TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero IEM Review

[vscope]

Received mine yesterday. Really nice iem. Thx @amirm for the hint! First tried them with the big bore silicon tips.
Sound was good but some strange distortion in the highs with some instruments.
Then tried the memory foam tips and the sound got much more well rounded. Still a little too much bass and little to much highs.
Tried Maiky76 EQ. Sound balance was very accurate but these sharp q filters make the sound unnaturally and fatiguing in my opinion.
Same happens when DSP is used to make a sharp q correction for speakers.
Especially in low distortion transducers where distortion wont hide anything...

So i tried to find minimal low q filters to only remove the big frequency errors.
This is my current EAPO EQ. Great bass and none fatiguing natural sounding highs in my opinion.
Tweak it for your own liking especially the 2200 Hz gain.

Preamp: -5 dB
Filter: ON PK Fc 20 Hz Gain 3.88 dB Q 0.9
Filter: ON PK Fc 81.44 Hz Gain -2.05 dB Q 1.46
Filter: ON PK Fc 17000 Hz Gain -2.5 dB Q 1
Filter: ON PK Fc 2200 Hz Gain -2.5 dB Q 1

The standout feature of this iem is the seperation of bass und the rest of the band in my opinion.
Its crazy to listen to such a clean nice deep bass without influencing the rest of the spectrum.

 

[DanielT]

The ones with the "small holes" you mention meaning internal narrow bore - it's not surprising you like those best as those deliver the frequency response as measured by Amir. The internal wide bore tips or "large holes" decrease the bass, so that's why you like the small holed internal narrow bore version.

I'm also not convinced IEM's are for me, I've been using these for the past few days and they've started irritating my ears - making them more itchy and the right one is getting sore. They do sound good, but not really any better overall than say my equalised HD560s over ear headphones - and the soundstage properties are different too.

Hm you say ".... itchy and the right one is getting sore." That doesn't sound fun. I am not there (yet?). Should that happen and I cannot find tips that suit me better, and or better placement in the ears, there will be no more listening with them for me.

In any case, I won't give up yet. I will try some different tips (it came with a number of tips with them, so there is something to try).
It is probably the case that IEMs in terms of fit in the ears differ between different people plus that people are different sensitive to having things in the ears. That last part in itself is perhaps a matter of practice.

The interesting part is if I can find the right tips and placement in the ears so they stay firmly in place AND that I can listen to music for several hours WITHOUT thinking about my IEMs. That is my criterion. Incidentally, the same criteria I have when listening to music with speakers. That is, the speakers should "disappear". I should not be able to identify where the sound is coming from. I want to listen to music without having to think about, or make myself think about, the HiFi equipment which I use for listening to music at that specific moment.

I am absolutely not dissatisfied with my IEMs as such from the aspect of sound quality. In terms of sound, they are great and that in itself is really fun to experience, I must say. Even if it turns out I won't be using them much, it's not a purchase I want to undo.

Edit:
A little OT. Speaking of practicing. Everyone who has started using contact lenses has experienced this: It took a while before you could insert them into your eyes unhindered, without discomfort. Women have, in general, a shorter learning, getting used to process regarding popping in lenses. That, according to my optician, is because women are more used to fiddling around their eyes because they (most or many of them) wear make-up. That sounds reasonable, I think.

 

[Jhify]

This experiment made me read and educate myself about target curves and different researches on how our ears works and difference between speakers en IEM which was really interesting.

One of this articles was from a review website which has made its own target curve: https://www.soundguys.com/soundguys-house-curve-54290/

They also made a "studio" curve. It is NOT a curve based on scientific data meant to mimic flat speakers in a studio environment. They just averaged out measurement datas from many studio headphones and IEMs. I was not a surprised to see there no bass shelf boost in the lower end. To me that's at least one factor that solve the mystery why I find the harman target bass heavy since I'm so used to studio gear.

Let's dream about a day there'll be quality PEQ included in every laptops and streaming app so everyone can be happy with its preferences without struggling with third party softwares of gear

 

[sharock]

Not sure if this was mentioned already but Crinicle's graph tool (https://crinacle.com/graphs/iems/graphtool/) can be used to export Graphic EQ files for use with Wavelet on Android. So you can either generate one with AutoEQ in the tool or import Maiky's PEQ and export. The results look quite different in my app (I guess because they are EQing different sample measurements) although I'm not sure I can hear the difference yet.

