Disclaimer:

• GKEarphones.ph/Sir Jeff Yang sent me this unit in an exchange for an honest review. Rest assured that this review will be free from any bias/es as much as possible.
• The following remarks and observations shall be made and owned only by me.
• No monetary compensation is/was involved before, during, and after the period of creation of this review.
• Your mileage may (and always, will) vary.

Burn-in time: 5-10 hours per day, 4 days.

Source/s used:

• Hidizs AP80
• Not-By-VE Avani Realtek Dongle
• Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811 DAC)
• Non-HiFi smartphone (realme 5i)
• Local Files via Foobar and Roon, YouTube Music, Deezer, and Qobuz with UAPP

IEM and setup configuration: stock tips, stock cable, any form of EQ and MSEB off, 40-60% volume.

Sound signature:

• V-shaped sound signature, leans to the brighter spectrum. Controlled lows, recessed, nearly clean mids, bright upper frequencies. Below average soundstage, average imaging, and separation. Excellent detail retrieval for its asking price point, nearly the same as the KZ ZEX Pro.

Lows:

• Lows are present and controlled. Bass is punchy rather than being boomy. Decay is on the faster side and is sufficient for most tracks. Midbass bleeds slightly into mids, adding warmth to the lower mids. Overall, the lows are slightly elevated, controlled, and will please bassheads on a tight budget.

Mids:

• The mids are presented in a recessed manner. Lower mids are warm and may sound distant at some tracks. Male vocals have decent weight. Upper mids exhibit above average clarity for its price point with enough air and sparkle, but experiences sibilance on sibilant-prone tracks. The sibilance is tolerable on my experience but will vary depending on the user’s hearing sensitivity. Overall, the mids are good enough for most people but have some compromises as anticipated in this budget range.

Highs:

• The highs are bright and well-extended with a very good sense of air. Excellent detail retrieval, this IEM is one of the best IEMs I have owned and auditioned for under 20$. Overall, the treble of the CCA CRA is one of my favorites in the budget segment. It is the best for its asking price, but can never outperform the most detailed IEMs under 100usd such as the HZSound Heart Mirror and BQEYZ KC2.

Soundstage, Imaging, and separation:

• The soundstage is below average to my liking, it sounds like everything is inside your head. Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t narrow by any means, it is just a little bit smaller compared to the KZ EDX, NiceHCK DB1, and KZ EDX Pro. Separation is also average, it can handle most tracks with a fair bit of congestion on very busy tracks. Imaging is accurate enough but not precise.

Comparison/s!

VS NiceHCK DB1

• The NiceHCK DB1 sounds airier when compared to the CCA CRA. The DB1 also has a wider soundstage. Mids are also less recessed on the DB1. The sibilance on the DB1 are also non-existent. However, the CRA packs more punch in the overall sound when compared to the DB1. The CRA sounds more bodied when compared. The bass is also textured on the CRA compared to the DB1 which suffers less textured lows. Imaging and separation are nearly the same.

Pros:

• Another compelling option for an all-rounder IEM under 20USD
• Controlled, punchy bass
• Fun sounding IEM that sounds good on most tracks
• Excellent detail retrieval for its price
• Very good fit and isolation for most people (subjective)

Cons:

• There is still some sibilance on sibilant prone tracks
• Below average soundstage compared to some IEMs within the price range under 20USD
• Barebone accessories (but this is already cheap in terms of price, so manage your expectations).

Thank you for reading!

Additional Photos:

Disclaimer:

• I purchased this with my own money from Shopee. Rest assured that this review will be free from any bias/es as much as possible.
• The following remarks and observations shall be made and owned only by me.
• No monetary compensation is/was involved before, during, and after the period of creation of this review.
• Your mileage may (and always, will) vary.

Burn-in time: 5-10 hours per day, 3 days.

Source/s used:

• Hidizs AP80
• Not-By-VE Avani Realtek Dongle
• Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811 DAC)
• Non-HiFi smartphone (realme 5i)
• Local Files via Foobar and Roon, YouTube Music, Deezer, and Qobuz with UAPP.

IEM and setup configuration: stock tips, stock cable, any form of EQ and MSEB off, 40-60% volume.

