How does it compare with Elysian? Particularly Hades V2 the one ive heard.My Thoughts On: Craft Ears Craft4
You've probably seen me talk about this on other platforms! Craft Ears is a new CIEM brand hailing from Poland. They've two existing models - Craft2 and Craft4.
The Craft4 has quite an interesting configuration with 4 drivers & 4 way xover. The midrange driver is bandpassed and the tweeter is a rarely-seen sonion BA.
Some of you may have saw that I had sibilance issues with the Craft4 CIEM right at the very start. The UIEM was fine in terms of treble intensity, but the CIEM had this metallic edge and harshness to it. Yes, the CIEM does sound like it has more air to it but it was a sibilance point of mine. Had a few friends try both the UIEM and CIEM and they reported no such sibilance/harshness issues. A few days later my brain burnt in to the sibilance and the treble intensity is drastically reduced by now. YMMW.
Sonically the Craft4 is tuned for a V-shape with the recession at the lower midrange (400-1000hz). As such midrange instruments like vocals and guitars are placed a bit further back relative to toms, snares, hihats, crash/ride cymbals etc. I'd say it's more bright than it is warm.
An apparent flaw in the resulting tonal balance is the tone of the midrange. It sounds veiled when put put next to reference monitors like the SH3 & NT6. Another criticism of mine would be the thinness of its treble - hihats and crash/ride cymbals can sound thin and too brilliant tonally.
The C4 trades tonal balance for its rather impressive soundstage and imaging. It handles panning synths and layers instruments/vocals very well. Furthermore, its transients are hard & its dynamics uncompromised. The C4s bass is well tuned here - midbass is well defined and impactful but doesn't feel like it's too overwhelming or intrudes into the music. Subbass does roll of a little after the midbass but honestly I'd classify the bass as well done in BA standards.
Overall I can't say I am a fan of its tonal balance but I do think it gets other things right - namely imaging and midbass definition.
Full review coming this weekend (with full comparisons to the Universal).
Toranku's Thoughts and Reviews (and target EQ filters!)
- Thread starter toranku
- Start date
Dealer should be getting some demo units soon (idk exactly when) but I can do more accurate comparisons then
Introducing: Tork Target
Nowadays its been kind of a meme to publish a personal target curve but here it is anyway:
The Tork Target is modeled closely into my own preferences where I prefer a more midcentric performance in "flat" speakers. Target's tone would be slightly warm and midforward. I find that with speakers in an enjoyable volume, the treble tends to be too forward which detracts from its midrange performance. With the Harman IE target, I am not a fan of its energy past the 3khz region. I think it just has way too much treble. By decreasing the treble, I've also adjusted the bass slope and quantity to account for the changes.
The midrange (300hz-3khz) is very important here. I find that IEMs with a pinna gain peaking at 3kHz sound tonally more accurate. If it peaks at anywhere from 2-2.5khz instead, vocals can sound unnaturally forward (not that its bad, just a discovered preference) and perhaps a bit bright in tone. The 250-1000hz response is important as well - if there is a bump anywhere in this region I find that it adds some form of unnatural body and tone to the midrange. A lot of IEMs are offenders here, and thats fine. I find that this flatness is important in emulating a tone closely related to a speaker's midrange.
Bass is kept conservative at 5dB. It is on the slightly leaner side of things. Can be adjusted for greater SPL but the bass should start sloping up at 250hz. Anywhere higher can potentially introduce bloat and a loss of depth and control in the subbass. Like the Harman curve, the Tork Target peaks at 3-4k then starts gradually sloping down towards 0dB at 10khz, although the slope isn't as drastic as harman's so I could still retain a decent sense of air.
The final key to fitting into my preferences would be a smooth sound. It all needs to blend in together to sound coherent. And of course, this curve is not without use. Keep a lookout for exciting things to come
Nowadays its been kind of a meme to publish a personal target curve but here it is anyway:
The Tork Target is modeled closely into my own preferences where I prefer a more midcentric performance in "flat" speakers. Target's tone would be slightly warm and midforward. I find that with speakers in an enjoyable volume, the treble tends to be too forward which detracts from its midrange performance. With the Harman IE target, I am not a fan of its energy past the 3khz region. I think it just has way too much treble. By decreasing the treble, I've also adjusted the bass slope and quantity to account for the changes.
The midrange (300hz-3khz) is very important here. I find that IEMs with a pinna gain peaking at 3kHz sound tonally more accurate. If it peaks at anywhere from 2-2.5khz instead, vocals can sound unnaturally forward (not that its bad, just a discovered preference) and perhaps a bit bright in tone. The 250-1000hz response is important as well - if there is a bump anywhere in this region I find that it adds some form of unnatural body and tone to the midrange. A lot of IEMs are offenders here, and thats fine. I find that this flatness is important in emulating a tone closely related to a speaker's midrange.
Bass is kept conservative at 5dB. It is on the slightly leaner side of things. Can be adjusted for greater SPL but the bass should start sloping up at 250hz. Anywhere higher can potentially introduce bloat and a loss of depth and control in the subbass. Like the Harman curve, the Tork Target peaks at 3-4k then starts gradually sloping down towards 0dB at 10khz, although the slope isn't as drastic as harman's so I could still retain a decent sense of air.
