CrinEar Reference: We Have Arrived

If the history of IEMs as a market space and hobby is ever turned into a book, Crinacle will either be an entire chapter of the book, or the person writing it. There is no single person more influential in this space than Crin, which is why when he started his own IEM brand, it was basically a countdown until he released one of the best IEMs in the world… and here we are. CrinEar Reference, a $350 IEM—CrinEar’s most expensive to date—is one of the most balanced, natural sounding IEMs I’ve heard.

As someone who’s been waiting for years for it to come out, I am extremely relieved to say that it was worth the (at times, excruciating) wait.

Reference comes around at a time when people are fatigued/bored with everything being some variation of one of the 5 popular target responses, and opts to deliver something (almost) entirely unique. As a result, Reference is likely to stand alone in its price category as the recommendation for anyone looking for a neutral IEM. Let’s talk about why.

Build, Comfort, Design & Accessories

In the box, you get the IEM, a rather fetching zip case, four types of tips—two silicone narrow bore tips of different bore lengths, “shortwide” silicone tips (KBEAR 4540/Coffee tips), and a single pair of foam tips—the included 2-pin to 3.5mm right-angle cable, and a 4.4mm adapter. The case is lovely, one of the best included cases I’ve received with an IEM. It’s white leather or leatherette-wrapped, with just enough space in there for the IEM, cable, and some ear tips, and importantly, it’s actually pocketable. Another underrated detail about the case is that it can actually stand up straight on a flat surface if you need it to.

Crin clearly learned some lessons from the Daybreak and now offers a healthy complement of eartips in the box with Reference (including the “Coffee” tips most people agree made Daybreak a more palatable listen). Additionally, the included eartips actually have significant acoustic differences, such that I’m confident that most people will be able to find something that works well for them in the treble with this IEM—especially because its treble response is so reasonable that it’s unlikely people have many glaring issues to begin with.

Of particular note is the inclusion of the Standard tips, but also a version of the same exact tip but with a shorter core (Short tips). This allows for people to experiment with the ergonomic profile without really changing the sound, and I’d love to see other brands do something similar going forward.

And finally, the cable is much more soft and premium feeling than the thin, plasticky cable that came with Daybreak. It actually reminds me quite a bit of the cable that came with the Prisma Lumen, but slightly thinner and with a swappable right-angle connector instead of a straight-angle one. I typically don’t love cables that are quite as thick as this one, but because the earpieces are thick and moderately heavy, I actually feel the pairing makes a decent amount of sense & I find myself having no issues with the weight of the cable causing the “imbalanced” feeling that I got with Lumen.

Overall this accessories package is great. For $350, this should be the standard; a diverse collection of eartips with different lengths and bore sizes, a nice pocketable case, and a cable that is neither too thin nor too heavy for the earpieces it’s attached to. I think people will be pleased with what they get in the box here.

Touching on visual design, so far this is my favorite looking CrinEar IEM, almost entirely because Crin opted for a relatively less obtrusive logo instead of the ugly/somewhat “gamery” text branding on things like Daybreak and META. While the lack of text here is preferable, and the all-silver metal shell itself is handsome, I am still not a massive fan of the branding and polishing here. The logo itself is still rather “gamery,” and communicates little about the brand/product. If I had my druthers, there wouldn’t be a logo on the faceplate at all; he’s gone the lengths to offer a handsome full metal construction at this price, I think it’d be best if he let the shell speak for itself.

Speaking of construction, Reference is also CrinEar’s most solid-feeling IEM to date. Obviously the slightly heavy aluminum shell has a big part to play there, but I think subjectively the fact that it’s all one color and its (as far as I can tell) CrinEar’s largest IEM also contributes to the IEM looking and feeling more robust—both more robust than past CrinEar designs, as well as more robust than similarly priced options that lack metal shells.

Comfort-wise, Reference is pretty good, particularly when it comes to its nozzle profile and molding. There are a few things worth noting, though. As said, it’s a pretty large shell. Not as large as the Thieaudio Monarchs or Elysian Annihilators of the world—and certainly not as poorly molded—but it’s quite a tall shell that protrudes significantly out of the ear when worn with standard tips (less so with the shorter included tips). If you aren’t getting a deep enough insert, it has a bit of an issue where it doesn’t quite nestle neatly into the curvature of the ear. This can feel a bit precarious considering the tallness of the shell causes the weight to sit a bit further from the ear than usual as well.