Sound signature:

• Mild V/U-shaped sound signature, this IEM leans to being bright. On some sources, this may sound neutral-bright. Tight, controlled bass, slightly recessed mids, elevated, bright highs. Above-average detail retrieval for its price under 20 USD.

Lows:

• Lows are present with sufficient elevation when needed. Midbass is slightly dominant by a small margin compared to subbass. Bass leans to the faster side of decay. Bass may lack texture or detail at times. It can be sufficient for most tracks and EDM, but might be lacking for bass-heads. Overall, the lows are tight, controlled and exhibits fast decay.

Mids:

• The mids are slightly recessed but does not get drowned by the bass despite of having a minimal midbass bleed to keep the lower vocals have a little bit of warmth. The upper mids are raised and have above-average clarity. This is where the DB1 differs from other IEMs in this price range (around $20): it is bright and sparkly, but never sibilant or peaky as long as the user is listening at regular level. Overall, the mids are slightly recessed in the lower mids but have a lot of air and presence in the upper mids. It never sounded muffled or boxy. This is by far the IEM with the "best" representation of mids under $20 that I've bought and auditioned.

Highs:

• The highs are brilliant and extended. There are no peaks or pierces. Average detail retrieval; you can easily pick up on minor nuances on recordings. Overall, the treble is bright and resolving to keep the sound "open" and appealing.

Soundstage, Imaging, and separation:

• The soundstage is average, broader than deep, and has a little amount of appropriate depth. Separation is also average, and it can handle busy music with moderate congestion, especially on metal and JPop tracks with a lot of instruments playing in the background. Imaging is above average for the price, and I was able to easily pick up on the position of the instruments and voices.

Pros:

• Very good, all-rounder sound for 12USD
• Controlled, tight bass
• Clear mids
• Fatigue-free yet engaging sound
• Airy highs
• One of the best vocal reproduction from an IEM under 20usd (subjective)
• Lightweight fit and isolation (subjective)
• Eye-candy box for most people

Cons:

• Definitely not for bassheads (subjective)
• Bass may lack texture
• Accessories could be better (like include a pouch at least, but hey, this is 12USD with very good sound quality. Manage your expectations.)

Thank you for reading!


Additional Photos:

Disclaimer:

• I luckily won this unit in a previous raffle conducted by KeepHiFi and TinHiFi. Rest assured that this review will do its best to remove any form of bias/es.
• The following remarks and observations shall be made and owned only by me.
• No monetary compensation is/was involved before, during, and after the period of creation of this review.
• Your mileage may (and always, will) vary.

Burn-in time: 5 hours per day, 6 days.

Source/s used:

• Hidizs AP80
• Not-By-VE Avani Realtek Dongle
• Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811 DAC)
• Non-HiFi smartphone (realme 5i)
• Local Files via Foobar and Roon, YouTube Music, Deezer, and Qobuz with UAPP.

IEM setup configuration: Stock preinstalled ear tips, stock cable, MSEB, or any form of EQ off, 40-60% volume, low and high gain.

Sound signature:

• Balanced with an ever-so-slight hint of warmth. Thick, controlled bass, clear natural mids, controlled, well-done treble presentation. Wide soundstage, excellent imaging, and separation for its price range. Very good detail retrieval without being analytical.

Lows:

• Lows are present and appear whenever the track needed bass. Controlled, thick lows, with almost even amounts of sub-bass and midbass with above-average depth. Decay leans on the quicker side. Bass goes deep without any noticeable bleed on other frequencies. Bassheads can be satisfied with this lows presentation but won’t be enough for those people who want a punchier, hard-hitting bass response.

Mids:

• Mids are almost linear but with a slight hint of being warmth. Lower notes exhibit decent thickness and weight. It is also detailed as well. On a non-Hifi source, the lower mids may experience a slight recession. Upper mids are above average in clarity and sparkle and avoid any peaks or sibilance. Overall, the mids are above average in terms of clarity and details without being too intimate or forward.

Highs:

• Highs are present with natural, controlled extension. Above-average detail retrieval, air, and sparkle for its asking price. No existence of any roll-off, peaks or pierce here as well. Overall, the presentation of the treble is natural and excellent for most people but not for those people who ask for more treble energy.

