TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero IEM Review

[Berwhale]

Well it's certainly not neutral to me.

That's the point, the rest of your post is superfluous (the clue is that it is littered with 1st person singular pronouns).

 

[Robbo99999]

Well flat out, the frequency response is not neutral, for starters.


EQ to the Harman curve is an improvement over stock, but it still sounds pretty bad. That's a good enough reason for me.

Your EQ might well work for you and be an improvement for you vs the Harman Curve, but that certainly doesn't mean it's likely to work better than the Harman Curve for everyone else.....if you don't know why that is then you don't understand the Harman Research & process through which they created the target and the "science" behind it. Probability would suggest that Harman Curve is the best target that has the highest chance of sounding good for the largest percentage of people. You can't be coming out with statements that your individualised EQ "should be a big improvement for most people" (to quote you) - that's why so many people are calling you out on this, so as to put things right for the various readers of this forum. It doesn't matter if you're wrong one time, people won't hate you.

(But you can be pleased you've come up with an EQ that works very well for yourself, there's nothing wrong with that.)

 

[charleski]

Well it's certainly not neutral to me.

The Harman curve is a starting point, and that's all it has ever meant to be, especially when it comes to iems. You then need to tune the EQ further to match your own particular hearing and preferences. Everyone's optimal EQ curve will be different (mine also departs from the Harman curve, but is wildly different to the curve you showed here). There's no simple 'one size fits all' solution, but there is a process that can help you find the right curve, and it involves starting with the Harman and then identifying the areas you need to change.

 

[Robbo99999]

The Harman curve is a starting point, and that's all it has ever meant to be, especially when it comes to iems. You then need to tune the EQ further to match your own particular hearing and preferences. Everyone's optimal EQ curve will be different (mine also departs from the Harman curve, but is wildly different to the curve you showed here). There's no simple 'one size fits all' solution, but there is a process that can help you find the right curve, and it involves starting with the Harman and then identifying the areas you need to change.

I'll just add that the Harman Curve can also be the end point, it doesn't have to be just the starting point.......it just depends how much it suits you. People shouldn't think they have to tune their headphones and IEM's away from it for the best experience.

 

[Vacceo]

I am thinking about getting the Fiio bluetooth adapters for this IEM's. Will they handle them well?

 

[charleski]

I'll just add that the Harman Curve can also be the end point, it doesn't have to be just the starting point.......it just depends how much it suits you. People shouldn't think they have to tune their headphones and IEM's away from it for the best experience.

Yeah. Statistically it's more likely that your personal preference will be close to the Harman curve rather than further away, which is why it's the best starting point we have. If you find it matches the curve precisely then this makes things a lot simpler. Personally, I want more bass than the 2019v2 curve provides, though this no doubt comes from listening to Thrash Metal artists like Mozart and Debussy.

 

[charleski]

I am thinking about getting the Fiio bluetooth adapters for this IEM's. Will they handle them well?

Get the MMCX version and a small adapter. The 2pin version of the Fiio is flat and recessed 2pins like this tend to slip off.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

For many years, the audiophile press has waged an all-out push to put to the front, individual preferences.
There is no doubt that we are different but, the truth of the matter is that, we are not that much different. Statistically we are very similar in the way we hear and of what we prefer. There was a study conducted by some Harman people, I believe it was by S. Olive, that showed that across age groups and races, there was a great of similarities on what we perceive as accurate reproduction, it was across ages, across races and IIRC, countries.
Back to this Harman curve, it seems to work for most people, most earthlings anyway, and there are studies to back it up. OTOH Very few studies, if any, to contradict.it. It would be wise for the budding audiophile, to first adhere to it, then see (hear ) if variations from it are perceived as accurate or pleasing long term .
I am very confortable with it for my part.
I presently use 3 audio systems:
1) Speaker-based: JBL LSR-308 + 2 Subs + Denon AVR
2) Headphones based: HiFiMan HE6SEv2 + THX789 amp _ EQ to Harman
3) iPhone Pro + Apple Dongle + TCZ IEM

