Crin added a bunch of "average" "insignificant" iems to the ranking list.. BA5 looks quite crappy. While CCA C10 got highest rank from those KZ-produced iems, even higher than Audiosense T800!
Maybe his BA5 is defective, recalling his frequency response curve. Whatever the explanation, the suggestion that the Sony MH755 is better than the BA5 is not an idea I would take seriously.
Crin added a bunch of "average" "insignificant" iems to the ranking list.. BA5 looks quite crappy. While CCA C10 got highest rank from those KZ-produced iems, even higher than Audiosense T800!
Crin added a bunch of "average" "insignificant" iems to the ranking list.. BA5 looks quite crappy. While CCA C10 got highest rank from those KZ-produced iems, even higher than Audiosense T800!
He has his own preferred tuning/sound signature I think.
I respect his reviews, but I find my taste preferences don't really align with his, didn't agree with some of his reviews for gear that I owned personally/auditioned.
Crin added a bunch of "average" "insignificant" iems to the ranking list.. BA5 looks quite crappy. While CCA C10 got highest rank from those KZ-produced iems, even higher than Audiosense T800!
I wont call BA5 quite crappy, they have very good technicalities for the price, but they lack sub bass for me and a bit too busy in trebles even not harsh presentation. C10 i admit have good tuning but they have mid bass bleed and can be boring for some people. Crin seems like to put tuning point in big portion of his criteria of rank judgement. Maybe he havent heard the zsx yet also.
Speaking of his ranks, i just bought tws iem that only cost around $24, the qcy q5 and the only qcy tws he had try maybe, surprisingly he put that on C+.
I still love BA5 for their technicalities, and its a good iem for watching movies they have good imaging and clear details.
Crin added a bunch of "average" "insignificant" iems to the ranking list.. BA5 looks quite crappy. While CCA C10 got highest rank from those KZ-produced iems, even higher than Audiosense T800!
I could speculate that overall sound quality at the end of the day is a mixture of tuning with technicalities. BA5 for example has "horrible technicalities" (low quality old Bellsing BAs that have more THD comparing to Knowles counterparts) with nominaly good v-shaped tuning. 0+1 = 1 points here. While T800 have "cleaner sound" because of better quality Knowles BA but not that good tuning wise. 1+ 0 = 1 points. 1:1
Considering the price of T800 is almost X10 of BA5 idk if buying Audiosense is justifiable anymore.
When I first received my BA5, I would have agreed with crinacle.
It was clear, and had a more pleasant tuning than previous TRN and KZ, very inoffensive. But I also found it boring, and not particularly useful for music I listen to.
But then I heard some of the tracks presented on this thread, and I could see why it was built the way it is. For certain genres, it is a very unveiled and musical performer.
Then, I tried it with bass-light techno / industrial, and it was surprisingly engaging. Very musical, and really draws out the beats and techno garble. They're strong on percussion, and my best IEMs for certain genres. Just not an all-rounder.
He has his own preferred tuning/sound signature I think.
I respect his reviews, but I find my taste preferences don't really align with his, didn't agree with some of his reviews for gear that I owned personally/auditioned.
from his site: "The IEMs are ranked purely by sonic performance". Also, if you look at the list, there are a variety of sound-sig at various ranks.
its simply a matter of how people define "sonic performance". If you don't agree with how he rates them, its not really something surprising, and definitely not something to get salty about. People have different priorities on sound, after all.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
