[DanielListening]

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.

Could it be fit?

 

[nymz]

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



Cheers for this! Every little bit helps I think.

Probably! Curious on your take of the OVA

 

[nymz]

Could it be fit?

Well that didn't cross my mind as CRA fit me almost flawless!

 

[ian91]

Could it be fit?

I don't think it would be a fit issue but good thought.

Probably! Curious on your take of the OVA

I'll have a review out at some point and may compare the CRA+ and OVA. It's a highly capable entry-level IEM, it is slightly thinner in noteweight and has a drier tonality than the CRA+ but still excellently balanced such that it sounds natural. Technically stage is much more spacious and imaging and instrument separation is better. I would argue it's worth saving a few pennies and getting the OVA over the original CRA and, it's early days but I'm pretty confident it bests the CRA+ too. BL-03 is left in the dust to be honest (but it should be at several times the price). NB the OVA is less airy than the formidable CRA+ and less thumpy in the bass.


I'm not sure if it's placebo but the vent mod seems to help on the CRA+, thanks again @G777 and @paulwasabii

 

[paulwasabii]

I don't think it would be a fit issue but good thought.


I'll have a review out at some point and may compare the CRA+ and OVA. It's a highly capable entry-level IEM, it is slightly thinner in noteweight and has a drier tonality than the CRA+ but still excellently balanced such that it sounds natural. Technically stage is much more spacious and imaging and instrument separation is better. I would argue it's worth saving a few pennies and getting the OVA over the original CRA and, it's early days but I'm pretty confident it bests the CRA+ too. BL-03 is left in the dust to be honest (but it should be at several times the price). NB the OVA is less airy than the formidable CRA+ and less thumpy in the bass.


I'm not sure if it's placebo but the vent mod seems to help on the CRA+, thanks again @G777 and @paulwasabii

I spent more time with EQ on CRA+ but the vent mod when graphed was minimal. But if you make minimal changes in EQ, it takes a step in the right direction especially if you have that part of a track that annoys you in your ear as you make small changes. Maybe placebo but it at least appeared on the measurement.

 

[r31ya]

I don't think it would be a fit issue but good thought.


I'll have a review out at some point and may compare the CRA+ and OVA. It's a highly capable entry-level IEM, it is slightly thinner in noteweight and has a drier tonality than the CRA+ but still excellently balanced such that it sounds natural. Technically stage is much more spacious and imaging and instrument separation is better. I would argue it's worth saving a few pennies and getting the OVA over the original CRA and, it's early days but I'm pretty confident it bests the CRA+ too. BL-03 is left in the dust to be honest (but it should be at several times the price). NB the OVA is less airy than the formidable CRA+ and less thumpy in the bass.


I'm not sure if it's placebo but the vent mod seems to help on the CRA+, thanks again @G777 and @paulwasabii

CRA+, EDA Balanced, OVA (+RoseTechnic QT7MK3) which all in my short list on "want to buy" now.
Due to the situation in china, Import to my place is a bit discouraged right now,

yet somehow SG-1 OVA appears in normal price in local online story in my place. compared to CRA or CRA+ how is OVA sounds like?
I heard it have good bass and think male vocals, so it might be good for growling rock music.

 

[DanielListening]

I haven’t felt the need to switch back to the CRA from the CRA+.

The XINHS cable seems to tame the treble while keeping the extension and air the + provides. I like the faster and more aggressive sound of the +.

Listening to “Wolf Alice” and it sounds so good. Definitely rocking out. Quick bass, great clarity and centre placement of vocals, and a very nice balanced soundstage.

 

[Carpet]

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.

---

​

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​

​

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.

To be honest, you can always use narrow bore tips or foams to take the edge off the treble peak in the CRA. Thirteen dollars plus a spare pair of tips you already have lying around sounds like a better deal. I suspect that the CRA+ may be the same driver with a touch more damping. Given the effort by the community to mod the CRA like this, charging double for "borrowed" product development seems a bit cheeky.

NB: "borrowed" could be read as a euphemism for "plagiarized". YMMV

 

[jant71]

To be honest, you can always use narrow bore tips or foams to take the edge off the treble peak in the CRA. Thirteen dollars plus a spare pair of tips you already have lying around sounds like a better deal. I suspect that the CRA+ may be the same driver with a touch more damping. Given the effort by the community to mod the CRA like this, charging double for "borrowed" product development seems a bit cheeky.

