Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › FitEar F111 — Impressions, Reviews & Discussion (previously TO GO! 111)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FitEar F111 — Impressions, Reviews & Discussion (previously TO GO! 111) - Page 52

post #766 of 839

Quote:

Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

^   Why is my instinctive / immediate reaction to the above post not to be convinced by the contents of it? At all.

EDIT: I guess part of that reaction may have something to do with something I posted 2.5 hrs ago in a different thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/554628/akg-k3003-high-end-3-way-system-headphone/1320#post_9830666

 

Why is that exactly?  What seems off about it?  And I don't see how your post relates?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

I think GE has kind of a weird standard. The treble looks too pronounced at 9k compared to Rin's graph and to my ears. And I'm not sure I agree with GE's representation of bass. Rin's is closer to how I perceive the F111. The GE graphs looks closer to Rin's Olive-Welti compensation, still kind of off though.

rcmnd.png

 

Interesting.  The er4s bass eq i made gnarl, was based almost exclusively on the GE graph and compensating for the lack of bass according to their graph.  With a little comparison with the headroom graph.  You seemed to like it ;)  I think it works well.

 

I'm not saying I agree completely on the +6db bass compensation.  However, The best bass I've ever heard in an earphone personally is the pfe112 and look at the bass on the graph.  Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I eq the two treble spikes down and the slight dip up to make it flat.  But with that eq or without doesn't matter, the bass is excellent either way.  Eq'ing the treble spikes down makes the bass just a tad more apparent.  Unlike a lot of treble issues, the spikes here can be EQ'd to flat pretty easily.  Either way though, the bass and everything up to 2khz is the best i've heard in an earphone.  The etymotics have a smoother sound and better overall, but the etys with the 0-2khz of this earphone would blow minds in my opinion.

 

 

The bass isn't really even that different than the er4s if you compare them side by side.  The bass just sounds flatter from sub bass to mid bass, where the ety lacks the sub bass.  I think this is because we're less sensitive to low bass.  The er4s stock sounds more flat from say 60hz and up, because the treble of the pfe might make the bass seem a little less overall, making the bass seem similar to the er4s.  But when you eq the treble to flat, the 112 bass really shines. (still not a drastic difference)  Anyhow, I really don't see why so many people have issues with the GE graphs.  If it's just the bass compensation then who cares?  The graph shows the compensation visually above the reference line.  If you want a headphone that doesn't have extra bass go by the reference line.  If it's the room compensation, I can understand preferring one method over another, but I don't think there is any scientific method to determine the exact response of everyone's ears, so they each make compromises.  But here is what I like about the GE graphs... They look the way things sound.

 

In other words, a headphone that sounds flat is essentially a flat line on the graph, again with or without the bass +6 bass.  On other graphs they always tilt one way or another, have dips in the treble that you see on graph but aren't audible.  I can always spot what things to expect by looking at their graphs, and I've never been surprised yet after hearing an IEM that I "guessed" what it would sound like based on the graph.  They just seem to have more visual graphs.  Perhaps they in fact aren't as technically correct, but I'd much rather take a slightly less technically correct graph that explains how something will sound than a more accurate technical graph that doesn't represent things in a clear way.  Take the hd600 for example.

 

First, I'd like to add that the GE graphs look a heck of a lot like the headroom graphs.  But anyway, I find the HD600 have too much mid bass and not enough sub bass.  Not by a great margin, but still they do.  They also have a very slight raspiness in the high treble.  I try very hard to ignore the rasp, and it is slight, but it's there.  I'm sure a lot of people will say I'm crazy, but when you use something like the er4s and a bunch of studio monitor speakers all the time this is easier to spot.  So, looking at even the headroom graph, the bass is as I described, same on the GE graph.  But take for instance the treble rasp.  I would never guess there would be the slightest raspiness around 8khz based on the headroom graph (couldn't find a rin graph to compare).  Even though it's slightly uneven, the treble rolls downward overall after the bass and mid areas.  Now look at the GE graph.  The treble is represented as being flatter.  The 8-10khz is slightly raised.  Not much, but then I said it wasn't a big thing to begin with, but it is there.  That's exactly how the GE graph depicts it.  Slight, but there.  I can verify this fact by EQ'ing that area down and the rasp goes away.

