[Zerohour88]

Well, to deconstruct your first paragraph of two sentences, you first said: "uh, his chart is purely based on technical ability (of which he explains in his thread, which you can read if you'd like more understanding on how he rates them)." You then start your second sentence with the phrase "As you can see from the list", which makes it sound if you are about to offer an example to illustrate the point made in your first sentence. You then finish that sentence with a statement about sound signatures. Furthermore, because you grouped these two sentences together in a paragraph, it seems to imply that they are related. Again, I said that I am not sure that this is what you meant; that's just the way it came across.

Ah, I get what you mean. To clarify further, what I meant on the first sentence is that he ranks based on technical ability. The 2nd paragraph is just supporting evidence for the first, in that regardless of the type of sound signature an IEM have, there are many kinds of it at all ranks. If he ranks based on sound signature, you would see only a certain type of sound sig at the top and at the bottom.

 

[Zerohour88]

He definitely pays attention to technicalities, but the impression I get from how he lists things is that tuning is getting top priority. If there's anything he considers off about the tuning, that seems like the biggest hit. I could be wrong, this is based on quite casual reading. (I find the measurements more informative than the rankings, personally.)

Measurements are a separate thing from his ranks. His measurement is the thing he started with, the ranking list is something he came up with afterwards (iirc), since he thought he's already listening to hundreds of IEMs, why not try to actually rank them?

of course, its nearly impossible to have a screwed-up signature and still be good, since terrible tuning will hide an aspect of the IEM sound (for example, a boomy bass leaking too much into the mids will hide the mids). You can see this with the Audeze ranking (cipher version which is essentially an EQ).


I think the problem is that you're equating tuning to musicality, which is not entirely correct. Tuning is just that, tuning. Its the way the IEM is tuned, whether its musical or reference. Musicality usually means something V-shaped or the like, versus reference which is usually neutral.

 

[kukkurovaca]

of course, its nearly impossible to have a screwed-up signature and still be good, since terrible tuning will hide an aspect of the IEM sound (for example, a boomy bass leaking too much into the mids will hide the mids). You can see this with the Audeze ranking (cipher version which is essentially an EQ).


I think the problem is that you're equating tuning to musicality, which is not entirely correct. Tuning is just that, tuning. Its the way the IEM is tuned, whether its musical or reference. Musicality usually means something V-shaped or the like, versus reference which is usually neutral.

I didn't say that about musicality, but sure. My impression of "musicality" is that like a lot of audio jargon, it lacks a clearly defined meaning.

Re: tuning, I don't think there's anything wrong with emphasizing it, but there are different approaches, depending to a considerable degree on whether you're willing to factor in EQ. Some reviewers, Crinacle included, simply rule it out unless it's part of a delivered hardware solution, as is the case with the iSine 20. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a choice. Other reviewers will factor in the EQ-ability of the IEM/headphone as part of the overall picture.

I think in many cases, that's more helpful, as I think in many cases you have to pick two out of great tuning, great technicalities, great bargain. And it's often quite easy to fix tuning with EQ. This isn't to criticize, just to point out there are different approaches.

 

[MonoJon]

...regardless of the type of sound signature an IEM have, there are many kinds of it at all ranks. If he ranks based on sound signature, you would see only a certain type of sound sig at the top and at the bottom.

Ah, yes, that is a very good point. He cleary has a personally preferred sound signature, but he ranks the IEMs without regard to sound signature, and.....

I think the problem is that you're equating tuning to musicality, which is not entirely correct. Tuning is just that, tuning. Its the way the IEM is tuned, whether its musical or reference. Musicality usually means something V-shaped or the like, versus reference which is usually neutral.

....I think I may be somewhat confusing tuning and musicality. To me, if an IEM is tuned well, then it is more likely to sound "musical". In other words, there should be nothing out of place in the tuning, like muddy bass or sibilant treble that detracts from the experience of listening. To me, "musical" can describe a broadly cohesive tuning, while the actual type of tuning an IEM has is more technical. I would also put forward that a particularly well-tuned IEM can sound more musical with certain types of music than with others. For example, an IEM tuned to a profile that sounds great with a capella vocals may not sound very good with EDM. "Tuning" has a more technical connotation than "musical".

