CrinEar Project META Review: Crin's Best, With Room To Improve

Crinacle is the single most important voice in the IEM space, whether for his YouTube content, encyclopedic IEM list, measurement database, or his collaborative IEM releases with brands like Moondrop. Now, with the advent of his store The Hangout and his new brand CrinEar, Crin is carving out space for himself in the marketplace. The CrinEar Project META, which retails at $249 USD and is sold through Crin’s own website, is Crin’s first IEM brought to market without any public association with another brand.

Many things set Crin apart from other companies bringing IEMs to market, but one very important distinction is that Crin is much more aware of current trends in tuning methodology. This is evident in the very existence and nomenclature of the Project META, whose name is a nod to what people like Super* Review have called “The New Meta,” which describes a cohort of similarly-tuned IEMs with midrange and lower treble that is increasingly compliant to Diffuse Field-based targets on the B&K 5128.

These “New Meta” IEMs have had their share of pushback from listeners, though. Some say they lack in subjective aspects like bass quality, dynamics, or overall resolution, while others say they are “fine” but nothing special. Because Project META rather intentionally aligns itself with the tuning approach undertaken by other IEMs in this category, like the Hisenior Mega5EST and Kiwi Ears KE4, does it fall victim to the same perceived deficiencies that other “New Meta” sets exhibit? Let’s discuss.

Build, Comfort, Design and Accessories

Starting with accessories, the Project META comes with a Pelican-type case, 4W braided cable with swappable 3.5mm TRS stereo and 4.4mm TRRRS Pentaconn terminations, two types of eartips, and the IEM earpieces themselves.

Touching on the case first, it’s exactly the same case that comes with the Hisenior Mega5EST but without the “custom” foam cutout inside for the IEM earpieces and cable. I actually greatly prefer the spaciousness of the case that comes with the META, as it means I don’t have to be quite as perfect with my cable wrapping/placement to fit into the cavity.

I quite like this case, but it must be said that it isn’t pocketable at all due to the size. Thankfully I’m almost never holding IEMs in my pockets, instead opting to put them in a sling bag I usually keep on my person, and for that this case is excellent, among my favorites of IEMs I’ve reviewed.

I also quite like the included cable, as it’s an appropriate length, decently (though not incredibly) soft and compliant, and not especially microphonic. Additionally, it coheres visually very well with the shell design such that the cable and IEM together look like an exceptionally pretty pairing. The swappable terminations also work with much less fuss than other modular cables that require threading to attach/swap, however I do worry about the fit stability/longevity for the terminals since they’re friction-fit only and may wear over time.

The one thing I don’t love about this accessories package is the lack of another type of silicone eartip, as Project META only comes with one type of silicone eartip and one type of foam eartip. In my last review of the Zero: BLUE 2 I lamented this exact same choice: I wish the IEM came with at least one other silicone eartip of different construction, either with a shorter core, wider bore size, or both.

This is because eartips can significantly affect both sound quality and comfort. Because I hate foam tips and the silicone tips weren’t ideal for me (sonically or ergonomically), I had to try all of my other aftermarket eartip options to get a result I felt better about, which ended up being a very similar tip to the included black/grey silicone tip, but with a shorter core which allowed for deeper insert and more snug fit.

Speaking of which, the comfort of META’s shell is good for me, probably one of the better recent IEMs I’ve tried in that regard. It’s a small, well-molded shell design with a metal construction and a reasonably narrow nozzle (5.8mm at the widest point of the lip). With the stock tips it stuck a bit further out than was comfortable, with the front-facing triangular tip rubbing against my tragus a bit uncomfortably, but with the shorter eartips, it sat a bit more closely to my ear and this became a non-issue.

Visually, this IEM is pretty damn slick. I will say I don’t really love the font that Crin chose for either his brand overall or for the “META” emblazoned on the faceplate itself, as it’s a bit “gamery” for me. But the color choices, simplicity of implementation, and the cleanliness of the bezel around the faceplate scream quality to me. It looks very, very nice (but would be nicer without the text).

Overall I think what people get in the box here is a great overall package, especially compared to some of the IEMs I’ll be comparing to later on. My main gripe is that I wish it came with another set of tips, but I don’t have any real complaints outside of that.

Sound

The bass is generous in amount, and honestly comes across as more forward to me than the measurements above suggest. This is partially due to my preference being for a lower amount of bass, but suffice to say this IEM is absolutely not lacking in fullness, size, or extension, so for those who want things to sound big, Project META is pretty darn good for that.

However, I noticed quite often that there were times that kick drums sounded too big for the rest of the mix they were sitting within, or that bass guitars sounded very normal and balanced until they went down to the lowest register and then got unnaturally boosted over most of the arrangement.

I think this is largely a symptom of Crin trying to address complaints of people saying “New Meta” sets lack bass quality by moving the shelf lower in frequency… but by moving the shelf lower, it makes the difference between eg. an A1 (55 Hz) and A2 (110 Hz) fundamental considerably more dramatic than it would be if the shelf had a wider slope. This unfortunately results in a less coherent overall bass presentation where the sub and mid bass sound a bit too detached from the upper bass and midrange for my liking.

Additionally, I think other listeners may find this change doesn’t really fix the issue many have with “New Meta” sets having lesser perceived bass quality. Project META’s bass region still considerably overshadows textural overtones in the center and upper midrange, leading to a sound signature that is pleasant, but not what I’d call precise or “exacting.”

There’s just too much sub-bass and mid-bass bloom for the rest of the tuning here, which causes kick drums and bass guitars to slightly overstay their welcome, (perceptually) decaying slower than I’d like relative to the midrange. So right away I think people should be aware that if they’re looking for something with this approach to midrange and high-quality bass, I personally don’t think Project META is going to be the IEM that bucks the trend set out by other “New Meta” sets.

Moving to the midrange… not gonna lie, Project META goes hard. I cannot think of a midrange that is better tuned in isolation. It has an ever-so-slight warmth to it that makes male and female vocals sound wonderfully intimate and tactile, while never being too warm and making things like piano or plucked strings sound muffled or distant.

Honestly it’s tough to say too much about the midrange other than I literally never—not once—had a complaint about how the midrange affected vocals, guitars, drums, piano, plucked or bowed strings, horns, wind instruments, or literally anything else. As far as I’m concerned, Project META absolutely nailed the midrange and it is now probably my favorite midrange tuning on the market…

…but only in isolation.

The problem is that no matter how excellent the midrange is, we don’t just listen to the midrange in isolation. The rest of the frequency response is always playing its part, and unfortunately the rest of Project META’s frequency response does sour what would otherwise probably be my favorite IEM on the market.

To that end, let’s talk about the treble. First off, I actually don’t actively notice any of the mild forwardness of the 5-9 kHz region suggested by the measurements… but that’s because I’m too distracted by the upper treble peak, which has the unfortunate affect of damn near defining the timbre of this IEM for me.

I was really, really hoping to finally get an IEM with a solid midrange like this, but free of the glassy, watery upper treble boosts of the other “New Meta” sets. Unfortunately with Project META, I was met with yet another IEM with an unnecessary upper treble boost committing a chirpy sizzle to basically anything with any energy above 10 kHz.

While listener tastes and experiences are going to vary dramatically above this point, I can’t help but be disappointed with how the extra sibilance up here further adds to the incoherence I hear between the midrange and everything else.

Acoustic guitars sound a bit like they’re being played with thin strips of metal foil instead of plectrums, hi-hats are a complete sizzle fest, and snare drums—which are so close to sounding perfect—get an extra helping of air that thins them enough that they sound more like hitting a piece of paper than a drum skin.

I want to be clear, from 200 Hz to like 4 kHz, META is probably the best IEM I’ve ever heard. Genuinely, it’s that well tuned. But unfortunately, that doesn’t matter when the boosts elsewhere in the frequency response take what would otherwise be neutral and turn it into a V-shape that takes too much attention away from its best aspects.

Presentation

The reason a “V-shape” is a problem is because, for me at least, V-shapes are the opposite of what I would typically hear as “technical.”

Starting with my subjective sense of ‘resolution,” the Project META doesn’t really do anything special for me. The colorations in the bass and especially the treble distract me from textural cues present in the midrange that I really care about, like the vivid complexity of distorted guitar overtones or the rasp of vocal fry.

Moving onto dynamics, I would say Project META is roughly as poor as the other “New Meta” sets are. The overwhelming bass and treble means that transients come across as “U-shaped” to me, having a very very brief emphasis at its initial contact peak, a valley in the “middle” of the transient where the actual sense of punch resides, and a rise in decay (instead of a tapering off) leading to what I perceive as a longer/fatter “tail” than would be proportional to the rest of the transient.