However, because there are a variety of tips here—all of which have different bore lengths—users can tip-roll to move the shell slightly closer (Short tips), much closer (Shortwide tips) or further (Standard tips) based on their needs. The Shortwide tips do a fantastic job moving the shell closer enough to my ear to basically entirely mitigate this issue for me.

In summation, I have basically no real issues with the build, comfort, design, or accessories for this IEM. Crin is clearly listening to feedback and it’s evident in the package here that he put real thought into making this as universal and unproblematic a package as possible, so for that he collects a well-deserved win in this section.

New Measurements

If you’ve been paying attention to our YouTube channel, you may have noticed we’re in the middle of updating how we display data for headphone measurements—mostly because we can now measure them on our own heads to see how they actually respond at our ears, instead of solely relying on data from measurement rigs that aren’t our heads and ears.

While we can’t (yet) do this for IEMs—measuring IEMs in the actual ear canal is bloody hard—we are still updating our IEM process with a new baseline HRTF because we’ve successfully collected the data we need to do so.

Say hello to the Headphones.com IEM Diffuse Field HRTF (Headphones.com IEM DF for short):

A few years ago, we began using Joel Merrifield’s JM-1 Diffuse Field HRTF—an approximation of what would happen if you altered the B&K 5128’s Diffuse Field HRTF to be more humanlike—because the Diffuse Field HRTF of the 5128 is considerably brighter than the average human HRTF.

The conjecture was that this was due to the 5128’s pinnae (the floppy outer bit of the ear) producing more treble than an average human pinna would. For IEMs—which bypass interaction with the listener’s pinnae completely—accounting for this is actually very important. Even if the IEMs bypass our pinnae, our brain still expects the effects of our pinnae when it comes to judging the timbre of sound.

For that reason, it makes sense to assume the average listener’s brain will expect something more like an average human HRTF than the 5128’s overall brighter-than-average HRTF. Thus, JM-1’s goal was to steer the 5128 closer to an average human HRTF to account for the timbral expectation of the average listener.

However, because IEMs are still interacting with the ear canal of the 5128 when we measure them, we want to make sure the 5128’s canal effects are accounted for too… And this is what the original JM-1 Diffuse Field HRTF attempted to do. It uses the 5128’s Diffuse Field HRTF where the ear canal contributes more to the overall HRTF, while using an “average” human HRTF in regions where the pinnae contribute more to the overall HRTF.

Thanks to new data we’ve collected, we’ve arrived at a more fine-grained, complete understanding of the contributions of the 5128’s canal. Which means we don’t need to do what JM-1 did, relying on mathematically shifting the weight between two HRTFs. We can just combine the response of the ear canal with the response of the average human outer ear (blocked canal Diffuse Field HRTF) effects.

Luckily, we’ve also unpacked & aggregated a much, much larger dataset of human pinnae effects than what can be found in the ISO 11904 standard (which served as the basis for JM-1 DF).

So in keeping with what the original JM-1 DF tried to do—combine the 5128’s canal with human pinna effects—we’ve combined the 5128’s canal effects with the new, larger dataset of human pinna effects, arriving at the logical conclusion of the path JM-1 DF set us on years ago. Going forward, this is going to be our compensation baseline for measuring IEMs on the B&K 5128.

This does not mean JM-1 DF is obsolete. It is still a perfectly reasonable baseline to use if you don’t want to account too strongly for the specific features of the 5128’s ear canal. However, we believe this HRTF relays a much more complete idea of what a baseline for IEMs measured on the 5128, but listened to by humans, should look like.

We’re still smoothing our HRTF to the same resolution of JM-1 (1/3rd octave smoothing) to avoid people reading the tea leaves too much, but certain features—like the 9 kHz notch—might be confusing or concerning at first.

