# The TWS + Neckband + BT Cable Adapter Thread



## ClieOS (Dec 29, 2020)

Convenience is the KING!

Here is a thread dedicated to all discussion related to BT adapters in the forms of TWS (True Wireless Stereo), neckband and cable style that has has user removable connectors (2 pins, MMCX, A2DC, etc) and designed to allows the user to convert wired IEM / earbuds to wireless.

----------------------------------

*Output Impedance*
TRN BT20: < 1 ohm
TRN BT20s: < 1 ohm
FiiO UTWS1: ~ 11 ohm
OE Audio WS-1: 0.5 ohm
iBasso CF01: 20 ohm
FiiO UTWS3 ~ 1.5 ohm

p/s: Output impedance is important for a few aspects when it comes to headphone, but the most important part for IEM, which ultimately is what TWS adapters are designed for, is that overly high output impedance tends to color (or even mess up) the original frequency response of the IEM, especially those with multi-drivers. Some might like the coloration but ultimately the idea of 'HiFi' is that the source should be as clean as possible and let the headphones do their job of transcribing the music. A high output impedance on the source device is just a random factor that the user has no control over, thus making it less than ideal and the user has to hope that the coloration will work in his/her favor. It is already hard enough to find a pair of IEM that you like, then you need to hope the source won't color it the wrong way? I don't think so - and TWS adapter manufactures shouldn't cut corner on engineering, thinking that a pair of resistors is the 'right' solution for lowering hiss. Even if you have no other option except resistors on the output, at least be honest about it so user can make an informed decision.

----------------------------------

*Impression*

FiiO LC-BT2 by @Technological


----------



## ClieOS (Dec 24, 2019)

Reserved








 

Impression on TRN BT20, BT20S, FiiO UTWS1 and Elecom LBT-HPC1000RC to come...


----------



## asak

Curious on the FiiO UTWS1 impression compared to the BT20S. As they look the same. 

I've had a lot, but needing AAC for the IPhone as a source, the FiiO RC-BT has been pretty good. It would be interesting to see which codecs are supported for each one too. It doesn't seem like the codec support is as thorough compared to the dongles.


----------



## ClieOS

asak said:


> Curious on the FiiO UTWS1 impression compared to the BT20S. As they look the same.
> 
> I've had a lot, but needing AAC for the IPhone as a source, the FiiO RC-BT has been pretty good. It would be interesting to see which codecs are supported for each one too. It doesn't seem like the codec support is as thorough compared to the dongles.



Yes, they do look almost identical on the outside. I haven't taken them apart (as they are both glued together), but the Qualcomm chipset (QCC3020) they used are the same as well - that means their SQ isn't going to be far from each other. In fact, Fostex TM2 uses the same chip (QCC3026, which is basically the same chip as QCC3020 but in a different packaging) but cost over 8x as much.

There are namely just two companies that supply most of the TWS chipsets right now, and TWS chipsets (which comes in a pair of course) is less efficient than a single stereo BT chipset, making the choice of codec very limited as more advanced codec will require more bandwidth that the current generation of TWS chipsets are simply not capable of.


----------



## smith

If I am not mistaken with the Fiio UTWS1  you have volume control... interested in how this works in practice.


----------



## ClieOS (Jan 8, 2020)

smith said:


> If I am not mistaken with the Fiio UTWS1  you have volume control... interested in how this works in practice.



No, it is just like TRN BT20 / BT20S - no on-board volume control. You control the volume via Smartphone's volume control.

I stand corrected


----------



## smith

ClieOS said:


> No, it is just like TRN BT20 / BT20S - no on-board volume control. You control the volume via Smartphone's volume control


 Ok, thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## jeromec (Jan 7, 2020)

smith said:


> Ok, thanks for clarifying that.


Actually the UTWS1 has volume control; as well as Siri on iPhone.

I just received mine.
The volume control works fine: click right earphone for volume up, left earphone volume down.
It changes the phone's volume output (not a separated volume control like BTR5 or ES100)

Paired them to Tin Audio T2 and no background noise issue so far 

Controls are explained on the UTWS1 product page https://fiio.com/utws1


----------



## ClieOS

I stand corrected.

Also worth noting, Shure announced the Aonic 215 on CES that is basically SE215 with a TWS module.


----------



## randytsuch

Also posted this in the long TWS thread, but thought I would also ask here
Just got a UTWS1, and having connection problems.  Lots of glitches where a TRN bt20 is working fine.
Also had problems pairing the first time, but did pair right up after a power cycle having been already paired.
It sounds fine otherwise, but as it is its basically unusable with my phone.

Randy


----------



## ClieOS

randytsuch said:


> Also posted this in the long TWS thread, but thought I would also ask here
> Just got a UTWS1, and having connection problems.  Lots of glitches where a TRN bt20 is working fine.
> Also had problems pairing the first time, but did pair right up after a power cycle having been already paired.
> It sounds fine otherwise, but as it is its basically unusable with my phone.
> ...



UTWS1 uses TWS+ configuration instead of the simpler TWS configuration on the BT20s - so it might be a bit more complicated to setup at first. But once do, it should be more stable than BT20s. My experience is, always turn both side on together and let them connect to each other first, then pair it with your smartphone. It usually is easier that way.


----------



## randytsuch

ClieOS said:


> UTWS1 uses TWS+ configuration instead of the simpler TWS configuration on the BT20s - so it might be a bit more complicated to setup at first. But once do, it should be more stable than BT20s. My experience is, always turn both side on together and let them connect to each other first, then pair it with your smartphone. It usually is easier that way.



Thanks for the info.

I did turn them both on, maybe I didn't let them connect to each other.  But the initial setup isn't my real problem, its the not good connection I'm getting with these.
I had turned off phone calls in the options before, I turned it back on now and that seems to make it better.  Either that or they like it better here at home then at work.  So much less glitchy now, but still not at good as my BT20 (not BT20s, the older original BT20).  The BT20 gives me a rock solid connection, hardly ever drop outs.  Only if I'm out and about, and likely walking by a strong transmitter.

With the UTWS1's, sometimes if I touch them or move a little and a channel drops out for a sec.  They've done it maybe 10 times while I've been typing this response.  And I'm sitting on my sofa at home where they should be perfect.

So I'm pretty disappointed, was expecting them to give a much better connection.  Too bad because they do sound good when they do connect right, but way too many dropouts.


----------



## ClieOS

Older BT20 uses Realtek chips that only support up to AAC, so it has a less demanding wireless connection. BT20s and UTWS1 both use the newer Qualcomm chips that supports aptX, which is more demanding. Depend on your smartphone, it might be possible to go into the developer setting to disable aptX and force it into AAC mode, that way it will likely get a little more stable.


----------



## randytsuch

I have an old, rooted S6.  In the options, it shows "HD audio: AAC" and that is currently on.  No option for aptX.  I've played with developer mode before, but never figured out how to make the settings stay, and I'm not going to go into that setup screen every time I want to listen.

And I really don't think I should have to.  I really didn't expect them to have this many dropout problems with my phone.

I did try turning off AAC, and its better.  But still dropouts if I move my phone around, so still not acceptable performance to me.

One of the reasons why I went with the UTWS1 over a TWS is because with its bigger form factor, I figured it would have a bigger antenna and I should have a really rock solid connection.  But for whatever reason, not happening here.

Randy


----------



## ClieOS

Don't really know what would be the cause. My UTWS1 connection is pretty solid, better than BT20 and BT20s for sure.


----------



## jeromec

Yes. The connection to my UTWS1 seems pretty solid so far.
I use an iPhone XS Max, so it is AAC on Bluetooth 5.0.

The Galaxy S6 is Bluetooth 4.2, which might explain the not as good connection.
Btw, the Galaxy S6 is supposed to support aptX according to the aptX website https://www.aptx.com/products/samsung-galaxy-s6-smartphone


----------



## randytsuch (Jan 10, 2020)

To experiment, I just tried my mpow T5's, which are pretty new and use the Qualcaomm 3020 chip.
They give me AAC under options also.  They were great here at work, no dropouts or glitches.

Switch to UTWS1.
Forget them in bluetooth to start again
Turned on both, let them sit and pair
Went to bluetooth settings and paired with the right one.
Then the left asks to pair, I didn't allow it.

Starts off fine, but then glitches again.  So even as compared against a smaller TWS, they don't connect as well.

I wrote an email last night to Fiio support, waiting to see what they say.

Maybe I just got unlucky?  They did just start making them, maybe they don't have the process smoothed out yet.