All of that said, however, I wonder how many people would agree that the C10 is more technically capable than the C12 or AudioSense T800, which are both ranked below it in the current version of his list? It makes me think there is more to his ranking list than technical ability.

 

[Zerohour88]

I didn't say that about musicality, but sure. My impression of "musicality" is that like a lot of audio jargon, it lacks a clearly defined meaning.

Re: tuning, I don't think there's anything wrong with emphasizing it, but there are different approaches, depending to a considerable degree on whether you're willing to factor in EQ. Some reviewers, Crinacle included, simply rule it out unless it's part of a delivered hardware solution, as is the case with the iSine 20. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a choice. Other reviewers will factor in the EQ-ability of the IEM/headphone as part of the overall picture.

I think in many cases, that's more helpful, as I think in many cases you have to pick two out of great tuning, great technicalities, great bargain. And it's often quite easy to fix tuning with EQ. This isn't to criticize, just to point out there are different approaches.

I definitely think that with proper EQ, you can sort out some issues with IEMs, but then you get into the murky waters of how to implement the EQ and such. With even people questioning how crin powers these IEMs until it became a meme, can't imagine how that will go.

Point is, its much easier to review/rate an IEM as-is, with maybe the occasional tip-rolling to fix fit issues.

I should point out that I also don't EQ my gear, simply because then it becomes a chore to setup the same EQ across all my stuff.

 

[Zerohour88]

Ah, yes, that is a very good point. He cleary has a personally preferred sound signature, but he ranks the IEMs without regard to sound signature, and.....



....I think I may be somewhat confusing tuning and musicality. To me, if an IEM is tuned well, then it is more likely to sound "musical". In other words, there should be nothing out of place in the tuning, like muddy bass or sibilant treble that detracts from the experience of listening. To me, "musical" can describe a broadly cohesive tuning, while the actual type of tuning an IEM has is more technical. I would also put forward that a particularly well-tuned IEM can sound more musical with certain types of music than with others. For example, an IEM tuned to a profile that sounds great with a capella vocals may not sound very good with EDM. "Tuning" has a more technical connotation than "musical".

All of that said, however, I wonder how many people would agree that the C10 is more technically capable than the C12 or AudioSense T800, which are both ranked below it in the current version of his list? It makes me think there is more to his ranking list than technical ability.

The current craze with IEM is the Harman tuning, which you can google to find more info on it (its basically a tuning based on research done by Sean Olive to find a preferred FR for IEMs). There's also the Diffuse-Field tuning, which is the previous common method of tuning, most popularly used by Etymotic. I am hugely simplifying here, since its a more intricate matter in regards to the science involved behind it.

As for the ranking, well, the most simple way to put it is that even though high quality parts are used, you won't necessarily get the best results. Coincidentally, this is where tuning comes in (for multi-BA stuff, designing the crossovers and tubing is usually straightforward but can have huge effects on the sound). Even if you use Knowles or Sonion BAs, if you screw up the tuning, you still get a messed up sound since you're not fully utilizing the potential of the BA.

 

[Solar1971]

Hi guys.
Just Ordered the CCA CA4 IEMs.
Super cheap. 13$ On eBay. That’s mostly why I purchased them. Plus I just like CCA for the CCA C10s and C12s, both very nice.
So I figured CCA seem to know what they’re doing. It’s worth a shot.
I read one review that was good. And one that was So so.
Once I get them I will give impressions if you care.

 

[PhonoPhi]

Hi guys.
Just Ordered the CCA CA4 IEMs.
Super cheap. 13$ On eBay. That’s mostly why I purchased them. Plus I just like CCA for the CCA C10s and C12s, both very nice.
So I figured CCA seem to know what they’re doing. It’s worth a shot.
I read one review that was good. And one that was So so.
Once I get them I will give impressions if you care.

CCA CA4 is a close relative of ZSN pro, I am sure you will find them nice for under $15 but less sophisticated than $30-$50 IEMs.
We will be happy to hear your impressions

 

[Solar1971]

CCA CA4 is a close relative of ZSN pro, I am sure you will find them nice for under $15 but less sophisticated than $30-$50 IEMs.
We will be happy to hear your impressions

oh cool. I have the ZSN pros. And I actually really like them.
And I completely agree with you, They’re not very sophisticated. That’s exactly what I think of them too.
Yea!!!
Thanks

 

[purplesun]

Can someone try this on their C10? I pasted a small piece of masking tape on the hole that is directly over the DD, leaving the other hole open. There are 2 holes per side as far as I can see. Made the C10 sound noticeably different. Was wondering if it made the C10 sound closer to 1 of it's other variants (I don't have any of them). I think I like the change, or maybe I am just imagining something out of nothing - which never, ever happens on this forum

 

[ShakeThoseCans]

C12 finally arrived after holiday backlog.

I hope to share impressions, and some comparisons to C10.

What kind of tips are people using for comfort? I find the stock tips a little too large / thick. And what does that multicoloured CCA cable [orange / blue braided C2 cable] do to the sound, if anything?

 

[ShakeThoseCans]

CCA 12 vs C10 comparison

Because of the recent revival of interest in the C10, and the current status of the C12 as CCA's sub-50 flagship IEM, I thought I would try to compare the two, in a limited fashion. I don't have the equipment or knowledge to give you graphs and discuss the 'lower midrange,' etc... but I will try to give impressions as I heard them. I used an Gen. 4 iPod Touch, which is more than enough to power these CCA examples, and I threw in a TRN V90 and other IEMs at times, for a larger basis of comparison.

So here are some tracks, and how the two IEMs sounded to me:


"Summertime" in Joe Pass' "I Remember Charlie Parker" [320 kpbs CD-rip]


It's true. The C10 is more 'analog' and 'acoustic' (and gentle) than the C12. The C12 is more 'digital,' and it has elevated highs and lows, whereas the C10 is more mid-centric.

In listening to "Summertime" in Joe Pass' "I Remember Charlie Parker," the guitar strings are plucked nearly as crisply on the C10 as on the C12. But they sound more 'acoustic' and like a real nearby instrument on the C10. The timbre of the strings is more digital and artificial on the C12.

Another way of saying it is that the C10 sounds like an old friend playing the guitar beside you. The Semkarch CNT-1 does it even better, but the C10 still sounds warm and natural.

Joe Pass' album is actually a harsh test for my Chi-Fi IEMs. Not because of any technical complexity [although it is full of crisp detail], but because the album heavily relies upon your audio device being able to resolve Pass' guitar realistically. And here the C10 beats the C12.

[The V90 handles this album surprisingly well, maybe a little sharper and not as 'easy' as the C10. The crispness of the guitar string plucking might actually be a little too 'showy' on the V90.]


"Everything Now" in Arcade Fire's "Everything Now" [320 kbps CD-rip]

In Arcade Fire's single "Everything Now" within the album of the same name, the guitars, piano, and flutes(?) sound more natural with the C10, over the C12. Especially the guitars.


In "DooM II - Running From Evil" by Nemistade (Youtube):



The C10 brings respectable percussion slam, and some power behind guitar chords. Yeah, percussion has some real punch behind it. The guitar shredding and whatnot is a little subdued compared to what it could be. Fairly satisfying soundstage / positioning, and harmony between lower and higher ranges.

With the C12, the guitar is more weighty relative to the percussion, and the separation between elements might be even more clear. It doesn't sound as melodic, though.

Withe the V90, it's like being thrown into a bass and metal cave, synths create an airy background landscape. Guitar is a little more recessed than the CCA models, but is juicier.

In Yelawolf's "Pop the Trunk" (Youtube):



With the C12, most of the bass sounds like a synthetic tuba, the deep bass rumble sounds like someone driving down your street with a subwoofer in their trunk. Vocal positioning is very good, jumping L - C - R at will. Piano sounds electronic, and the percussion ticks are tinny. But the heavier percussion is good.

The C10 performs better-than-expected here. I don't like the introductory piano, it sounds a bit tinny and off. But the percussion has some real weight to it. Centered voices are clear, of course, but are weaker when positioned at the L and R poles [the C12 and T4 do it more 'confidently.'] Vocals aren't elevated.

The bass ambient background actually has some rumble to it on the C10. I notice it more here than on the Tin T4. The bass brass instrument(?) sounds more realistic than on the T4 and C12. Bass is actually pretty deep on the C10 here, and has a little texture. The overall composition is still fairly mellow, though, which is a consistent feature of the C10.

With the V90, bass goes deeper, more echo and resonance. More diverse. The little percussion ticks sound 'faster' and more intense. Piano sounds more natural. CCA beats the V90 in vocals, which are somewhat recessed on the V90. Some people say that the C12 is a poor man's 'basshead' IEM. But I think that accolade goes to the V90. It grinds, crunches, throws and slams bass in ways I've never hear before on a $30 IEM.

--

Dreams and The Chain by Fleetwood Mac in "50 Years: Don't Stop." [320 kbps CD-rip]

- "Dreams" on the C10 sounds rich and melodious, it really cleans up on this track. Strong percussion, strong vocals, it produces a thick overall sound for such a small sub-50 IEM. "The Chain" is even better. You can tell that the C10 is not rendering strings and vocals at full resolution, even if they sound nice. But damn does it keep the beat and give you both throaty and etherial vocals. Crisp, painless cymbals. A very coherent sound, overall.

With C12, first I would say it needs a higher volume with these tracks. In "Dreams," it sounded fainter. Although cymbals felt more distinct (and possibly harsh) even at low volume. They also sound kind of artifical. It sounds like the C12 is separating the elements of the song more distinctly than did the C10.

I'm not sure what, if anything, the C12 is elevating in this track. The different elements seem to be roughly the same volume. Vocals are clear, although possibly thinner than on the C10. I guess you could call it a more analytical sound that the C10. The guitar is cleaner, if you can make it out.

- In "The Chain," the C12 percussion is not quite as strong as on the C10, I'd say. Once again, the C12 is separating the track into its elements, without necessarily highlighting one of them. Maybe it's gutting the midrange, because it doesn't cohere into something as powerful as the C10 is presenting. I think the C10 might actually have more powerful bass here.

For fun, I threw in the LZ A6 Mini. With the A6 Mini, strings are rendered in greater detail and with greater precision. Percussion is restrained. A6 Mini performs better on a DAC/AMP, seems to need it more than the CCA sets. With the extra power, it can outshine the CCA examples here. Not a fair comparison, though.


--

Overall, the C10 is more analog and acoustic.

The C12 can match the C10 for vocal clarity, and even brings the vocals out better than the C10 at times, which is something of an acheivement. Though it loses mids, it hasn't lost the vocals.

I'm finding the C10 easier to listen to for longer periods. The gentler tuning and smaller size is significant.

CCA should use the C10 as the basis for its future sub-50 generalist IEMs, and leave the analytical sound for things like the C16. Crinacle was right about the C10. CCA should learn from having tuned something decent, and move away from a stereotypical V-shaped digital sound.

 

[PhonoPhi]

... Crinacle was right about the C10...

(You may take it as a rant, whatever...)
Oh boy, the herd mentality!
I was enjoying C12 this morning with symphonic music, work well for me.
C10 is surely a safe choice, very nice iteration of ZS10, great first hybrid to have since it is as close to a single DD, as hybrids can get...

If in the cited list the same few words is copy-pasted for AS16 and ZS10 pro - the most two unlike IEMs - then this list have ZERO credibility for me, ZERO.
I can also feel for T800 owners - those insignificant thoughts on "insignificant" IEMs. No any reasonable justification, sure the "subjectivity" and sure commercial interests.
That just shows to me how much crippling subjectivity and hype is in this hobby...
Feels very sad

 

[genck]

(You may take it as a rant, whatever...)
Oh boy, the herd mentality!
I was enjoying C12 this morning with symphonic music, work well for me.
C10 is surely a safe choice, very nice iteration of ZS10, great first hybrid to have since it is as close to a single DD, as hybrids can get...

If in the cited list the same few words is copy-pasted for AS16 and ZS10 pro - the most two unlike IEMs - then this list have ZERO credibility for me, ZERO.
I can also feel for T800 owners - those insignificant thoughts on "insignificant" IEMs. No any reasonable justification, sure the "subjectivity" and sure commercial interests.
That just shows to me how much crippling subjectivity and hype is in this hobby...
Feels very sad

He is just a man with an opinion, I happen to like his rankings but I can understand why some might get butt hurt.

 

[ShakeThoseCans]

Well, I don't always agree with crinacle on everything (BA5, for example). But I think he's speaking for a number of people on the C10.