CCA in ear monitors Impressions Thread
May 16, 2022 at 8:43 PM Post #3,391 of 3,770
CRA-CCA+

Finally here. So far so good.

Still need to listen more to form an option. Definitely everything you have heard. Less bass quantity, more bass quality.

EA69A504-99E5-477E-B5E0-F3850A2983CC.jpeg
 
May 16, 2022 at 11:32 PM Post #3,394 of 3,770
I am still collecting my thoughts.



I’m not sure if the + is a clear winner over the CCA-CRA. There seems to be something in the treble. I will report back in a few days when I have listened more.



I think I am finding a peak at 2-3KHz or so bothersome, but only on poor recordings.



There seems to be more transparency. The bass is more snappy and can reproduce the crack of a drum so well. Again this super light driver again wow-ing me.

Seems like much better staging and separation on the +.

These are first impressions. So I wouldn’t take it all as gospel truth. I will post more impressions this weekend.
 
May 17, 2022 at 6:25 AM Post #3,395 of 3,770

Budget Series - Pt. 1: CCA CRA+​



As expressed in this post, I have now started a series of a few takes on budget gear (under 50 dollars) and comparing them to my favorites around this range. As explained, every IEM will run through Qudelix 5k and use the same playlists, like this one.

If any type of mod or EQ is used, it will be disclaimed, but I will try to use the IEMs stock.





IMG_20220517_110250.jpg

Prologue​

To put it plain and simple, if you never heard about the original CCA CRA, either you didn’t pay attention, just joined the hobby or you’re under a rock without any mobile data service.

CCA CRA made a tidal wave once it reached some people’s ears and let me explain to you why: it costs 15 dollars, has good technicalities for its price point and the tuning is, well, for the lack of better words, acceptable. Sub-bass focused, flat mids, okayish upper mids, bad treble tuning but with extension and some air.

It wasn’t long until modders did what they did best: dampened that bore to try to figure out the best way to dampen that lower treble area. To some people, the 8k zone would still be a problem or even the HUGE sub-bass shelf so, by the end of the day, either you EQ’d it or was a hit or miss.

Of course that once 15 dollars are thrown into perspective, the above points are more than fine, they are acceptable, ending up in a turning head pair of monitors that most people would agree on, even if it didn’t fit the bill, no matter the library. I was one of those.

CCA CRA didn’t quite fit my preferences and library, but for the price it is a beast. Once I EQ’d it and paired it with Qudelix 5k (PEQ inside the APP) it just… Blew my mind. At that time and with the help of EQ, it was the best beater I’ve had to date, even replacing Tripowin Mele for my library. You can find me talking about it everywhere across this thread.

Now, some months later, the sun shined and the “metal” turned into gold: CCA CRA+ is announced, promising a better tuning, a better driver and looking all gold shiny shiny.

As it’s usual, it had a con right at the moment of its announcement: it would cost double the original price of CRA.

Will this price raise be justified? Let’s find out.



Non-sound aspects​

For those already familiar with CCA CRA, you know what to expect. CRA+ uses the exact same shell, but just recolored. As to me personally, the fit and isolation is great, and one of the the reasons it’s one of my favorite ultra budget beaters for comuting (when I’m not doing it with kilobucks because I’m stupid).

The quality of the shell is horrible. There’s no way around that. Sure, it’s well finished and tries to avoid the cheap looking, but it’s still plastic and I can bet you can smash it with your own hands if you wanted that much. I have yet to encounter someone who had a problem with the shell yet, so there’s that.

Just like the shell, the rest of the packaging is exactly the same as well, just with different wording. Stock cable is usable, but feels horrible and, if you care for it, doesn’t look great either. Of course, if you are on an ultra tight budget, just use it and forget about it.

Tips actually work for me - funny fact: they are good for measuring with my 711, - but they aren’t anything special. Again, if you are money tight, just try to seal and judge their confort and, if they pass the test, just use them. As for me, I will be using BGVP W01 for this take.

I think that’s it for the non-sounding aspects of CRA+, as not much else can be expected at this price range, so it’s time to delve into the sounding part of this take. I was originally gonna name this write-up “1 step up, 4 steps down”, and I think you will understand why.



