or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › FitEar TO GO! & Universal Series --- Suyama's custom IEM, made universal!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FitEar TO GO! & Universal Series --- Suyama's custom IEM, made universal! - Page 28

post #406 of 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by devgru View Post

Ti tube on the 111?


Yes. They had Ti tubes to show us there.

post #407 of 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

Thanks for the information! I assume that the 111 can be driven from portable sources without amplification with no problem at all?

 

Correct, they do not need amplification at all.


I tried them yesterday straight out of my 4S as well as via my HP_P1 and they were more than loud enough either way. SQ was more detailed via the HP_P1's DAC of course.

 

What sold them for me was on a track I know very, very well (Chicane's "Far From the Maddening Crowds") which has both acoustic and electric portions, I was able to hear detail on the 111 (especially on the acoustic portions of the track) that I haven't been able to discern with my SE535s.

 

More details next week after I've had time to give them a workout.

 

Anyone want a very lightly used pair of SE535s? ksc75smile.gif


Edited by gkanai - 7/7/12 at 10:43pm
post #408 of 4413
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by devgru View Post  Ti tube on the 111? Same BA as the ER4?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post

It's been asked before by DonnyHifi back in May when he bought it from them. Apparently it's a "secret" that they'd rather not reveal. I bought the 000 cable yesterday and intend to ship it to ALO for them to balance it. I can ask Ken when he butchers the cable to find out what it's made out of. One thing though the gauge of the cable is thicker, and braided differently.

 

Damn!! That's one thing we didn't try! Was to run the 111 straight out of the phone. But my guess is that it's easily driven...I tried it via my VAmp/Go-DAP and I didn't have to turn up the volume so much there. Again it's a guess until GKanai reports on his 111.

 

I did ask FitEar if they made their own BA's ('cos Ortofon and some other JP companies actually do!) but Suyama-san said he uses Knowles. They aren't TWFKs but some mids. Unfortunately I didn't catch him which ones though. What does the ER4S use?

 

About the 333's, I didn't nor do I know if other Head-fiers did. However (as mentioned by Onizukajp or GKanai? Or not mentioned yet?), the TG!111's are apparently on a "test sell" and if successful they'll continue making more but if not, they may stop. In other words, I don't think they'd even consider the 333's if the 111's weren't successful - at their current pricing.

 

For the 111 to match the ER4S so closely in FR with just one single BA from Knowles, it has to be the ED-29689.

 

The ER4S is difficult to drive because it contains 78 ohms in series attached to the ED driver (for a total of 105 ohm DC resistance = 100 ohm impedance when the reactance of the ED driver is factored in; see picture diagram).

 

ER4 Circuit

 

I'd like to find out what the impedance of the TG! 111 is, to see what the effects are of the titanium (or is it stainless steel?) tube are on FR. AFAIK, the ER4 all use 1500 ohm of acoustic resistance on their dampers; it's possible FitEar changed both the dampers and resistance to provide a better match with the metal sound tube, or it could be all the same.

 

If they do manage to provide an ER4S response in an easy-to-drive package, plus the comfort of an over-ear design, I think the TO GO! 111 will be a hit with recording/mixing/mastering engineers all around. ~$490 is not that much of a premium over the Etymotic asking price given the numerous comfort benefits. I'm sure industry professionals in Japan will be clamoring for it.


Edited by tomscy2000 - 7/8/12 at 12:14am
post #409 of 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post

 

It's been asked before by DonnyHifi back in May when he bought it from them. Apparently it's a "secret" that they'd rather not reveal. I bought the 000 cable yesterday and intend to ship it to ALO for them to balance it. I can ask Ken when he butchers the cable to find out what it's made out of. One thing though the gauge of the cable is thicker, and braided differently.

 

 

Damn!! That's one thing we didn't try! Was to run the 111 straight out of the phone. But my guess is that it's easily driven...I tried it via my VAmp/Go-DAP and I didn't have to turn up the volume so much there. Again it's a guess until GKanai reports on his 111.