However, as you can see below, this feature also shows up in the 5128’s overall HRTF; because this 8-12 kHz area of the HRTF has significant contributions from the ear canal, this result is firmly within expectation.

This is all to say, the following measurements of the CrinEar Reference may look brighter than eg. Crinacle’s measurements of these IEMs, which is solely because we are now using a slightly different compensation baseline than the JM-1 DF he is likely still using (though maybe by the time you’re reading this he will have switched over).

We will be releasing our new Preference Bounds for IEMs (based on listener preference research from Harman/Sean Olive) soon, which take this new Diffuse Field HRTF into account, but for now we’ll be continuing to use our older Preference Bounds.

Sound

Below is the CrinEar Reference with “Standard” tips measured on the B&K 5128-B with 3 seatings per side, Diffuse Field-compensated using the Headphones.com IEM Diffuse Field HRTF, as well as a raw visualization of the L/R averages below that.

For this review, I opted to use the included “Shortwide” tips, as they brought the treble to a level/presentation I preferred.

Before I start with the sound quality breakdown, I want to make it clear that this IEM sounds a little bit different from the version I heard at CanJam NYC last month. Specifically, it sounds more relaxed in the region between 8-12 kHz.

In terms of level this is right where I like my bass to sit. Emphasized enough to provide the necessary mid-bass thump to kick drum and bass fundamentals, but without the typical excess that causes them to swamp midrange overtones or treble attack. Solely in terms of level, I think Reference basically nails exactly what I’d want in terms of broadband bass volume and presence.

Level aside though, I think the bass shelf here could benefit from being a little less distinct in terms of its integration with the midrange. Currently it presents a little too detached such that, even if the fundamentals of bass instruments aren’t overwhelming other parts of the music, it sounds like the bass region is a bit too separated from the other parts. There’s mid-bass bump, and there’s attack/“voice” to bass instruments, but the region between these sections where the woody, chesty early overtones would present themselves is slightly underemphasized to my ear.

One more note on the bass: I think the upper midrange shaping (slightly forward @ 1.2 kHz) is a bit of a double edged sword. On one hand, it balances what might otherwise be a bit too boomy/resonant of a bass shelf and adds a nice crunch to certain bass instruments. But on the other hand, for most tracks it centers the energy of bass instruments just a bit too much towards the midrange and can tilt the overall response a bit too lean in a way that, while definitely not a deal breaker, may leave some people feeling like the IEM is too bass-light.

However, for me this is one of the best bass presentations I’ve come across in IEMs, because the sub-bass and mid-bass isn’t drowning out the mids, allowing bass instruments to have crisp, resolute overtone presence. It leans more towards texturing than dynamic punch, weight, or size, so there’s still room for improving the balance here, but just getting the bass level right has resulted in this IEM being replete with the complexity and nuance that I’d say is necessary for a “high quality” reproduction of bass.

Speaking of midrange, this is where yeah, Reference is mostly in line with what current targets are saying is a good thing to aim for, and for that reason I think most people are gonna find it really solid for most if not all genres of music. The balance between fundamental and overtone for critical midrange elements like vocals, snare drums, horns, strings, guitars, and pianos is essentially right where it’s supposed to be, so intelligibility, realism, and accuracy are all managed roughly equally well on any music I throw at it.

I will again call attention to the slight 1.2 kHz bump here, as I did find it was audible as a minor coloration that caused some things to sound a bit smaller and “pointier” than I would ideally prefer. This was mostly an issue on drums and certain vocals where there was just a hair too much “bark” relative to the energy lower in frequency, and it has a mild centering effect causing the entirety of the signature to shift slightly towards the mids instead of giving equal attention/emphasis to all regions.

If you’re worried about this: don’t be, I am surely picking nits. It’s not nearly distracting enough to get in the way of enjoyment, and honestly I think it’s only noticeable because the bass and treble magnitude is so well controlled. At minimum it’s on par with Crin’s other well-tuned midranges, but the actual impression of the midrange is better—more focused, more textured sounding—because you actually get to hear it instead of being swamped with a ton of sub-bass or upper treble.

The treble is where basically every single one of Crin’s prior IEMs (except Zero: RED) has stumbled pretty disastrously for me… but Reference is like a breath of fresh air—pun intended.

