CP622Bvs.Giant
Sound & Specs Comparison
Information
Both IEMs are widely regarded in the audiophile community. See how they differ in terms of sub-bass response, upper mids, clarity, and overall tonality. Spider charts and rating breakdowns included.
Objective Comparison
Facts, details, stuff.
| General Info | CP622B | Giant |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | Canpur | Symphonium |
| Country | South Korea | Netherlands |
| IEM Description | The Canpur CP622B is a flagship in-ear monitor that turned heads at CanJam SoCal 2023, earning strong praise from audiophiles for its exceptional sound and refined design. Originating from a rising EU-based brand, the CP622B quickly stood out as more than a fleeting trend, delivering a listening experience that blends technical precision with musical engagement. This in-depth review explores what makes the CP622B a lasting favorite in the high-end IEM market. | – |
| Price Level | 2.000 + | 500 – 1.000 |
| Housing & Driver | ||
|---|---|---|
| Driver Config | Tribrid | – |
| Driver Types | Bone Conduction + Balanced Armature + Electrostatic | – |
| Shell Material | – | – |
| Cable | – | – |
| Technical | ||
|---|---|---|
| Freq Range | – | – |
| Impedance (Ω) | – | – |
| Sensitivity (dB) | – | – |
| Crossover | – | – |
| Platform Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comments | 0 | 0 |
| Visit Count | 16 | 18 |
| External Reviews | 1 | 0 |
Meta Ratings
// Nothing to compare yet.
Sound Characteristics
CP622B delivers a deeper and more extended sub-bass, reaching lower frequencies with greater authority than Giant (9 vs 7.5). The low-end on It is m more controlled and rhythmic, offering better definition than Giant (9 vs 7.5). Listeners may find the low-end impact on It e more engaging during high-dynamic passages (8.5 vs 7.5). Male vocals and lower instruments sound a richer and better defined on It, unlike Giant which can seem hollow (9 vs 8). Upper mids are c more resolving and expressive on It, revealing emotion and articulation better than Giant (9 vs 8). The treble on It is m more nuanced and refined, especially when it comes to cymbals and ambient elements (9 vs 7.5). It extends m further into the upper treble, adding air and openness that Giant lacks (9 vs 7.5). The retrieval of faint audio cues on It is m more convincing, while Giant tends to gloss over them (9 vs 7.5). In complex arrangements, It separates layers n more distinctly, preventing overlap that Giant occasionally suffers (8.5 vs 7.5). It keeps competing frequencies under control s more effectively, reducing sonic congestion compared to Giant (8 vs 7.5). It adds n more body and density to musical notes, enriching the overall texture compared to Giant (8 vs 7).
| CP622B | Giant | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub Bass | 9.0 | 7.5 |
| Bass | 9.0 | 7.5 |
| Bass Feel | 8.5 | 7.5 |
| Lower Mids | 9.0 | 8.0 |
| Upper Mids | 9.0 | 8.0 |
| Lower Treble | 9.0 | 7.5 |
| Upper Treble | 9.0 | 7.5 |
| Sound Stage Width | – | 7.5 |
| Detail | 9.0 | 7.5 |
| Layering | 8.5 | 7.5 |
| Masking | 8.0 | 7.5 |
| Note Weight | 8.0 | 7.0 |
| Slam | 8.5 | – |
| Sibilance | – | – |
| Timbre Color | – | – |
| Tonality | – | – |
| Texture | – | – |
Tonal Signature
// Nothing to compare yet.