NB: "borrowed" could be read as a euphemism for "plagiarized". YMMV

That sub bass roll and lowering is tough get with treble dampening. There is something more. The dampening would have nearly the CRA bass with the mid bass slight raise and treble peaks lowering of the CRA+.

 

[DynamicEars]

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

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.

Beside interesting posts I read here, these 2 gentlemen taking differences in opinions like champions in mature way. Raise my hat for them. Cheers!

 

[DynamicEars]

To be honest, you can always use narrow bore tips or foams to take the edge off the treble peak in the CRA. Thirteen dollars plus a spare pair of tips you already have lying around sounds like a better deal. I suspect that the CRA+ may be the same driver with a touch more damping. Given the effort by the community to mod the CRA like this, charging double for "borrowed" product development seems a bit cheeky.

NB: "borrowed" could be read as a euphemism for "plagiarized". YMMV

Narrow bore tips like sony hybrid (or silicone actually), final e tips, cp100, cp360 etc emphasize around 6khz - 10khz with 1-2db increment and midbass around 60-100hz little bit like only 1db. So they can be use to tame upper mids peak for example at 2-4 khz

While tips with foam materials tend to absorb edges from ringing or echoing trebles, depends on its density.

So what i've learnt in years that "blockage" on nozzle is taming mids and high mids area, while the materials (foam with different densities) are absorbing tail of sparkles, or ringing or echoed trebles.

 

[jant71]

Narrow bore tips like sony hybrid (or silicone actually), final e tips, cp100, cp360 etc emphasize around 6khz - 10khz with 1-2db increment and midbass around 60-100hz little bit like only 1db. So they can be use to tame upper mids peak for example at 2-4 khz

While tips with foam materials tend to absorb edges from ringing or echoing trebles, depends on its density.

So what i've learnt in years that "blockage" on nozzle is taming mids and high mids area, while the materials (foam with different densities) are absorbing tail of sparkles, or ringing or echoed trebles.

Yep the narrow bore thing is not really the whole story. More important is the silicone used. Some shinier types reflect and preserve more treble while the flat or matte finish slightly rougher feel absorbs some treble energy. So you can have the same bore size and get less treble or more treble. My old Klipsch tips were my go to treble enhancing tips and they are more narrow.

 

[Carpet]

Yep the narrow bore thing is not really the whole story. More important is the silicone used. Some shinier types reflect and preserve more treble while the flat or matte finish slightly rougher feel absorbs some treble energy. So you can have the same bore size and get less treble or more treble. My old Klipsch tips were my go to treble enhancing tips and they are more narrow.

Fit

Yep the narrow bore thing is not really the whole story. More important is the silicone used. Some shinier types reflect and preserve more treble while the flat or matte finish slightly rougher feel absorbs some treble energy. So you can have the same bore size and get less treble or more treble. My old Klipsch tips were my go to treble enhancing tips and they are more narrow.

How rigid and how thick the tip material is, seems to make a big difference too. Tips are something that doesn't apply universally, it all comes down to what gives you a good seal and works with your own preferences. I found four that work for me depending on fit and how dark/bright the IEM is. Stock tips usually get tried but large KBEAR 07 ends up on most things, CP100 on short nozzles, KBEAR 08 on thin nozzles and TENNMAK foams if things are really sibilant.

 

[superuser1]

Yep the narrow bore thing is not really the whole story. More important is the silicone used. Some shinier types reflect and preserve more treble while the flat or matte finish slightly rougher feel absorbs some treble energy. So you can have the same bore size and get less treble or more treble. My old Klipsch tips were my go to treble enhancing tips and they are more narrow.

Absolutely bang on.. for example the Spiral Dots and the Sedna Earfits using different types of material which in turn affect the sound differently.

 

[bhazard]

The CRA+ pairs very well with Spiral Dots.

I'm impressed with the CRA+'s need for very little EQ to be enjoyable. I'm running the CRA+ on my new DAC without Peace and Parametric EQ for testing, and I can see the CRA+ being an easy recommendation for a daily driver where PEQ isn't available or if you don't use EQ in general.