Moondrop x Crinacle Blessing 2: Dusk: Refinement
This ought to be an anticipated one. The Dusk is an IEM that has recently received quite a bit of spotlight for the last month or so, and it's pretty easy to see why. A collaboration between Crinacle and Moondrop focusing on one of the most praised IEMs in recent memory (praise that is, in my humble opinion, slightly less than warranted). Such a collaboration can be seen as a sort of meeting of titans, though that's probably putting far too much of a dramatic spin on it. In any case, given how much I liked the other Crinacle collaboration IEM (
the Dawn), and that it stands to improve an IEM I thought had potential, but lacked some finishing touches, it's no surprise this is an IEM that I've had a keen interest in for a while. This is very much an IEM that is poised to be what the Blessing 2 failed to become for me, that is, the defacto sub-$1000 IEM. But it is, ultimately, the results that speak for themselves, and not hype or promises.
I suppose without much further ado, it's time to start breaking down the Dusk. The Dusk's bass response is, from memory, not all that different beyond being elevated from the Blessing 2's. I never though the B2 had a particularly amazing bass response, though it certainly wasn't awful either, and the Dusk is similar beyond raw bass quantity. It still has the same lack of bass texture flaw that the original B2 had, and it still doesn't slam as hard as I would like given it's a DD, but I suppose that was to be expected without swapping out the driver entirely. Still, the increased amplitude certainly is welcome; it's a rather tasteful boost that's neither too midbassy nor subbassy. I imagine this specific boost curve would sound near perfect on a more capable woofer, but such speculation is nothing more than speculation. As is, the Dusk's bass is simply "acceptable".
The midrange of the Dusk reels back the slight shout of the B2 into much more manageable territory. I enjoyed the B2's midrange a lot given its price, and I still think that, given the proposition at hand, it's quite a strong offer. In that sense, the Dusk one-ups the B2, and presents a midrange tonality that may be one of the most pleasant and controlled in the slightly-upper-midrange-forward category. IEMs like the Dawn or the U12t solved the question of shoutiness by turning around and walking in the other direction, while IEMs like the Viento managed to be highly enjoyable in spite of, and in some respects probably because, of some of the shout they had. The Dusk is different from the aforementioned in that it flies incredibly close to the sun without ever crashing, which is an admirable achievement. My only real suggestion here would be perhaps to reduce peak of the pinna region by about 0.5 to 1 dB, as flying so close to the sun does inevitably give one the anxiety of getting sucked in. In less flowery terms, it sounds like the Dusk edges on being too harsh or too shouty, but it never is, though for someone who has heard a billion terrible IEMs at this point I subconsciously brace for it regardless. Not the most pleasant psychological feeling.
The treble was one of my primarily complaints with the original Blessing 2, and my partial revisit of it when reviewing the S8 mostly confirmed that it was still an issue. Given that I had mostly determined that it was a transient issue, I expected the Dusk to have little to no improvement on this particular issue. In some respects I am correct in this; the issue is still present. It has, however, been greatly diminished. The distinct grate in the B2's treble that came with violins in the highest registers and cymbals now sounds akin to a vestigial organ, like an appendix or a tailbone. I can pinpoint where it was supposed to be, and how it originally sounded, and every once in a while it does get in the way of the music, but for the most part it's entirely irrelevant. I would consider this to be quite the accomplishment, given how big of an issue that was in regards to the Blessing 2's overall transient performance. That is not to give the Dusk
too much praise, however. Some of the treble grate is, as mentioned, still there, and when pushed, the Dusk inevitably retreats to its primal instincts, and alas, the treble grate rears its ugly head. This is especially so with brass instruments. I would imagine the only way to truly fix this issue is to use an entirely different tweeter, which was less than practical in the case of an IEM that created in the same manner as the Dusk.
