CYMBACAVUM

Quick Thoughts: FIIL Carat

You’ve probably have read the review of the Diva Pro by Mr. T here on CYMBACAVUM. At their price point, the Diva Pros were impressive, so we were excited to hear about FIIL‘s Bluetooth in-ear line up. We contacted FIIL regarding their Carat and Carat Pro, and received a pair of Carat for review. (At the time, the fitness-tracking Carat Pro was still being refined.)

I am also currently working on a comprehensive review of Bluetooth IEMs and headphones, with comparisons between all of them, including the FIIL Carat, so keep your eyes open for that article!

The Carat is a sport-oriented bluetooth IEM from FIIL with a fashionable design. They utilise what I call “wired between the ears” approach, used by IEMs like the Plantronics BackBeat GO series. Specifications of the Carat are not published on the English version of their website, but basic features, such as battery life and shape, are the same as the Pro version. However, the Carat lacks few features of the Carat Pro, such as a heart rate monitor or built-in music storage.

20170115_181221 — The **FIIL Carat** has a glossy black body.

In terms of packaging, the Carat comes in sleek and modern packaging. (My package got searched by HK’s customs, and was damaged in the process — ouch — so it was not photographed.) The Carat come with various sizes of silicon tips and ear wings, which are extremely helpful in keeping the IEMs inside your ears despite the the IEMs themselves being on the weighty side. Also included are choker clips with which to shorten your cables, ear guides that go behind your ears, a micro-USB cable, and a nice pouch. Overall packaging and accessories are well appointed.

The IEM themselves are on the heavier side, as the batteries and circuitry are built into the main IEM housings. The housings are glossy and are very smooth to touch. While on the larger side, the Carat fits in my smallish ears comfortably, unlike some other larger bluetooth IEMs which had failed to do so. The strain reliefs on the IEMs are, for some reason, red on the both sides. My guess is that it’s for the aesthetics. Nevertheless, it’s very easy to tell which side is which, so it shouldn’t be an issue. The hexagon shape is unconventional, and rather pretty in my view. As you turn the Carat on, you’ll notice the LEDs on both sides of the IEMs. The LEDs can be turned off, or set to a different color, if you prefer.

The Carat comes with a handful of features, such as a dynamic EQ, which will change in setting according to your running speed (spectacular for athletes), voice command, and a simple pedometer. The accuracy of the pedometer wasn’t tested as I simply don’t use the feature. The pedometer cannot be turned off, but I was assured that it consumed very little battery. One of the key features of these IEMs are the ear guides and the ear wings, which allows the IEMs to stay in your ears even in the most extreme environments. They stay in my ears just as well as my CIEMs do, and will certainly not fall off your ears even when exercising. A hard pull on the cable might successfully dislodge the IEMs from your ears, but that is an unlikely scenario as the cables go behind your neck.

Unlike the Pro version which is designed around a balanced armature driver, the regular Carat comes equipped with dynamic drivers, so I wasn’t expecting too much in terms of sound, and I was mostly right. The Carat displays a typical V-shaped signature with boosted bass and treble. The mids are recessed, although still enjoyable. Extension is good in both upper and lower end of the spectrum. The Carat sound like it was made for a workout, and that’s exactly what it is meant to do. The bass rumbles powerfully (perhaps to the point that it’s a little boomy), and the treble is aggressive and sparkly (although not to the point that it’s painful). Details are fairly ample, and soundstage is wide enough for outdoor use. It’s certainly not meant to compete with audiophile grade IEMs, but they’re not that bad either. I find the Carat to fit my exercise mood very well. While the Carat don’t sound exceptional per se, I find it to stays true to its intentions. After all, it sounded decent enough for me to have used it as my daily driver for two weeks.

Despite being equipped with dynamic drivers, the vents on the Carat face inside your ears, and hence the Carat doesn’t leak much sound and isolates fairly well.