But it is interesting I can connect them to my old apple mini ipad, and its fine with that.  I guess that connection is likely not aac or aptx, and that is why it works well.
EDIT:  Just checked, looks like my mini should be using aac, so don't know why that works better?

Randy


----------



## ClieOS

randytsuch said:


> Then the left asks to pair, I didn't allow it.



Actually I think you can try allowing the left to pair as well.


----------



## randytsuch

ClieOS said:


> Actually I think you can try allowing the left to pair as well.



For the record, it doesn't matter if I pair or don't.  Get dropouts with these no matter what
I also get dropouts on my ipad, but not as many.

And Fiio support hasn't responded yet, so like I said, maybe I'm unlucky but at this point really regret being an early adopter for the UTWS1's.

Randy


----------



## ClieOS

randytsuch said:


> For the record, it doesn't matter if I pair or don't.  Get dropouts with these no matter what
> I also get dropouts on my ipad, but not as many.
> 
> And Fiio support hasn't responded yet, so like I said, maybe I'm unlucky but at this point really regret being an early adopter for the UTWS1's.
> ...



Don't think being an early adopter or not has much to do with it. As you have read so far, mine and @jeromec UWTS1 connection are both very solid. I reckon  the pair you have could be lemon and you can ask FiiO for an exchange.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

I have very good connection with my V30 on aptX with the UTWS1. In the street at open crossroads I’ve had bouts of complete breakdown, but at the gym I can walk away and move around with no issue.

Also, volume control is independent from my phone, so that must depend on the phone. I thought at first the UTWS controlled the volume on my phone, as the steps are very large and resemble the 16-step Android volume control. But I checked because I hate that, and no, they work independently, which is good because by playing around with those two blunt instruments you can get to a satisfactory granularity.

Cool that this thread exists by the way.


----------



## jeromec

With an iPhone Xs Max and iOS 13.3, the volume controls on the UTWS1 do control the iPhone's volume.
There is a limited number of steps if you use them, but a much greater number of steps if you use the sliders on the iPhone.

@monsieurfromag3 beware that you might have a slightly downgraded sound quality if you do not use maximum volume on the phone (although I doubt this would be very noticeable with the UTWS1), as explained in a Radsone whitepaper here.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

jeromec said:


> With an iPhone Xs Max and iOS 13.3, the volume controls on the UTWS1 do control the iPhone's volume.
> There is a limited number of steps if you use them, but a much greater number of steps if you use the sliders on the iPhone.
> 
> @monsieurfromag3 beware that you might have a slightly downgraded sound quality if you do not use maximum volume on the phone (although I doubt this would be very noticeable with the UTWS1), as explained in a Radsone whitepaper here.


Ah yes, with my Nuforce Be6i it’s the same - mine have volume control independent from my Android phone, while my wife’s control her iPhone volume directly.
Thanks for the heads-up on source volume, I am aware of it and should have stated that I keep my phone volume as high as possible, I only ever go one step below max.


----------



## gorman (Jan 28, 2020)

jeromec said:


> Yes. The connection to my UTWS1 seems pretty solid so far.
> I use an iPhone XS Max, so it is AAC on Bluetooth 5.0.
> 
> *The Galaxy S6 is Bluetooth 4.2*, which might explain the not as good connection.
> Btw, the Galaxy S6 is supposed to support aptX according to the aptX website https://www.aptx.com/products/samsung-galaxy-s6-smartphone


I might be wrong but I remember TWS+ needing Bluetooth 5.0. Here Qualcomm states that an SD845 is needed: https://www.qualcomm.com/products/features/truewireless which is three generations beyond Galaxy S6.

Thanks for creating this discussion. I've thought about doing it for the past month or so but I wasn't sure if it would have been appreciated. I currently own BT20 and BT20S and I'm forced to use BT20 due to noisy hiss on my CIEMs with BT20S.
I was hoping Fiio's solution would be it but the fact that they are repackaged BT20S doesn't inspire confidence.
I would pay serious money for a complete and "perfect" solution. 10 hours battery life, recharging carry case with space for CIEMs, TWS+, advanced codecs support, dead quiet output with no hiss. Bliss.


----------



## ClieOS

gorman said:


> I was hoping Fiio's solution would be it but the fact that they are repackaged BT20S doesn't inspire confidence.



I think it is worth noting FiiO has neither cloned nor simply repackaged BT20s as UTWS1, though they do based on the same chipset (then again, any TWS with aptx probably used the same chip anyway, since Qualcomm only has one set of them). I just put both UTWS1 and BT20s under audio analyzer and they don't measure the same. BT20s can go significant louder than UTWS1 but also distort quite a lot. UTWS1 is quieter but much more linear and distortion-free. So it would seem the FiiO has done more engineering on the UTWS1 than TRN on BT20s, not to mention UTWS1 does support TWS+ while BT20s doesn't.


----------



## randytsuch

ClieOS said:


> I think it is worth noting FiiO has neither cloned nor simply repackaged BT20s as UTWS1, though they do based on the same chipset (then again, any TWS with aptx probably used the same chip anyway, since Qualcomm only has one set of them). I just put both UTWS1 and BT20s under audio analyzer and they don't measure the same. BT20s can go significant louder than UTWS1 but also distort quite a lot. UTWS1 is quieter but much more linear and distortion-free. So it would seem the FiiO has done more engineering on the UTWS1 than TRN on BT20s, not to mention UTWS1 does support TWS+ while BT20s doesn't.


They have the same FCC id number.
But I don't think this necessarily means the UTWS1 is a copy of the BT20S.  The bluetooth radio sections would have to be identical.  You might be able to make changes to the analog output section and keep the same FCC id.  

Randy


----------



## gorman (Jan 28, 2020)

ClieOS said:


> UTWS1 uses TWS+ configuration instead of the simpler TWS configuration on the BT20s





ClieOS said:


> not to mention UTWS1 does support TWS+ while BT20s doesn't


I'm sorry, I might be mistaken but, unless I've not understood the difference between TWS and TWS+, BT20s do support TWS+. When I connect them to my smartphone (see signature), they register as TRN R and TRN L, two independent connections. This compared to BTN20 which connect a single time (and the two earpieces connect between them).









ClieOS said:


> UTWS1 is *quieter* but much more linear and distortion-free


I'll end up buying them too... 
If they have less hiss with high sensitivity CIEMs they would solve my issue with BT20s (plus volume control, which I appreciate and I'd use).


----------



## ClieOS (Jan 28, 2020)

randytsuch said:


> They have the same FCC id number.
> But I don't think this necessarily means the UTWS1 is a copy of the BT20S.  The bluetooth radio sections would have to be identical.  You might be able to make changes to the analog output section and keep the same FCC id.
> 
> Randy



True. But (*1st) my BT20s (which I got from China, directly from TRN Taobao store) actually doesn't even have a FCC id on it and yet, (*2nd) FCC filing points to TRN being the applicant but (*3rd) FiiO's UWTS1 has the same FCC id - my conclusion is the TRN is the actual OEM for FiiO. That means TRN rework and manufacture their BT20s according to FiiO spec, but as you have pointed out, the BT radio portion remains mostly the same and thus no need to apply another application.



gorman said:


> I'm sorry, I might be mistaken but, unless I've not understood the difference between TWS and TWS+, BT20s do support TWS+. When I connect them to my smartphone (see signature), they register as TRN R and TRN L, two independent connections. This compared to BTN20 which connect a single time (and the two earpieces connect between them).
> 
> I'll end up buying them too...
> If they have less hiss with high sensitivity CIEMs they would solve my issue with BT20s (plus volume control, which I appreciate and I'd use).



As far as I know, TWS+ is only supported on certain Qualcomm SoC and has nothing to do with what version of BT you are on. I also think the terms True Wireless Stereo (TWS) and True Wireless Stereo Plus (TWS+) are actually registered by Qualcomm and can only be used when using Qualcomm chipset (though they don't seem to be enforcing it). BT20 uses Realtek chipset, which Realtek refers as the 'Real Wireless Stereo' or RTS, though we all still call it TWS anyway.

My BT20s doesn't connect to my Xperia 5 as two BT devices but only as one side (either L or R, so it is on TWS mode). I got mine BT2 when they are first released so it is possible that TRN has updated the firmware on later batch after they OEM'ed the UTWS1 to also support TWS+. If that's the case, I think whether the newer BT20s has the same anlaog section as UTWS1 will be more of an interest as UTWS1 definitely measured and behave better than the original BT20s.