 

This carries over to the very large number of earphones and headphones I've tested.  They all match the GE graph perfectly in the way they sound in my experience.  The other graphs aren't bad at all, I'm not saying that.  I'm not even saying the GE graphs are better.  I'm just saying I think they are easier to make assumptions based off of and also EQ settings.  Let's take a look at the venerable er4s.

 

 

Again, very accurately represented in the way I physically hear the er4s.  The sub bass is slightly lacking the most, the bass and mids are fairly level with a bit much at the 1-3khz area and a slight dip at the 7-8khz area.  EQ'ing them based on this graph (what I've posted on the er4s thread) makes them sound much more like a studio monitor speaker.  They aren't far off, and the bulk of what people hear easily is in the unshaded area.  So if you look at just that the bass is even less lacking.  But anyhow, now look at another graph.  I'll use this one, because it servers two purposes:

 

First, this is not easy to look at and say "there is a lack of sub bass".  Sure, the line curves down a bit, but it otherwise seems relatively level with the mid area.  That's not the case with my listening.  The sub bass is the lowest part of the whole spectrum.  The bass is excellent and very flat. The treble is very flat with the bass.  The only problematic area would be the same 1-3khz area the GE graph shows.  But here it looks more like the entire 1-6khz area (going by the stock green tips) is raised about the level of the entire bass area up to even 1khz.  Then there is a noticeable dip at 7-8khz.  Sure, the 7-8khz area is slightly lacking, but this makes it look like a larger issue.  As if it would be very audible.  It's only very slight in real listening.  Then take 10-12 or 13khz.  What is that?  I hear no such spike in the treble.  Visually that shows that range as being almost twice as much as the 1-6khz area.

 

Now, realistically, I can look at this and take into account the scope and scale of the graph and extrapolate certain things.  But i'd never look at any of those filter graphs and think the entire treble range would sound smooth and flat.  With the GE graphs I would think there were two very small problem areas while generally being flat.  So, while both graphs convey similar info, I just find the GE graph conveys it more obviously.

 

I say use whatever graph you are comfortable with.  I personally use them all and gather data by comparing them.  But I find I can always look at a GE graph and know what an earphone will generally sound like in terms of frequency.  Obviously there are other factors beside frequency.  I use GE strictly for frequency visualization.  If you don't agree I'd love to hear specifics as to why you don't like the graphs.  I'm open to any information like this.  Also, specifics as to why you prefer another graph would be helpful.  But I can't really see why people act like GE is the bane of the graphing world.  The GE graphs are literally the graphs that led me to the er4s, which I believe is the flattest iem out there other than the sub bass.  I haven't tried them all, and I didn't say it was the "best" earphone.  I just said flattest in response overall that I've heard, and also seen on GE graphs.

I think you need to understand any graph and hear the earphones to see how they correspond.  Than you could essentially use any graph if you have enough real hearing comparisons to understand what you're hearing.  Of all the earphones I've heard, I've never heard anything that wasn't represented by the GE graph of that earphone, nor have I seen something on the graph that couldn't be heard in real usage.  To me it's simply tried and tested.  If I listen to 30 earphones and everyone is consistently easy to interpret and predict based on a certain graph, why "shouldn't" I use that graph?

 


Edited by luisdent - 9/24/13 at 2:50pm
post #767 of 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post


You make a good case, and I can see how the GE graphs could be used to predict how an iems sounds and vice versa. I don't think they're terrible graphs by any means, and if one knows how to read then I think they have some meaningful information. I'm more concerned with the reasoning behind how the graphs are derived. The DF compensation is an accepted standard based on experiments, peer review etc. It doesn't mean that all earphones should match the standard, just that it is reliable as a standard of measurement to compare earphones against. Same goes for the Olive-Welti reference target. Headphones that match the target will sound a certain way to most people, and this has been proven through experimentation.