However, while I found the Carat satisfying in most regards, I found the battery life to be a bit short of what I had hoped for. With the LEDs on, the battery on the Carat only lasts around four hours or so. With light use, the Carat should last the whole day, but heavy users will find themselves charging the Carat every few hours. To help with the battery life, Carat turns off automatically when worn like a necklace around the neck (the built-in magnets allow the housing to snatch onto one another). This helps improve the standby battery life, but not the actual use time. While the Carat will last a full workout session easily, it won’t survive a full day of use.

With its water resistance and active sound, the Carat was designed for a serious workout. It packs a slew of features into a small attractive housing. For the month I’ve used the Carat, I was quite satisfied with them, although I wish that the battery lasted a little longer.

On the other hand, the Pro version of the Carat has been successfully funded on Kickstarter, and I am very excited to hear what FIIL could do with BA drivers!

Between the Headband: FIIL’s Diva Active Noise-Cancelling Headphones

Editor’s Note: We’re starting a new category of articles here on CYMBACAVUM that covers headphones. Continue reading Between the Headband: FIIL’s Diva Active Noise-Cancelling Headphones

Op-Ed: Embrace the Jack-less revolution!

With the next generation Apple iPhone 7 set to be announced imminently, many people have bemoaned Apple’s decision (not 100% confirmed, but essentially a foregone conclusion, based on the substantial and numerous rumors) to remove the 3.5 mm analog jack from the phone. Not only have highly influential e-zines such as The Verge have come out blasting Apple for the move,a number of audiophiles have come out in arms over it as well. While it’s not a surprise that a mainstream publication comes up in arms in defense of the status quo, it is a surprise for audiophiles to do so as well. The rationale against removal of the headphone jack is that companies are doing it for the wrong reasons: DRM, cyclic consumerism, etc. It also makes total sense from an ‘if it ain’t broke…’ perspective — why mess with the simple and easy-to-use 3.5 mm jack? Reusing the same port for charging, data transfer, and headphone use also proves to be a practical impediment — what if people want to use headphones and charge their device at the same time?

I, for one, however, am in support of the move to remove the headphone jacks, especially in light of the audiophile perspective. What’s my reasoning? It’s largely in line with what most businesses are thinking — removal of the 3.5mm analog jack incentivizes accessory makers to create portable DACs and Bluetooth earphones that will retool an entire industry for the digital future. From the surface, this argument might seem like it has nothing to do with audiophiles; the pessimist will contend that most of these consumer-level DACs and BT earphones will be mediocre at best, leaving only the wired status-quo as “audiophile-grade”. This argument, however, is backwards-leaning and takes zero account for how the mass consumer sector is always the driver of progress for audiophile-oriented companies. Apple (and the rest of the tech industry, for that matter) wants to lead us into a wireless world, but audiophiles are stuck in a tethered cage.

So I ask the most adamant cord lover: why not wireless? I can imagine the replies: Bluetooth imparts too much jitter and can’t handle high-resolution files, and that well-implemented DACs are always large in footprint. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence from numerous accounts from well-regarded DAC designers against Bluetooth for high-end audio in that jitter is difficult to minimize over BT, but serious attempts at 802.11-based wireless audio have been made with the potential for more. Remember the mini-review we did on the Celsus Sound Companion One? It was using first-generation wireless streaming technology to pipe 24-bit, 192 kS/s audio across the ether. It had some kinks to sort out, for sure, but I was tantalized by the kind of potential that exists for wireless streaming. Now imagine that kind of technology refined and miniaturized.

It doesn’t all have to be wireless, either — as the world’s preeminent smartphone maker with a history of ditching legacy ports, Apple is predictably ditching the 3.5mm jack in search of streamlining its interface technologies. Yet, they’re actually moving slower than expected in this recent USB Type-C tsunami. The jack-less revolution has already begun, and it didn’t begin with Apple. Intel has come out in full force to promote the widespread adoption of USB Type-C connectors for audio, and aside from Apple, the Android cadre will almost certainly introduce myriad earphone devices to accompany its inevitable shift to USB Type-C. What this means for the DAC industry is that low-power, high-performance converters, along with low-noise voltage regulators, precision clocks, and USB modules that accompany these DACs. This is the biggest reason for audio enthusiasts to get excited about the upcoming jack-less tsunami — the dramatic change the current electronics supply chain will undergo.