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

Fiio has confirmed on UTWS1 thread that TRN is OEM for it but they have tweaked specs wrt the original BT20S.


----------



## Technological

*FiiO LC-BT2 Review & Impressions*

I got this last weekend, I've been using it for a week.
My use case is: while commuting on a heavy rail system in the states, during work in an open office (for music & calls).
The LC-BT2 is offered in both MMCX and 0.78mm 2 pin. I have the MMCX version & have been using it exclusively with my Campfire Andromeda Gold (AG) IEMs.

*Background*
Convenience, portability, ease of use, isolation, sound quality, digital ambient passthrough & battery replaceability are what I have been searching for.
TWS solutions have as of late started to cover almost all of these features (some better than others). As we know this comes at a tradeoff in the execution quality of any of these aforementioned features. I will not compromise on the following: portability, ease of use, sound quality & convenience. TWS solutions limit what IEM you may use and will probably never be able to provide TOTL quality. In the quest of having the best Bluetooth audio quality, we need to be able to have the best possible reproduction at each point in the audio chain. I have owned the following in my quest: Shure RMCE-BT2, Radstone Earstudio ES100, Shaling UP2, & Fostex TM2.  All of these allowed me to use the quality of IEM I wanted. The limiting factor then became the cable, the DAC & Amp in the Bluetooth receiver & the Bluetooth receivers supported audio codecs. For me, LDAC is a must and thus I have been using the ES100 with a custom made 2.5mm balanced cable with my AGs for the past year or so. I will be using this setup as my benchmark for this review.

*Review*

_*Packaging*_
Simple, minimal, and efficient. A sleeved box contains the carrying case & instruction documentation. The LC-BT2 is within the carrying case with an accompanying short USB C cable for charing. I would like to see more products and manufacturers expend fewer materials in delivering their products, as this helps to reduce waste.

_*Carrying case*_
Necessarily large due to the shape of the neckband. However, a welcomed & needed accessory for on the go storage. How our Bluetooth audio is stored is a major component in the convenience and ease of use of a product. TWS excel in this particular category and is I would say their major draw on the consumer. I can't mention how many times I did not use a product whereas I would have used a TWS, due to the hassle of having to do a "ritual" every time I use it. The neckband form factor is great in this regard as you can wear it around your neck with the IEMs hanging while not in use. If you don't want to wear it or use it any time soon then with this case you can put it safely away.











_*Form factor*_
This is my first neckband, and I have found it to be the sweet spot between a Bluetooth adapter such as the ES100 and a TWS Bluetooth adapter such as the FiiO UTWS1.
*Looks*
This is not as weird as having a little box such as the ES100 clipped (or in my case magnetically attached) on your shirt. It also gives you the feeling of not being as restricted as with a cable attached to the little box on your shirt/chest. Some may prefer the look of the neckband form factor to the hearing aid form factor of the TWS Bluetooth adapters. 
*Feeling of Freedom*
The neckband feels less restrictive than a little box with a cable on your shirt/chest but it still feels a bit more restrictive compared to the hearing aid form factor.
Note that the LC-BT2 did not come with those small black rubber bands on to hold the cable in place. It came with one for the USB C cable and I had another laying around. I put them on so that the cable doesn't get in the way and it sits in the way that is most comfortable. This little modification made the feeling or restriction be almost that of the hearing aid form factor, where one doesn't feel restricted.




*Controls*
There are 4 buttons on the left side of the LC-BT2. From top to bottom they are: power, volume up (hold previous track), play/pause (long press pairing, double click for virtual assistants, hold answer/decline calls) & volume down (hold next track). I think that dedicated controls such as these are preferable over the great 2 button solution FiiO provides on the UTWS1. Thus I find this form factor better here as well.
*Charging*
The LC-BT2 uses USB C! I love being able to only carry one cable with me to charge all of my devices, as everything else I own is USB C as well.




*Battery*
24 hours of playback & 350 hours of standby! I don't need to charge this every day and if I have a long day (+10 hrs) its battery capacity will allow me to keep using it.
This is one of the biggest factors of the neckband form factor over the hearing aid one. For comparison, the UTWS1 has 8 hrs of playback and 180 hrs of stand by. For me, that means I wouldn't be able to use it during my commute or for 2 hrs at work on a normal day which makes all the difference. The battery is 360mAh.
*Codecs*
LDAC,AptX HD, AptX LL, AptX, AAC & SBC. Unlike the hearing aid form factor, this supports LDAC. Again this is my choice on having components (hardware or software) which don't degrade the audio chain.
*Dedicated DAC*
The neckband form factor allows for a dedicated DAC chip compared to an integrated all in one Bluetooth chipset.

_*Audio Quality*_
Please forgive my lack of practice at describing sound. 
*Chipset*
The LC-BT2 uses the Qualcomm Bluetooth chip CSR8675 this is the same chip used in the BTR5. 
The DAC is the AK4331 and I found it on par or better than the AK4375a from the ES100.
*Sound*
Compared to my ES100 on 2.5 balanced the sound stage was a bit smaller, I am not sure how much as it is hard to compare but it is noticeable. The ES100's sound has been described as analytical which I would agree with if one has not used its parametric EQ. I like my sound to be more fun and a bit warm I believe. With the EQ set on my ES100 and no EQ set of the LC-BT2, I found the sounds quite comparable. The LC-BT2 had a bit more bass than the EQed ES100, on which I had fixed the deficiency in bass frequency reproduction. I found unsurprisingly that the ES100 on 2.5 balanced was clearer than the LC-BT2. I have not compared if the clarity of the LC-BT2 is on par with that of the ES100 on the SE 3.5mm output.
*Noise floor*
On the Campfire Andromeda Gold which are very sensitive to IO I found there to be a greater noise floor than the ES100. I would say about 2x as loud.
I find that I am quite sensitive to the noise floor when no sound is being played and at first I thought that the noise floor on the LC-BT2 would be slightly noticeable when playing music. I do want to clarify that the noise floor is not bad at all I am just quite sensitive to it so for others it might not be bad at all as the noise floor on the ES100 is almost non-existent. Thankfully I found that the noise floor is not audible while listening to music. 

*Microphone quality*
I find that very little emphasis is placed on mic quality for TWS and Bluetooth adapters. I understand that may people out there just are not making that many calls, but even if I did not make many calls I would want the mic quality to be at least decent when I did make or take a call.
I have owned AirPods the 1st Gen and the Pros which are renowned for their mic quality. Based on Bluetooth mic recordings I would put the mic of the LC-BT2 on par with that on the AirPod Pros.
The only problem I have found is that the neckband form factor during movement causes some noise but the noise is not very annoying to the listener on the other end, and doesn't happen all of the time only when moving ones neck briskly.

*The App*
I wish there was a separate app where I did not need to go through the FiiO Music app. The Bluetooth controls are okay, but the app overall is inferior to that of the ES100 as many others have said before. I wish that the Bluetooth controls allowed for an ambient mode such as that on the ES100 and this would be perfect.


----------



## Hal Rockwell

Just ordered the UTWS1 and the LC-BT2. Can't wait for them to arrive!


----------



## Mlaihk

Hal Rockwell said:


> Just ordered the UTWS1 and the LC-BT2. Can't wait for them to arrive!


Just got my utws1 and LC-BT2.  Don't get your hopes up too high.  Utws1 with my Andromeda S and Gold, and my Audiosense T800 sound significantly worse than my Samsung Galaxy Buds+.......

LC-BT2 has promise, but still not as good as my Momentum True Wireless.....


----------



## ClieOS

Mlaihk said:


> Just got my utws1 and LC-BT2.  Don't get your hopes up too high.  Utws1 with my Andromeda S and Gold, and my Audiosense T800 sound significantly worse than my Samsung Galaxy Buds+.......
> 
> LC-BT2 has promise, but still not as good as my Momentum True Wireless.....



I won't say it is a exactly fair comparison - UTWS1 (or TRN BT20S / BT20 and Foster TM2) simply doesn't have the driving power for most low impedance multi-driver IEM. It is a poor match and of course it will have poor sound.Your best chance will probably be an easy-to-drive, single driver, normal impedance (16~32ohm) setup - even so, it will never going to be anywhere near be-all-end-all. It is ultimately a convenience-over-SQ device. Same can probably be said on LC-BT2. If they are good enough, there won't be any reason for FiiO to make the BTR3(K) or BTR5.

