculations:

So it looks like you do in fact like the in-ear Harman target.

 

[Resolve]

In the segmentation paper Harman identified three main groups of preference:

So if you're male and under 50, you're very likely to fall into Class 1, and it's logical to presume this in the context of listener reports.

When you say you don't like the Harman in-ear target what do you mean exactly? Have you EQed an IEM as close as possible to the target to judge this? Or are you just going on your impressions of IEMs that look like they come close? Because the Truthear actually has a broadband excess over the Harman target all the way from 800 Hz to ~6 kHz:

And as we know from the literature, very low-Q variations like this are more audible, and this region is right where our ears are most sensitive as shown by the equal loudness contours. The predicted preference rating of the Truthear is not actually incredibly high at 81 (thanks to @Maiky76 's calculations), confirming it's not in fact extremely highly matched to Harman despite the proclamations on here from casual glances at the FR.

The IEMs with the highest predicted preference rating on AutoEQ's rankings are the AKG N400 at 89 and the Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk at 87 (which of course are just measures of adherence to the Harman target). I don't think you've reviewed the former (but maybe you've heard them?), but you have the latter, and very favourably:

The Dusk's average deviation from the Harman target is just 0.89 dB according to Oratory's calculations:
View attachment 231327
So it looks like you do in fact like the Harman target

So just because I like the general tuning or certain qualities about it doesn't mean I don't also find it shouty. I prefer the SA6 tuning to all of these, as it works better for my ear canal. And as an indication of what sounds neutral to me, it's the Thieaudio Oracle.

To be clear, I do find Harman OE to be generally pretty good.

 

[GaryH]

So just because I like the general tuning or certain qualities about it doesn't mean I don't also find it shouty.

Again, what exactly is the "it" that you've heard here? Is it IEMs that have a frequency response that looks close to Harman, or have you actually listened to an IEM that you've EQed (or used one of Oratory's EQs) to match the target?

 

[Abstract_Painter]

Just received them. WOW. Laying down some Nightmares on Wax. They have all the detail you want and the bass is so rich. These are putting my Tin T2s to shame. As balanced and clear to my ears as desktop monitors. What a joy to listen to. Thank you Amir! I haven’t listened to headphones in years.

 

[Resolve]

Again, what exactly is the "it" that you've heard here? Is it IEMs that have a frequency response that looks close to Harman, or have you actually listened to an IEM that you've EQed (or used one of Oratory's EQs) to match the target?

haha both! I've listened to all of them, EQ'd all of them - especially because I'm a Harman enjoyer for OE. So to be clear, what I'm talking about specifically has to do with the canal resonance, which I expect has a different result at my ear drum. And, while I know I'm not alone in hearing things that way, I also recognize that Harman IE is still going to be enjoyed by most people. So it's not a knock against it and in an evaluation it should be indicated as being appropriate for most people, even if for me it sounds whatever kind of wrong.

 

[GaryH]

haha both! I've listened to all of them, EQ'd all of them

Great, so what did you think of the Truthear EQed to match Harman, and the difference to stock?

 

[Resolve]

Great, so what did you think of the Truthear EQed to match Harman?

Not for me. Again I don't think we should necessarily expect target-matched EQ to sound best for every individual, but rather generally decent for most people.

 

[GaryH]

Not for me.

Care to elaborate? What were the differences to stock?

 

[Resolve]

Care to elaborate? What were the differences to stock?

Obviously EQing down the ear gain is an improvement, even if it's a small adjustment. EQing stuff is also kind of what reveals this difference when you see how far you have to go before things start sounding normal and not shouty.

Edit: And just to note, I EQ literally everything, as I have yet to find something that doesn't benefit from it - for how things sound best to me.

 

[DMill]

Wait for the wave of disappointment when people get them and realise they are just decently priced IEMs with a decent amount of bass, not the actual second coming.

I say this as someone with a pair on the way- as I am interested in comparing with IEMs I already own.

Maybe true. I rarely listen to anything but speakers, so high priced stuff is just a waste of money for me. They may not be any end game IEM, but for the price, I could listen to them a few times a year, and if they are decent, for the price of a Burger King meal for 4, I have something more than indigestion.

 

[GaryH]

Obviously EQing down the ear gain is an improvement

Thought it would be, considering the Truthear's broadband elevation over the Harman target in that region. Unfortunately your review and the one on here imply the Truthear highly matches Harman when as shown above it doesn't. I suspect this will lead a lot of people here who've rushed out to buy it somewhat disappointed, and worse, cause them to falsely believe this IEM is what the actual Harman target sounds like, and that their preferences don't match that target.

