[lightlight]

Isn't all TWS adapters needed to be charged separately, regardless whether it is with a cable or a battery case?

Ah I meant, plugging them individually to their charging cables vs. just putting them inside a battery case.

This Fiio's UTWS3 looks interesting as well... wait for someone to review this soon...

 

[ClieOS]

I found fiio utws3! (https://www.fiio.com/newsinfo/442821.html?templateId=1133604)

For those who don't read Chinese - it said
QCC3020 chipset (which will be the same chip used on many TWS adapter and TWS IEM these days, so no surprise there).
MMCX connector (again, no surprise)
TPA6140A2 (This is the headphone driver chip from TI, WS-1 uses a Diodes inc chip while CF01 uses a Maxim chip. Same chip has been used by FiiO on their A1 IIRC)
App controllable (by far the biggest surprise, though I wonder what kind of control does it offer?)

From the link above: 40 Hours playtime (assuming it is the total time with battery case?)

 

[lightlight]

For those who don't read Chinese - it said
QCC3020 chipset (which will be the same chip used on many TWS adapter and TWS IEM these days, so no surprise there).
MMCX connector (again, no surprise)
TPA6140A2 (This is the headphone driver chip from TI, WS-1 uses a Diodes inc chip while CF01 uses a Maxim chip. Same chip has been used by FiiO on their A1 IIRC)
App controllable (by far the biggest surprise, though I wonder what kind of control does it offer?)

Thanks for decoding the message brother! Any main diff between the various headphone driver chips?

 

[C_Lindbergh]

I found fiio utws3! (https://www.fiio.com/newsinfo/442821.html?templateId=1133604)

They look much better than BT20s pro, at least to me, I prefer that much smaller case. Just hope they got around 9 hours per of battery per charge like the TRN.

 

[ClieOS]

Thanks for decoding the message brother! Any main diff between the various headphone driver chips?

Judging purely on spec listed in datasheet, the chip FiiO is going to use has about the same audio performance as the one in WS-1, but has the advantage of noticeable power saving. The chip in CF01 is a class above the other two, offering better SQ as well as power output at the cost of higher power consumption. However, given how CF01 is implemented, we really won't see much of those benefit that chip is capable of.

...Just hope they got around 9 hours per of battery per charge like the TRN.

UTWS3 will come with an extra amp chip like WS-1 and CF01 that will eat into battery life, so it is unlikely going to last as long as TRN (which drives the earpiece using QCC302 internal amp that is much less powerful and thus requires less battery). It is kind of a trade off between offering better SQ with an extra amp chip vs. maximizing battery life.

 

[Ocelitgol]

Judging purely on spec listed in datasheet, the chip FiiO is going to use has about the same audio performance as the one in WS-1, but has the advantage of noticeable power saving. The chip in CF01 is a class above the other two, offering better SQ as well as power output at the cost of higher power consumption. However, given how CF01 is implemented, we really won't see much of those benefit that chip is capable of.



UTWS3 will come with an extra amp chip like WS-1 and CF01 that will eat into battery life, so it is unlikely going to last as long as TRN (which drives the earpiece using QCC302 internal amp that is much less powerful and thus requires less battery). It is kind of a trade off between offering better SQ with an extra amp chip vs. maximizing battery life.

so unless CF01 get fixed, UTWS3 seems to be a good balance (overall winner for me).
Do you see any dimension measurement?

 

[ClieOS]

so unless CF01 get fixed, UTWS3 seems to be a good balance (overall winner for me).
Do you see any dimension measurement?

Dimension on UTWS3? No, I didn't. But judging from the picture we do have, the adapter itself won't be that much bigger than UTWS1 and teh battery case is definitely smaller then that of CF01.

 

[assassin10000]

Looks good or at least better than TRN. I hope it has soft tpe hooks like the new bt20s pro too.

 

[ClieOS]

Due to the incident with CF01 driving my MassDrop Plus poorly and consequently being found out it has a massive 20 ohm output impedance, I decided to revisit all my TWS adapters and give them all a proper measurement to determine their output impedance, here are the result (also will be updated in first post from now onward with any future TWS adapter I acquire)

TRN BT20: < 1 ohm
TRN BT20s: < 1 ohm
FiiO UTWS1: ~ 11 ohm
OE Audio WS-1: 0.5 ohm
iBasso CF01: 20 ohm