The final key to fitting into my preferences would be a smooth sound. It all needs to blend in together to sound coherent. And of course, this curve is not without use. Keep a lookout for exciting things to come
Last edited:
First Impressions: Final A8000
Feels like final just chucked a random DD into a shell and called it a day. Peaky highs and very strong honky, boosted uppermid presence. Has a slight bass boost as well but it's more bright than say bassy/warm.
Lower midrange (500-1000hz) is missing. Surprising given its a final. Overall honky, missing low mid response and terribly unbalanced when put next to IEMs that have semblance of tonal balance. Hell, BLON03 is better.
Feels like final just chucked a random DD into a shell and called it a day. Peaky highs and very strong honky, boosted uppermid presence. Has a slight bass boost as well but it's more bright than say bassy/warm.
Lower midrange (500-1000hz) is missing. Surprising given its a final. Overall honky, missing low mid response and terribly unbalanced when put next to IEMs that have semblance of tonal balance. Hell, BLON03 is better.
OverlordRush
500+ Head-Fier
You have to give the oppoty to letthemusicburn in on the A8000
Mimouille
Headphoneus Supremus
I heard it exactly like that. The driver is supposed to be berylium, so ultra strong to avoid distortion. I already don't believe in IEM burn in, but this type of driver should be the most stable of them all. Unless you mean burn in your ear until it tolerates screechy mids.
johnchpark
Head-Fier
Would you say S8Z’s resolution is up to TOTL standards?
thought the S8F was a little bloated too, so this might be a good one to take a look at
thought the S8F was a little bloated too, so this might be a good one to take a look at
Mimouille
Headphoneus Supremus
I hate humour.Mim, it was a joke. Read the BL03 acronym:
Even with TOTLs some lack resolve. I'd say S8Z has overall good-great resolution.
The difference between Z and F is somewhat minor. There's less warmth, less bass bloat (still is, to an extent; not a big flaw), more brightness and more perceived clarity due to stronger HF energy.
My thoughts on: Hyla Sarda
Hyla's latest DD. Seems quite limited in quantity. If you're used to the typical Hyla signature (CE5 & TE5B), the Sarda has less subbass and warmth compared to them. Make no mistake, the Hyla is still v-shaped but with more emphasis on the midbass (whilst still being relatively clean with upperbass bloat) but tonal balance leans on the brighter end of the spectrum. The bass is well defined and executed IMO.
Midrange instruments take on a lean, shrill and potentially shouty tone due to the uppermid and treble lift. Treble tends to dominate the staging but it isn't done in a fatiguing manner to my ears.
The Sarda for some might lose the appeal of a Hyla as the typical hyla sound is known for its strong subbass presence and warmer leaning tone. However I still think it's a decent earphone with a less intrusive bass response.
Hyla's latest DD. Seems quite limited in quantity. If you're used to the typical Hyla signature (CE5 & TE5B), the Sarda has less subbass and warmth compared to them. Make no mistake, the Hyla is still v-shaped but with more emphasis on the midbass (whilst still being relatively clean with upperbass bloat) but tonal balance leans on the brighter end of the spectrum. The bass is well defined and executed IMO.
Midrange instruments take on a lean, shrill and potentially shouty tone due to the uppermid and treble lift. Treble tends to dominate the staging but it isn't done in a fatiguing manner to my ears.
The Sarda for some might lose the appeal of a Hyla as the typical hyla sound is known for its strong subbass presence and warmer leaning tone. However I still think it's a decent earphone with a less intrusive bass response.
SBranson
Headphoneus Supremus
Introducing: Tork Target
Nowadays its been kind of a meme to publish a personal target curve but here it is anyway:
The Tork Target is modeled closely into my own preferences where I prefer a more midcentric performance in "flat" speakers. Target's tone would be slightly warm and midforward. I find that with speakers in an enjoyable volume, the treble tends to be too forward which detracts from its midrange performance. With the Harman IE target, I am not a fan of its energy past the 3khz region. I think it just has way too much treble. By decreasing the treble, I've also adjusted the bass slope and quantity to account for the changes.
The midrange (300hz-3khz) is very important here. I find that IEMs with a pinna gain peaking at 3kHz sound tonally more accurate. If it peaks at anywhere from 2-2.5khz instead, vocals can sound unnaturally forward (not that its bad, just a discovered preference) and perhaps a bit bright in tone. The 250-1000hz response is important as well - if there is a bump anywhere in this region I find that it adds some form of unnatural body and tone to the midrange. A lot of IEMs are offenders here, and thats fine. I find that this flatness is important in emulating a tone closely related to a speaker's midrange.
Bass is kept conservative at 5dB. It is on the slightly leaner side of things. Can be adjusted for greater SPL but the bass should start sloping up at 250hz. Anywhere higher can potentially introduce bloat and a loss of depth and control in the subbass. Like the Harman curve, the Tork Target peaks at 3-4k then starts gradually sloping down towards 0dB at 10khz, although the slope isn't as drastic as harman's so I could still retain a decent sense of air.
The final key to fitting into my preferences would be a smooth sound. It all needs to blend in together to sound coherent. And of course, this curve is not without use. Keep a lookout for exciting things to come
Thanks for the explanation this is really interesting. Personally I find that a 3khz peak is a bit high for me as vocals sound in the throat rather than the chest and prefer the peak more at 2.5’ish. This was the problem I think I had with the Moondrop S8. Most of the iems I like seem to have a dip after 2.5. So interesting to know what and why you prefer as I’ve always found your impressions most helpful.
Users who are viewing this thread