Sound aspects​


graph - 2022-05-17T112448.147.png

If we go from highs to lows, we will find the step up: CRA+ treble is, without a doubt, multiple times better done than its predecessor. The thing that most people complained about - including me, - was the nasty peak around 5k hz and a couple more energy than needed around 8k hz as well.
This is the major change that made CCA+ stock more palatable for some genres in the upper regions: upper mids have more elevation, and therefore more compensation, over lower treble; lower treble got reduced to have less energy, making it not just less fatiguing (this is my nemesis peak) but also less metallic, resulting in a better timbre that we will talk below; extension got a boost that, although wasn’t needed, no one will complain about. Truly a step up.
Nothing comes as perfect in this price range, and I still have to nitpick about the 5k peak, as I feel -2dbs or so would be welcome in CRA+, but I feel that’s more personal than will be to the masses.

The mid range got better presence due to the overall FR change, but that also comes with a cost: note weight is much higher and warmer, making it sound less clean, despite its better presence. Still, for the price, a passable aspect, as they are similar in these regard.

Bass is where the step downs really start. To put it mildly, it’s a step down from the original CRA. Sub-bass focus has shifted into a mid-bass focus, with late correction, adding a bit too much warmth and bleed. This reflects in the whole spectrum, including the sense of separation and dynamics that I will talk about in a bit.
I am not a fan of the original’s elevation, but I like its shape, so when I EQ’d it I basically just added a low shelf removing some of that db. What made that bass special was the dynamics and texture, while being clean. This feels a big step down on CRA+ for my preferences, and it feels more congested and less airy overall - CRA is still more effortless.

Once we go into technicalities, CRA+ only rules on one thing: the timbre. Timbre in the original was not the best thing on earth, especially in the upper frequencies, having a touch of metallic flavor to it.

Other than that, it’s a bloodbath. The second major step down would be the soundstage in every axis, helping once again to the lack of spacious sound. CRA+ stage is below average and feels trapped inside your head, without any depth or height.

The final nail in the coffin, and maybe the biggest, would be CRA+ lack of dynamics. There’s no way around it and it’s very noticeable. Every note feels the same and once you get into busy tracks, especially jazz, it’s very evident.



Veredict​

If you paid attention, you will realize I only mentioned 3 of the step downs so far and that there is indeed one missing: the price. CRA was praised all over because of its value to performance, which is insane, turning itself into a powerhouse for 15 bucks. The younger brother costs double that and it’s a step down in technicalities.

While some would still like to EQ CRA+ its bass shelf, there’s no doubt in my brain that for that, the original would be better given its technicalities, especially regarding dynamics and stage presentation, while costing half.

I still think there’s an argument to be made about CRA+ frequency response over all the CRA and KZ lineups. If you like warm and can’t stand the original CRA lower treble, CRA+ is KZ’s best tuned IEM to date.

So, would I buy it? As for me personally, I’d pick Tripowin Mele if this was the profile I was looking for, despite it costing 20 dollars more, as it also comes with better packaging and build quality. If no modding/EQ is a must, I would still just grab Moondrop Chu over them all, despite its non-detachable cable.



Value rating: 3/5. Personal rating: 4.
 

Attachments

  • graph - 2022-05-17T105446.826 (1).png
    graph - 2022-05-17T105446.826 (1).png
    271.6 KB · Views: 0
May 17, 2022 at 7:32 PM Post #3,397 of 3,770
Kinda odd. Early reports seem a bit more inconsistent than some other follow up models impressions. Some say the CRA is the technical one while others say the + is technically better. Some say the CRA has the bigger stage and others say the + has a bigger stage than the original CRA.
 
May 17, 2022 at 7:58 PM Post #3,398 of 3,770
My CRA+ came in as well. It's more versatile as you can get away with no EQ where the CRA needs it to bring down the treble.
Way too early but the EDA Balanced and CRA+ plus are fine commuting/video conference/beater sets.

It's less of a wow than the CRA was at $11 since this is more than double the price I paid, but we got spoiled in the $20-30 region now with completely acceptable daily drivers with minor EQ adjustments.
 