Output impedance is important for TWS adapter because TWS adapter is designed mainly to drive IEM directly. These day most IEM have multi-drivers and cross-over circuit that the intended sound signature can be completely messed up by high output impedance. Ideally all TWS adapter should have sub-1-ohm output impedance, less ideally it should be low enough that it is at least 8 times lower than the IEM rated impedance (i.e. 4 ohm output impedance for 32 ohm IEM) - this will ensure the listener will be getting the intended sound signature instead of a new sound signature that is retuned by the TWS adapter. Of course, you might personally like the 're-tuned' version better, but this will be like having an permanent EQ applied to the setup and not everyone will like the result - the problem is, with high output impedance, the user will no have the option to turn this 'EQ' off. I hope TWS adapter manufacturer really can take a hint not to cut corner by using output resistor in order to lower hiss. I rather listen to a little bit of hiss than having my IEM sounding all wrong.

It is kinda surprising to see, as far as the measurement result is concerned, that UTWS1 also measured rather high on output impedance, especially since it is OEM'ed by TRN based on BT20s, which as you can see has an excellent sub-1-ohm output impedance. I have been using UTWS1 almost exclusively with my 150 ohm single-driver Smabat ST-10s Black Gold which doesn't get affected by output impedance much and therefore didn't notice how high the output impedance is until I measured it. FiiO usually gets their engineering right, but unfortunately in the case of UTWS1, though not as bad as CF01, is still inexcusably bad for most IEM out there.

 

[assassin10000]

Kinda glad I hesitated on the UTWS1 now.

But the UTWS3 still has my attention.

 

[Ocelitgol]

Due to the incident with CF01 driving my MassDrop Plus poorly and consequently being found out it has a massive 20 ohm output impedance, I decided to revisit all my TWS adapters and give them all a proper measurement to determine their output impedance, here are the result (also will be updated in first post from now onward with any future TWS adapter I acquire)

TRN BT20: < 1 ohm
TRN BT20s: < 1 ohm
FiiO UTWS1: ~ 11 ohm
OE Audio WS-1: 0.5 ohm
iBasso CF01: 20 ohm

Output impedance is important for TWS adapter because TWS adapter is designed mainly to drive IEM directly. These day most IEM have multi-drivers and cross-over circuit that the intended sound signature can be completely messed up by high output impedance. Ideally all TWS adapter should have sub-1-ohm output impedance, less ideally it should be low enough that it is at least 8 times lower than the IEM rated impedance (i.e. 4 ohm output impedance for 32 ohm IEM) - this will ensure the listener will be getting the intended sound signature instead of a new sound signature that is retuned by the TWS adapter. Of course, you might personally like the 're-tuned' version better, but this will be like having an permanent EQ applied to the setup and not everyone will like the result - the problem is, with high output impedance, the user will no have the option to turn this 'EQ' off. I hope TWS adapter manufacturer really can take a hint not to cut corner by using output resistor in order to lower hiss. I rather listen to a little bit of hiss than having my IEM sounding all wrong.

It is kinda surprising to see, as far as the measurement result is concerned, that UTWS1 also measured rather high on output impedance, especially since it is OEM'ed by TRN based on BT20s, which as you can see has an excellent sub-1-ohm output impedance. I have been using UTWS1 almost exclusively with my 150 ohm single-driver Smabat ST-10s Black Gold which doesn't get affected by output impedance much and therefore didn't notice how high the output impedance is until I measured it. FiiO usually gets their engineering right, but unfortunately in the case of UTWS1, though not as bad as CF01, is still inexcusably bad for most IEM out there.

Great work!
oh how I wish you can measure the Shure one

 

[ClieOS]

More info regarding FiiO UTW3 has surfaced:

Qualcomm QCC3020 Bluetooth chipset, TPA6142A2 headphone amp, output power > 20mW

Very low noise, 25 steps on-board volume control, more refined, silver plated copper wires that guarantee minimum transmission lost.

Support FiiO Control app: EQ, volume control, voice adjustment, tone adjustment, Bluetooth battery indicator, ambient mode on/off

Ambient mode let environment sound to be mixed in, allowing user to listen and talk to others without taking out the earphone.

Big recharging storage box, can provide up to 4 full recharge to satisfy a full day of use.

MMCX and 2 pins version availble

Dual mic noise cancelling, making voice communication clearer.

Final price has yet to be determined

 

[frix]

damn, I was almost set on the TRN BT20s pro. But maybe the fiio utw3 is worth the wait. So there is no word on when this will be released?

 

[ClieOS]

damn, I was almost set on the TRN BT20s pro. But maybe the fiio utw3 is worth the wait. So there is no word on when this will be released?

No ETA or price yet.

 

[frix]

thanks ClioOS for all your effort in this thread