The bottom line is this: as a small-volume, niche market the audiophile world will never be the primary driver of innovation in audio technology, despite purveyors’ claims of pushing the limits of audio fidelity. The lowered cost of high-end DAC chips from ESSTech over the past couple of years? That’s the result of huge orders from Korean and Chinese smartphone companies. ESSTech is now designing entire SoCs that virtually guarantee high performance, high resolution audio conversion and playback from drop-in chips that do everything. If that seems like a threat to the existence of current “high-end” DACs, audiophile companies need not fear. They should not be afraid of being sublimated by the recent wave of smartphone manufacturers introducing self-proclaimed hi-fi devices; for most enthusiasts, as the audiophile spirit doesn’t merely encompass high-performance — it is equal parts number performance and obsession over every last detail, numerically representable or not. For every Lightning or USB Type-C connected DAC device the size of a current in-line microphone coming out in the next few years costing $59, there will be another $1099 device with the same features, but designed by a single guy who spent hundreds of hours trying out every single SMD resistor and capacitor available, tweaked every oversampling ratio, and tried ten different I/V converters on his way to audio nirvana.

The Biz: More Companies Join In On The Manufacture of Balanced Armatures

With so many companies making earphones and headsets, it’s no wonder demand for balanced armatures is on the rise. They’re not just for premium earphones anymore, as BA and hybrid earphones can now be found for under $30, and reach prices upwards of $2500.

As mentioned in a previous article of ours, ‘The Biz: What Companies Make Balanced Armature Speakers?‘, Knowles Electronics and Sonion have been at the forefront of balanced armature technology ever since earphones began using them years ago. Both companies are now additionally heavily involved in the development and component supply of hearable devices, providing the microphones, accelerometers, processing circuitry, and more. Supplying both audiophile manufacturers and mainstream makers is a tall order. When a company like Samsung strikes an order with a company to provide drivers and microphones, the volume is massive, and they expect a lot of service to go along with it. At the same time, a Knowles or Sonion needs to be flexible enough to supply as little as 1000 units at a time, while minimizing overhead and answering to shareholders. That’s why companies like Knowles are diversifying their services and transforming their products into turnkey solutions to meet the demands of companies. Their Versant technology allows manufacturers to drop in a near production-ready wireless headset system —- that’s what the Bragi Dash utilizes.

versante284a2-advanced-voice-technology — Knowles is trying to make things simple for all those companies looking to get into the whole wireless earbud and “hearable” business. There will be more than enough to go around, so other companies are desperately trying also to grab a piece of the pie.

But what about the little guys —- the ones that can’t put in a 100,000 unit order? They might just turn to these two new companies.

Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology (TSST)

Founded in 2004 as a joint venture between electronic giants Toshiba and Samsung for the manufacture of optical readers and media, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology (shortened as ‘TSST’) would be the last company any regular person would expect to get into the BA business.

Since 2004, however, the emergence of flash memory and cloud storage has shaved the optical storage media market down to Blu-Ray players and a few other specialized applications. In search of bluer business oceans, TSST decided to transfer its technical expertise in optical drive technology to balanced armatures. They contend that optical pick-up actuators found at the bottom of every optical drive tray work very similar in operation to balanced armatures. In fact, as of May 2016, TSST no longer manufactures optical drives, instead focusing on endeavors like its wide balanced armature (WBA) technology.

TSST_ODD_BA__mini_copy — TSST used its expertise in manufacturing optical pick-up modules and transferred it to the manufacture of balanced armature drivers. Like Sony’s BA drivers, these units do not use a front spout, but have a top-opening port.

In order to showcase their new technology, TSST created a consumer brand in EARNiNE and introduced a single BA and dual BA model in mid-2016. Both the single-driver EN1 and the dual-driver EN2 were priced aggressively at 49,800 ₩on (~$45 USD) and 189,000 ₩on (~$160 USD), respectively.

