Project Metavs.Tea Pro
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 | Tea Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | CrinEar | XENNS Mangird |
| Country | – | – |
| 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 | – | – |
| Driver Types | – | – |
| Shell Material | – | – |
| Cable | – | – |
| Technical | ||
|---|---|---|
| Freq Range | – | – |
| Impedance (Ω) | – | – |
| Sensitivity (dB) | – | – |
| Crossover | – | – |
| Platform Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comments | 0 | 0 |
| Visit Count | 96 | 65 |
| External Reviews | 1 | 0 |
Meta Ratings
Both IEMs perform nearly identically across all evaluated aspects.
| Project Meta | Tea Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Sound | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| Comfort Fit | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| Build Quality | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| Stock Cable | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| Accessories | 6.0 | 6.0 |
Sound Characteristics
Tea Pro offers c stronger and more impactful bass response, adding weight and presence where Project Meta feels less assertive (7 vs 6). It adds s more body and slam to bass hits, which makes it feel more physical than Project Meta (7 vs 6.5). It strikes a a better balance between presence and smoothness in the upper mids compared to Project Meta (6 vs 5.5). Project Meta offers a greater shimmer and nuance in the lower treble, revealing micro-details that Tea Pro misses (7.5 vs 7). The highest frequencies on Tea Pro feel s more natural and less rolled-off compared to Project Meta (8 vs 6.5). It creates a e wider soundstage, giving instruments more space and a better sense of placement than Project Meta (7 vs 6). It retrieves micro-details a more effectively, revealing nuances that are less apparent in Project Meta (7 vs 6). It separates instruments b more distinctly, helping complex passages remain coherent where Project Meta blends them (7 vs 6.5). It shows e better control of masking effects, maintaining clarity across frequency ranges better than Project Meta (6.5 vs 5.5). It adds e more body and density to musical notes, enriching the overall texture compared to Project Meta (7 vs 6). It delivers a stronger slam and physicality, making drums and transients hit harder than Project Meta (7 vs 6). Listeners may experience b fewer sharp edges in 'S' and 'T' sounds with Project Meta, whereas Tea Pro can get fatiguing (6.5 vs 6). Timbre on Tea Pro sounds a more realistic and natural, whereas Project Meta feels slightly more artificial or colored (7 vs 6). Across the frequency range, It stays a more consistent in tonal balance, resulting in a smoother listen than Project Meta (6.5 vs 6). The grain and surface of instruments are rendered s more vividly by It, while Project Meta feels flatter (6 vs 5.5).
| Project Meta | Tea Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub Bass | 6.0 | 6.0 |
| Bass | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Bass Feel | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Lower Mids | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| Upper Mids | 5.5 | 6.0 |
| Lower Treble | 7.5 | 7.0 |
| Upper Treble | 6.5 | 8.0 |
| Sound Stage Width | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Detail | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Layering | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Masking | 5.5 | 6.5 |
| Note Weight | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Slam | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Sibilance | 6.5 | 6.0 |
| Timbre Color | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| Tonality | 6.0 | 6.5 |
| Texture | 5.5 | 6.0 |
Tonal Signature
// Nothing to compare yet.