Dedicated (*driver non-removable) BT headset is another matter - the driver and the BT section is matched / optimized to produce a certain sound - it will be fair to compare to these headset with adapters if the drivers are the same, otherwise it is more or less apple to orange.


----------



## caprimulgus (Apr 4, 2020)

Mlaihk said:


> LC-BT2 has promise, but still not as good as my Momentum True Wireless.....



I'm not surprised by UTWS1, but I am surprised that you feel LC-BT2 doesnt compare to MTW. Given the comparison to ES100 balanced above, I would have thought Fiio has utilised the increased volume (space) within the neckband compared to any TWS. I would expect UTWS1 with a decent IEM to beat most TWS (just like I would expect units like BTR5 and ES100 to beat a neckband unit like LC-BT2). In general, I mean, of course.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

Mlaihk said:


> Just got my utws1 and LC-BT2.  Don't get your hopes up too high.  Utws1 with my Andromeda S and Gold, and my Audiosense T800 sound significantly worse than my Samsung Galaxy Buds+.......
> 
> LC-BT2 has promise, but still not as good as my Momentum True Wireless.....


I am surprised by this assessment too.
I have never heard the Audiosense, and I haven’t spent much time with CA iems - tbh I feel a dislike bordering on disgust for a good portion of their line-up, which I find fussy in all the wrong ways. What @ClieOS asserts about their drive compatibility is probably a good explanation.

I have my UTWS1 paired with the original IMR R1, which are closer to the sweet spot. I never chimed back with impressions because the fit with the UTWS1 is terrible, it makes the R1’s usually comfy body grate against my antihelix and antitragus, in spite of my ear’s anatomy being quite accommodating. I can only wear them for or an hour or two before it gets painful. Too bad because it’s an ingenious design.

But SQ-wise I find the UTWS1 transparent and satisfying. It’s using Qualcomm’s onboard audio chip surely, and those have progressed by leaps and bounds; ironically they’ve never been better, now analog headphone jacks are all but gone on phones.
Just three years ago an onboard solution would have been a death knell, but a modern miniature Qualcomm DAC/amp chip? Yeah, it sounds fine, and lets the R1 express itself. The strong bass, forward tuning, adequate detail, it's there. Not worse, perhaps even better than from the ES100’s single-ended output.

The Nuforce HEM8 however, a 4-BA affair, sounded dark and dull, which is what happens when it’s paired badly. The HEM8 properly driven is supposed to snap, and the UTWS1 kills it down, in addition to seal being a matter of mandatory pressing on the earpiece! It’s definitely a picky source.

Where BT receivers still have a place is in their ability to drive more demanding gear, balanced output, software support, longer battery life, and compatibility with any cable. But the basic ones, with just a 3.5mm jack and no app, are pretty much nullified by a device like the UTWS1.


----------



## Mlaihk (Apr 4, 2020)

I am quite surprised as well.  I have a whole bunch of gears, BTR3/BTR5/UP2/UP4 among them and they perform very well with my Andro S/Gold and T800.  But pair them with utws1 killed them.  And to position utws1 to add convenience to existing IEMs in my opinion doesn't make sense with the quality of the current TWS products on offering.  If even the cheap Chinese TWS Sabbat significantly outperforms (AQ-wise) utws1 with good IEMs, why not just buy another pair of TWS earbuds and so be it...... And PS, the more I listened to the Galaxy Buds+, the more I like them.  Dual Dynamic Drivers......  And they can be had for free with a phone.......  

The LC-BT2 is a good attempt but I have a hard time debating whether a BTR5 with the wired IEMs are more convenient or the LC-BT2 is.  I guess for jogging and working out, probably the LC-BT2.  But for cafe or commutes, probably the BTR5.....

Having said that, I can only hope that in the future, wireless solution will get close to the audio quality of wired.  I can dream, right?  Maybe I will try the Shure one coming out......

PS. A tip for the TWS out there.  Tip rolling to ensure proper fit does wonders.  For instance, I use MTW with AET07, Track Air + with Sedna Earfit short, and Buds+ with Spinfit CP360 to ensure proper fitments.  With these, they sound a lot better than stock tips.  ymmv


----------



## randytsuch

I'm still disappointed in the bluetooth connectivity of my UTWS1's.
I got a new (to me) phone, LG V20.  Really nice sounding phone.
Bluetooth with it is better, sounds good if I sit at my desk and listen.  Can't walk with them, still get lots of dropouts if I"m walking, but at least now I can use them at my desk.
Fiio and Aliexpress support was worthless in helping me. 

I have mine connected to CFA Lyra II's.  These are dynamic drivers, and the UTWS1 does a good job driving them.  Comfortable too.  The Lyra's are much smaller that Andros.  The size and shape of the Lyra's works well with the UTWS1.

Randy


----------



## Pro-Jules

Fiio LC-BT2 sounds v good imho.
But the poorly fitting two pin connection and the overly stiff curved ear cable make them completely unusable for me.

I want to hack into it and attach soft cable and better 2 pin connectors

I am enjoying using my Plussound PV3 / poetic cable at the moment. Lovely LDAC with my new Sony 507 DAP.


----------



## C_Lindbergh

Given the current pandemic, any idea when the Fiio LC-Bt2 will be available in Amazon.de/co.uk? @FiiO


----------



## Luke Skywalker

I've had trouble finding a bluetooth cable for my JH Lola's... Annoyingly, I bought one from JH and it didn't have adjustable bass.  I don't like a lot of bass so it sits in a drawer now


----------



## Infoseeker

Anyone know what became of the Ikko itb01 Bluetooth neckband adapter from this old Facebook post? 

https://m.facebook.com/IKKOAUDIO/photos/a.600517120407641/799131947212823/?type=3&source=54

Did it get canceled?


----------



## Pro-Jules

Hmm I like the look of the skinny cables on that one.

the stiff FiiO ones are not good.


----------



## dh0licious

ClieOS said:


> Reserved
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you ever end up reviewing the Elecom LBT-HPC1000RC? Can't see it on this thread...


----------



## ClieOS

dh0licious said:


> Did you ever end up reviewing the Elecom LBT-HPC1000RC? Can't see it on this thread...



I didn't. But a short and sweet version will be that it is more for convenience rather than SQ. This probably sum up just about every cable-type BT adapter, regardless of price and brand.


----------



## Pro-Jules (Apr 27, 2020)

I hacked my Fiio’s

cut off the stiff 2 pin ear hooks

grafted Ares II 2 pin terminations

works great now sounds great

looks a bit scruffy.

I can honestly recommend them if you replace the ear hooks!

(thanks to @ClieOS for soldering advice)


----------



## xkoo

i have to say i love my Fiio LC-BT2 with Fiio FH7, amazing synergy and sound.


----------



## monsieurfromag3 (Jun 28, 2020)

Very interesting TWS receivers by OE Audio have popped up: the WS-1.
A laconic presentation on OE Audio’s website.
The product page on Jaben.

I’m not sure these will be comfortable, and they still don’t support HD codecs, only AAC and aptX. But OE Audio say they’ve added an amp in the circuit, instead of relying on the BT chip.

Also the box looks nice!


----------



## C_Lindbergh

monsieurfromag3 said:


> Very interesting TWS receivers by OE Audio have popped up: the WS-1.
> A laconic presentation on OE Audio’s website.
> The product page on Jaben.
> 
> ...



Interesting, but not a lot of info, all I can say is that they look so much better than thr fiio/trn equivalent. 

Looks like they charge wirelessly in a case like normal true wireless? That would be huge.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5zdaQnSwQkdKIXfhnKIp-ZBRtsEL7RqdyOg&usqp=CAU


----------



## ClieOS

monsieurfromag3 said:


> Very interesting TWS receivers by OE Audio have popped up: the WS-1.
> A laconic presentation on OE Audio’s website.
> The product page on Jaben.
> 
> ...



Yep, I  was looking at the WS-1 as well. Might pick one up next month. 