Now, that’s not to say it’s perfect, I still get a bit too much low treble and upper treble, but not enough to be a problem (and certainly not as bad as most IEMs I’ve evaluated). Most of my listening was free of exaggerated sibilance, hash, or the awkward sizzle & wispy plasticky annoyances that are typical of my experience with most IEMs. Instead, I just get a slightly sharpened or “enhanced” sounding treble presentation with a hint of glare in the low treble and a bit too much around 12 kHz.

Now, if the rest of the presentation here were bang-on neutral, I might have more of an issue with the minor treble colorations I’m detecting here. But because both the bass (slight emphasis of mid-bass over low-mids) and midrange (slight 1-1.5kHz push) are both slightly colored, I find the interplay of the slightly colored treble with the rest of the response to be pretty damn coherent, if still not quite perfectly neutral to me.

There’s more than enough intensity in the upper octaves to relay all of the crackle, scratch, and brilliance that is actually contained in the music, but not enough to mask the midrange, define the character of the IEM, or actually ruin any of my music. Crucially, there’s enough gentleness and restraint here to be decently forgiving of poorly mixed music, yet it’s not so “safe” that it makes well-produced music ever feel like it’s missing information.

To that end, I would say Reference is actually better than a lot of more expensive IEMs in terms of the perception of speed, detail, and imaging clarity, because its tuning very subtly highlights the areas of the response where the music is itself most densely packed with competing overtones (upper midrange/low treble), while not masking these regions at all with excess in the bass or treble.

This means unpacking and separating all of the sounds and instruments of the music comes very naturally with Reference, and importantly, is something the listener retains the agency to do on their own. With more colored tunings, the choice of what you pay attention to is made for you because of the highlighting imparted by tuning quirks. With Reference, you are free to scrutinize and probe whatever area of the music you wish without the IEM itself fighting you.

In terms of spaciousness, I don’t get any notable impression of size or expansiveness from Reference. Again, the imaging clarity and separation is very good, but it does sound more like the typical small, slightly center-focused and close presentation that many IEMs have. That said, I tend to enjoy intimate presentations much more than “spacious” ones, so this wasn’t a problem at all for me.

I did mention dynamic punch/slam briefly, but I do want to reiterate that I wish Reference were a bit better for this quality. While it’s a fast, snappy, precise, attack-focused listen, I feel it’s lacking a bit of the heft that makes the mass behind movements of music sound convincingly heavy and impactful.

Overall though, in terms of sound quality the word that keeps coming to mind with Reference is “unimpeachable.” While yes, I have minor nitpicks here and there, none of them are bad enough to make the IEM anything less than very enjoyable. It strikes a coherent balance across the entirety of its frequency response, while still having enough coloration to be interesting. It’s like really high quality vanilla ice cream… with sprinkles.

Furthermore—and perhaps most excitingly—this is probably one of the best IEMs I’ve tried when it comes to how easily I can recommend it to others. The broadband balance is exceptional, but also, the gripes I have with it—bass shelf too tucked, a bit too bright/snappy—are exactly the places where I tend to differ from the “average” IEM enthusiast, who likes these characteristics more than I do. So it’s not only possible, but likely that most other people like this even more than I do.

Comparisons

Vs. Truthear Pure

Obviously I’m biased in favor of Pure since I helped tune it, but I do think Reference is the stronger overall IEM, and the one I enjoy more overall.

They’re very similar throughout the midrange, so it’s kind of a toss-up for which one I prefer more here; Reference is a bit cleaner, but has the chance of being a bit too sterile, while Pure is a bit richer, while also having the chance of being a bit too warm/stuffy. I think if I had to pick one it’d be Pure’s midrange here, but they’re really close enough that I’d rate them both as functionally the same.

The bass and treble is where I think Reference’s victory is more decisive. Pure ended up having more sub/mid-bass and mid-treble than I actually wanted (but we were only able to do so much at that price), so the fact that Reference quite nicely controls these regions and comes across both less slow in the bass and less harsh in the mid-treble means it just… sounds better.

