CP622Bvs.Meteor
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 | Meteor |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | Canpur | Moondrop |
| Country | South Korea | China |
| 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 | Hybrid |
| Driver Types | Bone Conduction + Balanced Armature + Electrostatic | Balanced Armature |
| Shell Material | – | – |
| Cable | – | – |
| Technical | ||
|---|---|---|
| Freq Range | – | – |
| Impedance (Ω) | – | – |
| Sensitivity (dB) | – | – |
| Crossover | – | – |
| Platform Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comments | 0 | 0 |
| Visit Count | 12 | 21 |
| External Reviews | 1 | 0 |
Meta Ratings
Sound-wise, CP622B provides a markedly more refined presentation, with improved detail retrieval, microdynamics, and instrument layering when compared to Meteor (8.5 vs 7).
| CP622B | Meteor | |
|---|---|---|
| Sound | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Comfort Fit | 8.5 | – |
| Build Quality | 8.0 | – |
| Stock Cable | 8.5 | – |
| Accessories | – | – |
Sound Characteristics
CP622B delivers m deeper and more extended sub-bass, reaching lower frequencies with greater authority than Meteor (9 vs 7.5). The low-end on It is a more controlled and rhythmic, offering better definition than Meteor (9 vs 7.5). It translates bass vibrations into a a more visceral experience, while Meteor lacks this tactile feedback (8.5 vs 7). Male vocals and lower instruments sound d richer and better defined on It, unlike Meteor which can seem hollow (9 vs 7). It reproduces female vocals and strings with a more air and forwardness, while Meteor remains recessed (9 vs 7). It provides a more refined lower treble, resolving fine detail and air with greater finesse than Meteor (9 vs 7). It captures ambient cues and reverbs m more precisely through its upper treble, enhancing spatial perception over Meteor (9 vs 7). With c higher resolution, It allows finer textures and room ambiance to shine more than Meteor (9 vs 6.5). It organizes musical elements d better across depth, enhancing spatial realism over Meteor (8.5 vs 7). It avoids frequency masking n more successfully, preserving clarity across the spectrum better than Meteor (8 vs 7). The note presentation is a fuller and more tactile on It, giving instruments a stronger physical presence than Meteor (8 vs 7.5). It hits with m more authority during transients, creating a more explosive effect than Meteor (8.5 vs 7).
| CP622B | Meteor | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub Bass | 9.0 | 7.5 |
| Bass | 9.0 | 7.5 |
| Bass Feel | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Lower Mids | 9.0 | 7.0 |
| Upper Mids | 9.0 | 7.0 |
| Lower Treble | 9.0 | 7.0 |
| Upper Treble | 9.0 | 7.0 |
| Sound Stage Width | – | 7.0 |
| Detail | 9.0 | 6.5 |
| Layering | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Masking | 8.0 | 7.0 |
| Note Weight | 8.0 | 7.5 |
| Slam | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Sibilance | – | – |
| Timbre Color | – | – |
| Tonality | – | – |
| Texture | – | – |
Tonal Signature
// Nothing to compare yet.