Compared to Forté Ears Macbeth (Review Coming Soon!)
The first difference I sensed between these two was the vocals. The CP622B’s vocal style is a fusion of Macbeth and AME Raven (the previously mentioned IEM for comparison). The CP622B proactively reveals the texture grains of the vocals but is not as penetrative and linear tacky as Raven. But then again, the CP622B’s lets more musicality, the blissfulness of the texture, and atmospheric aura fill the mid-range – as Macbeth did – however, not much as Macbeth, which brings out more fine strands of silky textures than the CP622B.
Alongside, CP622B’s vocals are noticeably placed forward or closer to the ears while Macbeth highly prioritizes the continuous flow of the sound from the lows to highs. However, it’s interesting as Macbeth’s vocals don’t feel any recessed but still keep the sound distancing almost even across the entire sonic range. CP622B’s vocals have a neutral thickness while Macbeth has a neutral-thick body, giving a bit extra fullness to the vocals while CP622B chose neutral thickness for a cleaner atmosphere for the mid-range.
Both IEMs are neck-to-neck when it comes to the bass. The CP622B’s bass is tighter and more rock-solid while Macbeth’s is more meaty and soothing. The clarity and cleanliness of the low-vibration are better on CP622B whereas the meaty, tenderness, and sub-bass quantity/fullness are superior on Macbeth.
Compared to AME Raven (Review link)
Canpur CP622B is a tight competitor of AME Raven – one of AME’s renowned flagship IEMs sporting 8BA+4EST drivers. Personally, describing the differences between these two IEMs was more difficult than I thought – not because the differences are minimal or irrelevant but because the noticeable differences are intricate to explain, as it’s more about the way how these two IEMs deliver the sound to your ears.
Raven takes a more straight approach for the mid-highs, giving a better sense of agility and penetration in resolution. On the other hand, CP622B’s mid-highs (and even bass) involve more air and flowingness to the sound, giving more sideway expansion and room. This also means CP622B highlights more spatial or a stronger 3D-ish presentation. Of course, CP622B isn’t noticeably inferior in agility or sound penetration, yet it has a more easygoing and gentler nuance. The vocals have almost the same brightness and tone but with an airier and creamier timbre.
The next noticeable difference is the bass. Don’t get me wrong though – Raven doesn’t fall short in bass response to CP622B which surprises me once again as Raven only uses BA and EST drivers, yet CP622B also uses 2 bone conductor drivers which aren’t meant for the lows but the mid-highs. When it comes to extension (at least to the audible range), Raven ultra-lows perform just as great as CP622B; clean resolution, detailed texture, pronounced basslines, etc. However, the differences are made in the characteristics of the bass.
Raven’s lows are more straightforward, in the sense that the bass rumbles focus more on clarity and cleanliness, whereas CP622B’s bass response highlights more of the vibration and breathable/lively of the bass reproduction. I’m using a lot of emotional expressions than usual, yet that’s how the differences are – and hence the preamble talking about the differences between these two IEMs being mysteriously vague despite the sound signature being overall very similar.
It’s not just about the ingredients. It’s the Skills.
I’m sure there are still a lot of users/listeners thinking CP622B used the bone conduction driver for the bass. It was a punch in the back of my head and I assume many others. Well, the truth is as I mentioned earlier, that incredibly lively and rich bass response is done only with BA drivers. In a situation where Canpur themselves clearly listed every single driver model name used for building CP622B, many would also question why the IEM needs to cost this much if we already know the component price, and could even possibly do a DIY build using the exact same drivers?
Well, the question would be answered by other examples such as the bird – or Oriolus Traillii (Review link). There were occasions where DIY builders attempted to recreate the Traillii by using the same driver components as the Traillii has a fully transparent shell, while some brands even have made the ‘wanna-be’ Traillii into an official product of their own. However, they clearly and obviously sound different. The Canpur CP622B is a similar case – it’s about the tuning – applying Canpur’s technology achieved upon R&D experience. This would include the crossover network, wiring, internal chassis, air flow, soldering, and so on.
Final Verdicts
Despite its short international debut, upon listening to myself, I could tell why Canpur CP622B was the IEM that took the community’s major attention within the TOTL competition. The perfect blend of musicality and analyticity – or absolute technical performance delivered through such a solemn and blissful manner – is seducing audiophile users, including me. The IEM being extremely adaptive to various personal tastes is another. Well, at this point, what more to say? The CP622B is a flagship reference monitor that I could suggest to anyone interested to inter the TOTL IEM world. I strongly insist on giving these a tune before making your big purchase of high-end IEMs.
