Project Metavs.SA6 Mk2
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 | Project Meta | SA6 Mk2 |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | CrinEar | DUNU |
| Country | – | China |
| IEM Description | A debut IEM by Crinacle's CrinEar: a compact, full-aluminum flagship tuned to a “tilted Diffuse Field + bass boost” curve. Delivers vibrant mids, warm sub-bass, and clear treble—crafted for musical accuracy and comfort. | – |
| Price Level | 100 – 500 | 100 – 500 |
| Housing & Driver | ||
|---|---|---|
| Driver Config | – | Multi-BA |
| Driver Types | – | Balanced Armature |
| Shell Material | – | – |
| Cable | – | – |
| Technical | ||
|---|---|---|
| Freq Range | – | – |
| Impedance (Ω) | – | – |
| Sensitivity (dB) | – | – |
| Crossover | – | – |
| Platform Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comments | 0 | 0 |
| Visit Count | 96 | 128 |
| External Reviews | 1 | 1 |
Meta Ratings
SA6 Mk2 reveals microdetails and transient responses with readably better articulation, helping listeners uncover nuances often missed with Project Meta. While Project Meta is passable in its design, It stands noticeably above, particularly in terms of assembly quality, material choice, and finish. The stock cable of It is noticeably higher in quality (7.6 vs 6.5), offering improvements in flexibility, tactile feedback, and resistance to microphonics. From the case design to ear tip variety, It provides a softly more thoughtful unboxing experience.
| Project Meta | SA6 Mk2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Sound | 7.0 | 8.3 |
| Comfort Fit | 6.5 | 6.9 |
| Build Quality | 6.5 | 7.5 |
| Stock Cable | 6.5 | 7.8 |
| Accessories | 6.0 | 7.0 |
Sound Characteristics
SA6 Mk2 offers c stronger and more impactful bass response, adding weight and presence where Project Meta feels less assertive (7 vs 6). The bass in It feels d more physical and textured, with improved rumble and body compared to Project Meta (8 vs 6.5). It achieves a better warmth and coherence in the lower mids, bringing more realism to guitars and cellos (7.3 vs 6.5). Upper mids are m more resolving and expressive on It, revealing emotion and articulation better than Project Meta (7.8 vs 5.5). It extends a further into the upper treble, adding air and openness that Project Meta lacks (8.3 vs 6.5). Listeners may notice that It presents sounds with c more lateral space, giving recordings more openness than Project Meta (7 vs 6). It extracts low-level details n more effectively, helping subtle nuances emerge clearer than on Project Meta (7.3 vs 6). Instruments remain intelligible on It even during busy sections, showing a better handling of masking than Project Meta (7 vs 5.5). Notes played through It feel c weightier and fuller, giving a more satisfying impact than those from Project Meta (7.3 vs 6). It delivers dynamic shifts with n greater impact, making Project Meta sound comparatively tame (7 vs 6). It renders timbres with a better harmonic balance, preserving the character of instruments more accurately than Project Meta (7 vs 6). The overall tonality of It is a more balanced and cohesive, offering a sound signature that feels better tuned than Project Meta (7.8 vs 6). It renders texture m more precisely, making instrument surfaces and vocal grain more palpable than Project Meta (7.3 vs 5.5).
| Project Meta | SA6 Mk2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub Bass | 6.0 | 6.0 |
| Bass | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Bass Feel | 6.5 | 8.0 |
| Lower Mids | 6.5 | 7.3 |
| Upper Mids | 5.5 | 7.8 |
| Lower Treble | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| Upper Treble | 6.5 | 8.3 |
| Sound Stage Width | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Detail | 6.0 | 7.3 |
| Layering | 6.5 | 6.8 |
| Masking | 5.5 | 7.0 |
| Note Weight | 6.0 | 7.3 |
| Slam | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Sibilance | 6.5 | 6.8 |
| Timbre Color | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Tonality | 6.0 | 7.8 |
| Texture | 5.5 | 7.3 |
Tonal Signature
// Nothing to compare yet.