I know for both of these aspects that people’s definitions of these terms will vary and thus some may find Project META exceptional for resolution, dynamics, or both. Especially when it comes to the former I think many listeners may have a different definition than I do. But at least for the latter, I really don’t think those looking for an explosive presentation of drums or larger swings of SPL in a “macro” sense are going to find that in Project META.

On the bright side, like most of the similarly-tuned “New Meta” IEMs, Project META has an exceptionally well-balanced and non-claustrophobic stage and imaging presentation. There’s a great sense of heterogeneity to the front-back axis, where vocals can sound very intimate or very far away as the track prescribes, and elements panned on top of each other still have decent separation. Additionally, the placement on the left-right axis is plenty precise and bereft either gaps or any blurring causing sonic elements to overstep their bounds.

But as I always say, this is the aspect of sound reproduction I care least about by a significant margin. Overall, I think the “subjective” presentation here just really isn’t all that impressive compared to its competition for the things I actually care about, which again, is a shame given how much I like certain aspects of it.

Comparisons

Vs. Hisenior Mega5EST

I think this is the comparison most people are going to be wondering about because Hisenior Mega5EST was—along with the Subtonic Storm—one of the first IEMs that validated the “New Meta” midrange as an approach worth taking seriously.

Those who are looking for a less expensive alternative to the Mega5EST should feel pretty good about Project META actually meeting their needs fairly well… though I think there are some meaningful differences that need to be addressed.

Starting with non-sound stuff, the Mega5EST is a chunkier shell but with a similar shape overall, so I think comfort might be a bit better for Project META on average. Mega5EST comes with more sets of eartips—which is great because tips change Mega5EST’s tuning above 3 kHz dramatically—but it also comes with a much less agreeable stock cable. It is arguably not as good looking as Project META either, for those who care a lot about that.

Sonically, I honestly think the two are pretty close but with two big differences. While Project META has the midrange I’d say I personally prefer between them, it’s also considerably less coherent due to the excessive reduction in the upper bass causing too much dissonance between bass and midrange. Mega5EST has more energy here, and even if it’s a bit too much bass overall for me, it integrates more naturally with the midrange and things as a whole sound more “complete” with Mega5EST.

Additionally, I feel like Project META’s treble timbre is more annoying to me than Mega5EST’s with narrow bore tips. While this is absolutely going to differ for other people, and both are considerably too bright for me anyway, I find Mega5EST’s treble to be a bit more relaxed and sensible, committing a little extra shimmer and intensity to treble cues, but not making me feel like all of my music has an annoying plasticky sheen to it.

Both IEMs are pretty lackluster when it comes to subjective aspects like dynamics and texture. They both have too much bass overall which occludes transient attack and textural overtones in the midrange causing them to sound a bit soupier than I’d like, though I think Project META might be slightly clearer and snappier sounding.

Now, is Mega5EST worth more than double the price? Honestly, probably not. Project META’s slight incoherence is noticeable, and its treble is definitely harder to cope with, but Mega5EST still has its own issues with incoherence and overdone treble that it has to answer for. So while I think Mega5EST is still good, I think most people who want (or think they want) this kind of signature would be better served saving a few bucks and getting a cheaper IEM with similar tuning. Speaking of which…

Vs. Kiwi Ears KE4

Not gonna sugar coat it, I think Kiwi Ears’ KE4 really screws up Project META’s value proposition in more ways than one, especially because it’s considerably less expensive.

What Project META has over KE4 is its design, build, and tip rolling versatility. I think most people will agree that Project META is a better looking IEM, and a full-metal shell at this price point is nice to have. Importantly, Project META’s treble doesn’t go quite as insane as KE4’s does when using anything but stock tips. But for the rest of the sound, I find it really tough to say I have a consistent preference between them because they’re so incredibly similar.

I honestly find the KE4 to be noticeably better in terms of note weight and dynamic punch, as well as overall coherence between bass and midrange. The slight bit of extra warmth KE4 has really does help it sound both less disjointed between bass and midrange, as well as more convincing in terms of its sense of mass behind movements of the music.

However, I actually prefer Project META’s midrange tuning in isolation, as KE4 sounds just a bit too clouded over on vocals, guitars, and pianos. As a result Project META also edges it out in terms of texture and “resolution” on these and other midrange-focused elements.

I would say both are roughly even in terms of stage and imaging, with Project META having maybe a little more distanced and hands-off presentation that I think some may find as “deeper stage,” though personally I hear the two as being too close to make heads-or-tails of.