HD codecs (aptx-HD, LDAC, etc) in general required too much bandwidth so they can't be used on TWS implementation, at least not on current BT5.0 standard. To support TWS function, each side required at least half of the theoretical 1Mbps max bandwidth to even work, so at least 500kbps each side minimum and probably a little more if you want a stable connection. aptX-HD on single mix-stereo channel (*one channel carrying both right and left sound) already using about 570Kbps, so it definitely won't be enough to split it into two channels (TWS needs two, so one channel for left and one channel for right), which will need over the 1Mbps limit that BT1.0 allows for audio. The same reason applies to LDAC as well - while LDAC 330 can work in theory, it doesn't offer better SQ than aptX, so it is a moot point.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

ClieOS said:


> Yep, I  was looking at the WS-1 as well. Might pick one up next month.
> 
> HD codecs (aptx-HD, LDAC, etc) in general required too much bandwidth so they can't be used on TWS implementation, at least not on current BT5.0 standard. To support TWS function, each side required at least half of the theoretical 1Mbps max bandwidth to even work, so at least 500kbps each side minimum and probably a little more if you want a stable connection. aptX-HD on single mix-stereo channel (*one channel carrying both right and left sound) already using about 570Kbps, so it definitely won't be enough to split it into two channels (TWS needs two, so one channel for left and one channel for right), which will need over the 1Mbps limit that BT1.0 allows for audio. The same reason applies to LDAC as well - while LDAC 330 can work in theory, it doesn't offer better SQ than aptX, so it is a moot point.


Things are evolving still. This brief for the 30xx lists two chips that support aptX HD. Also Aviot are releasing a new model with the 3040 chip that supports aptX Adaptive.


----------



## ClieOS

monsieurfromag3 said:


> Things are evolving still. This brief for the 30xx lists two chips that support aptX HD. Also Aviot are releasing a new model with the 3040 chip that supports aptX Adaptive.



Can't see the first link.

Whether Qualcomm will squeeze aptx HD onto QCC30xx chipset is anyone guess, whether it will be TWS+ compatible is however another matter.  My bet for now is against it - at least not in the short future and (especially) any model that already on the market. Market is always evolving, just that it doesn't always go in the way we want. Could very well be something else on the table by the time Qualcomm makes it happened - won't really help us for now of course.


----------



## monsieurfromag3 (Jul 4, 2020)

ClieOS said:


> Can't see the first link.
> 
> Whether Qualcomm will squeeze aptx HD onto QCC30xx chipset is anyone guess, whether it will be TWS+ compatible is however another matter.  My bet for now is against it - at least not in the short future and (especially) any model that already on the market. Market is always evolving, just that it doesn't always go in the way we want. Could very well be something else on the table by the time Qualcomm makes it happened - won't really help us for now of course.


It’s the Product Brief doc here.
Edit: for me the biggest takeaway is that Aviot have $75 TWS earphones that support aptX Adaptive, which is just a more efficient aptX HD, using the 3040 chipset. Adaptive goes some way towards sovling the bandwidth issue while delivering up to HD quality.


----------



## ClieOS

monsieurfromag3 said:


> It’s the Product Brief doc here.
> Edit: for me the biggest takeaway is that Aviot have $75 TWS earphones that support aptX Adaptive, which is just a more efficient aptX HD, using the 3040 chipset. Adaptive goes some way towards sovling the bandwidth issue while delivering up to HD quality.



If you look at the product brief you link, there is something to take away from:

The three main sale points for aptX Adaptive are low latency, adaptive bitrate, and ability to do HD (24/48).

On the other hand, to used as TWS configuration, the chip itself needs to support TWS mode (and preferably TWS+ mode, or 'TWS Mirroring' as Qualcomm called it). QCC3040 actually doesn't even support aptX HD, which means it is it is also not going to support aptX Adaptive (as it must be able to backward compatible with apt HD on hardware level). The only chipsets on the list that can do HD and TWS at the same time is QCC3031, but it doesn't support TWS+ and doesn't even support cVc mic function at all, that means QCC3031 is designed mostly as a receiver chip and not a transmitter chip, probably intended as wireless speaker implementation (which doesn't need mic). All and all, none of the QCC30xx chips in the brief can actually do aptx Adapter in a TWS configuration.


----------



## Jaysound (Jul 5, 2020)

I've picked up the Shure SE425 bundle with their BT-2, which supports AptX and AptX-HD. However, I'm using a Samsung S9 phone (with Tidal and Spotify at whatever their best quality offers) and the S9 supports LDAC (in Developer Options) and AptX, but not AptX-HD.

I'm therefore considering picking up the FiiO LC-BT2 to use with LDAC, but would I be wasting my time?

I just got my SE425 recently and have been using the wired connection with it, and even ordered custom sleeves from Sensaphonics (haven't arrived yet). I have used other Bluetooth with LDAC in the past that's older technology and loved the convenience when working out. I am now really appreciating the SQ of the SE425 when using them wired with the 3.5mm connection, but the cable is making it challenging to use while working out.

I do notice a decrease in SQ when I try the Shure BT-2 using AptX with the S9. I'm hoping the FiiO LC-BT2 using LDAC with the S9 will be "closer to" what I'm getting with the 3.5mm wired connection. I realize this is subjective but would appreciate opinions before I spring for it.

This is what has me having second thoughts:

>>  The same reason applies to LDAC as well - while LDAC 330 can work in theory, it doesn't offer better SQ than aptX, so it is a moot point. << (https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-tws-neckband-bt-cable-adapter-thread.920709/post-15707846)

and

https://www.soundguys.com/ldac-ultimate-bluetooth-guide-20026/

ALSO... I just noticed this:

>> but Shure advises against swapping cables between varying Shure earphone models, let alone cross-brand interchanging. >> (https://www.soundguys.com/shure-bt2-review-20709/ -- and by the way Shure told me the "trick" is using the fingernails of the thumb and index finger, squeezed into the joint to separate the parts; and that works fine for me)


----------



## ClieOS

Jaysound said:


> >>  The same reason applies to LDAC as well - while LDAC 330 can work in theory, it doesn't offer better SQ than aptX, so it is a moot point. << (https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-tws-neckband-bt-cable-adapter-thread.920709/post-15707846)



The comment above was meant for TWS discussion - in any case, though LDAC 330 is about the same quality as aptx, you need to realize in normal situation, LDAC should be running at least 660 if not 990, so the theoretical quality should be at least equal to aptx-HD if not better. LDAC 330 mostly happens when your have heavy wireless interference or during the first few second of BT connection.




Jaysound said:


> >> but Shure advises against swapping cables between varying Shure earphone models, let alone cross-brand interchanging. >> (https://www.soundguys.com/shure-bt2-review-20709/ -- and by the way Shure told me the "trick" is using the fingernails of the thumb and index finger, squeezed into the joint to separate the parts; and that works fine for me)



Early days when Shure switched to MMCX connector the quality control was very poor and many reported faulty connection within the first year, so Shure began to suggest people staying away from changing cable - while it is true that frequent cable swapping is not going to be good for any MMCX socket, the point is also to use better constructed, higher quality MMCX connector. The fact is, FiiO's MMCX connectors are actually better than those found on Shure's stock cable and less likely to fail in the long run. Shure making those statement is more as a way to cover their legal bases.

Last but not least - actually any BT chip that support aptx-HD should in theory be compatible with LDAC on hardware level. The only reason why you didn't get LDAC on that the Shure BT cable is probably because Shure doesn't want to pay Sony's LDAC license.


----------



## Pro-Jules (Jul 5, 2020)

I have sent my pair of these to Snugs to get custom ear tips made for them.

https://blog.audio-technica.com/ath-dsr5bt-wireless-in-ear-headphones-with-pure-digital-drive/

(I also have the DSR9BT and love using them @96k 24 bit via the usb - Mac cable)

AptX HD + neckband + I am a big fan of the Pure Digital Drive technology.

My 2 pin CIEMs are good for long term wear - like commuting / working in a cafe on my laptop.  But I am not commuting due to Covid lockdown.

The dsr5bt has a permanent connection to the ear bud this make them better for in / out everyday use and I don't have to risk wearing out the 2 pin connector on my Empire Ears iems. BTW my ears don't get along with ANY iem tips. They ALL fall out. Hence the custom route.

Also Snugs are softer silicon and less painful to swap in and out quickly than a solid ciem

I have  a plussound BT LDAC cable but I went for the fabric wound poetic cable option and it tickles / annoys my ears. (Should have gone for a cheaper plastic covered cable)

Also have a Quantic 5k ordered and a custom cable from @ClieOS


----------



## Jaysound

I've received the FiiO LC-BT2 and am now trying to determine the best way to optimize their potential with my SE425. I' really like to come as close as possible to the 3.5 mm cable.

So far, I'm using the FiiO LC-BT2  with LDAC, and it's good but I keep thinking about the next level detail and robust depth that is just not close to what I hear with the 3.5 mm cable.

I really want to make this work for me, since I use the SE425 while doing tai chi and chi gong and the 3.5 mm cable is just so cumbersome.