Soundstage, Imaging, and separation:

• The soundstage is above-average, wider than deep. It does exhibit a hint of being holographic on my observations and tests. Separation is also excellent for its price, one of the best I heard for 60USD. Imaging is also precise and can handle busy tracks fairly well. Overall, the technicalities of the T3 Plus are a big step up from budget IEMs I’ve heard and tested under the 60$ price point.

Comparisons:

• Vs the Moondrop Aria:

The T3 Plus and the Aria share the same characteristic – thick lows, slightly warm mids, natural highs. However, the T3 plus excels in the technicalities, particularly on imaging, separation, and detail retrieval. Its mids also aren’t as recessed as the Aria, its bass is also lesser in quantity as well. Overall, the T3 Plus is a much more detailed Aria with lesser lows quantity and more detail retrieval, and better technicalities. Its fit is also better on most ears. Paint chipping is also non-existent, as a bonus.

• Vs the Audiosense AQ0

The Audiosense AQ0 overall sounds much livelier and more fun than the T3 plus due to its basshead-approved bass quality and quantity. Mids are also much more recessed on the AQ0 by a fairly small margin when compared. Treble is much more extended on the AQ0 as well. Soundstage and imaging are nearly the same on both IEMs, but the T3 Plus is a little better on the separation. Fit and feel are very good on both IEMs but the T3 Plus is much better. Overall, The AQ0 gives the decent “fun”, while the T3 Plus gives the “mature laugh”.


Pros:

• Excellent sound quality for its price (69$)
• Thick, controlled lows
• Clear yet detailed mids
• Natural highs extension
• Excellent detail retrieval
• Above-average technicalities for its asking price
• Fairly easy to be driven, but will scale and sound better from a powerful/decent source.
• One of the best fit and isolation (subjective)
• Generous set of accessories.

Cons:

• Bassheads may ask for more punch (subjective)
• Trebleheads may ask for more treble energy (subjective)
• Aside from those stated, none for its asking price.

Thank you for reading!

Attached Photos:

KZ x Crinacle CRN (ZEX Pro) Review!​

Product and shop link: Click me!

Disclaimer:

• KZearphones.ph / Sir Jeff Yang /KZ provided me this review unit free of charge in exchange for an honest clear review. Rest assured that this review will be free from any bias/es as much as possible.
• The following remarks and observations shall be made and owned only by me.
• No monetary compensation is/was involved before, during, and after the period of creation of this review.
• Your mileage may (and always, will) vary.

Burn-in time: 5-10 hours per day, 3 days.

Source/s used:

• Hidizs AP80
• Not-By-VE Avani Realtek Dongle
• Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811 DAC)
• Non-HiFi smartphone (realme 5i)
• Local Files via Foobar and Roon, YouTube Music, Deezer, and Qobuz with UAPP.

IEM and setup configuration: stock tips, stock cable, any form of EQ and MSEB off, 40-60% volume.

Sound signature:

• Mild V/U-shaped sound signature depending on the setup, but this time it leans to the brighter side. Sparkly, bright upper mids and treble. There are instances of peaks and sibilance on upper frequencies. Wide soundstage. This IEM does not forgive poorly-mastered or lower bitrate tracks and files.

Lows:

• Lows are present and slightly elevated. Subbass presence is dominant over midbass. Bass may lack texture on busy tracks due to its smooth character, even smoother compared to the CA16 Pro. Average decay, not too fast or too slow/boomy. Very good control. Bassheads may find the ZEX-Pro’s bass lacking, particularly on the midbass. Overall, the bass is controlled and exhibits sub-bass dominance.

Mids:

• Mids are slightly recessed with some little to no bleed at all. Lower mids may sound thin depending on the track’s mastering and file bitrate. Upper mids are elevated, bright with above-average clarity. Instances of sibilance and peaks are present, particularly on sibilant prone tracks. Overall, the mids are slightly recessed and never got drowned even on busy tracks, but can get hot and peaky on sibilant prone, poorly mastered, and low—bitrate tracks.