 

I did ask FitEar if they made their own BA's ('cos Ortofon and some other JP companies actually do!) but Suyama-san said he uses Knowles. They aren't TWFKs but some mids. Unfortunately I didn't catch him which ones though. What does the ER4S use?

 

About the 333's, I didn't nor do I know if other Head-fiers did. However (as mentioned by Onizukajp or GKanai? Or not mentioned yet?), the TG!111's are apparently on a "test sell" and if successful they'll continue making more but if not, they may stop. In other words, I don't think they'd even consider the 333's if the 111's weren't successful - at their current pricing.

 

Thanks AnakChan. What do you notice from the cable change? I'm very interested in ordering one but I'm not sure if I should go for the ALO one that's to be due sometime soon...

post #410 of 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

For the 111 to match the ER4S so closely in FR with just one single BA from Knowles, it has to be the ED-29689.

 

The ER4S is difficult to drive because it contains 78 ohms in series attached to the ED driver (for a total of 105 ohm DC resistance = 100 ohm impedance when the reactance of the ED driver is factored in; see picture diagram).

 

ER4 Circuit

 

The ER4P only has a 22 ohm resistor; I'd like to find out what the impedance of the TG! 111 is, to see what the effects are of the titanium (or is it stainless steel?) tube are on FR. AFAIK, the ER4 all use 1500 ohm of acoustic resistance on their dampers; it's possible FitEar changed both the dampers and resistance to provide a better match with the metal sound tube, or it could be all the same.

 

If they do manage to provide an ER4S response in an easy-to-drive package, plus the comfort of an over-ear design, I think the TO GO! 111 will be a hit with recording/mixing/mastering engineers all around. ~$490 is not that much of a premium over the Etymotic asking price given the numerous comfort benefits. I'm sure industry professionals in Japan will be clamoring for it.

why a low pass filter on a single driver BA? I haven't seen any photo of er4's inside though, would much appreciate if one is provided.

price wise, 500$ seems over the top to me, judging from the fact it uses pretty much the same recipe as the er4, unless that Ti tube can prove otherwise. however that hardly seems to be the case according to its nearly-identical-to-the-er4 response. the housing looks more comfortable though.


Edited by tranhieu - 7/8/12 at 12:27am
post #411 of 4413
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranhieu View Post

why a low pass filter on a single driver BA? I haven't seen any photo of er4's inside though, would much appreciate if one is provided.

price wise, 500$ seems over the top to me, judging from the fact it uses pretty much the same recipe as the er4, unless that Ti tube can prove otherwise. however that hardly seems to be the case according to its nearly-identical-to-the-er4 response. the housing looks more comfortable though.

 

Have you worn an ER4 with ER38 tips? IMHO It feels horrible. I wouldn't want to wear one for more than 8 minutes at a time, let alone 8 hours a day, for 40 hours a week. An ER4 at $299 + a remold of ~$180 + impressions $100 = $579 --- that's the high estimate, yes. I've seen full custom ER4s from China at no more than $300. FitEar's build quality is pretty much unparalleled in terms of tolerances. I think $500 is in line with FitEar's pricing, considering their customs are all in the $1000+ mark. Also, it'd be a nice benefit to have ER4S-type response in a low impedance, high-sensitivity package, rather than high impedance, low-sensitivity. And why a low pass? Ask Ety... I presume it's to equalize the high frequency response. I'm not really intense about circuit designs, so I'm not sure why they decided to do what they did. It's unlikely FitEar implemented the exact same thing, however, given that it seems easier to drive from gkanai's impressions. My guess is that the titanium tube absorbs less energy than ITE/BTE tubing and instead probably amplifies certain harmonics. FitEar would have to equalize for those frequencies instead.


