That's a perfect disclaimer to add to each IEM review.
-
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!
TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero IEM Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
I'm a bit disappointed to hear the viewpoint that an IEM can't be as good as a headphone (ultimately). I mean I'll be keeping an open mind when my Crinacle Zero arrives.
openbaffle3278
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2018
- Messages
- 88
- Likes
- 52
Ordered a pair, should be here tomorrow. Will be interesting to compare them to my Genelec 8250/7370 system in tonality.
Unfortunately does not work for streaming.
Cars-N-Cans
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Just got my pair straight from Big Rock Cadmium Mountain and they do live up to the measurements. They have the same tonality as my floor system but with more conventional stereo imaging and no sub (edit: Oops! It’s possible to hook one up backwards out of phase! Ah that makes more sense now that they have the same bass response as my FD5’s but without the hump). Since they are IEMs the imaging is more myopic just due to their nature. Still, the fact they can get this tonality for the cost of a few quarter pounder meals at McDonalds is astonishing. Great for taking your “sound” on the go with just a cellphone.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 543
I find that as well, with all the buds I use. If I can get memory foam for them I do.
Except they muffle the treble. Custom-molded IEMs are the real deal - passive isolation that rivals ANC, and amazing comfort that means they just kind of disappear in your ears.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 543
How fancy, I didn't even know that was a thing.
Yes, I was measured once yearly for hearing suppression devices or whatever they are called. They fit the ear and equalize the frequency response so you can chat a person but not go deaf from noise. They work superb.
As far as I know and have experienced, there is no IEM that is able to generate a big soundstage like for example the Sennheiser HD 800 is able to provide.
I often have this problem with IEMs, I can only suggest two things: dual material ear tips (Final, Spin, etc, a firm center to keep the canal open and still into the ear at a minimum diameter increase and a soft outer shell to seal and conform) and another anchoring point (forward hooks are my favorite but rarely offered) so you don't need to cram them in there just for the physical support.
It's fancy mostly because you have to pay a stupid amount of money to an audiologist to get your canal scanned. Mixed infrared and THz (?) scanning can produce an image cheaply per scan so that should be changing soon. Once metal/ceramic 3D printing is commercially feasible en masse, or the last generation of enclosed high temp plastic printers trickles down further in the market, it becomes pretty cheap to print a silicone injection molding and I wouldn't be suprised to see it become a common option.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 543
I don't use IEMs or headphones for music very much (or have not to date). Just a quick search and the process looks quite pricey unfortunately. I would rather have Pizza 60 times.....
Lol... I use headphones for several hours a day. It's time to upgrade.I don't use IEMs or headphones for music very much (or have not to date). Just a quick search and the process looks quite pricey unfortunately. I would rather have Pizza 60 times.....
You can kill two birds with one.... phone.I don't use IEMs or headphones for music very much (or have not to date). Just a quick search and the process looks quite pricey unfortunately. I would rather have Pizza 60 times.....
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 543
I see that you're back to your usual harassing form here @GaryH.
The above is no more misleading than to believe that EQing IEMs to such a nitpicking degree of precision will actually deliver the same FR that the listening panel experienced during Harman's various tests, as anyone who's actually EQed two different IEMs to a target according to ear simulator measurements performed with other samples can easily attest ("they still don't sound the exact same, how come ?").
Between issues such as :
- seal / leakage :
AES E-Library » The Preferred Low Frequency Response of In-Ear Headphones
A series of controlled listening tests were conducted to determine the preferred low frequency response of in-ear (IE) headphones. Using a method of adjustment ten trained listeners adjusted the bass level and frequency of a 2nd order low shelving filter applied to a high quality IE headphone...
- lack of a constant transfer function between ear simulators for IEMs, to a degree that largely exceeds the degree you're nitpicking about, whether between different pinnae or different couplers entirely :
TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero IEM Review
I wrote an article about the Harman Target Curve in Acoustics Today: The Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality- What Do Listeners Prefer? https://acousticstoday.org/he-perception-and-measurement-of-headphone-sound-quality-what-do-listeners-prefer-sean-e-olive/ I doesn't really...
audiosciencereview.com
- the well known issue of high-frequencies resonances varying with insertion depth, and more importantly the difficulty to predict how deeply different people will actually be able to physically insert and position different IEMs :
From Oratory1990
- combined, for active headphones with a feedback mechanism, with the variation in ratio between the feedback range, where the SPL will stay constant regardless of insertion depth, and the range above where it will vary,
- sample variation, which can span a spectrum from negligible issue to quite an important one (the TRUTHEAR looks pretty decent but might already reach the degree you're nitpicking about : https://crinacle.com/graphs/iems/truthear-x-crinacle-zero/)
it is utterly pointless to be nitpicking about 1 or 2 dB here or there for IEM measurements, and quite misleading to think that EQing IEMs to such a degree of precision to the Harman IE target will successfully deliver to anyone's eardrum what the listening panels actually experienced on average during Harman's own testing.
In addition to issues with the IEM Harman target in the first place, which was arrived at with fewer controls for various variables than the over-ears one, and, as a result, is a less foolproof exercise anyway, for example leading this alternative target to be strictly equally preferred by both trained and untrained listeners, to the "official" IE target, in Harman's 2017 article (https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19237) :
Which deviates from the IE target by the tune of... 1-2dB in various places.
What you're asking both from ear simulator measurements and from Harman's - or others - research in target preferences is a degree of precision that they simply can't realistically reach.
Cars-N-Cans
Addicted to Fun and Learning
That's my experience as well. I would imagine that stems from the lack of any interaction with the pinnae since they are directly in the ear canal, but how much that impacts the experience may vary from person to person. I just got a pair of these and the tonality is definitely there, but the imaging is more confined than what I get with speakers in the nearfield and large planars.
I, funnily, after having bought a few IEMs, got today my used HD 800, and with EQ it is just soo good. I like IEMs, but this......
Similar threads