 

[Resolve]

it doesn't

It's pretty darn close. Even Sean praised it for matching Harman. But as I've said in my limits of EQ video, it's also not as simple as "matching closer will sound better". Heck, there may be people for whom this sounds even better due to the increased ear gain.

 

[Jeromeof]

I bought a pair also - looking forward to trying them - though I do worry that expedition will be significantly lower than an ideal - with speakers no matter how much you pay there is always the problem that the room is not right for those speakers without EQ (and even then its not right) - with IEM's it should be ideal but I always find it the experience much worse than even cheaper speakers. I mostly never 'feeling the bass' with furniture shaking in your room with IEM's it always feel artificial - but I am always willing to try it again.

 

[GaryH]

It's pretty darn close. Even Sean praised it for matching Harman. But as I've said in my limits of EQ video, it's also not as simple as "matching closer will sound better". Heck, there may be people for whom this sounds even better due to the increased ear gain.

Sure, but on average fewer will like it compared to the actual Harman target. Sean said "closely follows" the target, which I'd agree with, but that's not the same as matching (even almost). As I said before, broadband elevations are more audible (as are peaks compared to dips), so it's not as simple as eyeballing a graph and saying yep that's Harman - the Q of the deviations and where they are in the frequency range matter, as well as whether they are peaks or dips.

 

[spartaman64]

Sure, but on average fewer will like it compared to the actual Harman target. Sean said "closely follows" the target, which I'd agree with, but that's not the same as matching (even almost). As I said before, broadband elevations are more audible, so it's not as simple as eyeballing a graph and saying yep that's Harman - the Q of the deviations and where they are in the frequency range matter.

have you looked at the scale of the graph? its like 1db off. amir says it closely matches the target "this is what correct tonality is". sean olive says the same. have you even heard it?

 

[posvibes]

I am forever disappointed in IEM's, like others as I cannot achieve an enduring good seal no matter what tips are provided, and I like the sensation of in ear phones, but my ears are just not built for them. I wonder if the group in the Harman test that would prefer a +4dB increase in bass are seal poor listeners like me?

 

[Vacceo]

That sex sells is nothing strange, even if it was perhaps more exploitative in the past? More sexism just a few decades ago, half a century ago. Nothing I'm upset about BUT if it plays on some sick child molester's fantasy then that's enough for me. I wouldn't buy any product, from any company that alluded to that.

But sex concerning adults it can even be fun to see old advertising around. Of course the sexism flows freely in these old ads, but still. In many cases they also have humor:

Vintage Audio Advertising

Must say, the internet can sometimes be wonderful. By pure chance I landed on a discussion about vintage Empire speakers and that led me to other vintage discussions, and eventually to vintage audio advertising. Some of the ads are downright comical, at least I thought so. Lots of posing...

audiosciencereview.com

I'm not a fan of the waifu thing, but in perspective, I don't find it worse than Diana Krall. Well, yes, Diana Krall is worse, at least I can listen to other stuff with the earphones.

 

[GaryH]

have you looked at the scale of the graph? its like 1db off.

It's more like 2 dB, over a large frequency range (very low Q), and a peak as opposed to a dip, both of which make will make it more audible. I suggest reading Dr Floyd Toole's work:

sean olive says the same. have you even heard it?

He said it "closely follows the Harman target", which as I said above, I agree with. Neither he nor I have heard it.

 

[amirm]

I bought a pair also - looking forward to trying them - though I do worry that expedition will be significantly lower than an ideal - with speakers no matter how much you pay there is always the problem that the room is not right for those speakers without EQ (and even then its not right) - with IEM's it should be ideal but I always find it the experience much worse than even cheaper speakers. I mostly never 'feeling the bass' with furniture shaking in your room with IEM's it always feel artificial - but I am always willing to try it again.

An IEM is not as good as a headphone and a headphone is not as good as a speaker. Each one though can do something the other can't do. Headphones for example can have flat response to 10 Hz or even lower. It is next to impossible to do that with speakers. An IEM can play incredibly loud and clean with very little power compared to a headphone. So nothing about my recommendation is that an IEM goes outside of the bounds of what it can do. If an IEM doesn't do it for you, this won't either.

 

[amirm]

I am forever disappointed in IEM's, like others as I cannot achieve an enduring good seal no matter what tips are provided, and I like the sensation of in ear phones, but my ears are just not built for them. I wonder if the group in the Harman test that would prefer a +4dB increase in bass are seal poor listeners like me?

Sean can explain more but the testing included checking for seal loss. And at any rate, once you lose the seal, no amount of boost gets you back there.