[alamnp]

I'm frustrated that Crinacle doesn't have the CCA CA16 graphed so I can compare to my C12... there is a Crinacle graph of C12 vs. ZAX, showing they're pretty much identical up to 4.5k-5.5k where the ZAX is more relaxed there (and closer to Harman by about 4db). Fortunately I did find a youtube review by Bad Guy Good Audio Reviews that shows a graph comparing the ZAX with the CA16 at 3:28 of

using the three graphs, I can extrapolate that the CA16 compared to the C12 has even more bass, about 2-3 db, than my C12, so that is actually going in the opposite direction that I want in bass. I'd have to EQ even more than with my C12. BUT, on the positive side, the CA16 is about 3-4 db down in the 1.5k - 2.5k area vs. my C12... That's both good and bad ...that is exactly what I am after at 2.5k, but for sure not what I'm after at 1.5k. Remember I have boosted 1k on my EQ for the C12, so dropping 3-4db just past that is not likely to be to my liking.

One other CCA CA16 issue I might have is the 102db sensitivity vs. the 112db sensitivity of my c12s. I wonder if simply using my iPhone dongle will not be enough to properly power the CA16? With the C12, I am at just about exactly 50% volume with the C12s, and with my Drop/Sennheiser HD58x of 150 Ohm, I am at either 75% or 80% for equivalent volume.

Thanks for the reply. I'm OK with the CA16 by EQing the bass even more down, but the 1.5k suckout of the CCA seems to be in a really important area where the spotify EQ doesn't have any adjustment at all.... and then the 102 sensitivity possible issue.

If I am not able to find a $50ish IEM that doesn't have that 2.5k Hz big bump like my C12, I might just have to bite the bullet and go for the Moondrop Starfield at $110.

CA16 is flea powered. I can vouch for it. One that I still listen to despite having several $200+ IEM, neutral IEM with wide and tall sound stage. Somewhat plasticky timbre though, but barely noticable

 

[peter123]

You assume correctly. Imho (and from many of years of personal experience), DD drivers; especially those that have very stiff diaphragms and surround materials; take at least 50-200ish hours to loosen up. Usually after that amount of time, things start to come into place.

Or, is it your brain that get accustomed to the sound? From my personal experience I've never found the sound to change after more usage other than that my brain gets used to it. Several times I've been able to compare both headphones and IEM's that I've used for a long time with brand new ones of the same design and never have the difference been more noticeable, if there at all, than wha I'd consider normal unit variations.

If the changes are as big as some people claim it's strange that the difference in measurement are so extremely small (if any).....

I'm sure you're aware that this is a very controversial topic so I'm just putting another perspective than yours in the mix. I don't mean to, or are interested in, getting this thread derailed with this discussion but as you brought it up, I felt the need to point out that burn in is far from a universal truth.

To everyone: just try for yourself! If you think you hear a different great, if not that's also great but trying to convince others that have the opposite is useless in my opinion because there's no objective proof either way and it always tend to end in a flame war

 

[AmericanSpirit]

Or, is it your brain that get accustomed to the sound? From my personal experience I've never found the sound to change after more usage other than that my brain gets used to it. Several times I've been able to compare both headphones and IEM's that I've used for a long time with brand new ones of the same design and never have the difference been more noticeable, if there at all, than wha I'd consider normal unit variations.

If the changes are as big as some people claim it's strange that the difference in measurement are so extremely small (if any).....

I'm sure you're aware that this is a very controversial topic so I'm just putting another perspective than yours in the mix. I don't mean to, or are interested in, getting this thread derailed with this discussion but as you brought it up, I felt the need to point out that burn in is far from a universal truth.

To everyone: just try for yourself! If you think you hear a different great, if not that's also great but trying to convince others that have the opposite is useless in my opinion because there's no objective proof either way and it always tend to end in a flame war

Yea its egg or chicken ancient discussion haha

Moondrop seemingly is on the believer side as they officially recommend 100 hrs of burn in on the product guides, which I found very interesting as it was my first time seeing the official burn in recommendations on the manual.

 

[AmericanSpirit]

CA16 is flea powered. I can vouch for it. One that I still listen to despite having several $200+ IEM, neutral IEM with wide and tall sound stage. Somewhat plasticky timbre though, but barely noticable

Agreed on CA16, not very common sound from KZ families. Good for human voice reproduction.

 

[alamnp]

Agreed on CA16, not very common sound from KZ families. Good for human voice reproduction.

I gave my ZAX and all my TRN away, sold my NM2+ kept only CA16, ZS10 Pro, KBEAR Believe, TFZ Tequila and PA Beryllium. And got Tripowin TC01. Thinking to just get LZ A7. I have too much IEM and cables...