Reference is clearly a snappier, more precise listen overall, but it doesn’t really sacrifice timbre at all relative to Pure, and comes in a much more comfortable shell and with a better accessories package; I use Pure with Coffee/”Shortwide” tips which aren’t included in the box, whereas Reference comes with these tips stock which means out of the box, I just think Reference is a better IEM.

Vs. CrinEar Daybreak

Not mincing words: Reference is what I wish Daybreak sounded, felt, and looked like. Obviously for the $170 price Daybreak is still probably one of the best IEMs you can get, but I cannot lie: I thought Daybreak would be the kind of thing I pick up once in a while to get a more crystalline, “enriched” presentation, but I ended up not using it at all after my review because at the end of the day, I just want my music to sound like my music.

Reference sounds like my music. It just sounds more honest, clear, and outright better in basically any quality I can think of.

It also has a much better comfort, design, build, accessories, and look, such that I don’t really perceive much real competition here. Reference is not only the linear upgrade from Daybreak, but an obvious one; it takes Daybreak’s best quality (midrange) and unleashes it from the shackles of sub-bass slowness and upper treble sizzle.

CrinEar Daybreak In-Ear Headphones

Back-order More information

Back-orders will ship as soon as we receive them.

Regular price $169.99

Sale price $169.99 Regular price $169.99

Unit price /  per 

Add to cart Sold out

Learn more

Vs. Softears Volume S

As far as I’m concerned, Volume S is the one to beat in this price range, and I think Reference squeezes out the win in this fight too.

Volume S still has the more slammy, heavy, thrust-y bass presentation that makes it both fun and pretty addicting to listen to… but it is also significantly more colored, imparting its own specific character to the music while Reference is a considerably more transparent listen.

Additionally, Volume S’s midrange is… wonky. Definitely the weak point here; if it wasn’t for the generous bass bloom, this would almost certainly sound too shouty for me. Meanwhile, Reference’s midrange is much more even and correct sounding; even if Volume S has the slight edge in bass, Reference’s midrange is head-and-shoulders above the Volume S’s.

Now, they’re closer in the treble, where I found Volume S to be surprisingly quite nice sounding (if still a bit glassy). But Reference takes the cake here too, as its presentation between lower, mid, and upper treble is all much more coherent and textured sounding.

Volume S was the IEM to beat in this price range… but Reference has dethroned it. If someone is specifically looking for the kind of coloration Volume S offers, it still hits harder in the bass than the Reference, but that’s basically its only real advantage (unless you really need Volume S’s narrower nozzle profile).

Softears Volume S In-Ear Headphones

Back-order More information

Back-orders will ship as soon as we receive them.

Regular price $319

Sale price $319 Regular price $319.00

Unit price /  per 

Add to cart Sold out

Learn more

Vs. Hisenior Mega5EST

While the rationale for many is usually that more money = better technicalities, in this case Reference is both more neutral and more “technical” sounding than Mega5EST.

As I said in my original review of the latter, it just has too much bass and treble for the approach to midrange it takes, so it ends up sounding sleepy, distant, and slow due to excess bass, as well as wispy and feathery due to excess air. Reference has neither of these issues, relaying all of the intensity and directness the music has to offer while having an even better midrange tune.

With Reference, kick and snare drums feel like they hit harder and faster, midrange elements sound more textured and more timbrally correct, stringed instruments have a much more present (yet still correct-sounding) buzz and scratch to them, and vocals take the spotlight at the center-front of the mix instead of being buried behind bass decay and cymbal shimmer.

Mega5EST was a solid IEM back in the day, but I think we’ve finally arrived at a product that’s both less expensive and clearly better. Reference takes this one.

Hisenior Audio Mega5-EST In-Ear Headphones

On sale

Regular price $549

Sale price $549 Regular price $599.00

Unit price /  per 

Add to cart Sold out

Learn more

Vs. Prisma Lumen

Probably the comparison most people are looking for given how hard I glazed Lumen in my last review, especially because they measure so similarly.

I won’t lie, this one is close! There are some things I prefer about Reference—mostly the level of bass and the accessories package—and going into this review I didn’t think that would be the case.