I usually like to predict how an iem will measure as well, and I like to think I come pretty close based on the DF target. You say the same but you use the GE target. We can both be right in the sense that using ANY standard can probably result in accurate predictions if one knows how to read the standard. It's the consistency of using whatever standard that determines whether one can use it to predict a graph.

But since the the graphs are different after all, which one is more accurate? I think DF and Olive-Welti have more evidence backing up their standards. In other words I feel more confident that the targets described by DF and Olive-Welti match their respective listening references (speaker set-ups).

Does GE have the same level of evidence provided by DF and Olive-Welti to show why their graphs are plotted as they are? I'm not sure. Maybe they do, and I should read more about it. Rin doesn't think so.

I do like the bass boost on the ER4S though, and it does seem correlated with the GE graphs. The Olive-Welti compensation shows a loss of bass as well though, so maybe that's a better standard to use.
post #768 of 839

Perhaps GE is actually just a cloud-connected, sentient HATS dummy head --- an audiophile Skynet, if you will.

post #769 of 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post



You make a good case, and I can see how the GE graphs could be used to predict how an iems sounds and vice versa. I don't think they're terrible graphs by any means, and if one knows how to read then I think they have some meaningful information. I'm more concerned with the reasoning behind how the graphs are derived. The DF compensation is an accepted standard based on experiments, peer review etc. It doesn't mean that all earphones should match the standard, just that it is reliable as a standard of measurement to compare earphones against. Same goes for the Olive-Welti reference target. Headphones that match the target will sound a certain way to most people, and this has been proven through experimentation.

I usually like to predict how an iem will measure as well, and I like to think I come pretty close based on the DF target. You say the same but you use the GE target. We can both be right in the sense that using ANY standard can probably result in accurate predictions if one knows how to read the standard. It's the consistency of using whatever standard that determines whether one can use it to predict a graph.

But since the the graphs are different after all, which one is more accurate? I think DF and Olive-Welti have more evidence backing up their standards. In other words I feel more confident that the targets described by DF and Olive-Welti match their respective listening references (speaker set-ups).

Does GE have the same level of evidence provided by DF and Olive-Welti to show why their graphs are plotted as they are? I'm not sure. Maybe they do, and I should read more about it. Rin doesn't think so.

I do like the bass boost on the ER4S though, and it does seem correlated with the GE graphs. The Olive-Welti compensation shows a loss of bass as well though, so maybe that's a better standard to use.

I guess that's it. It's more that I find it consistent in my listening as to how something will sound. As I said, I never claimed they were more accurate. I just find then more relatable. I think the ot curve is probably the one i'd pick for best accuracy and representation. However, the GE has more visual correlation to what I hear. But I digress. I know I'm happy it led me to the er4s ;-)
post #770 of 839

I finally got myself an F111 during my trip to Japan last week. A big thank you to Dimitri of Musica Acoustics for being so accommodating with my requests and dropping them off for me at my hotel. :D 

 

I haven't had a lot of time to listen to them yet but so far I'm pretty happy with these. I'm considerably new to this hobby so I wouldn't be of much help in terms of all the technical reviews but compared to my Westone 2, the F111s are so much clearer and accurate sounding to my ears. When I A and B them, the W2 sounds significantly warmer and thicker compared to the F111 and sometimes when coming straight from the F111, my W2 sounds veiled in comparison. And the bass on the F111, while lesser in quantity, sounds better on the F111 than the W2 as they are quicker, tighter, and punch down much deeper in songs that have hard-hitting bass. The only thing that bothers me a bit about the F111 is the fit. Maybe I have weirdly shaped ear canals because every time I use silicone tips on my IEMs I can't seem to get a good seal. I used long comply tips on my W2 because the silicone tips didn't work for me, as well. Since I've always had hit-or-miss issues with silicone tips I don't think it'd be fair for me to attribute the fit problem I'm experiencing here to the F111 itself. However, I can understand everyone else's remarks here regarding the problem of getting a consistent fit with these. If it's worth anything, I find that medium sized Ortofon tips work best for me with the F111s. It's a good thing I decided to order the Ortofon tips from Dimitri along with the F111. :p