May 17, 2022 at 10:42 PM Post #3,399 of 3,770
Kinda odd. Early reports seem a bit more inconsistent than some other follow up models impressions. Some say the CRA is the technical one while others say the + is technically better. Some say the CRA has the bigger stage and others say the + has a bigger stage than the original CRA.
While there is different personal impression on things like moar midbass, thicker mids, less treble, warmer sound that all in all affect the sound sig which one could like it and others don't. This one is understandable.

But there is conflicting report on the soundstage situation between CRA and CRA+.
The other said the soundstage is clearer with better imaging, while another said the soundstage is smaller and muddier due to bleed.
the other said vocal positioning is more forward and a bit clearer. the other said the vocal is covered with bass.
This might be cause by fit or eartip issues which have great effect on soundstage. but its a bit wild.

Thankfully reviewers that i actually follow mostly said the same thing
and the early reviews of people that i barely knew is the one cause conflict.
Again, this might be fit, eartip issue, or perception issue.
But usually i could have a better guess how the sound will sounds like through reviewers that i follow as i have a/b their statement through iem that i actually have.
 
May 18, 2022 at 1:45 AM Post #3,400 of 3,770
I think the new tips are an issue for me. Switched to tips I know and it’s sounding better.

Ran them in for a few hours now.

The tips fit small. I usually wear a small or medium but I couldn’t get those to work and the large kinda worked until it didn’t.
 
May 18, 2022 at 4:26 AM Post #3,401 of 3,770
Since we are talking about the CRA, if i could just say that replacing the stock cable with a good copper cable completely tamed the treble for me. I have seldom seen such a drastic change while cable rolling.
 
May 18, 2022 at 3:53 PM Post #3,402 of 3,770
CRA+ in-hand; some first impressions:
  • 1 or 2dB too much midbass for my tastes (as expected) that needs to be offset with tip choice or EQ
  • Overall tonality is much more balanced than the original with greater air
  • Very inoffensive tuning
  • Appears more source-dependent
    • on the Cayin RU6 (BAL) the driver sounds much less controlled in the midbass and lower mids with greater bloom
    • on the Shanling M8 (BAL) the soundstage is wider, there's more air and bass feels more expansive, tighter and more expressive
  • VS BL-03 in A/B
    • Very similar tonally but much greater treble extension
    • CRA+ has better soundstage, depth, resolution and has perceivably more air
    • In my (humble) opinion, the BL-03 is a bit dated now and there's better sets out there but admittedly it may still have utility for those looking for a more relaxing listen
  • VS CRA
    • Undoubtedly a more organic sound than the original (not neutral, but more natural)
    • Greater midrange emphasis, female vocals more forward, male vocals sound more natural
    • As with the BL-03, the CRA+ beats the CRA in terms of sheer extension - it's has impressive air for a budget driver
    • Technically (as mentioned by others) the CRA+ has a smaller stage than the CRA+ but has greater transparency and depth to the image
    • The smaller staging is compounded by more forward midrange tuning that closes things in
    • To a degree the smaller staging is mitigated by the greater treble air that adds greater psychoacoustic dimension
    • Instrument separation is narrower on the CRA+ but things don't lose coherency as music gets busy
    • Resolution is very similar
For my tastes the midbass needs to be dialed back at bit. My concern when purchasing was whether this would be possible through tip rolling because I don't like to EQ. Thankfully it's totally possible to improve midbass clarity (removing some bloom) by changing the tips. I've had to tip roll (outside of the included tips) to find a wide and short bore tip with a soft silicone that sits the CRA+ deep within the canal. This improves bass clarity a great deal. Impact is somewhat reduced and upper mids have a greater emphasis but it's much more flattering to my library of jazz and classical.

With that adjustment made and when given a bit of power the CRA+ does sound like a more complete product by comparison, especially at the top end. In terms of technicalities, I can quite quickly get used to the smaller staging (it does reach outside of headspace, still). The CRA+ would be my choice between the two for my primarily instrumental library that needs the organic touch and it still retains some of the excitement of the original, that I found so appealing, and could equally service an electronic/pop library. If we're taking the BL-03 as the baseline for value and performance then the CRA+, even with its narrower stage, offers more.