Reference is, as a whole, a snappier, more nimble listen that leans slightly towards the “cold” side, whereas Lumen is moderately warmer and more forgiving… but Lumen also just sounds more accurate to me where it really counts. That said, only slightly so.

While Reference has the bass level I think I’d prefer, I find the integration of the bass with the midrange to be less coherent than Lumen’s, which means the latter sounds heavier, thicker, but also more convincing and realistic in terms of size and breadth of bass instruments/male vocals.

If thought about as a simple equation, one could think of this as an equal tradeoff—trading thickness and euphony for quickness and precision—but when listening to most of my music it was clear that for me, the sin of slight excess on Lumen’s part is a compromise I’m happier to accept than that of Reference’s level-accurate-but-slightly-disjointed bass presentation.

Note: This Lumen unit is not measured with the ear tips I usually use, nor is it measured at my exact insert depth (both measurements are averages of multiple seatings/depths per side)

When it comes to midrange, I also think Lumen squeaks out a win here. It’s just got that last bit of refinement and extra correctness that really does make a difference when it comes to both individual voices/instruments (in general, it just sounds a bit more effortless and natural), as well as the overall tone of the IEM. I hear Reference to be a bit defined by its slight 1.2 kHz bump due to the reasonable bass and treble profile, while Lumen has no such bump so the entire tonality seems more even between all regions.

Now, treble is where I think they’re actually probably closest. They’re very similar, such that on some tracks Reference (with Shortwide tips) sounded best, while on some tracks Lumen sounded best. However, I find that Reference has the slightest hint of a too-scratchy quality that, while it sounds really good on warmer mixes, on average wasn’t quite as forgiving or smooth sounding as Lumen was.

So overall, Reference takes a very minor loss to Lumen here for me, but I would be very surprised if it was that way for other people; I am certain some people will find Reference preferable to Lumen, precisely for the reasons I like it less.

I cannot stress enough how close these two actually are in terms of overall performance and goals. I slightly prefer Lumen’s sound (as well as its comfort) but Lumen is also 4x Reference’s price. So I think the question on most people’s minds is “Is Reference good enough that I can save some money and just get Reference instead of Lumen?”

I think for most people the answer is going to be yes. Personally, I do still prefer Lumen overall (especially for non-sound factors), but I think for most people Reference is gonna be the safer one to buy.

To be frank, right now we’re eatin’ good. Lumen just came out and blew me away, and now Reference has arrived right after and offers something genuinely 95% as good, while being 25% of the price.

That said, I think it’s important to contextualize my excitement by reminding people of the mess that led to this. Rant incoming, folks.

"Neutral" is Inherently Good

Reference is excellent, but it took a long time to get here ("here" being "accessible, reasonably-normal sounding IEMs").

There are multiple reasons why, but one glaring reason is that Crin had to be convinced making an IEM like this was worth it to begin with. He's a smart guy so it didn't take too long for him to start working on it, but other manufacturers still haven't been convinced. By my estimation, this is due to a deeply counter-intuitive tendency of this hobby that, for reasons I struggle to understand, means tuning an IEM like this is somehow regarded as a risky endeavor.

I... I cannot overstate how ridiculous that is.

In basically every effort to seriously characterize listener preference, it has been repeatedly shown across speakers, headphones, and IEMs, that what people prefer and what people call "neutral" is the same damn thing.

While that doesn't mean what is neutral to one person will be neutral to another, two people's "neutral" differing does not at all negate the truth: on an individual basis, preferable is neutral, and neutral is preferable. 

When people say things like "neutral is boring," what they are really saying is either "I'm not confident that what I find neutral will be accepted as neutral by others" (live your truth, babe) or more commonly "I have no idea what neutral actually sounds like to me." Not knowing isn't a unique problem, of course. Most if not all of us are still figuring that out too.

But people need to understand that when people like me beg for "neutral" IEMs, it's not me saying that this sort of tuning is guaranteed to be amazing for everyone because of how "neutral" it is. What I'm actually begging for is for something that is close enough to the middle that it minimizes the distance it will deviate from any given person's individual expectation of "neutral".