Curiously enough, I heard the original Blessing 2 as slightly V shaped, but in the case of the Dusk, I don't think this applies as much anymore. Perhaps it's due to the reeled in treble, but I hear it as about neutral, or bass boosted neutral. I think this epitomizes what the Dusk does better than the B2. In my S8 review I pointed out that the B2 lacked refinement, which the S8 had a fair deal of. In this case, the Dusk
is the Blessing 2's refinement. The tonality has been improved a fair deal, the transient issues have been reeled in; the only improvements left that I can envision would involve replacing drivers entirely, which was probably not achievable in the case of the Dusk, and in any case would pose a Ship of Theseus argument in regards to whether or not the Dusk would even be a B2 anymore.
In terms of intangibles, the Dusk is, unfortunately, still a Blessing 2. The coherency issues between bass and treble have been lessened, but they still are present, largely due to the bass. The overall detail retrieval performance of the Dusk is still average, as it was with the B2, though I suppose such is to be expected. The same goes with the dynamic performance, timbre, the whole lot. The biggest change in intangible performance is definitely in treble transients, but beyond that the Dusk is still a B2, with all the pros and cons that come with it. I would suggest reading my
Blessing 2 review for a more indepth breakdown on what I thought of that. In any case, the Dusk is undoubtedly still a midfi IEM, at least in the intangible department, and I would generally expect no better or worse.
Given the Dawn had (and still does) one of my favorite tonalities in IEMs, I supposed a comparison of this aspect is in order. On direct comparison, the Dawn inevitably sounds thicker, bassier, and warmer; this is absolutely not surprising at all. What I do think is a little surprising is that the Dawn sounds ever so slightly tonally disjointed in comparison to the Dusk, particularly in the transition between the lower and upper mids. At the same time, the inviting warmth of the Dawn is simply not present on the Dusk, which sounds slightly lean and dry in comparison. I would guess that the ideal here is somewhere inbetween, with the Dawn doing good to pick up some cues from the Dusk's overall midrange balance, and the Dusk being better off with some extra warmth and wetness from the Dawn.
As is, I give a slight nod to the Dawn in terms of overall tonality for pleasure listening, but the analyst and reviewer in me prefers the Dusk's midrange coherence. This is very much in the realm of fine tuning and nitpicking, which is probably unwarranted given the origins of both of these IEMs as having been based off of an existing product and modified to taste. In such a capacity, there is only so much one can do in terms of tweaks without things going out of hand, and the fact that these 2 IEMs come as close to "ideal" as they do certainly speaks volumes as to what an uninhibited project could achieve.
I guess the million dollar question now, is if the Dusk is worthy of the all the accolades that the Blessing 2 received, but I saw as grossly unwarranted. And the answer to that question, I think, is yes. It may not have the expected intangible performance of a flagship, but the tuning more than rivals most on the market, and the issues stemming from the B2 that the Dusk does resolve are enough to elevate it to a level where I feel any extra intangible performance is a bonus, and not compulsory. Given the $330 asking price of the Dusk, I think this is a ridiculously good value proposition; and I would imagine the large majority of people dipping their toes into the hobby would do better to simply get a Dusk and call it quits unless one is an absolute stickler for sound and has the money to back it up. It is, for the lack of a better word,
good enough that the average person would not need more.
All listening was done with the Bifrost 2 > BHA-1 stack's single ended output, as well as some supplementary listening on the WM1A's 3.5mm output.
In my past reviews, I've usually given a recommendation alongside a certain target audience I think would enjoy a given IEM. In this case, I will not give a target audience, because this is an IEM I think most will find extremely difficult to hate. It occupies a stopgap point that in the past may have been occupied by the likes of the ER2XR or the FDX1, but raises the bar in many respects. Unless one were searching for a specific sound, I think the Dusk would serve as the default for recommendation for most, and only the truly devoted or obsessive need to look further.
Recommended.
Score: 7/10
, The Sennheiser IE 300. Crinacle seems to have them -fwiw
