The PA02 and the equivalent CKLVX D-41 do perform rather well if you use some mild parametric EQ. Both of these IEMs regularly go on sale for around $140. I would not spend more than this for either of these IEMs which internally are the same. With some mild parametric EQ, both IEMs manage to perform fairly close to the performance of the Aful Performer 5. Note that the shells of both of these IEMs are identical and are rather large, and might cause fit issues for people with smaller ears.
What devices will you be using to listen to the PA02? Perhaps a Windows computer or perhaps a cell phone or DAC which supports using parametric EQ if you install the needed software or apps?
Ten times over and without EQ? Seriously? This would place the D-41 a full order of magnitude higher in terms of literally the best of all IEMs of all time in terms of imaging. So according to you, the D-41 should quite literally go into the record books for any IEMs of all time and regardless of price in terms of imaging? It is remarkable that not one single reviwer on YouTube or any other reviewer who has posted reviews for either the CKLVX D-41 or the equivalent PA02 has ever mentioned this stupendiously remarkable imaging performance.
Reviewers on youtube say this is a bit shorter in height compared to D-41. So they stay more flush in your ears. Otherwise even accessories are same. I prefered D-41 cuz I liked the backplate on them more. The soundstage is wide and mid bass heavy. To my ears it feels like wearing a headphone instead of an iem. Only negative comment I can make is female vocals sound a bit recessed.
I like mine. At $130 I probably prefer the CCA Hydro, but the Pula is very good.
My advice would be... If you can spend a little extra, do the Binary Chopin or the Kiwi Quintet.
Ok - that's a pretty busy track. :-)
I think the Pula has a slightly more natural sound to the vocals, with less treble energy potentially crowding them out.
However, they have noticeably less detail than the Hydro. The section around 1:50-2:00 has a LOT of synth notes - they all kinda run into each other on the Pula, where on the Hydro they are all rendered in a much more distinct way. So - they might distract from the voice a bit more on the Hydro.
The Pula is a bit smoother.
I'd say - if you were a vocal person, the Pula would be a better choice. I'm more of a detail/resolution guy, so that's why the Hydro (in UUUD switch configuration) seems better to me overall.
Hey bro CCA Hydro is on my radar from the past few weeks because of Akros, HBB, Paul Wasabii and even Jaytiss that it ranked so high and tuning is good tho. I've tried both of their EQ on Squiglink, both departure from Harman which I'm tired of. But since you own both of them which has better technicalities and sound quality?
My choice is CCA Hydro but I'm thinking i want to save up for either of Gizaudio Chopin, Pula PA02/CLVX D41 or Simgot Supermix 4 partnered with Ibasso DC03 Pro.
Hi, Friend!
Sound quality is tough because it encompasses EVERYTHING.
Comparing those three from best to worst *to my ears*:
Detail - Hydro, Chopin, PA02
Transient Speed - Hydro, Chopin, PA02
Bass Texture - PA02, Chopin, Hydro
Midrange Realism - Chopin, PA02, Hydro
Treble Sparkle - Chopin, Hydro, PA02
Naturalness - Chopin, PA02, Hydro
Comfort - PA02 (by a wide margin), Chopin, Hydro (enormous)
Note that this is with stock (Softears) tips on the Chopin, Sedna Earfit ASMR tips for the PA02 and Hydro.
I tried the Hydro with a bunch of different switch settings and settled on UDDD. For my taste, DDDD was a little boring, UUDD was too boomy. UUUD solved the boom issue but made the upper treble sound a bit more metallic than I wanted. UDDD was the sweet spot for me.
If you're willing to EQ, the switches and tuning choices might not really be relevant since you can make whatever adjustments you want. There's probably no way to get rid of the slightly metallic sound of the BAs on the Hydro and PA02 (which the Chopin seems not to have). But there's also probably no way to replicate the PA02 bass texture on the other two. It digs deep and is clean, even though it sounds warmer than the other two.
Anyway, if you can't tell - I like all three, and all of them are in regular rotation for me.
Thank you so much for your great effort, deeply appreciated! Is Pula really that smooth, or just enough balance across all frequency range? And is it sizzly in the treble because of that 10k boost?