 

[DunninLA]

Yes, current is lowered with higher impedence. So the current that passes to the Starfield is much lower than the c12. On the other hand, you need 1mW of power to get the sound level rated in sensitivity. Now the power increases with both the impedence and the current, but it depends more on the current than the impedence. Summary: lower db for Starfield.

Edit: Also from basic math, the db level for Starfield should be (3/4) x (122/112) times or about 80% @1khz @same voltage compared to c12.

Thank you for that. It's been so long since I was in the market for loudspeakers and the amps to drive them that I forgot how important impedence is. It seems the Sensitivity stat on IEMs is kind of worthless unless impedience is factored in. I hadn't realized it is simple arithmatic.

Your math showing you the Starfield at about 80% the volume of the C12 at the same volume setting on my iPhone seems like it might be about right.

 

[Jitu13]

Thank you for that. It's been so long since I was in the market for loudspeakers and the amps to drive them that I forgot how important impedence is. It seems the Sensitivity stat on IEMs is kind of worthless unless impedience is factored in. I hadn't realized it is simple arithmatic.

Your math showing you the Starfield at about 80% the volume of the C12 at the same volume setting on my iPhone seems like it might be about right.

Yes, the simple formula (db1/db2) = (r2/r1) x (sensitivity1/sensitivity2) gives a rough estimate. For example, the sensitivity of the iem is for 1khz frequency, but your song is not made up of 1khz frequency. So they are more of a general guideline.

 

[DunninLA]

Incidentally, I had a look at the stock Medium tips I am using on my C12s, and the stock small tips for the Starfield, which fit me about the same. The Starfield tips have about 1/8" distance from the screen on the nozzle to the exit of the tip opening. The CCA tips have about 50% greater distance, as I estimate 3/16". If I swap the CCA Starline tips onto the Starfield, the highs are diminished somewhat (not a good effect). I did not notice if the bass increased by that swap... I did notice the bass, but is that b/c of increased LF energy, or is that a result of diminished relative HF from the swapped tip?

P.S. the Starfields are now into about 15 hours of burn in, and I haven't noticed any difference yet to the sound from straight out of the box. And at this moment, I enjoy the sound from the C12s more. I enjoy the bass from the c12 more even though it is more muddy, and I particulary enjoy the airy highs from the C12s that the Starfield will never be able to reproduce.

One area in which I already like the Starfields more than my Senn/Drop HD58x or the C12 is in spoken word, such as youtube reviews, America's Cup press conferences, TV programs, etc. I found the HD58x to have less midrange clarity than the Starfields, which doesn't surprise b/c I used to have the HD600, and for music anyway, I prefer more bass emphasis in the HD58x, but the sacrifice for that is a relative weakness in the frequency range used in spoken word. Also the spoken word with C12s is artificially higher in timbre, lacking weight in the lower midrange thus making the voices a little thin and artificial.

 

[Jitu13]

Incidentally, I had a look at the stock Medium tips I am using on my C12s, and the stock small tips for the Starfield, which fit me about the same. The Starfield tips have about 1/8" distance from the screen on the nozzle to the exit of the tip opening. The CCA tips have about 50% greater distance, as I estimate 3/16". If I swap the CCA Starline tips onto the Starfield, the highs are diminished somewhat (not a good effect). I did not notice if the bass increased by that swap... I did notice the bass, but is that b/c of increased LF energy, or is that a result of diminished relative HF from the swapped tip?

P.S. the Starfields are now into about 15 hours of burn in, and I haven't noticed any difference yet to the sound from straight out of the box. And at this moment, I enjoy the sound from the C12s more. I enjoy the bass from the c12 more even though it is more muddy, and I particulary enjoy the airy highs from the C12s that the Starfield will never be able to reproduce.

They are the same thing! After all what you hear as perceived boost is due to the relative change of that particular frequency range to the other frequency ranges. So gain in bass is the same as loss in treble and mid. Of course half gain and half loss gives the same result. So I don't think you can be wrong for saying that bass has gone up, and treble has been tamed. In other words, quantitative changes are always relative.

 

[Nimweth]

Arrived today: CKX. Burning in, impressions soon.

 

[peter123]

 

[DunninLA]

Well, I'm kind of mystified and could use all of your experience with tip rolling.

So, my C12s came with an extra thrown in pair of CCA foam eartips. I commented above that they tamed the bass, which I liked, and took away most of the 2.4k peakiness, but were overly polite and seemed to rob the C12s of their treble sparkle and extension. In other words lifeless and boring.