 

Could anyone be kind enough to post a picture of the F111 in your ear? I can't really figure out if it's supposed to go deep into ones ear or if it's supposed to stick out. I'd always thought my ear canals were pretty big since I always needed either M or L tips to get a decent seal with my previous IEMs but I find the F111 protrudes significantly from my ears so maybe I really have small ears but never realized it? lol. Thanks guys! :) 


Edited by frapp2latte - 10/8/13 at 3:48am
post #771 of 839
Use UE TF10 Eartips smily_headphones1.gif
post #772 of 839

audiofreakie, 

 

Does the F111 go far deep into your ears? Or do they protrude out? In pictures the TG 334 seems to lie flat in ones ears so I'm not sure if the F111 is supposed to be flat as well or if they really are meant to stick out... :)

post #773 of 839
I can't find the good fitting with stock eartips, single flange or double flange. Seems my ear canal too big for stock eartips.
So I used L size UE TF10 eartips, its seal perfect for me.
I just insert them as deep as I can. Maybe I will post photo when I wear my Fitear 111 tonight smily_headphones1.gif.
post #774 of 839

Alright, audiofreakie, please do so I'll have an idea if I'm doing it right. :) Thanks, mate. 

post #775 of 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by frapp2latte View Post
 

audiofreakie, 

 

Does the F111 go far deep into your ears? Or do they protrude out? In pictures the TG 334 seems to lie flat in ones ears so I'm not sure if the F111 is supposed to be flat as well or if they really are meant to stick out... :)

 

Mine stick out. Quite a bit too, almost as much as the TF10s. Definitely can't sleep in them.

post #776 of 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeroicPenguin View Post
 

 

Mine stick out. Quite a bit too, almost as much as the TF10s. Definitely can't sleep in them.

 

Ok, good to know it's not just me. :) Thanks, HeroicPenguin! 

post #777 of 839

a late comment on the GE vs rest of the world.

to me any source is a good one, but I do prefer Rin's results usually (he's done such a great work for us all), simply because GE seems to smoothen the readings too much so we might miss an acute dip or pick.

but overall they're not bad. just take into consideration that they changed the compensated values and smoothing several times, so the first measurements are not really fit to be compared to the last ones. 

also the bass compensation is too much for me on GE but I know it and take it into consideration.

but all in all, that may be enough reasons for some to distrust the results of GE.

 

for me as long as you can read and pay attention to the legends, it's still a great source of intels.

 

I remember tyll saying that they planned to have something like headroom's "make your graph" stuff in the long run on innerfidelity, with the choice of compensation settings. this would be a great + to me.

 

at the moment I tend to only look at raw data instead of compensated graph and make the changes in my head based on my own experience. compensated stuff are not what I'm hearing (olive&welti are closer to what I get). 

post #778 of 839

Thanks to gnarls and everyone else for sending these on tour.. I've been terribly busy as of late.. so my apologies for the late impressions.  I'll try and have more later.. but I've had the F111 for the past two weeks.  They're quite impressive.  I haven't done much comparative listening with my JH13 FP.. but the F111 have more in common (sonically) with my UERM, anyways.  The F111 sound like a slightly warmer (not to be confused with bassier) UERM.  IMO, the F111 isn't as refined, effortless, or detailed as the UERM.  The F111 falls short of the UERM's texturing ability at the frequency extremes.  Vs the UERM, the F111's mids sounds more liquid/blended.. whereas the UERM's mids layer and detail in an e-stat-like manner.  The treble is where I find the UERM & F111 to differ.. the UERM sounds brighter (but not any peakier) than the gently rolled off F111's treble.