 

[GaryH]

One of this articles was from a review website which has made its own target curve: https://www.soundguys.com/soundguys-house-curve-54290/

They also made a "studio" curve. It is NOT a curve based on scientific data meant to mimic flat speakers in a studio environment. They just averaged out measurement datas from many studio headphones and IEMs. I was not a surprised to see there no bass shelf boost in the lower end. To me that's at least one factor that solve the mystery why I find the harman target bass heavy since I'm so used to studio gear.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553843537363570689

 

[Jhify]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553843537363570689

I don't advocate for this website whatsoever nor I trust any reviews of any kind online but my ears and maybe objective datas and still you never know the conditions and rigor of the mesurements. I was just saying that I am not surprise an averaged curve of studio headphones they have mesured doesn't have the harman bass shelf. That's it. Ironically enough the target Crinacle made himslef of what he perceive neutral doesn't have a bass shelf either and my ears tend to perceive things the same way it seems.

In-Ear Fidelity's IEM Neutral Target Gets an Update (+ Database Updates) – In-Ear Fidelity

The old "Crinacle Target" gets a small tweak.

crinacle.com

 

[Robbo99999]

Received mine yesterday. Really nice iem. Thx @amirm for the hint! First tried them with the big bore silicon tips.
Sound was good but some strange distortion in the highs with some instruments.
Then tried the memory foam tips and the sound got much more well rounded. Still a little too much bass and little to much highs.
Tried Maiky76 EQ. Sound balance was very accurate but these sharp q filters make the sound unnaturally and fatiguing in my opinion.
Same happens when DSP is used to make a sharp q correction for speakers.
Especially in low distortion transducers where distortion wont hide anything...

So i tried to find minimal low q filters to only remove the big frequency errors.
This is my current EAPO EQ. Great bass and none fatiguing natural sounding highs in my opinion.
Tweak it for your own liking especially the 2200 Hz gain.

Preamp: -5 dB
Filter: ON PK Fc 20 Hz Gain 3.88 dB Q 0.9
Filter: ON PK Fc 81.44 Hz Gain -2.05 dB Q 1.46
Filter: ON PK Fc 17000 Hz Gain -2.5 dB Q 1
Filter: ON PK Fc 2200 Hz Gain -2.5 dB Q 1

The standout feature of this iem is the seperation of bass und the rest of the band in my opinion.
Its crazy to listen to such a clean nice deep bass without influencing the rest of the spectrum.

Maiky's EQ is not designed to be used with the wide internal bore silicon tips, nor designed for use with the foam tips, but it is designed to be used with the narrow internal bore silicon tips - so it's not really valid for you to comment on Maiky's EQ unless you use the right tips (that were measured).

Hm you say ".... itchy and the right one is getting sore." That doesn't sound fun. I am not there (yet?). Should that happen and I cannot find tips that suit me better, and or better placement in the ears, there will be no more listening with them for me.

In any case, I won't give up yet. I will try some different tips (it came with a number of tips with them, so there is something to try).
It is probably the case that IEMs in terms of fit in the ears differ between different people plus that people are different sensitive to having things in the ears. That last part in itself is perhaps a matter of practice.

The interesting part is if I can find the right tips and placement in the ears so they stay firmly in place AND that I can listen to music for several hours WITHOUT thinking about my IEMs. That is my criterion. Incidentally, the same criteria I have when listening to music with speakers. That is, the speakers should "disappear". I should not be able to identify where the sound is coming from. I want to listen to music without having to think about, or make myself think about, the HiFi equipment which I use for listening to music at that specific moment.

I am absolutely not dissatisfied with my IEMs as such from the aspect of sound quality. In terms of sound, they are great and that in itself is really fun to experience, I must say. Even if it turns out I won't be using them much, it's not a purchase I want to undo.

Edit:
A little OT. Speaking of practicing. Everyone who has started using contact lenses has experienced this: It took a while before you could insert them into your eyes unhindered, without discomfort. Women have, in general, a shorter learning, getting used to process regarding popping in lenses. That, according to my optician, is because women are more used to fiddling around their eyes because they (most or many of them) wear make-up. That sounds reasonable, I think.

Yeah, I don't regret my purchase either, I could still try the foam tips......and even if I end up not being able to use them often due to discomfort & ear irritation then it doesn't matter because I can still use them just once in a while out of interest/education comparison to my other headphones. Lol, when I eventually get around to measuring them on my miniDSP EARS, assuming they will fit in the rig ok, then I'll be able to EQ out the differences that the foam tips create vs the silicon tips, which I'd also share on this site so that people can use the foam tips whilst still being able to retain the sound signature of the measured silicon tips. I have still got the foam tips to try before I rule out any prolonged use of this IEM due to creating ear itchiness and irritation/soreness.