The 3 systems follow more or less the Harman curves and it is interesting how similar and pleasing (for me ) all 3 sound... There are however differences with the HiFiman headphones with Harman EQ, being the most "revealing", for the lack of a better term or explanation. These differences are not however of the "night and day" variety so overused by audiophiles... I prefer the HiFiMan HE6SEv2 for accuracy but for enjoyment, the speaker-based system is my favorite by a mile ... and for convenience and now for travel, the iPhone Pro + Apple Dongle + TCZ...
I have a Sony NC WMX-1000-v3 or v4? headphones, it was used for travel... and it was EQ to Harman, it does sound decent when EQ but is no match for the TCZ... I may gift this headphones ... Not much use for it ...

my $.02.

 

[Chromatischism]

Yeah. Statistically it's more likely that your personal preference will be close to the Harman curve rather than further away, which is why it's the best starting point we have. If you find it matches the curve precisely then this makes things a lot simpler. Personally, I want more bass than the 2019v2 curve provides, though this no doubt comes from listening to Thrash Metal artists like Mozart and Debussy.

See, I've been making this point. You have to benchmark against a lot of different material. The mistakes many make is to compare either with material that isn't very revealing of flaws, or, EQ to make certain material sound best.

 

[Chromatischism]

Your EQ might well work for you and be an improvement for you vs the Harman Curve, but that certainly doesn't mean it's likely to work better than the Harman Curve for everyone else.....if you don't know why that is then you don't understand the Harman Research & process through which they created the target and the "science" behind it. Probability would suggest that Harman Curve is the best target that has the highest chance of sounding good for the largest percentage of people. You can't be coming out with statements that your individualised EQ "should be a big improvement for most people" (to quote you) - that's why so many people are calling you out on this, so as to put things right for the various readers of this forum. It doesn't matter if you're wrong one time, people won't hate you.

(But you can be pleased you've come up with an EQ that works very well for yourself, there's nothing wrong with that.)

I have a neutral reference system that tells me what neutral sounds like. Do you? What is your reference? Plus, lots of experience with the test material I use. I will repeat - the Harman IE 2019 curve does not sound close at all to neutral speakers in a room. There are a lot of others here who have said the same, and you have seen several people move the EQ in the same direction as I have. We just vary in how far we go. There is a trend in this thread showing that the stock tonality isn't right.

 

[Berwhale]

I have a neutral reference system that tells me what neutral sounds like.

How do you know this? Neutral to what? (There's those 1st person singular pronouns again)

There is a trend in this thread showing that the stock tonality isn't right.

If there is a trend in this thread, it is that you keep touting your preferred preference curve.

Personally, I think the trends identified in Harman's scientifically conducted research have more weight than one supposedly identified in an internet forum thread (even a forum as illustrious as ASR!)

 

[Robbo99999]

I have a neutral reference system that tells me what neutral sounds like. Do you? What is your reference? Plus, lots of experience with the test material I use. I will repeat - the Harman IE 2019 curve does not sound close at all to neutral speakers in a room. There are a lot of others here who have said the same, and you have seen several people move the EQ in the same direction as I have. We just vary in how far we go. There is a trend in this thread showing that the stock tonality isn't right.

Come on, don't be silly, don't try to qualify your earlier statement which you were called out on....just accept it, people don't mind, but they'll think less of you if you continue to defend it. There's no reason why you should expect your individualised EQ to be to superior to the Harman Curve for most people, you can't say stuff like that, which is what you're being called out on.....we don't have to continually repost the reasons for this, because it's already been shown......no amount of replies from you to try to change the goal posts or wriggle the angle of discussion in a tangential direction can hide that fact.

 

[SalutaryGraveness]

I have a neutral reference system that tells me what neutral sounds like. Do you? What is your reference? Plus, lots of experience with the test material I use. I will repeat - the Harman IE 2019 curve does not sound close at all to neutral speakers in a room. There are a lot of others here who have said the same, and you have seen several people move the EQ in the same direction as I have. We just vary in how far we go. There is a trend in this thread showing that the stock tonality isn't right.