Highs:

• Highs are bright and extended. It is also airy and sparkly but can introduce pierce occasionally on bright tracks. Above-average detail retrieval. This has by far been the most detailed KZ IEM I have owned and auditioned. Overall, the treble is bright with very good detail retrieval for its asking price, but will not please treble-sensitive people.

Soundstage, Imaging, and separation:

• The soundstage is above-average, even wider than the ED16 I used to own. It is wider than deep. Separation is also average and showed very slight congestion on busy tracks. Imaging is also surprisingly precise on most tracks I play with it with a very good sense of space and position of instruments and vocals.

Pros:

• Very good, flush-fit to most ears
• Above-Average detail retrieval, the most detailed KZ IEM I have owned and auditioned so far.
• Little to no midbass bleed
• Well-defined, sparkly upper frequencies.
• Good stock ear tips, not too soft nor hard
• Wide soundstage
• Above-average imaging and separation.

Cons:

• Definitely not for bass heads (subjective)
• Instances of sibilance on sibilant prone tracks are present
• Upper frequencies may sound thin at times
• Not forgiving on poorly mastered/low bitrate tracks.
• Bass may lack texture
• Accessories could be better
• There may be better alternatives for its asking price (30USD)

Thank you for reading!



#KZ #KnowledgeZenith #ZEXPro #KZZEXPRO #chifi #Hifi

Disclaimer:

• KeepHiFi (Sandy CCZ) provided me with this review sample in return for my honest opinion and views on the Emerald. Rest assured that this review will be as devoid of bias/es as possible.
• The following remarks and observations shall be made and owned only by me.
• No monetary compensation is/was involved before, during, and after the period of creation of this review.
• Your mileage may (and always, will) vary.

Burn-in time: 5 hours per day, 3 days.

Source/s used:

• Hidizs AP80
• Not-By-VE Avani Realtek Dongle
• Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811 DAC)
• Non-HiFi smartphone (realme 5i)
• Local Files via Foobar and Roon, YouTube Music, Deezer, and Qobuz with UAPP.

Sound signature:

• Balanced-warm. Big, controlled lows most of the time. Vocals can sound intimate on vocal-oriented tracks, Average soundstage.

Lows:

• Lows are present and elevated. It is thumpy and has a normal decay, not too fast nor too slow. Levels of midbass and sub-bass are both equal to my ears. Overall, the lows exhibit a controlled yet fun presentation for its asking price. Bassheads may enjoy this IEM on bass-heavy and EDM tracks.

Mids:

• Mids are warm and may suffer slight recession depending on the source paired with it due to some slight mid-bass bleed. Lower mids are thick and have decent clarity. Upper mids are slightly elevated compared to the lower mids and can sound intimate on vocal-oriented tracks. It also exhibits decent clarity with no presence of harshness and sibilance. Overall, the mids are pretty good and have a compelling presentation under 20USD due to its lush and smooth character.

Highs:

• Highs are also extended, although not by much as compared to comparable IEMs in this price range. Treble-heads may be disappointed by the absence of treble energy, but most ears will be satisfied. Average detail retrieval, you can fairly easy to catch the small nuances on tracks. Overall, the treble on this IEM settled for the safer side without being too rolled off.

Soundstage, Imaging, and separation:

• The soundstage is average, wider than deep. Separation is also average; it can suffer a little bit of congestion. Imaging is also accurate and good for most tracks such as pop, acoustic rock and EDM.

Comparison/s:

Vs the KZ ZEX

• Both IEMs perform really good-even toe-to-toe when compared. The KZ ZEX sounds more “fun” and energetic compared to the CCZ Emerald. The bass on the ZEX is also punchier compared to the Emerald. The mids on the CCZ Emerald are much more forward compared to the ZEX. Treble is also much more extended on ZEX and can suffer some instances of sibilance to sibilant-prone tracks in return. The Emerald on the other hand has a decent extension on the treble without getting hot or sibilant. The separation is also better on the CCZ Emerald by a fairly small margin. The ZEX sounded a little bit congested when compared overall.