 

[Robbo99999]

Not sure if this was mentioned already but Crinicle's graph tool (https://crinacle.com/graphs/iems/graphtool/) can be used to export Graphic EQ files for use with Wavelet on Android. So you can either generate one with AutoEQ in the tool or import Maiky's PEQ and export. The results look quite different in my app (I guess because they are EQing different sample measurements) although I'm not sure I can hear the difference yet.

View attachment 233738

View attachment 233739

That's quite useful, I didn't know Crinacle had an Auto EQ function on his graphs, it looks like this:

It does have some limitations, as with any AutoEQ program, so you may not want to blindly adopt all of it's EQ "decisions", but it can potentially save some time when creating your own EQ's. I can see myself using that function. You can also export the EQ as a text file which looks compatible with EqualiserAPO for instance.

EDIT: It won't let you change the placing of the target on the measurement before EQ'ing, even if you raise the target curve by a few dB it still won't EQ to that raised target - so that's a limitation because oftentimes it's useful to line the target up on the treble so it doesn't need to be EQ'd (where the EQ decisions are harder).

EDIT #2: actually you can change the alignment of the measurement on the target curve, you input the frequency of alignment to curve, which is the Hz box at the top of the screenshot.

 

[Robbo99999]

Folks, I had promised that I'd measure my Crinacle Zeros on my miniDSP EARS rig as a means of showing channel balance of my unit, and also to show effect of different tips - in terms of showing silicon vs foam tip. I've done some initial preliminary measurements (using silicon tip) and come to the conclusion that insertion depth is a real problem on the miniDSP EARS rig as you can see in this following first graph which is showing the left channel measured with different insertion depths:

I mean that's some crazy variation. The most sensible looking curve looked to be when the IEM was just barely inserted into the ear, at a depth that felt like it was just enough to seal the canal, so I continued to do channel balance measurements of left & right channel at "barely inserted depth", for which I did 7 different insertions & removals to get an idea of the variation when I was inserting to "barely inserted depth", following are the measurements associated with this technique:

Left Channel All Measurements:

Right Channel All Measurements:

Average of Left & Average of Right Compared (ie Channel Balance):

I did one channel balance measurement at maximum insertion depth and it follows the same pattern (but more extreme) so I think there is some validity in the channel matching information I'm showing you in the graph above. Following (in the thumbnail) is just one measurement showing the channel matching at the deepest insertion - it's more extreme the difference albeit showing the same trends, and I think the graph above is more representative rather than the one below.


So channel matching is not bad I'd say, but the insertion depth issues associated with IEM measurement on the miniDSP EARS means I'm not gonna be able to give you comparable measurements using the foam tips - so unfortunately I won't be able to show you the difference between foam tips and silicon tips, and nor will I be able to provide an EQ that will change your frequency response from foam to silicon tip.

EDIT: don't worry about the massive variation seen on this miniDSP EARS with insertion depth, as your ears won't react in the same horrible way to differences in the insertion depth when you wear your IEM - the differences are very extreme with this miniDSP EARS rig - I think it's because it doesn't match a human ears impedance accurately enough.

 

[Chromatischism]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553843537363570689

The Pixel Buds Pro has an EQ now with different presets, so I'm not sure which they tested, but it's hard to say that chart is representative.

 

[Chromatischism]

Not sure if this was mentioned already but Crinicle's graph tool (https://crinacle.com/graphs/iems/graphtool/) can be used to export Graphic EQ files for use with Wavelet on Android. So you can either generate one with AutoEQ in the tool or import Maiky's PEQ and export. The results look quite different in my app (I guess because they are EQing different sample measurements) although I'm not sure I can hear the difference yet.

View attachment 233738

View attachment 233739

Nice, I didn't know that. How does it compare to Maiky's EQ?

 

[SuicideSquid]

Folks, I had promised that I'd measure my Crinacle Zeros on my miniDSP EARS rig as a means of showing channel balance of my unit, and also to show effect of different tips - in terms of showing silicon vs foam tip. I've done some initial preliminary measurements (using silicon tip) and come to the conclusion that insertion depth is a real problem on the miniDSP EARS rig as you can see in this following first graph which is showing the left channel measured with different insertion depths:
View attachment 233806
I mean that's some crazy variation. The most sensible looking curve looked to be when the IEM was just barely inserted into the ear, at a depth that felt like it was just enough to seal the canal, so I continued to do channel balance measurements of left & right channel at "barely inserted depth", for which I did 7 different insertions & removals to get an idea of the variation when I was inserting to "barely inserted depth", following are the measurements associated with this technique:

Left Channel All Measurements:
View attachment 233807

Right Channel All Measurements:
View attachment 233808

Average of Left & Average of Right Compared (ie Channel Balance):
View attachment 233809


I did one channel balance measurement at maximum insertion depth and it follows the same pattern (but more extreme) so I think there is some validity in the channel matching information I'm showing you in the graph above. Following (in the thumbnail) is just one measurement showing the channel matching at the deepest insertion - it's more extreme the difference albeit showing the same trends, and I think the graph above is more representative rather than the one below.
View attachment 233810

So channel matching is not bad I'd say, but the insertion depth issues associated with IEM measurement on the miniDSP EARS means I'm not gonna be able to give you comparable measurements using the foam tips - so unfortunately I won't be able to show you the difference between foam tips and silicon tips, and nor will I be able to provide an EQ that will change your frequency response from foam to silicon tip.

This is super interesting and useful, thank you!

 

[Chromatischism]

So channel matching is not bad I'd say, but the insertion depth issues associated with IEM measurement on the miniDSP EARS means I'm not gonna be able to give you comparable measurements using the foam tips - so unfortunately I won't be able to show you the difference between foam tips and silicon tips, and nor will I be able to provide an EQ that will change your frequency response from foam to silicon tip.

There has to be a way to standardize the depth. Do some measurements and use markings or colored tape on the tips.

 

[MayaTlab]

Folks, I had promised that I'd measure my Crinacle Zeros on my miniDSP EARS rig as a means of showing channel balance of my unit, and also to show effect of different tips - in terms of showing silicon vs foam tip.

If what you want to do is perform channel matching comparisons, it's going to be a lot more effective to do with a sh*tty "mic in a silicone tube" rig - it will also be more effective to produce resonances in the same range as the one you'll get on proper couplers.
Of course the absolute measurements will be inapplicable and even for relative measurements it won't be accurate - but neither is the EARS.

 

[Robbo99999]

There has to be a way to standardize the depth. Do some measurements and use markings or colored tape on the tips.

Yeah, I did standardise it by inserting it barely right on the edge of the canal as it was a more predictable way to get the same measurement & looked like a more reasonable curve than fully inserted. It's on too small a scale and you can't see both sides of the tip when you're inserting it, so markings aren't really gonna work very well. To be honest, I'm not gonna be repeating or finetuning this experiment, as the miniDSP EARS is not really suited to measuring IEM's I've found. I'm reasonably happy with the final channel balance graph I showed as it follows the same trends as the fully inserted channel balance, yet is showing a closer match between the channels whilst being based on an average of 7 measurements.

If what you want to do is perform channel matching comparisons, it's going to be a lot more effective to do with a sh*tty "mic in a silicone tube" rig - it will also be more effective to produce resonances in the same range as the one you'll get on proper couplers.
Of course the absolute measurements will be inapplicable and even for relative measurements it won't be accurate - but neither is the EARS.

I know the miniDSP EARS rig is not ideal for IEM's, I found that out this afternoon, lol! I'm reasonably happy with the channel balance graph I showed, but it's not gonna be applicable for me to measure foam tips on there too and then provide some kind of comparison to the silicon tips I measured - it's just not gonna be comparable.

 

[DarwinDaDude]

Folks, I had promised that I'd measure my Crinacle Zeros on my miniDSP EARS rig as a means of showing channel balance of my unit, and also to show effect of different tips - in terms of showing silicon vs foam tip. I've done some initial preliminary measurements (using silicon tip) and come to the conclusion that insertion depth is a real problem on the miniDSP EARS rig as you can see in this following first graph which is showing the left channel measured with different insertion depths:
View attachment 233806
I mean that's some crazy variation. The most sensible looking curve looked to be when the IEM was just barely inserted into the ear, at a depth that felt like it was just enough to seal the canal, so I continued to do channel balance measurements of left & right channel at "barely inserted depth", for which I did 7 different insertions & removals to get an idea of the variation when I was inserting to "barely inserted depth", following are the measurements associated with this technique:

Left Channel All Measurements:
View attachment 233807

Right Channel All Measurements:
View attachment 233808

Average of Left & Average of Right Compared (ie Channel Balance):
View attachment 233809


I did one channel balance measurement at maximum insertion depth and it follows the same pattern (but more extreme) so I think there is some validity in the channel matching information I'm showing you in the graph above. Following (in the thumbnail) is just one measurement showing the channel matching at the deepest insertion - it's more extreme the difference albeit showing the same trends, and I think the graph above is more representative rather than the one below.
View attachment 233810

So channel matching is not bad I'd say, but the insertion depth issues associated with IEM measurement on the miniDSP EARS means I'm not gonna be able to give you comparable measurements using the foam tips - so unfortunately I won't be able to show you the difference between foam tips and silicon tips, and nor will I be able to provide an EQ that will change your frequency response from foam to silicon tip.