Harman also had a neutral reference system to work with.

 

[ElNino]

Harman also had a neutral reference system to work with.

They did, but from what I remember of Harman's research in developing the headphone curves, they didn't actually try to match the sound of a neutral reference system. Rather, their empirical work was to determine what sounded best for headphone listeners. It's possible that this would coincide with the sound of a neutral in-room system, but there's no reason why it necessarily would. (Especially in the bass region.)

I'm sympathetic to Chromatischism's perspective for this reason, especially with respect to the bass region.

 

[GXAlan]

How do we measure dynamic range compression? What seems like added detail feels like the loud sounds are compressed so as you turn up the volume, the low level portions of the music get raised so you hear more background noise (like ruffling of papers in a symphony).

 

[SalutaryGraveness]

They did, but from what I remember of Harman's research in developing the headphone curves, they didn't actually try to match the sound of a neutral reference system. Rather, their empirical work was to determine what sounded best for headphone listeners. It's possible that this would coincide with the sound of a neutral in-room system, but there's no reason why it necessarily would. (Especially in the bass region.)

Their hypothesis was that a set of good speakers (flat frequency response) in a normal listening room would produce
the most pleasant sound for most listeners compared to other targets such as free field and diffuse field.
Not, "let's see how listeners mess up with the EQ and then let's draw some target curve from that"

So it is not like "it is possible" that their curve coincides with a neutral in-room system.
That was their whole premise which they validated.

I'm sympathetic to Chromatischism's perspective for this reason, especially with respect to the bass region.

Here's the problem: If you are going to claim that the Harman curve is not neutral, unbalanced, it is shouty, has bad tonality, etc
because you compare it with your own speakers and some other guy agrees with you, well, I would like to see what exact methodology
you use to reach that kind of conclusion: What measurement instruments you use. What protocols you designed to measure. Your statistical
model, how you deal with blind tests, the specifications of your speakers, characteristics of your room, the frequency response at your ear canal, etc.
how do you define things like "shouty" , Is there any way to independently reproduce what you claim against the Harman curve?

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Following this discussion with some interest. I haven't tried any EQ on the TCZ, nor do I feel the need but compared to the Harman-curve-equalized HifiMan HE6SE, the TCZ is a bit shouty and bit bright. THe mid are also somewhat recessed to me... Bass is good but not as good as that of the HE6SE...
The TCZ could be better with a bit of EQ.. It fits the Harman curve very well, but it will fit it better with judicious EQ....

For me,out of the box, it is as good as I care... Not perfect but damn close.. Regardless of price...

Peace

 

[ElNino]

Their hypothesis was that a set of good speakers (flat frequency response) in a normal listening room would produce
the most pleasant sound for most listeners compared to other targets such as free field and diffuse field.
Not, "let's see how listeners mess up with the EQ and then let's draw some target curve from that"

So it is not like "it is possible" that their curve coincides with a neutral in-room system.
That was their whole premise which they validated.

I think we're talking about different research. It sounds like you're talking about their work on loudspeakers. Their headphone target curve work is what I was referring to.

 

[staticV3]

How do we measure dynamic range compression?

Play sounds of increasingly louder volume and look for nonlinearities.
Looks like this for DACs:

And here's a bookshelf speaker:

 

[SalutaryGraveness]

I think we're talking about different research. It sounds like you're talking about their work on loudspeakers. Their headphone target curve work is what I was referring to.

No, I am talking about their headphone/iem research because that's how they compared against other targets such as free field and diffuse field.

Because regardless of what kind of listening room you use, it only makes sense to use flat-sounding speakers to measure the neutral/natural target response in the ear.
The question was which proposed neutral target curve most listeners prefer : the free field, diffuse field or the Harman room?
(they are all neutral and natural as far the type of listening room is concerned)
The result they got was that most listeners prefer the Harman target curve.

And btw, the Harman target curve is not telling us what target we are supposed to like (that would be an insane claim). It only tell us what a good neutral target curve looks like and what most listeners prefer compared to other neutral targets.