CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

Lobby => IEM Measurements => Topic started by: Marvey on June 17, 2013, 07:32:04 PM

Title: FitEar ToGo 334 Measurements (V2)
Post by: Marvey on June 17, 2013, 07:32:04 PM
See other impressions / comments: http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,996.msg26042.html#msg26042 (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,996.msg26042.html#msg26042)

My own pre-measurement subjective impressions (from my notes):
Although colored, I actually like this IEM - quite a lot. It's colored in a way I actually like and I don't think I would EQ except for the treble peak (and then maybe not)

Posting measurements in a few minutes...


P.S.

Up to $1400 from $1000? And they are not customs? Fuck that shit.
Title: Re: FitEar 334 Measurements
Post by: Marvey on June 17, 2013, 07:39:10 PM
FitEar TG334 Frequency Response and Harmonic Distortion
Title: Re: FitEar 334 Measurements
Post by: Marvey on June 17, 2013, 07:42:57 PM
UERM distortion for reference (please note Y axis):

(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=437.0;attach=1965;image)
Title: Re: FitEar 334 Measurements
Post by: Marvey on June 17, 2013, 07:51:20 PM
Burst Decays - Probably explains the glare/sibilance issues that I hear and also the serious treble issues Anax had with them. I do tend to listen to the 334 at a softer volume though.
Title: Re: FitEar 334 Measurements
Post by: munch on June 17, 2013, 08:19:38 PM
not mid-centric hmm... really feel like I dodged a something-bullet-like-thing by not buying these. heard so much about them being mid-centric and bass being LCD-2-like. (I do like the LCD-2 bass)
then anax impressions of these...
measurements do look quite nice though. but the bass seems to be louder than I thought.
Title: Re: FitEar 334 Measurements
Post by: thegunner100 on June 17, 2013, 09:14:37 PM
It's nice that we have some high-end universals now, but seriously... $1400 for a universal is asking for a bit too much considering how much less work goes into making a universal vs a custom.
Title: Re: FitEar 334 Measurements
Post by: tomscy2000 on June 18, 2013, 06:41:54 AM
It's nice that we have some high-end universals now, but seriously... $1400 for a universal is asking for a bit too much considering how much less work goes into making a universal vs a custom.

Well, the reason why the 334 costs so much (aside from the fact that FitEar is expensive, regardless of construction style) is that it is made with the same amount of effort as any other custom, just sans custom ear impression. Every shell needs to be cast from acrylic, the drivers need to be hand-stuffed, and the acrylic needs to be layered on by hand. It also employs a fairly labor-intensive and complex front-nozzle design, so the human labor costs are just as high as any CIEM. So, this is not like a Westone 4 or even a Shure SE846, where the plastic molds are pressed by machine. Thus, the cost difference, both retail and labor, between a universal TO GO 334 and a custom MH334 is not a lot.

Still, FitEar is very expensive, even in Japan. They set themselves out as a premium brand using premium materials like titanium, and so they command healthy margins for their stuff. If someone in China wanted to create a bootleg 334 but at 98% the quality, they could probably do it for $550 and still make a reasonable amount of profit. But you're paying for that extra 2% of OCD attention and the Made in Japan "prestige".
Title: Re: FitEar 334 Measurements
Post by: Anaxilus. on June 18, 2013, 07:46:02 AM
The quality is sublime.  I'm not a fan of their new textured matte housings though, that looks cheap and ugly IMHO.
Title: Re: FitEar 334 Measurements
Post by: Marvey on June 18, 2013, 04:51:29 PM
The "Made in Japan" is certainly a high prestige thing over there (HK, Taiwan, even the PRC...)