_DSC3417.jpg


_DSC3418.jpg


Edit: I'm happy to disagree with @nymz on this occasion. To my ear the CRA+ remains dynamic, still has character and seems to manage jazz pretty well.

Addendum: I do think Chu offers better value and versatility on sound alone

YMMV
 
Last edited:
May 18, 2022 at 4:38 PM Post #3,403 of 3,770
Edit: I'm happy to disagree with @nymz on this occasion. To my ear the CRA+ remains dynamic, still has character and seems to manage jazz pretty well.

I'm very glad people are disagreeing with me, to be honest. Just read @Precogvision take and he also enjoys it. Wonder if there's something wrong with my unit, but oh well, it is what it is.
 
May 18, 2022 at 5:05 PM Post #3,404 of 3,770
CRA+ in-hand; some first impressions:
  • 1 or 2dB too much midbass for my tastes (as expected) that needs to be offset with tip choice or EQ
  • Overall tonality is much more balanced than the original with greater air
  • Very inoffensive tuning
  • Appears more source-dependent
    • on the Cayin RU6 (BAL) the driver sounds much less controlled in the midbass and lower mids with greater bloom
    • on the Shanling M8 (BAL) the soundstage is wider, there's more air and bass feels more expansive, tighter and more expressive
  • VS BL-03 in A/B
    • Very similar tonally but much greater treble extension
    • CRA+ has better soundstage, depth, resolution and has perceivably more air
    • In my (humble) opinion, the BL-03 is a bit dated now and there's better sets out there but admittedly it may still have utility for those looking for a more relaxing listen
  • VS CRA
    • Undoubtedly a more organic sound than the original (not neutral, but more natural)
    • Greater midrange emphasis, female vocals more forward, male vocals sound more natural
    • As with the BL-03, the CRA+ beats the CRA in terms of sheer extension - it's has impressive air for a budget driver
    • Technically (as mentioned by others) the CRA+ has a smaller stage than the CRA+ but has greater transparency and depth to the image
    • The smaller staging is compounded by more forward midrange tuning that closes things in
    • To a degree the smaller staging is mitigated by the greater treble air that adds greater psychoacoustic dimension
    • Instrument separation is narrower on the CRA+ but things don't lose coherency as music gets busy
    • Resolution is very similar
For my tastes the midbass needs to be dialed back at bit. My concern when purchasing was whether this would be possible through tip rolling because I don't like to EQ. Thankfully it's totally possible to improve midbass clarity (removing some bloom) by changing the tips. I've had to tip roll (outside of the included tips) to find a wide and short bore tip with a soft silicone that sits the CRA+ deep within the canal. This improves bass clarity a great deal. Impact is somewhat reduced and upper mids have a greater emphasis but it's much more flattering to my library of jazz and classical.

With that adjustment made and when given a bit of power the CRA+ does sound like a more complete product by comparison, especially at the top end. In terms of technicalities, I can quite quickly get used to the smaller staging (it does reach outside of headspace, still). The CRA+ would be my choice between the two for my primarily instrumental library that needs the organic touch and it still retains some of the excitement of the original, that I found so appealing, and could equally service an electronic/pop library. If we're taking the BL-03 as the baseline for value and performance then the CRA+, even with its narrower stage, offers more.





Edit: I'm happy to disagree with @nymz on this occasion. To my ear the CRA+ remains dynamic, still has character and seems to manage jazz pretty well.

Addendum: I do think Chu offers better value and versatility on sound alone

YMMV
If you seal the vent furthest from the nozzle, you could reduce the bass by about 1dB.
1652907971808.png

Very minute, but it's something.
 
Last edited:
May 18, 2022 at 5:16 PM Post #3,405 of 3,770
I'm very glad people are disagreeing with me, to be honest. Just read @Precogvision take and he also enjoys it. Wonder if there's something wrong with my unit, but oh well, it is what it is.

Maybe, but also maybe different strokes for different folks...! Who knows.

If you seal the vent furthest from the nozzle, you could reduce the bass by about 1dB.
1652907971808.png
Very minute, but it's something.

Cheers for this! Every little bit helps I think.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top