So I had this idea... if the foam is absorbing the treble frequecies more than I want, what if I cut off about half of the overhang from the C12's nozzle tip to the tip of the foam? Wouldn't that take away about half of the foam that is absorbing HF? So I got out my sharpest (Japanese carbon steel) knife, and chopped off half the foam at the very tip.

Oh, wow, the bass remains as prominent, but more tuneful, and the treble has returned. I'm running these through all my test tracks with no EQ at all. These sound awesome. I might still need to cut the bass a bit through EQ, but the quality of the bass is better to my ear.. less boomy, more distinct.

So my question is... are there foam tips that are very shallow beyond the IEM's nozzle tip, so that I don't have to cut them down from deep to shallow?

And then I thought... what good are reviews and graphs unless the reviewer/measurer is using the stock supplied silicone tips? And if they're measuring with stock tips, how much does using small vs. medium vs. large affect the graphing? For example, when I use the C12's stock starline tips in Small size, I get no bass at all.. .I mean Zero. Yet the medium tips gave me more bass, and messy bass, than I wanted.

And given that CCA clearly market and sell foam tips under their own name, why aren't they included in the CCA normal C12 packaging as a fourth tip set to try? (my set were a separate throw in from the CCA Ali Express store).

 

[unifutomaki]

And then I thought... what good are reviews and graphs unless the reviewer/measurer is using the stock supplied silicone tips? And if they're measuring with stock tips, how much does using small vs. medium vs. large affect the graphing? For example, when I use the C12's stock starline tips in Small size, I get no bass at all.. .I mean Zero. Yet the medium tips gave me more bass, and messy bass, than I wanted.

And given that CCA clearly market and sell foam tips under their own name, why aren't they included in the CCA normal C12 packaging as a fourth tip set to try?

Firstly, the amount of bass response you hear is going to be correlated with 1) how narrow the bore of the tip is; starlines are about average in that regard, and 2) how good a seal you can achieve. When reviewers measure FR, they would attempt to do it in a way that ensures the IEM fits snugly within the coupler and at a consistent insertion depth, so as to produce consistent outputs.

Secondly, KZ/CCA has never been known for being especially generous with their accessory bundle. Sometimes stores will throw in foam tips as a purchasing incentive, but really they aren't ridiculously expensive anyway for those who want to experiment.

 

[voicemaster]

Well, I'm kind of mystified and could use all of your experience with tip rolling.

So, my C12s came with an extra thrown in pair of CCA foam eartips. I commented above that they tamed the bass, which I liked, and took away most of the 2.4k peakiness, but were overly polite and seemed to rob the C12s of their treble sparkle and extension. In other words lifeless and boring.

So I had this idea... if the foam is absorbing the treble frequecies more than I want, what if I cut off about half of the overhang from the C12's nozzle tip to the tip of the foam? Wouldn't that take away about half of the foam that is absorbing HF? So I got out my sharpest (Japanese carbon steel) knife, and chopped off half the foam at the very tip.

Oh, wow, the bass remains as prominent, but more tuneful, and the treble has returned. I'm running these through all my test tracks with no EQ at all. These sound awesome. I might still need to cut the bass a bit through EQ, but the quality of the bass is better to my ear.. less boomy, more distinct.

So my question is... are there foam tips that are very shallow beyond the IEM's nozzle tip, so that I don't have to cut them down from deep to shallow?

And then I thought... what good are reviews and graphs unless the reviewer/measurer is using the stock supplied silicone tips? And if they're measuring with stock tips, how much does using small vs. medium vs. large affect the graphing? For example, when I use the C12's stock starline tips in Small size, I get no bass at all.. .I mean Zero. Yet the medium tips gave me more bass, and messy bass, than I wanted.

And given that CCA clearly market and sell foam tips under their own name, why aren't they included in the CCA normal C12 packaging as a fourth tip set to try? (my set were a separate throw in from the CCA Ali Express store).

Well we aren't paying a premium price for them either.

 

[courierdriver]

Personally, I like the Newbee foam tips and use them with all of my iems. In most cases, I use the red large. With my Fearless S8P, I use mediums. A combo pack of 12 tips in S, M, L; costs like less than $13 Canadian from Amazon...even less from Aliexpress (if you're willing to wait a couple weeks more to get them).
I like foams better than silicones because I hate how sweaty my ears get with silicones and then they slip out, which reduces the seal. Newbee foams are the best for me, because they provide a great seal and don't introduce any of the sweatiness that silicones introduce. The fact that they form a tight seal and don't cost much, is just an added bonus.