Pros:

• An All-rounder-sound
• Despite being an all-rounder, its presentation is somewhat different compared to the IEMs within its asking price (23usd or under)
• Smooth mids presentation
• Decent packaging and accessories, particularly the ear tips.
• Lightweight fit and feel, reminded me of the Final E1000 in terms of fit and feel.
• A fatigue-free listening experience.
• Very easy to be driven properly.

Cons:

• Intimate vocals (subjective)
• Lack of treble energy for treble heads (subjective)
• Slight mid-bass bleed
• Aside from those stated, nothing really bad for its asking price (23USD)

Additional Photos!

Disclaimer/s:

• I got this from a straight trade from a co-hobbyist. Rest assured that this review will be free from any bias/es.
• Blon did not compensate me before to, during, or after the writing and construction of this review. They are also unaware that I will be doing this review.
• I'll be utilizing the default Audiosense ear tips due to the poor fit of the supplied ear tips in my ears.
• Your mileage may (,and will) vary.

Burn-in duration: 3 days, 5 hours a day.

Source/s Used:

• -Hidizs AP80
• -Not-By-VE Avani Realtek Dongle
• -Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811 DAC)
• -Non-HiFi smartphone (realme 5i)

Sound Signature:

• V/U shaped depending on the source paired. big, soft bass, thick sounding pair of IEMS. Non-fatiguing sound.

Lows:

• Lows are present and elevated. Midbass is a little bit dominant over the sub bass. Bass decay leans more on the slower side. Lows can be a bit boomy on some tracks. There is a fair amount of bass bleed to other frequencies (will explain it later). This IEM may appeal to bassheads when listening to bass-heavy and EDM tunes.

Mids:

• Mids are warm and recessed but not boxy nor thin. Bass bleed is also present here. Depending on your source, the extent of the recession may differ. The lower and higher mids sound hefty, yet they may be lacking in clarity.

Highs:

• The highs are somewhat raised, but not as much as the lows. It also has a tiny roll-off. Speaking of lows, bass bleed may occasionally obscure the highs, especially on busier tunes. As a consequence, there were no indicators of peaks or sibilance. Detail retrieval is below average compared to other IEMs in this price price point (under 40usd). People with ears that are sensitive to upper frequencies might find the treble comfortable.

Soundstage, Imaging and Separation:

• The soundstage is average, wider than deep. Imaging is accurate but not precise. Separation is average and will suffer a little bit of congestion with busy tracks.

Comparison/s:

Vs. BL03

• The BL03’s bass is much more boomier when compared. Mids are a little bit more open on the BL-Max. Treble lacks more extension on the BL03. Soundstage is also a little bit wider on the BL-Max. The remaining frequencies and technicalities are nearly identical.

Pros:

• Fatigue-free sound
• Thick sounding iem (subjective)
• Premium, glossy metal build
• Slightly wider stage vs the bl03.

Cons:

• rolled off treble (subjective)
• midbass bleed
• treble can be masked by the lows on busy tracks
• lackluster stock eartips
• fit will not be good ootb for most people
• proprietary 2pin cable, different from the usual 2pin QDC cables.
• Slow bass decay (subjective)
• Driver shell is easily prone to smudge and scratches.
• There are better options for its asking price (40usd), in terms of technicalities.

Additional Photos:

KZ ZEX Review!​

Disclaimer/s:

• KZ (Love Jr David) sent this review unit to me free of charge, aside from the shipping/postage fees in exchange for an unbiased, honest review. Rest assured that everything I say and write about this IEM will be true and free from any bias/es.
• No money is/was involved during and after the creation of this review.
• KZ does not have any control over anything that I am about to say in my review. My review is created, written, and owned by me and me alone.
• Your mileage may (and always will,) vary.

Source/s Used:

• Not-By-VE Avani Realtek DAC
• Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811 DAC)
• Realme 5i (non-Hi-Fi smartphone)

Burn-in/Audition Time: 15 hours, for 3 days.

Sound signature: Fun-sounding, V-shaped sound signature, but can also be U-shaped depending on your setup. Big, controlled bass, warm, slightly recessed mids, extended highs.

Lows:
- Lows are definitely elevated with decent depth. It shows a slight dominance of midbass over sub-bass on most tracks. Subbass is present when needed with above-average rumble. Bass overall is controlled with fast decay. The lows can satisfy EDM tracks.