Edited by tomscy2000 - 7/8/12 at 12:39am
post #412 of 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

Have you worn an ER4 with ER38 tips? IMHO It feels horrible. I wouldn't want to wear one for more than 8 minutes at a time, let alone 8 hours a day, for 40 hours a week. An ER4 at $299 + a remold of ~$180 + impressions $100 = $579 --- that's the high estimate, yes. I've seen full custom ER4s from China at no more than $300. FitEar's build quality is pretty much unparalleled in terms of tolerances. I think $500 is in line with FitEar's pricing, considering their customs are all in the $1000+ mark. Also, it'd be a nice benefit to have ER4S-type response in a low impedance, high-sensitivity package, rather than high impedance, low-sensitivity. And why a low pass? Ask Ety... I presume it's to equalize the high frequency response. I'm not really intense about circuit designs, so I'm not sure why they decided to do what they did. It's unlikely FitEar implemented the exact same thing, however, given that it seems easier to drive from gkanai's impressions. My guess is that the titanium tube absorbs less energy than ITE/BTE tubing and instead probably amplifies certain harmonics. FitEar would have to equalize for those frequencies instead.


Fine then, I suppose it's just too meaningless to pursue this pricing issue any further since not many people here have actually tried them, and not to mention that this thread isn't for the tg111 in the first place.

Regarding the use of tubing, medical grade silicone is used in custom mainly because it is also used for building hearing aids, not because they have any clear cut advantage in terms of sound quality. That Ti tube FitEar implements must have some kind of dark magic within itself, though I haven't heard of the use of Ti for anything besides transducers' coil manufacturing, but that's a different story here.

post #413 of 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by palestofwhite View Post

Thanks AnakChan. What do you notice from the cable change? I'm very interested in ordering one but I'm not sure if I should go for the ALO one that's to be due sometime soon...
Think you got the answer on the other 334 review thread but yes I did notice a difference & so did 2 other Head-Fiers.

But I got the 000's to actually have KB/ALO balance them for me.
post #414 of 4413

Yes Anakchan believe you did mention on the other thread. But do you think it's even worth if for me to use it single ended? So tempted to just get it.

post #415 of 4413

The tube is Titanium, chosen because Suyama technicians found it to actually distort less than other metals, and retain clean highs better than plastic or acrylic. Again, I wish very much the same tube shape would make it to their custom line. It is lovely, but yes, the 111 is for people who are into the ER4s style sound, though it does have some better resoances than the ER4s has.

post #416 of 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post

The tube is Titanium, chosen because Suyama technicians found it to actually distort less than other metals, and retain clean highs better than plastic or acrylic. Again, I wish very much the same tube shape would make it to their custom line. It is lovely, but yes, the 111 is for people who are into the ER4s style sound, though it does have some better resoances than the ER4s has.

 

The thing is I could see the difficulty in implementing titanium tubes in their custom in ear monitors because in a universal you only need one set of measurements for every tube to be machined to those specifications.  With customs it'll have to be customized for each ear and considering the metal at hand.  It may be easy for them to do but I for one do not know.

post #417 of 4413

You are right. It won't be easy, especially as in custom configuration, there may be more, there may be less space. Still, even the 111 has a rather large sound bore, the 334 has an enourmous bore. There are people I've met that have had some trouble fitting. But even customs don't work for some people. 

 

But, I am addicted to the titanium. Very addicted. In danger of going for the 111 as I'm a big fan of the ER4S.

post #418 of 4413

the thing is, you can't bend a Ti tube to begin with...

post #419 of 4413

The TO GO! 334 is pretty much my go-to reference IEM at the moment. I'll probably give the TG 111 a miss, but I'll keep a hopeful eye out for a TG 333.

 

I'd still like to acquire the Private C435 at some point too.

post #420 of 4413

So basically the 111 is like an ER-4S that doesn't need amping? That does indeed sound interesting. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › FitEar TO GO! & Universal Series --- Suyama's custom IEM, made universal!