I think Lab I is just expensive accessory. I mean the housing. I guess they would sound same in any other shell with any other process.
I'm not one for expensive gimmicks, and I'm neither disagreeing or agreeing with the above, but, merely for the sake of discussion, it is interesting to contemplate whether the much-increased density and mass (and strength) of titanium enclosures/shells, in comparison to acrylic/resin/plastic/silicone, etc.
might, on a micro-level, reduce undesirable resonances to a BA or dynamic driver chassis, and thus potentially improve the accuracy and fidelity of the reproduced signal.
My days of designing & building fullsize hi-fi loudspeakers taught me that unwanted resonances can detrimentally affect the fidelity of their reproduction to a surprising degree. Obviously, the physical stresses involved in generating sufficient SPL to convincingly fill a room are vastly greater than those for a tiny signal and tiny SPL in an in-ear application, but even so, we're talking about microscopically-small movements required of the BA diaphragm in order to transduce tiny musical details, so why shouldn't unwanted resonances, however tiny, exert some detrimental influence upon the fidelity of the reproduced audio signal? For this reason, even though I dislike expensive gimmicks, I am going to remain open-minded as to whether metal IEM shells might slightly improve the fidelity of reproduction by comparison with other materials.
I guess, therefore, that the proof will be in the pudding, but I won't personally be buying a FAD product in this lifetime, as I consider their products to be greedily overpriced, to exploit that same 'money-to-burn-without-question' sector of the audiophile marketplace inhabited by the likes of A&K.
I still feel there is plenty of mileage in acrylic, on the CIEM side of things, but perhaps we may begin to see some experimentation with metal-
loaded plastics in the near future, probably on the 3D-printing side of things.