I'm using Tidal HiFi on a Samsung S9, and I'm currently using Comply P-Series tips (and have custom sleeves on the way from Sensaphonics in the next week or two).

Please help me figure out how to do this the best way. I realize there's no EQ available on the FiiO LC-BT2 when using LDAC (and I've read here that the EQ with the FiiO software isn't so great anyway). I'm not trying to overly boost bass (or I wouldn't have the SE425 in the first place), but I would really like to feel I'm not missing much as compared to using the 3.5mm cable.

I suppose the FiiO LC-BT2 with LDAC is likely to do better than the Shure BT-2 using AptX (my Samsung S9 supports LDAC and AptX, but not AptX-HD).

I'd appreciate advice on the optimal settings with the FiiO software with the FiiO LC-BT2 when using LDAC -- assuming I even want to use the software.

Thanks so much!


----------



## gorman

Jaysound said:


> I've received the FiiO LC-BT2 and am now trying to determine the best way to optimize their potential with my SE425. I' really like to come as close as possible to the 3.5 mm cable.
> 
> So far, I'm using the FiiO LC-BT2  with LDAC, and it's good but I keep thinking about the next level detail and robust depth that is just not close to what I hear with the 3.5 mm cable.
> 
> ...


I suggest you look into this app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pittvandewitt.wavelet


----------



## Jaysound

Thanks! I've been trying to keep things flat and natural -- which is partly why I went with the SE425. But I did install Wavelet just now, and the Auto-EQ sounds pretty interesting.

Would you suggest I use Wavelet "instead of" the FiiO Control software, or in conjunction with it?

And I assume in theory this should make the 3.5 mm cable sound better, too? (Though I guess I'm still unsure about the virtues of unadulterated vs EQ'ed.)


----------



## ClieOS

Jaysound said:


> Would you suggest I use Wavelet "instead of" the FiiO Control software, or in conjunction with it?



There is nothing contradicting about using both apps, as long as you don't activate the EQ on FiiO app when using Wavelet (not that you can for now under LDAC).


----------



## Jaysound

I read up on the Fiio Control app on their site and it seems that while using LDAC (and therefore having no access to its EQ) it doesn't do a thing to affect sound anyway, if I understand it right.

And so far I'm not sure I prefer the Auto-EQ in Wavelet over just letting the FiiO LC-BT2  do its thing with the LDAC straight. Again, anything more seems to be "less" in that it seems to muddy up the natural sounds a bit and while some sounds are boosted others are forfeited. Maybe that's just my being a total pre-newb novice here, but that's my sense (and my logical sense as well).

To use the  FiiO LC-BT2 on its own without "assistance", it seems perhaps its best to set the phone's app near max volume and then use the FiiO LC-BT2 to adjust the volume where I want it, so the  FiiO LC-BT2 has max to work with from the phone and amplifies from there.

Again, that's my sense and logic at play as a civilian with no idea what I'm talking about. As with wine, one that tastes great one day might not be so much to one's liking on another day, and so it is with the one ten-minute listening session I'm basing those judgments on so far.

I guess I'm fishing for commentary on whether what I'm speculating makes sense to someone with actual audio expertise or not.


----------



## ClieOS (Jul 12, 2020)

With any audio chain that has multiple point of volume control, it is always preferable to use the last one for volume control while max out on others (*there are exception, but generally speaking it holds true most of the time). That way you have the best chance of having the best SNR.


----------



## Jaysound

Thanks so much!

If I may please ask, looking at your headphones in your sig I'm guessing you'd recommend other options besides the Shure SE425 in the $200-$400 price range for "fun" listening, is that correct? Or at $200 would you stay with those? I'm happy with them other than wishing there was a tad more bass.

The fanatics at Shure -- called "applications engineers" -- insisted the SE425 is by far superior, emphasizing that it provides unadulterated, natural sound and is often used by pros for monitoring; while the SE535 is for people who need the bass to shake the foundations. The owner of Sensaphonics also told me he prefers the SE425 over the SE535 and said the SE425 is the best in the price range in his opinion. I tried the SE535 and didn't like them at all -- the boosted bass just seemed to muffle all the other sound, which was very obvious when comparing them back-to-back with the SE425.


----------



## ClieOS

Jaysound said:


> If I may please ask, looking at your headphones in your sig I'm guessing you'd recommend other options besides the Shure SE425 in the $200-$400 price range for "fun" listening, is that correct? Or at $200 would you stay with those? I'm happy with them other than wishing there was a tad more bass.



An Etymotic ER4S is my reference for natural sound. For all the Shure I tried (*most recently the KSC1500), I never find one that I really like.


----------



## Jaysound

Thanks!

And now for kicks, here's one my most fun/neurotic questions, please ... While I realize I have to just listen to compare on my own, in your opinion how close to the 3.5 mm cables (or far from them) would you guess I'm getting when using the FiiO LC-BT2 with LDAC? (It might help me enjoy the BT more and spend less time stressing over what I'm missing... or then again it might not .)


----------



## gorman

Jaysound said:


> And so far I'm not sure I prefer the Auto-EQ in Wavelet over just letting the FiiO LC-BT2  do its thing with the LDAC straight. Again, anything more seems to be "less" in that it seems to muddy up the natural sounds a bit and while some sounds are boosted others are forfeited. Maybe that's just my being a total pre-newb novice here, but that's my sense (and my logical sense as well).


This is what the Wavelet app does to your Shure: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/Au...lts/crinacle/harman_in-ear_2019v2/Shure SE425

Equalisation is toward the Harman curve. You might or might not like it. I personally like it a lot.


----------



## Pro-Jules

Jaysound said:


> Thanks!
> 
> And now for kicks, here's one my most fun/neurotic questions, please ... While I realize I have to just listen to compare on my own, in your opinion how close to the 3.5 mm cables (or far from them) would you guess I'm getting when using the FiiO LC-BT2 with LDAC? (It might help me enjoy the BT more and spend less time stressing over what I'm missing... or then again it might not .)



Fiio LDAC and amp is v good. Don’t stress. Regarding eq, try to pick headphones / iems that don’t need eq.


----------



## gorman (Jul 12, 2020)

Pro-Jules said:


> Regarding eq, try to pick headphones / iems that don’t need eq.


Or, for an alternate point of view, try picking headphones / iems that have good technical capabilities, the soundstage you like and are comfortable for prolonged listening times and don't be afraid of using EQ, as modern solutions are really quite good. Don't intend to quarrel or anything, simply saying the above suggestion is not universal and final. Peace.


----------



## inf.h5n1 (Jul 14, 2020)

Hi, I have a few pairs of CIEMs (2ba's, and a 1dd5ba) and I want to use them for running outside and workouts with some kind of BT adapter, but I read complaints about connectivity problems with most of the options available, if its the bt20s/utws1 or some of the neckbands. I have a budget of about 60 USD. What solution will you advice which does not compromise SQ to much and has good connectivity?I dont mind if theres no volume control btw.

Oh maybe worth mentioning, my IEMs are all 2 pin connectors.

Thanks!


----------



## Pro-Jules

My Snugs custom moulds arrived for my Audio Technica DSR5BT neckband.


----------



## lightlight

Anyone going to try the ws-1 from jaben? I have a se846 that I would very much like to make it totally wireless, if there is a decent solution for it... And shure aonic is just never available!


----------



## ClieOS

alprakas said:


> Anyone going to try the ws-1 from jaben? I have a se846 that I would very much like to make it totally wireless, if there is a decent solution for it... And shure aonic is just never available!



I'll have the OE Audio WS-1 by today, hopefully.


----------



## monsieurfromag3 (Jul 15, 2020)

ClieOS said:


> I'll have the OE Audio WS-1 by today, hopefully.


I’m very curious about it and eager to hear impressions, although I’ve found out since I could resume gym training that a BT receiver with a well-managed iem cable lets me use any gear I want while moving any way I want, including inversions and break dance.

edit: how the f*ck did I miss that Shure adapter @alprakas mentioned? Has anyone tried it?


----------



## lightlight

Hahaha maybe that is because Shure has been so super lazy in actually releasing it properly! As I said, it has not been available for purchase since April, when I saw a few reviewers talking about it. Release could also be hampered due to the ongoing pandemic...

Eagerly waiting for ClieOS to share some thoughts and pictures and box contents of the WS-1.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

alprakas said:


> Hahaha maybe that is because Shure has been so super lazy in actually releasing it properly! As I said, it has not been available for purchase since April, when I saw a few reviewers talking about it. Release could also be hampered due to the ongoing pandemic...
> 
> Eagerly waiting for ClieOS to share some thoughts and pictures and box contents of the WS-1.