The first implementations of these TSST WBAs are encouraging, but somewhat flawed. Both the EN1 and EN2 exhibited promising bass and treble extension, as well as manageable levels of harmonic distortion. These WBA modules also take on a similar form factor as the ones in Sony’s XBA series, which may lead to more interesting/innovative acoustic designs. However, treble resonances are somewhat worrying, with exaggerated ringing. It appears that, in an effort to create a speaker with standard properties, TSST overcompensated for ear canal gain at 2.7 kHz. Check out speakerphone‘s electroacoustic analysis of both the EN1 and EN2 over at his personal blog.

Other companies from South Korea are working with TSST; Orfeo Soundworks, another Korean company specialized in Bluetooth earphones and headsets, launched a Kickstarter campaign earlier this year with products utilizing TSST modules, but aborted the project early.

What can be expected from TSST? Well, for starters, based on its heritage, its balanced armature modules should have good consistency in quality control. The TSST drivers will probably need some time to establish their legitimacy amongst audiophile makers for sound quality, however. It will also have some competition. Locally, Cresyn is an old-time ODM/OEM that also owns Phiaton and also manufactures its own balanced armatures (mentioned in last year’s article). Neighboring China will likely be the even bigger competitor, however. On top of the companies we mentioned before (DTS, Hearonic, etc.), this next company might just be the one to rise to the top in China.

Shenzhen Bellsing (Estron) Acoustic Technology

Based in Shenzhen, home of China’s electronics manufacturing beltline, Bellsing is new to the game when it comes to the manufacture of balanced armatures — or so it seems. The company was apparently formed as recently as 2009, but has a slew of components for sale on the market. Not long ago, Colsan Microelectronics, a longtime distributor of Sonion and other CIEM-related parts, began carrying its products under the Bellsing-Estron flag. (Note: This is not the same company as Danish company Estron, which makes the great Linum cables)

Most interestingly, the products offered by Bellsing seem like exact clones of Knowles products that have been on the market for some time. For example, its BRC210C30017 is extremely similar is shape and characteristic to the Knowles TWFK-30017-000, right down to the coil impedance. There are some variances here and there with respect to sensitivity, however. In addition to the TWFK, Bellsing also offers analogous products of the Knowles SWFK/DWFK/DFK/WBFK, RAB, and ED product lines.

The reflex thought is to think the Bellsing is yet another flagrant Chinese violator of intellectual property rights, and that they’ve managed to reverse engineer all of Knowles products for their own self-gain. While it’s not entirely out of the question, and I do not know what the truth is, but for Bellsing to straight-up copy all of these Knowles product lines and then to market them internationally like this, would have earned them the lawsuit ire of Knowles Electronics by now. Additionally, Colsan Microelectronics, by all means a respectable company, would probably have also declined to carry its products. There should be another explanation.

Bellsing’s AMBA drivers are curiously similar to those offered by Knowles.

It’s possible that Bellsing is subcontracted by Knowles to produce drivers, and that royalties need to be paid to Knowles. It’s even possible that Bellsing is partially funded by Knowles. It’s also possible that the technology inside is somewhat different. After all, even Sonion has a few products very similar to Knowles’, like the 2300 and the ED, or the 2000 and the CI. Balanced armature designs aren’t that easy to patent, either. All have the same fundamental design. The reason why Knowles has long been the top dog is that they can put out higher volumes than anyone else on the market, and that their product quality is the most consistent. Sonion is similar in that regard. The other companies thus far have not been able to deliver products with the same kind of consistency. So, if Bellsing is indeed delivering products on par with those from Knowles, it may be the first Chinese company to actually be able to do so, and Knowles may just have to acquiesce to another company taking away some of its business (after all, it has bigger fish to fry, like taking over the hearables market).