Mids:
- Mids are warm and slightly recessed. Little to no midbass bleed are present. Despite being recessed, the mids did not sound muffled or boxed at all. Lower notes have an accurate depth. Upper mids exhibits average clarity and sparkle. Sibilance and peaks are present on sibilant-prone tracks but less frequent compared to the EDX-Pro.

Highs:
- Highs is also elevated and bright, with rare instances of peaks on tracks that are prone to peak. Treble is also well extended and exhibits decent air to it. Detail retrieval is also average and enough for casual listening and most tracks.

Soundstage, Imaging and Separation:
- Soundstage is wide, a little bit wider than the EDX-Pro. It has good width with average depth. Separation is average and can handle busy tracks fairly well. Imaging is also accurate with the ability to discern 5 instruments at most with little to no congestion.

Pros:
- Very easy to be driven properly, easier than the EDX-Pro
- Fun, all-rounder sound
- Spacious, clear mids compared to its predecessor/s.
- Warm mids (subjective)
- A bit wider soundstage
- More controlled lows
- Decent imaging and separation for its price (20+USD)
- Better ear tips. I think KZ listened to the community. It comes now with a set of reverse-Starline-looking ear tips which improved the sound.

Cons:
- There is still a little bit of mid-bass bleed.
- Sibilance on upper mids is present on sibilant prone tracks.
- Nozzle lip could be a bit thicker/better for aftermarket ear tips.


Additional Photos:

Good day! After three days of observation and casual usage, here is my review for the Audiosense AQ0- The so-called “underrated” IEM by few. Let's see whether it's truly underestimated!
Disclaimer/s:

• Because I paid for it with my own money, the following claims and observations will be as truthful and honest as possible, with as little bias as possible.
• The following remarks and observations shall be made and owned only by me.
• Audiosense is unaware that I will be conducting this evaluation, and no compensation for this review is/was involved.
• Your mileage may (and always, will) vary.

Burn-in time: 5 hours per day, 3 days.

Source/s used:

• Hidizs AP80
• Not-By-VE Avani Realtek Dongle
• Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811 DAC)
• Non-HiFi smartphone (realme 5i)

Sound signature:

• Balanced-warm. Depending on the source matched, it might sound u-shaped at times. Big, controlled bass, clear mids, and well-extended highs with no roll-off.

Lows:

• Lows are elevated and deep, with big quantity. However, the AQ0 did a great job of presenting the lows. Subbass is the elevated portion, not the midbass. Exhibits decent sub-bass rumble when needed. Overall, the bass packs a punch with quick and well-controlled decay. Bassheads will enjoy this IEM on EDM and bass-heavy tracks.

Mids:

• Mids are I’d say near neutral, but can suffer from slight recession depending on the source paired, particularly with a non-hifi smartphone. Lower mids have decent weight and clarity. Upper mids exhibit above-average clarity with sufficient sparkle. No instances of peaks or sibilance are present.

Highs:

• Highs are also decently extended and do not lack any air. It isn’t rolled off or bright either. I would say it’s on the “sweet spot”. Detail retrieval is above average for this price point. Microdetails can be heard easily without being analytical.

Soundstage, Imaging, and separation:

• The soundstage is average, wider than deep. Separation is also average, it can suffer a little bit of congestion, but far from being bad or unbearable on this specific track (Cö shu Nie – Asphyxia). Imaging is also near precise and can handle five or more instruments and vocals decently.

Pros:

• An all-rounder sounding IEM
• Above-average detail retrieval for its price point (100usd)
• Tuning on the lows well done
• Clear mids
• Fatigue free yet enjoyable highs
• Above-average fit and isolation (subjective)
• Very good set of accessories. It comes with 3 pairs of stock tips, 3 pairs of OEM EP-EX11 ear tips, A canvas IEM case with wool walling inside, and an MMCX remover tool.
• Very good IEM stock cable. Tightly braided and does not tangle based on my experience. Comes with a built-in winder as well.

Cons:

• None for its asking price we're talking about an IEM that can sound well with most genres (100usd), really.