Yeah I was on its thread just now and saw the initial release was botched...


----------



## ClieOS (Jul 15, 2020)

Some quick impression:


Bendable ear hook, a big plus.
Seems to have much more power than FiiO / TRN variants.
TWS+ supported, another plus.
Don't like the magnetic charging design as that's one more cable I need to carry around.
Buttons placement isn't great.
On / off sound are way too loud.
Still waiting for my 2 pins to mmcx adapter to arrive so I can try it on more earphones, but so far the experience is positive overall.


----------



## assassin10000 (Jul 16, 2020)

randytsuch said:


> I'm still disappointed in the bluetooth connectivity of my UTWS1's.
> I got a new (to me) phone, LG V20.  Really nice sounding phone.
> Bluetooth with it is better, sounds good if I sit at my desk and listen.  Can't walk with them, still get lots of dropouts if I"m walking, but at least now I can use them at my desk.
> Fiio and Aliexpress support was worthless in helping me.
> ...



Late reply but that is because the V20 is only BT4.2 and you don't get the better connectivity of BT5.0.

Going from my Samsung Note 4 (4.1 or 4.2) to my Pixel 3XL (5.0) was a big step up in bluetooth signal strength.



inf.h5n1 said:


> Hi, I have a few pairs of CIEMs (2ba's, and a 1dd5ba) and I want to use them for running outside and workouts with some kind of BT adapter, but I read complaints about connectivity problems with most of the options available, if its the bt20s/utws1 or some of the neckbands. I have a budget of about 60 USD. What solution will you advice which does not compromise SQ to much and has good connectivity?I dont mind if theres no volume control btw.
> 
> Oh maybe worth mentioning, my IEMs are all 2 pin connectors.
> 
> Thanks!



I haven't used them but maybe the TRN BT3S? Ipx7 & fairly cheap now.

I had tried the older BT10 which was ok, I just didn't like the extra covering on the neckband.




ClieOS said:


> Some quick impression:
> 
> 
> Bendable ear hook, a big plus.
> ...



Nice. Mind snapping a picture of the charging adapter/cable? I wish the TRN/Fiio had magnetic charging.


__________________________________

Also for those with the BT20, BT20S & UTWS1; if you have some DIY skills you can remove the stiff ear hooks and convert to soft ones. Way more comfortable, if not quite as stable.

Just remove the back cover and the battery will lift out of the way. The connection points for the cable are right below and fairly accessable.


----------



## lightlight

ClieOS said:


> Some quick impression:
> 
> 
> Bendable ear hook, a big plus.
> ...




Thanks @ClieOS Very nice pictures. I would like to see the charging adapter as well. By the way, price-wise this 2 pin version: is it cheaper than the mmcx? Wonder if you have any shure IEMs lying around, especially if you have the SE846 then I will get the most accurate review relevant to me!


----------



## ClieOS

Very smart-watch-charger-ish in design for the WS-1 cable. It will only attach to the adapter in one orientation because of the clever use of magnet polarity.


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

ClieOS said:


> Some quick impression:
> 
> 
> Bendable ear hook, a big plus.
> ...



Which tws modules are these? I mean the coloured ones.


----------



## ClieOS

Dani157 said:


> Which tws modules are these? I mean the coloured ones.



OE Audio WS-1.


----------



## ClieOS

lightlight said:


> Thanks @ClieOS Very nice pictures. I would like to see the charging adapter as well. By the way, price-wise this 2 pin version: is it cheaper than the mmcx? Wonder if you have any shure IEMs lying around, especially if you have the SE846 then I will get the most accurate review relevant to me!



Price are the same for both the MMCX and the 0.78mm version, IIRC. I have different IEM that has different connectors so no one version will fit all of my IEM, adapter is kinda a must for me either way. I only own a super-old Shure E3 and somewhat old SE215, probably not much help to you.


----------



## Jaysound

*AptX on Shure RMCE-BT2 sounds superior to LDAC on FiiO LC-BT2*

As much as I had come to believe LDAC was the best Bluetooth codec, I now have to wonder if it's really that simple at all.

I recently purchased the Shure SE425 bundled with their RMCE-BT2 Bluetooth cable, which supports AptX and AptX-HD, but not LDAC. My phone, however, which is a Samsung S9, supports AptX and LDAC, but not AptX-HD.

So, I picked up the FiiO LC-BT2 since that supports LDAC and has the MMCX connector to mate with the SE425.

But I determined the Shure with AptX sounds considerably better than the FiiO with LDAC after considerable listening and playing with options (various volume levels on the phone and the FiiO, and even tried Wavelet which I didn't like -- I picked the SE425 because I prefer natural, flat sound -- and after ensuring the phone was set for the optimum LDAC playback quality).

I also found the connectors on the FiiO to be subpar, BTW. The fitting is not consistent. (Of course, the Shure fit is perfect.)

One guru on this forum had told me that I will not be able to tell the difference between AptX and AptX-HD except with the few source files that are above the quality of Tidal HiFi and Spotify's best streams, meaning I assume that one can only tell the difference between AptX and AptX-HD with Tidal Master and the like. I'm now thinking that may have been quite accurate.

And I'm thinking that may apply to AptX vs LDAC as well, though my AptX is a Shure product versus LDAC on a FiiO product.

I'm mainly just sharing this as an FYI for others,

But I welcome any thoughts (like validation of what I seem to be hearing).


----------



## ClieOS

Jaysound said:


> *AptX on Shure RMCE-BT2 sounds superior to LDAC on FiiO LC-BT2*
> ...
> But I welcome any thoughts (like validation of what I seem to be hearing).



I think what you are saying is that you find RMCE-BT2 as a whole sounds better than LC-BT2 as a whole. It is not entirely about BT codec since you are not comparing different codec on the same hardware but rather different hardware all together. It is not the same thing.


----------



## Jaysound

Right. I guess what I'm noticing is partly that the Shure RMCE-BT2 solution is just providing better sound quality overall, and partly that the difference between AptX and LDAC (or AptX-HD) isn't necessarily that great and not always enough to make more of a difference than the hardware quality itself makes. (When we say hardware, I assume the DAC in the FiiO is a combo of hardware and software, but in any case it seemed to me that it was distorting the natural sound more than helping it.)

If I may please take this to a more granular question, do you think changing my phone to one that supports AptX-HD will give me a noticeable improvement with the RMCE-BT2 over what I hear now with the RMCE-BT2 using AptX? Noticeably closer to the 3.5mm cable? I acknowledge, of course, that what's noticeable to one person isn't the same for everyone, so let me mention that I certainly do notice the difference between the Shure 3.5mm cable versus using the RMCE-BT2 using AptX. (Changing phones would be a huge time drain for me that I really can't spare, but if it will be that much closer to 3.5 mm cable quality it may be worth it for me. After all, I've spent a good hundred hours or so in the past few months in researching, trying, and comparing IEM/music solutions... which almost put me out of business )

Thanks so much!


----------



## ClieOS

By my own experience, going from aptx to aptx-HD is a much smaller improvement when compared to going from aptx to LDAC.


----------



## Jaysound (Jul 16, 2020)

Great. So I'm on the wrong path using the Shure SE425 with the Shure RMCE-BT2 (which doesn't support LDAC) if I want optimal sound quality with Bluetooth IEMs. Right?

So... once again I'm here revisiting this question (or rabbit hole - hopefully a small one). I guess the SE425 is okay *"if"* I can find a Bluetooth solution (with a cable between the IEMs, with controls on the cable) that fits the MMCX connectors, supports LDAC, and has sound quality comparable to the RMCE-BT2. So, uh... any suggestions? _Please???_

EDIT: I see you suggested this in another thread a year ago. Any updated suggestions?


----------



## ClieOS

Jaysound said:


> EDIT: I see you suggested this in another thread a year ago. Any updated suggestions?



Haven't paid attention to cable type BT adapter lately. If you are not limited to cable or neck-band type adapter, then there are quite a few really good adapter out there.


----------



## Jaysound

I'm trying to stay with a cable or neckband type because I want to at least make an effort to somewhat reduce the Bluetooth that's right next to my brain, let alone shooting directly across it. It may be entirely misguided, but that consideration is influencing my choices here.