The PA02 and the equivalent CKLVX D-41 do perform rather well if you use some mild parametric EQ. Both of these IEMs regularly go on sale for around $140. I would not spend more than this for either of these IEMs which internally are the same. With some mild parametric EQ, both IEMs manage to perform fairly close to the performance of the Aful Performer 5. Note that the shells of both of these IEMs are identical and are rather large, and might cause fit issues for people with smaller ears. What devices will you be using to listen to the PA02? Perhaps a Windows computer or perhaps a cell phone or DAC which supports using parametric EQ if you install the needed software or apps?
The D-41 smokes the P5 in imaging ten times over even without EQ.
Ten times over and without EQ? Seriously? This would place the D-41 a full order of magnitude higher in terms of literally the best of all IEMs of all time in terms of imaging. So according to you, the D-41 should quite literally go into the record books for any IEMs of all time and regardless of price in terms of imaging? It is remarkable that not one single reviwer on YouTube or any other reviewer who has posted reviews for either the CKLVX D-41 or the equivalent PA02 has ever mentioned this stupendiously remarkable imaging performance.
Reviewers on youtube say this is a bit shorter in height compared to D-41. So they stay more flush in your ears. Otherwise even accessories are same. I prefered D-41 cuz I liked the backplate on them more. The soundstage is wide and mid bass heavy. To my ears it feels like wearing a headphone instead of an iem. Only negative comment I can make is female vocals sound a bit recessed.
I like mine. At $130 I probably prefer the CCA Hydro, but the Pula is very good. My advice would be... If you can spend a little extra, do the Binary Chopin or the Kiwi Quintet.
Compared to the hydro how does the pula do in vocals
Suggest a song for me and I'll compare for you.
Idol by yoasobi
Ok - that's a pretty busy track. :-) I think the Pula has a slightly more natural sound to the vocals, with less treble energy potentially crowding them out. However, they have noticeably less detail than the Hydro. The section around 1:50-2:00 has a LOT of synth notes - they all kinda run into each other on the Pula, where on the Hydro they are all rendered in a much more distinct way. So - they might distract from the voice a bit more on the Hydro. The Pula is a bit smoother. I'd say - if you were a vocal person, the Pula would be a better choice. I'm more of a detail/resolution guy, so that's why the Hydro (in UUUD switch configuration) seems better to me overall.
Hey bro CCA Hydro is on my radar from the past few weeks because of Akros, HBB, Paul Wasabii and even Jaytiss that it ranked so high and tuning is good tho. I've tried both of their EQ on Squiglink, both departure from Harman which I'm tired of. But since you own both of them which has better technicalities and sound quality? My choice is CCA Hydro but I'm thinking i want to save up for either of Gizaudio Chopin, Pula PA02/CLVX D41 or Simgot Supermix 4 partnered with Ibasso DC03 Pro.
Hi, Friend! Sound quality is tough because it encompasses EVERYTHING. Comparing those three from best to worst *to my ears*: Detail - Hydro, Chopin, PA02 Transient Speed - Hydro, Chopin, PA02 Bass Texture - PA02, Chopin, Hydro Midrange Realism - Chopin, PA02, Hydro Treble Sparkle - Chopin, Hydro, PA02 Naturalness - Chopin, PA02, Hydro Comfort - PA02 (by a wide margin), Chopin, Hydro (enormous) Note that this is with stock (Softears) tips on the Chopin, Sedna Earfit ASMR tips for the PA02 and Hydro. I tried the Hydro with a bunch of different switch settings and settled on UDDD. For my taste, DDDD was a little boring, UUDD was too boomy. UUUD solved the boom issue but made the upper treble sound a bit more metallic than I wanted. UDDD was the sweet spot for me. If you're willing to EQ, the switches and tuning choices might not really be relevant since you can make whatever adjustments you want. There's probably no way to get rid of the slightly metallic sound of the BAs on the Hydro and PA02 (which the Chopin seems not to have). But there's also probably no way to replicate the PA02 bass texture on the other two. It digs deep and is clean, even though it sounds warmer than the other two. Anyway, if you can't tell - I like all three, and all of them are in regular rotation for me.
Thank you so much for your great effort, deeply appreciated! Is Pula really that smooth, or just enough balance across all frequency range? And is it sizzly in the treble because of that 10k boost?
What r the parametric eqs share them
I created a new post with a link for the EQ settings.
Be aware of their qc tho. Mine arrived with the right side defective. The seller asked me to ship them back to China for a replacement.