 

I haven't said a lot of positives about the F111.. do not take that to mean they're not good.. quite the opposite, really.  I think the F111 are excellent and do very little wrong.  I just found the UERM to be a more technically capable IEM.  While I haven't heard the ER4S, I've read a ton about them (enough to get an idea of what they sound like) and I get the sense the F111 is FE's take on the famed Ety IEM.  It sounds like the 4S is probably a little brighter (w/ it's emphasis in the upper mids).. so my treble-sensitive ears would probably take the F111 over the 4S if I had to choose between the two.  If I had to put a price on what I'd pay for the F111, it would be $350.

post #779 of 839

The loaner F111 arrived a few days ago and I'm very impressed.  The cable is much more usable than the stock TG334 cable.  Fit is easy, comfortable and easily repeatable for me.  Most importantly, long listening sessions remain comfortable with no ear fatigue that I get from the ER-4S after an hour or so.

 

I've spent some time comparing the F111 to the ER-4S and MH1. 
 
The F111 mids, while not being quite as transparent as the ER-4S, are right in my wheelhouse of preference- a touch of warmth and intimacy that are very, very engaging. Basically the F111 has all the TG334 mid magic without the faults of some dips in the upper midrange. The bass is just a very small amount less textured than the ER-4S but has a more satisfying thump and rumble with no roll off until 30hz.  The treble, while not quite as present as the ER-4S is really excellent- soft, yet sparkling; detailed, yet smooth and forgiving all at the same time.
 
Compared to the MH1, the Sony holds up very well against the F111 and ER-4S two but definitely needs the bass eq’d down a bit to do so.  The MH1 mids are warmer and smoother and a little further back than the other two.  The MH1 treble is perhaps the best balanced with the rest of the spectrum but is a little more grainy in comparison.  Even eq’d, the bass isn’t as fast or textured but is a lot of fun.
 
Basically the 3 are different enough from each other that I can find room for each. There really is something special about music presented from a single drivers, regardless of driver tech.
 
Most interestingly, yesterday I compared the F111 with my HD600.  While the F111 soundstage is smaller and less enveloping, they are very similar in overall presentation, especially with vocals.  I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the F111 to anyone looking for a HD600 sound in an iem.
 
The price appears to really have come down on Price Japan lately.  I'll probably be picking up a pair soon.

Edited by shotgunshane - 11/16/13 at 5:32am
post #780 of 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunshane View Post

The loaner F111 arrived a few days ago and I'm very impressed.  The cable is much more usable than the stock TG334 cable.  Fit is easy, comfortable and easily repeatable for me.  Most importantly, long listening sessions remain comfortable with no ear fatigue that I get from the ER-4S after an hour or so.

I've spent some time comparing the F111 to the ER-4S and MH1. 
 
The F111 mids, while not being quite as transparent as the ER-4S, are right in my wheelhouse of preference- a touch of warmth and intimacy that are very, very engaging. Basically the F111 has all the TG334 mid magic without the faults of some dips in the upper midrange. The bass is just a very small amount less textured than the ER-4S but has a more satisfying thump and rumble with no roll off until 30hz.  The treble, while not quite as present as the ER-4S is really excellent- soft, yet sparkling; detailed, yet smooth and forgiving all at the same time.
 
Compared to the MH1, the Sony holds up very well against the F111 and ER-4S two but definitely needs the bass eq’d down a bit to do so.  The MH1 mids are warmer and smoother and a little further back than the other two.  The MH1 treble is perhaps the best balanced with the rest of the spectrum but is a little more grainy in comparison.  Even eq’d, the bass isn’t as fast or textured but is a lot of fun.
 
Basically the 3 are different enough from each other that I can find room for each. There really is something special about music presented from a single drivers, regardless of driver tech.
 
Most interestingly, yesterday I compared the F111 with my HD600.  While the F111 soundstage is smaller and less enveloping, they are very similar in overall presentation, especially with vocals.  I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the F111 to anyone looking for a HD600 sound in an iem.
 
The price appears to really have come down on Price Japan lately.  I'll probably be picking up a pair soon.

X2 on all bolded... And pretty much everything else.

Glad you don't get the vacuum seal I was getting.


I am working on the impressions today gnarl. It's on my schedule.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › FitEar F111 — Impressions, Reviews & Discussion (previously TO GO! 111)