EDIT: don't worry about the massive variation seen on this miniDSP EARS with insertion depth, as your ears won't react in the same horrible way to differences in the insertion depth when you wear your IEM - the differences are very extreme with this miniDSP EARS rig - I think it's because it doesn't match a human ears impedance accurately enough.

Great study! I'm looking forward to the next series of measurements comparing the effect of large vs narrow bore sizes on frequency curves. The effect might be attributable to different insertion depths of the two bore size tips-- hopefully will explain the difference in subjective hearing of being either 'bassy' or 'shouty' with different bore size tips. Cheers!

 

[sharock]

Nice, I didn't know that. How does it compare to Maiky's EQ?

I don't know if I can do a good comparison or say which is better. I can say that I got a bit of a headache with the AutoEQ settings after 30mins of listening during a run. That could have been due to other factors too though! Side note: These aren't great for running. They catch a lot of wind noise and amplify footfall sound. Galaxy Buds Pro are still my go-to for sports.

 

[Robbo99999]

Great study! I'm looking forward to the next series of measurements comparing the effect of large vs narrow bore sizes on frequency curves. The effect might be attributable to different insertion depths of the two bore size tips-- hopefully will explain the difference in subjective hearing of being either 'bassy' or 'shouty' with different bore size tips. Cheers!

I don't think I'm gonna do that man.....there's just too much variation with IEMs on the miniDSP EARs rig. It would probably be more valid though if only comparing silicon tips whose only difference was the internal bore though, rather than me trying to compare foam vs silicon tips.......but still I wouldn't be confident enough in how strangely this miniDSP EARs is reacting to IEM's on the insertion depth to be able to make any confident extrapolations between narrow & wide internal bore. I may try to revisit this, but I don't think so.

 

[GaryH]

The Pixel Buds Pro has an EQ now with different presets, so I'm not sure which they tested, but it's hard to say that chart is representative.

They tested them before those presets came out. The point was though the very high rating of 9.2/10 Soundguys gave them for sound was not only at odds with their measurements showing large deviations from their own target, but also at odds with their less than glowing subjective description of them in the review, so I don't think they can be trusted.

I don't advocate for this website whatsoever nor I trust any reviews of any kind online but my ears and maybe objective datas and still you never know the conditions and rigor of the mesurements. I was just saying that I am not surprise an averaged curve of studio headphones they have mesured doesn't have the harman bass shelf. That's it. Ironically enough the target Crinacle made himslef of what he perceive neutral doesn't have a bass shelf either and my ears tend to perceive things the same way it seems.

In-Ear Fidelity's IEM Neutral Target Gets an Update (+ Database Updates) – In-Ear Fidelity

The old "Crinacle Target" gets a small tweak.

crinacle.com

I highly doubt an average of the response of studio headphones would somehow produce a curve that is exactly flat all the way from 20 Hz to 800 Hz...Plenty of studio headphones have Harman-level bass shelves e.g. probably the most ubiquitous the Sony MDR-7506 (at least down to ~30 Hz). None of their methodology makes much sense at all and the targets they come up with are pretty suspect. As for Crinacle, these reviewers love to say the Harman in-ear target isn't for them, but when you actually look at their reviews you'll most often find they do actually highly rate IEMs that follow it. Just look at the highest-rated TWS model on his site - the AKG N400, which closely follows the Harman target and as far as I'm aware has the highest predicted preference rating of all IEMs at 90/100 (calculated from its adherence to the target). And his highest-rated wired IEM? (For 'tonal grade', because the 'technical grade' is mostly just a meaningless proxy for pricing bias). The ThieAudio Monarch MKII, which...has a Harman-level bass shelf and follows the target fairly well elsewhere too, with a predicted preference rating of 81/100 (the same as the Truthear Zero by the way). So it's best not to trust much of what these reviewers say they like or is the best target, because they're not even self-consistent with their own reviews, and look instead at the science that has the best evidence behind it in the form of double-blind listening tests, producing targets free from the influence of sighted cognitive bias.

 

[Chromatischism]

They tested them before those presets came out. The point was though the very high rating of 9.2/10 Soundguys gave them for sound was not only at odds with their measurements showing large deviations from their own target, but also at odds with their less than glowing subjective description of them in the review, so I don't think they can be trusted.

We have no idea how they use the rating scale. Some may score everything between 8.0-10.0 for example. It could be that your expectation for how the ratings should work differs from how they use it.