Good day! Here are my views and experiences with the CCA C16 Pro after three days of average use. The two main issues are whether the CA16 Pro is worth the asking price (66USD) and how it compares to its sister company's new product, the KZ ZEX. Let's find out!

Product link: https://shopee.ph/CCA-CA16-Pro-Earp...zUlLrQT_aYX5s4-m9dYMH0vcijHujFEAHGD36Xt3N6w4Y

Product link: https://www.kztws.com/products/ca16-pro?_pos=1&_sid=0894cf7ec&_ss=r&variant=42101065810171

My review page: https://www.facebook.com/aurafireviews


Disclaimer/s:

• GKEarphones.ph/CCA (Love Jr David) sent this review unit to me free of charge, aside from the shipping/postage fees in exchange for an unbiased, honest review. Rest assured that everything I say and write about this IEM will be true and free from any bias/es
• No money is/was involved during and after the creation of this review.
• CCA/GKEarphone.ph does not have any control over anything that I am about to say in my review. My review is created, written, and owned by me and me alone.
• Your mileage may (and always will,) vary.

Source/s Used:

-Hidizs AP80, EQ and MSEB turned off
- Not-By-VE Avani Realtek DAC
- Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811 DAC)
- Realme 5i (non-Hi-Fi smartphone)
- Roon, YouTube Music, Foobar for Local Files. Ranges from 16-bit FLAC to DSD128.


Brain/Burn-In Time Burn-in/Audition Time: 15 hours, for 3 days.

Sound signature:

V-shaped. Fun/lively sounding. Massive bass, slightly recessed clean mids (a little more recessed than the KZ ZEX), raised, reasonably defined highs. An all-rounder sounding IEM.

• Lows:

Lows are definitely present, emphasized and huge. The catch is that, despite its elevation, it is well-controlled and does not get boomy or muddy. Subbass rumble greater in amount compared to midbass. Basshead can be satisfied with this pair and can satisfy EDM tracks as well.

• Mids:

Lower mids is a bit recessed and exhibits little warmth. Bodied enough, not too thick or thin. Upper mids have good shine and elevation as well. Using this IEM at more than 60% loudness may cause the top frequencies to sound harsh. Sibilant instances or sibilant-prone tracks may arise. Depending on the track, the mids have above-average clarity with minimal to no bleed.

• Highs:

Highs is slightly elevated when compared to the elevation of the lows, exhibit good extension and sparkle. When played at moreover 60% loudness, cymbals can produce a splashy sound. Above-average detail retrieval, with easy hearing of subtleties and details.

• Soundstage, imaging, and separation:

The soundstage is average, with more width than depth. Separation is average. It isn't very large but not narrow either. It can sound a touch crowded when busy tracks are played. Imaging is accurate, but not precise. It can play up to five instruments with precise enough positioning for the user to determine.

Comparisons

• Vs. KZ ZEX:

When compared to ZEX, this has considerably more controlled lows in quantity. The CA16 pro's mids are a little recessed when compared to the ZEX, but both have clean and open mids for their respective pricing point/s.

Pros:

• Decent, All-rounder sound
• Controlled, big bass (subjective)
• Clear mids
• Flush, comfortable fit and above average isolation.
• Decent build quality.
• Easy to drive, can be driven well by a non-hifi source.
• Decent enough detail retrieval. I remembered my TFZ Exclusive 3’s detail retrieval on this one.

Cons:

• Barebone accessories. My unit only came with a cable, and 3 pieces of small and large eartips out of the box. I was expecting a bit more accessories, like for example, a pouch or a case or a different set of eartips for its price range (66USD)
• Upper frequencies can sound harsh on higher volumes (60% up)
• Instances of sibilance can appear on sibilant prone tracks, if used above 60% volume.
• Recessed mids (subjective)

Verdict:

In terms of sound quality, the CCA CA16 Pro is already enough for an all-rounder set for $60 or more. However, accessories are a different story. On their next product releases, I believe it would be preferable if they included a case/pouch as well as a sufficient variety of eartips. Overall, the device is recommendable as an all-rounder IEM if you're only interested in sound quality and don't mind the packing and accessories.

Thank you for reading!


(Product images)