All this Knowles mimicry doesn’t mean that Bellsing isn’t intent on doing its own thing as well. On August 18, Bellsing held a large scale convention celebrating its new line of ‘Pride’ series balanced armature receivers, highlighting the company’s self-purported mastery over aspects of R&D and production. Bellsing hopes to gain significant global market share of BAs used in earphones, taking on the dominant American and European companies (which can be interpreted as Knowles and Sonion).

Some kind of award.

The Bellsing team on stage.

Bellsing placed some Fidue products on display as examples of products utilizing their drivers.

Among the first consumer products to use Bellsing Pride balanced armature receivers is the Lenovo ZUK HD-1, a 199 ¥uan ($29 USD) budget-priced hybrid earphone.

It remains unclear what Bellsing’s very public proclamation for taking over the earphone market will amount to, but they do seem primed for more opportunities than any of the other BA factories from China.

Letter from the Editor

To all the readers of CYMBACAVUM:

We started this site over three years ago out of an ideal vision: that thoughtful, insightful, longform opinions on portable high-end audio can be brought to readers in a fluent, beautiful way.

While the site rarely does ‘firsts’ (it’s always slow to review a product, and isn’t the first to incorporate quantitative measurements), it is one of the few to try to do things comprehensively and integratively. We always strive to provide deeper insights into the portable audio world — the market leanings and trends, the movers and shakers, etc. We try to transcend the standard format of writing continually about accessories, build quality, and sound quality. Also, by removing financial incentives from the equation, the writers rely solely on personal ~~interest~~ passion for the upkeep of publication.

In that sense, we consider CYMBACAVUM more of a portable audio think tank rather than a review platform. It’s an ambitious undertaking, and if we’ve fallen short at times, perhaps it’s that we try to set the bar as high as possible.

The main impediment right now is free time. We’d love to spend more time on this site, perfecting the layout, burnishing the precision of our words, bettering the focus of our photos, interacting more on social media, and adding actual video content, but out in the real world, we’re not merely impassioned audio lovers: we’re professors, graduate students, physicians, and marketing executives.

As the managing editor of CYMBACAVUM, I’m in charge of the ebb and flow of manuscripts coming across this portal. The amount of work needed to copy edit, manage publicity, and maintain manufacturer relationships requires a non-trivial amount of time per week. My daytime role lies within the confines of a hospital about 80 hours per week, with additional time allocated to research. There is just not much left for audio these days, and for that I apologize.

At the same time, I hope not to compromise the quality of our output. We intended for CYMBACAVUM to be a model for what specialist audio blogs and websites can be, a repository of candid, constructive criticism, laying out all facets of our hobby —- whether they be good or bad. We try to fully integrate the subjective with the objective, giving people points of entry into understanding what all those squiggly spikes are in an uncompensated graph generated from a frequency response measurement off an IEC-60318-4 compliant rig. Beyond that, we not only hope to communicate our own opinions, but to infuse readers with their own tools of discretion.

The next page provides shorter answers to some of the questions we get asked most often at this site. I hope the answers provide more of a window into why we don’t publish all that prolifically and to other concerns along the way. Lastly, I’m always receptive to feedback and comments —- please send us any comments or questions about your concerns regarding the present or future state of CYMBACAVUM, through any of our social media outlets (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) or via e-mail. We’d love to hear from you!

Sincerely,

Thomas Tsai, a.k.a. ‘Mr. T’
Managing Editor, CYMBACAVUM

Pages: 12

Critical Analysis: 1964|ADEL — Science or Science Fiction?

Editor’s Note: At CYMBACAVUM, we’re constantly trying to bridge science with the wonderful audio experiences we have. @miceblue takes on an scientist’s curiosity to examine Asius Technologies and 1964Ears’ ADEL — how it functions, the scientific principles behind it, and what it might or might not be. Continue reading Critical Analysis: 1964|ADEL — Science or Science Fiction?

SEEKO.co.kr’s Measurements of the FiiO X7

Measurements of the Noble Audio K10U

speakerphone’s Measurements of the Shure KSE1500

Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology (TSST)

Shenzhen Bellsing (Estron) Acoustic Technology

To all the readers of CYMBACAVUM: