[nraymond]

One thing I think sets the CCA CA16 apart from many of its brethren is that it does not appear to have a balanced armature directly in the nozzle like the CCA C10, C12, ZSX and many others have. This to me provides a more laid back yet still detailed sound that might maintain better timing as well.

No BA drivers in the nozzle is THE reason I bought them. Most of the hybrids with BAs in the nozzle did not agree with me.

 

[DynamicEars]

I have the C12, ZSX and the CA16.

The C12 and ZSX are very similar due to the same drivers but the C12 will fit most people better due to the smaller size and they don't have that section protruding which some people find uncomfortable but the ZSX sound is more my preference especially the upper mids is slightly less than the C12 and a little more bass.

The CA16 has more realistic mids over the ZSX and C12 as it's not boosted and a little more treble. Also helped that no BA is in the nozzle.

Can you tell me more about ZSX vs CA16 buddy?

Is the CA16 have more prominent upper mids than ZSX?
How is the bass depth compared between 2?
And technicalities (separation, soundstage)
Is it an upgrade from ZSX?

Thanks

 

[xtremesystems]

i am new, and i don know lots of things
without eq ca16 for me isnt special. but i read that they neutral, audiophile. zsx are warm., ca 16 has to much treble but it is easy to deal with with eq

separation is very good. often better than zsx. stage too

they reacts very good for eq. so you are capable to do better bass than zsx. in rock music where has lots of uppers and bass voices arent covered.

in some sorts of music they are better in all aspects

like i said im no pro so for me they to flat w/o eq
i prefer zsx because they hassle free. plug in all genres sounds good.
i bought they simultaneously. if i would test zsx first. I would not buy ca16

 

[Thx1326]

i am new, and i don know lots of things
without eq ca16 for me isnt special. but i read that they neutral, audiophile. zsx are warm., ca 16 has to much treble but it is easy to deal with with eq

separation is very good. often better than zsx. stage too

they reacts very good for eq. so you are capable to do better bass than zsx. in rock music where has lots of uppers and bass voices arent covered.

in some sorts of music they are better in all aspects

like i said im no pro so for me they to flat w/o eq
i prefer zsx because they hassle free. plug in all genres sounds good.
i bought they simultaneously. if i would test zsx first. I would not buy ca16

There seems to be some confusion between the C16 and CA16. The CA16 has a dynamic driver as does the CA12. The CA12 is a phenominal value and the CA16 even more so. After 48 - 72 hour burn in, the CA16's are really ... I mean really hard to beat and justify spending more. Paired with my M11 and a balanced cable (YES do get an upgraded silver cable - just do it), they are nothing short of outstanding. Any minor quirks which you may "think" you hear can easily be tuned out with careful EQ settings. And remember if you are one of those who Poo Poo Eq's and tone controls - you know who you are - the ones who always have their tone controls either out of the circuit or turned to "flat" - well I pity you in that you have never heard the music as it was meant to be. One of the reasons that album and CD producers use EQ's when they mix. Proper EQ also affects sound stage depth, height and positionig due to the mix of harmonics. And as always, a well implemented DYNAMIC bass driver always sounds better than a BA. The hybrid structure is the way to go. A friend of mine who owns a pair of $1200 IEM's - famous name - I won't mention, just put them up for sale and bought my CA12's as I just upgraded to the CA16's. Immediate improvement across the board. Now keep in mind that I am not interested in listening to the "drivers" or classical test records. I'm listening to the MUSIC - real world female vocals, classic rock (LZ, PF, ACDC, King Crimson) as well as classic blues. It doesn't get much better than this. Playing the IEM setup files I have give very warm, solid bass at 20hz and it only gets better from there. Nothing exaggerated - just music as it should be.

Play it Loud and Play it Proud!

Enjoy the music!

 

[Owludio]

The CA16 has more realistic mids over the ZSX

- Agree with this, and that's probably the main thing that brings that "magic" for me.

Is the CA16 have more prominent upper mids than ZSX?

CA16 upper mids actually less prominent & less exciting than ZSX. ZSX is fun-sounding but gives me quick fatigue on some hi-res recordings. I like thickness and body of percussions on ZSX, but it pushes it over the edge on some of the recordings. If you like ZSX and its sound doesn't bother you, - CA16 is not an upgrade. It's softer, lighter, more distant and polite sounding, with more prominent upper treble and extended but subdued bass. That is to my BL2, SE846 & Roland loving, weird ears, but I'm also curious of @TheVortex opinion on this.

without eq ca16 for me isn't special. but I read that they neutral, audiophile. zsx are warm...

Agree with the "neutral, audiophile" part. People, who base their decision on one person impression/review must make sure that their audio preferences align with that reviewer. I went out of my way editing my signature to perfection - to give the idea of my sound tastes based on IEM preference. (Maybe not enough) Also, my initial post had a Hype Train warning on it for a good reason.
2 days later, I still stand by my initial opinion, that CA16 has got The Magic for me. Not the most exciting, not the most forgiving - has a balance of all-rounder.
Only one caveat: It appears that burn-in for CA16 progressing in typical modern DD path. It starts with less bass that is boomier, 4 hours later gets progressively darker with more rumble, and eventually settles on well extended polite bass reminiscent of a stronger version of Blessing2 bass. Shouldn't be hard to connect the dots and see why I like it so much. My only complaint is that after burn-in treble became more aggressive, and emphasis on upper extension increased a bit beyond my preference level, making percussions sounding thinner & drier.

 

[PhonoPhi]

There seems to be some confusion between the C16 and CA16. The CA16 has a dynamic driver as does the CA12. The CA12 is a phenominal value and the CA16 even more so. After 48 - 72 hour burn in, the CA16's are really ... I mean really hard to beat and justify spending more. Paired with my M11 and a balanced cable (YES do get an upgraded silver cable - just do it), they are nothing short of outstanding. Any minor quirks which you may "think" you hear can easily be tuned out with careful EQ settings. And remember if you are one of those who Poo Poo Eq's and tone controls - you know who you are - the ones who always have their tone controls either out of the circuit or turned to "flat" - well I pity you in that you have never heard the music as it was meant to be. One of the reasons that album and CD producers use EQ's when they mix. Proper EQ also affects sound stage depth, height and positionig due to the mix of harmonics. And as always, a well implemented DYNAMIC bass driver always sounds better than a BA. The hybrid structure is the way to go. A friend of mine who owns a pair of $1200 IEM's - famous name - I won't mention, just put them up for sale and bought my CA12's as I just upgraded to the CA16's. Immediate improvement across the board. Now keep in mind that I am not interested in listening to the "drivers" or classical test records. I'm listening to the MUSIC - real world female vocals, classic rock (LZ, PF, ACDC, King Crimson) as well as classic blues. It doesn't get much better than this. Playing the IEM setup files I have give very warm, solid bass at 20hz and it only gets better from there. Nothing exaggerated - just music as it should be.

Play it Loud and Play it Proud!

Enjoy the music!

To avoid more confusion - there are no CA12, only C12.

CCA made seven IEMs so far (approximately in order how they appeared):

C04 - a close analogue of ZSA.
C10
C16 - all BAs
CA4 - a close relative of ZSN and ZSN pro
A10 - all BAs
C12
CA16 - the latest hybrid.

 

[Owludio]

There seems to be some confusion between the C16 and CA16. The CA16 has a dynamic driver as does the CA12. The CA12 is a phenominal value and the CA16 even more so. After 48 - 72 hour burn in, the CA16's are really ... I mean really hard to beat and justify spending more. Paired with my M11 and a balanced cable (YES do get an upgraded silver cable - just do it), they are nothing short of outstanding. Any minor quirks which you may "think" you hear can easily be tuned out with careful EQ settings. And remember if you are one of those who Poo Poo Eq's and tone controls - you know who you are - the ones who always have their tone controls either out of the circuit or turned to "flat" - well I pity you in that you have never heard the music as it was meant to be. One of the reasons that album and CD producers use EQ's when they mix. Proper EQ also affects sound stage depth, height and positionig due to the mix of harmonics. And as always, a well implemented DYNAMIC bass driver always sounds better than a BA. The hybrid structure is the way to go. A friend of mine who owns a pair of $1200 IEM's - famous name - I won't mention, just put them up for sale and bought my CA12's as I just upgraded to the CA16's. Immediate improvement across the board. Now keep in mind that I am not interested in listening to the "drivers" or classical test records. I'm listening to the MUSIC - real world female vocals, classic rock (LZ, PF, ACDC, King Crimson) as well as classic blues. It doesn't get much better than this. Playing the IEM setup files I have give very warm, solid bass at 20hz and it only gets better from there. Nothing exaggerated - just music as it should be.

Play it Loud and Play it Proud!

Enjoy the music!

Amen to all of that! I understand that ur using M11 parametric EQ. I wish on android we had something better than EQFY since stock EQ on Galaxy8+ is completely useless.
Only Radson ES100 EQ and UAP has EQ with true power but still no real good system-level Android EQ. Now, when I'm getting addicted to Amazon HD streaming, I cannot use UAP with it. With the absence of anything better, EQFY is the best global level EQ, unless someone knows anything better, anyone?
All of that said, I don't think I would be selling my $1k+ IEMs any time soon though. On my desktop setup Sony ier-m9 is untouchable still, and all mentioned earlier are superior as well but have other (comfort, durability, fatigue, bling) issues. CA16 will survive NYC subway, foggy & rainy weather(without the dreadful moisture condensation), possibly even gym workouts(when they finally open), without sacrificing too much of SQ.

 

[CYoung234]

Quick question - any comparisons from people who own both the C16 and CA16? I have seen a couple of references but no real comparisons. I own the C16 - it is my only CCA so far. I also own the KZ ZS10 ans ZS10 PRO. Also a bunch of older KZ's (ZS5 / ZS6, etc.) Thanks.

 

[Thx1326]

Quick question - any comparisons from people who own both the C16 and CA16? I have seen a couple of references but no real comparisons. I own the C16 - it is my only CCA so far. I also own the KZ ZS10 ans ZS10 PRO. Also a bunch of older KZ's (ZS5 / ZS6, etc.) Thanks.

I will be posting a more extensive and analytic review of the CCA C12 and the CCA Ca16. I also listened extensively to the C16 - all BA drivers and I stand by my initial experience: IEM's with DYNAMIC drivers have better more musical bass response. They may not be as analytically correct but they sound better, more natural, warmer - just more musical after 48-72 hours burn in.

As far as recommending selling your $1K+ IEM's... I am NOT promoting that. However, based on my experience in music reproduction and audio design, I would much rather take some of that $1K and put that money into a better player, better cables and other items that make more of a difference... and with the money left over... buy me another "toy". As I said earlier, with a little effort, it is easy to prove that taking a lesser expensive set of good IEM's (and all of these are very good) and applying a few basic EQ adjustments will reduce the differences between the lesser and more expensive IEM's to the point where you will really need to challenge yourself to analyize and hear the difference. I for one, would rather listen to the music instead of analyizing the individual components. I can't remember the last time I sat down and listened only to the tweeter... or the midrange...or just the flutes or the horns or the strings. The SUM of the components is way greater than the value of the individual components. If more "audiophiles" and everyday listeners would just try this simple philosophy... they would find they will get more enjoyment out of their music and will in turn force the pricing down, value up and the manufacturers would be forced to respond with even better products at affordable prices.... and more people would begin really hearing the music rather than listening to compressed MP3's that throw out 50% of the content on cheap earbuds that are over marketed by some well know manufacturers.

Enjoy the music!

 

[ScrofulousBinturong]

I would much rather take some of that $1K and put that money into a better player, better cables and other items that make more of a difference...

Cables?

Not sure if serious tbh

 

[Thx1326]

Cables?

Not sure if serious tbh

The STOCK cables that come with the KX and CCA IEM's are good, but lacking. Replacing them with some "reasonable" silver plated 8 or 16 core cables will make a difference and these can be had for under $40.

 

[TheVortex]

Can you tell me more about ZSX vs CA16 buddy?

Is the CA16 have more prominent upper mids than ZSX?
How is the bass depth compared between 2?
And technicalities (separation, soundstage)
Is it an upgrade from ZSX?

Thanks

The ZSX has more upper mids than the CA16.
The ZSX has more bass than the CA16.
Separation and stage is good on both but the CA16 sounds a little more realistic and sounds a little brighter sounding.
Not sure of a upgrade but a nice sidegrade.

 

[TheVortex]

- Agree with this, and that's probably the main thing that brings that "magic" for me.
CA16 upper mids actually less prominent & less exciting than ZSX. ZSX is fun-sounding but gives me quick fatigue on some hi-res recordings. I like thickness and body of percussions on ZSX, but it pushes it over the edge on some of the recordings. If you like ZSX and its sound doesn't bother you, - CA16 is not an upgrade. It's softer, lighter, more distant and polite sounding, with more prominent upper treble and extended but subdued bass. That is to my BL2, SE846 & Roland loving, weird ears, but I'm also curious of @TheVortex opinion on this.

Agree with the "neutral, audiophile" part. People, who base their decision on one person impression/review must make sure that their audio preferences align with that reviewer. I went out of my way editing my signature to perfection - to give the idea of my sound tastes based on IEM preference. (Maybe not enough) Also, my initial post had a Hype Train warning on it for a good reason.
2 days later, I still stand by my initial opinion, that CA16 has got The Magic for me. Not the most exciting, not the most forgiving - has a balance of all-rounder.
Only one caveat: It appears that burn-in for CA16 progressing in typical modern DD path. It starts with less bass that is boomier, 4 hours later gets progressively darker with more rumble, and eventually settles on well extended polite bass reminiscent of a stronger version of Blessing2 bass. Shouldn't be hard to connect the dots and see why I like it so much. My only complaint is that after burn-in treble became more aggressive, and emphasis on upper extension increased a bit beyond my preference level, making percussions sounding thinner & drier.

I agree with your take on the ZSX and CA16. The ZSX is great for the price but lacks a little refinement and having a BA in the nozzle does not help. They are sidegrades of each other but both very competent.

 

[CYoung234]

I will be posting a more extensive and analytic review of the CCA C12 and the CCA Ca16. I also listened extensively to the C16 - all BA drivers and I stand by my initial experience: IEM's with DYNAMIC drivers have better more musical bass response. They may not be as analytically correct but they sound better, more natural, warmer - just more musical after 48-72 hours burn in.

As far as recommending selling your $1K+ IEM's... I am NOT promoting that. However, based on my experience in music reproduction and audio design, I would much rather take some of that $1K and put that money into a better player, better cables and other items that make more of a difference... and with the money left over... buy me another "toy". As I said earlier, with a little effort, it is easy to prove that taking a lesser expensive set of good IEM's (and all of these are very good) and applying a few basic EQ adjustments will reduce the differences between the lesser and more expensive IEM's to the point where you will really need to challenge yourself to analyize and hear the difference. I for one, would rather listen to the music instead of analyizing the individual components. I can't remember the last time I sat down and listened only to the tweeter... or the midrange...or just the flutes or the horns or the strings. The SUM of the components is way greater than the value of the individual components. If more "audiophiles" and everyday listeners would just try this simple philosophy... they would find they will get more enjoyment out of their music and will in turn force the pricing down, value up and the manufacturers would be forced to respond with even better products at affordable prices.... and more people would begin really hearing the music rather than listening to compressed MP3's that throw out 50% of the content on cheap earbuds that are over marketed by some well know manufacturers.

Enjoy the music!

Thank you for your detailed reply. You are correct to a degree that I own too many iems. I am actually not very disposed to buy any more. I also agree that DD's are very musical. My BLONs and UF ISSO14 get most of the ear time these days. And, as you conclude, I am already enjoying the music. Both the BLONs and the UFs pretty much get out of the way and let me enjoy the music I listen to. So, I will likely just leave it at that. Thanks again for your post.

 

[Thx1326]

Please don't construe anything I have posted as gospel or the "end-all" answer and/or solution. I never meant for it to come across that way. The fact is that I am an old timer... I prefer "good" tubes over "excellent" solid state 99% of the time - but of course there are always exceptions to be dealt with. For over 50 years I have spent countless hours, analyizing, tearing down, rebuilding systems trying to reach that magical "holy grail" level of performance and then one day, one of my closest friends said..."Hey, you spend more time with your system apart than you do actually listening to it". That was the epifany - that magic moment when I once again began enjoying the music. Don't let yourselves get caught in that same catch 22. Life is too short and there is a lot of audio "snake oil" out there because they know that some of you will try anything at least once.

Again... my apologies if I have ever come off as being too "preachy".

May God have mercy on your ears!!!!