What makes this tough is that with stock tips, KE4’s treble is more palatable for me on most music, but has infrequent moments where a resonance around 11-12 kHz just murders me. Project META’s treble elevation never really gets to be quite that bad, but it’s a problem more often than KE4’s was.

Additionally, with aftermarket tips KE4 has way too much treble above 5 kHz such that it then becomes very hard for me to recommend at all. By contrast, with Project META I get the versatility to play around with tips that may work better than stock for me, because the treble response doesn’t change quite as much with a tip swap as KE4’s does.

That said, I unfortunately don’t think Project META really does quite enough to justify the extra cost based on its sound quality or ergonomics alone. KE4 is roughly equal in comfort and sounds close enough to Project META that I honestly think for most people it’d be a coin flip of which they prefer. Both are solid enough for their price, but obviously one of them is considerably cheaper while being a roughly equal balance of compromises.

Vs. Softears Volume S

Right away I should make it clear, in terms of midrange performance Project META eats Volume S for breakfast. It’s a much more natural sound on vocals especially, and it’s immediately apparent.

However, that doesn’t mean it’s overall better. In fact, I’d take Volume S over META handily, and honestly doing this review has really served as a good reminder of just how important bass and treble level are for an overall judgment of preference.

While Project META has a more linear midrange, it still sounds considerably less coherent and well-integrated than the Volume S does for me. As far as I can tell, this is because the Volume S doesn’t have the same scoop between upper bass and low midrange causing the disjointed behavior, and importantly doesn’t have nearly the magnitude of treble elevation.

Another way to look at it is that Project META is a V-shape, while Softears Volume S is more of a coherent “downward slope” that doesn’t have exceedingly large bass or treble elevations. Unfortunately, Volume S still has considerable issues with its midrange sounding both shouty at times as well as a little hollow other times, and is much less ergonomic than Project META.

But even if it doesn’t graph as pretty in the middle, Volume S continues to strike me as a more put-together sounding IEM, and it’s still one of the only IEMs I’ve ever encountered that I’d say actually sounds neutral overall to me, even if its midrange isn’t quite free of coloration.

Now, the above is a judgment that I suspect many people aren’t going to agree with, and that’s totally fine. I think some people may actually prefer the more “distinct” bass presentation, fuller midrange, and sparklier treble of Project META, but that doesn’t change the fact that Volume S has essentially been my go-to IEM for the past few months, while Project META is probably not going to be used again any time soon after this review.

Conclusion

Project META is absolutely another solid entry at this price point like the KE4, balancing good ergonomics, design, accessories, and sound quality. To my mind, only someone who’s been reviewing and tuning IEMs for years could nail most of the important stuff like this on their first go as an independent manufacturer. So Crin deserves credit for coming out of the dugout swinging for the fences.

If people already know they like the sound of this kind of tuning, but could do with a little less warmth, a nicer shell, or a little more treble, then they should feel free to go for it as long as they’re down to spend a little bit more money than KE4.

Unfortunately, I personally don’t really enjoy it all that much due to the bass and treble colorations, which is a shame because I think it gets some very important things right. And I’m also not sure its all that great of a value when KE4 exists.

To be frank, I’m getting pretty fatigued when it comes to IEMs with neutral, exceptional midrange tunings coming to market that I don’t get to actually enjoy because of the excess bass and treble overshadowing the IEM’s best characteristic.

I’m even more tired of the “New Meta” terminology and how it’s used, to be honest. It began as an (arguably incorrect) oversimplification of a new framework for neutral tuning, and now it’s being used as a way to categorize, laud, or market IEMs that aren’t actually all that neutrally tuned. It seems many out there want to prematurely act like we’ve arrived at the destination the framework laid out, but we really haven’t.

Hopping off my soapbox, the important part is that some listeners will find Project META to be perfectly neutral from top to bottom, and that’s enough to convince me that it should exist and people should feel totally okay buying it. But I still don’t think there’s much of a point in celebrating this sort of tuning quite yet.

What I can confidently say about Project META is that it delivers on the sonic expectations set out by the term “New Meta” as most people understand it. It sounds like the other similarly tuned, similarly flawed IEMs in that sonic category, while having a quirk or two and a nice ergonomics & design profile. Readers who want to buy Project META have my stamp of approval, however unenthusiastically I may be giving it, but as always my honest recommendation remains “wait for something better to come along.”