And the best way this can be done is by utilizing the tools we've been given—reasonably accurate ear simulators, target methodology that allows us to represent what the average person anatomically expects, listening preference tests that indicate what sorts of colorations could feasibly be heard as "neutral"—to find the least bad spot to aim for. 

Acting like neutral playback systems shouldn't be a priority is not only... a brainbuster, to be kind, but it genuinely holds the audiophile space back from being a hobby that is actually about maximizing sound quality. 

As it currently stands, with all of its baggage (ego, mysticism, duplicitous marketing), the audiophile IEM space is chiefly a hobby based around consumption, one that is either oriented around the simple pleasure of enjoying a bunch of different flavors of sonic presentation, or oriented around finding the spaces and information that make one feel like a they are a smarter/more educated consumer than the typical Beats buyer. Neither of which has much to do with maximizing sound quality in earnest.

If you don't like this approach to tuning, that inherently entails this tuning not being neutral for you. And that's fine!

But what's not fine is the pervasive idea that "neutral"—perceptually uncolored playback, equal attention given to all areas, minimal homogeneity imprinted on the music, whatever you want to call it—is somehow not what we should be aiming for.

That is not only not true, there is literally no rational argument that I can think of that would make it make sense.

I'm not saying colored, spicy, unique things shouldn't also exist. But I am saying that "neutral" is where a discussion or a hobby around sound quality necessarily must start. Because "neutral" is what you actually get when you've found what works best for you.

So with things like Reference, yes: we have arrived... at the beginning.

“Neutral” IEMs vs. Headphones

Three years ago I asked why there wasn’t an analog to the HD 650 in the IEM sphere, because three years ago… there really wasn’t. Even the “decent” offerings were still meaningfully compromised and colored relative to the best headphones you could get at fairly attainable prices. Due to the dearth of well-rounded IEMs, I was firmly of the opinion that IEMs were just flat out worse than headphones.

But now, after learning more completely just how flawed even good headphones like HD 650 are, as well as seeing truly excellent products like Lumen and Reference come to market, I think I can finally say with confidence that IEMs have supplanted even the best headphones when it comes to sound quality (which you can see reflected in the sound quality scores on my two ranking lists).

While the HD 600 and 650 are still incredibly solid, respectable headphones, Reference existing for the same price while having more extended/present bass and likely smoother treble, means it’s gonna be a lot harder to recommend “neutral” headphones when IEMs with better sound quality (and of course, portability) are available at the same price.

When I asked for an HD 650 of IEMs, I really just wanted something I can easily recommend to people. Now that I have it, I’m left asking…

Why isn’t there a CrinEar Reference of over-ear headphones?

Conclusion

So yeah. Reference is easily one of the best IEMs—no, one of the best headworn audio devices of all time (in my opinion, of course). While I’d still give it the #2 spot compared to Lumen, I have no doubt in my mind that Reference will be a better option for a lot of enthusiasts, whether due to fit/comfort, sound quality, or of course, price.

Putting aside the comparisons—because Reference does truly stand on its own merit— Reference represents a uniquely well-rounded and accessible offering on the market. It sounds very good, and is tuned such that I doubt many will find it downright atrocious.

There are still things I’d change—I’d lower the Q of the bass shelf and maybe approach the upper mids/treble a little differently—but I absolutely cannot be mad at any part of the approach here. It reeks of an effort borne of listening to feedback from the community and it executes better than 99% of the stuff I’ve experienced in IEMs or headphones.

It’s not every day something comes around with so few glaring faults regarding build, comfort, accessories, or sound quality. In a market that is essentially defined by compromise, it’s great to see something that compromises so little being available at such an attainable price.

When evaluating a product, what gets me most excited isn’t even necessarily something that’s ideal for me. What gets me excited is when the hobby takes a clear step forward.

Reference is certainly that. It single-handedly brings the equation of “compromise vs. spend” for the average buyer much closer to a healthy equilibrium, and makes truly reference-level sound quality more accessible than ever.

So for that reason, as well as the fact that I just think it sounds damn good, I am happy to recommend Reference as Crinacle’s highest achievement to date, and one of the best IEMs money can buy.

Sound score

8/10

Overall score

7.5/10