----------



## assassin10000

Jaysound said:


> I'm trying to stay with a cable or neckband type because I want to at least make an effort to somewhat reduce the Bluetooth that's right next to my brain, let alone shooting directly across it. It may be entirely misguided, but that consideration is influencing my choices here.



Would you consider a BT dac/amp? You could use a short cable and clip it to your shirt or hang it from a lanyard.

I don't have them but the Radsone ES100, Fiio BTR3K/BTR5 or Quedelix 5K seem to be the more popular ones.


----------



## ClieOS (Jul 17, 2020)

Jaysound said:


> I'm trying to stay with a cable or neckband type because I want to at least make an effort to somewhat reduce the Bluetooth that's right next to my brain, let alone shooting directly across it. It may be entirely misguided, but that consideration is influencing my choices here.



You do realize most of the times you can put normal, shirt clip equipped BT adapter further away from your brain than cable / neck band type?

Here is my Qudelix 5K


----------



## gorman

ClieOS said:


> Some quick impression:
> 
> 
> Bendable ear hook, a big plus.
> ...


Do you have IEMs that hissed with TRN to test for hissing on these?


----------



## ClieOS

gorman said:


> Do you have IEMs that hissed with TRN to test for hissing on these?



Don''t really have any hiss prone IEM to test...


----------



## Jaysound

assassin10000 said:


> Would you consider a BT dac/amp? You could use a short cable and clip it to your shirt or hang it from a lanyard.
> 
> I don't have them but the Radsone ES100, Fiio BTR3K/BTR5 or Quedelix 5K seem to be the more popular ones.


Those look very interesting. If they sound better than the FiiO LC-BT2 and closer to the 3.5 mm cable, I'll be quite happy. I can clip it not only to my shirt but also to the waist pack I usually wear while training -- which means a cable down my back but that's fine since that still accomplishes the most important thing I'm after which is free up my phone so I'm not wrestling with a cable every time I grab my phone and go to re-holster it (I wear a belt-clip holster for the phone).


----------



## ClieOS

Just downloaded a silence track to test with the Massdrop Plus and I can hear fainted hiss in the background. Given Massdrop Plus is not on its own a particular hiss prone IEM, there is definitely a chance WS-1 will hiss with more sensitive IEM.


----------



## gorman

ClieOS said:


> Just downloaded a silence track to test with the Massdrop Plus and I can hear fainted hiss in the background. Given Massdrop Plus is not on its own a particular hiss prone IEM, there is definitely a chance WS-1 will hiss with more sensitive IEM.


Thank you so much for the test.


----------



## ClieOS




----------



## assassin10000

ClieOS said:


>



That sure is an interesting way to modify an earbud to use as a TWS lol. 

2 pin and MMCX. Any sound signature changes with less volume in the housing of the earbud?


----------



## ClieOS

assassin10000 said:


> That sure is an interesting way to modify an earbud to use as a TWS lol.
> 
> 2 pin and MMCX. Any sound signature changes with less volume in the housing of the earbud?



Have to measure to be sure, but so far I didn't hear any negative impact to the overall sound.


----------



## lightlight (Jul 21, 2020)

Thanks @ClieOS for all the testing with the WS-1.. Let us know when you get a chance to test with other mmcx connected IEMs and especially some multi-driver ones if you have...

Edit: By the way, how is the battery life so far Bro?


----------



## ClieOS

lightlight said:


> Thanks @ClieOS for all the testing with the WS-1.. Let us know when you get a chance to test with other mmcx connected IEMs and especially some multi-driver ones if you have...
> 
> Edit: By the way, how is the battery life so far Bro?



Official spec lists it as 'up to 9 hours'. I haven't drained it completely yet, but judging on how fast the battery is dropping I'll say I probably can get around 8~9 hours out of mine.


----------



## Jaysound (Jul 30, 2020)

*See EDIT at bottom regarding the relocation of the rest of this discussion.*

I am ready to buy and try one of these BT adapters, and would love advice on which to get:

ES100
FiiO BTR3K/BTR5
Quedelix 5K
I'm using Shure SE425 IEMs with a Samsung S9 with LDAC enabled, playing Tidal and Spotify, mainly soft rock.

Whatever I buy, I expect I'll use LDAC.

I have yet to find anything that adds amp or EQ that I like -- seems to compromise more than it improves -- but I haven't tried a lot or spent a lot. (Tried Wavelet EQ app, which I deleted. Tried FiiO LC-BT2 neckband BT adapter with MMCX connectors and returned it -- even using LDAC it didn't sound nearly as good as the Shure RMCE-BT2 BT adapter using AptX. I even tried the Shure SE535 IEMs and returned them because I prefer the natural sound of the SE425).

Sometimes I feel I would like a bit more oomph at the low end with the SE425, but when I play a song that delivers serious bass (beginning of _50 Way to Leave Your Lover_, for instance) it's already solid at a rock, so what would I gain by boosting when the SE425 is stellar at natural, unadulterated sound? So I doubt I'd use, say, the EQ in the Quedelix 5K, but who knows? I'm happy to try. I just would prefer not having to buy and try three products, so advice is greatly appreciated.

AND... it's important to me that I can use the in-line controls on the Shure cable that came with the SE425 (skip track, vol, play/pause, assistant, and the mic to at least answer a call and tell them I need a moment to get off that headset). I hope that's realistic with one of those adapters. I will be using it mainly while practicing tai chi and such, which means it will be clipped to the _back_ of my waist-pack belt. Though I guess I can keep it 45 degrees on the side/back on the belt and reach down to hit buttons to do all that. I guess it might be even easier than grabbing the on-cable control.
________________

*EDIT:* As suggested to me (below), I moved the rest of this discussion to here.
________________


----------



## ClieOS

Jaysound said:


> ...
> AND... it's important to me that I can use the in-line controls on the Shure cable that came with the SE425 (skip track, vol, play/pause, assistant, and the mic to at least answer a call and tell them I need a moment to get off that headset). I hope that's realistic with one of those adapters. I will be using it mainly while practicing tai chi and such, which means it will be clipped to the _back_ of my waist-pack belt. Though I guess I can keep it 45 degrees on the side/back on the belt and reach down to hit buttons to do all that. I guess it might be even easier than grabbing the on-cable control.



This discussion is probably more suitable here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the...-8-jul-20-qudelix-5k-impression-added.906655/

The three BT adapters that I know that can work with inline remote+mic are BTR3K, BTR5 and 5K, so you can cross ES100 out of your list. Haven't actually tested 5K on that particular function yet but I'll report back once I did.


----------



## Jaysound

ClieOS said:


> This discussion is probably more suitable here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the...-8-jul-20-qudelix-5k-impression-added.906655/
> 
> The three BT adapters that I know that can work with inline remote+mic are BTR3K, BTR5 and 5K, so you can cross ES100 out of your list. Haven't actually tested 5K on that particular function yet but I'll report back once I did.


Thanks. Per your suggestion, I moved the rest of this discussion to here.


----------



## lightlight

@ClieOS Bro did you get a chance to test it with any MMCX IEM yet? last time you were still waiting for the adapter..


----------



## ClieOS

lightlight said:


> @ClieOS Bro did you get a chance to test it with any MMCX IEM yet? last time you were still waiting for the adapter..



Yep, I already have the adapter since a week ago - the overall impression however remains the same. Overall I like the SQ and power, but don't like the buttons placement and magnetic charging. It does hiss slightly with sensitive IEM so I keep it mainly to harder to drive, high impedance earphones.


----------



## assassin10000

Baskingshark posted about these in the TWS thread, TRN's upcoming BT20S Pro:






Ibasso posted their new CF01.




Looks like some new contenders. Showed up as I was considering getting the UTWS1. Fiio mentioned they have an upcoming UTWS3 as well, no details or pics yet.


----------



## ClieOS

TRN learns something from Fostex's TM2 modular design, that's good. I wonder if FiiO UTWS3 will be another collaboration with TRN again, which could very well be a tweaked version of this new TRN.


----------



## Aevum

I have the TRN BT20s with my moondrop Starfields, enjoy it quite a bit. If the pros are an improvement on it, and also add volume control, i will be sure to pick it up


----------



## assassin10000 (Aug 20, 2020)

Aevum said:


> I have the TRN BT20s with my moondrop Starfields, enjoy it quite a bit. If the pros are an improvement on it, and also add volume control, i will be sure to pick it up



No dice unfortunately.




If you don't care about the case or interchangeable connectors/ear hooks, the Fiio UTWS1 is a tweaked/modified BT20S that has volume control.

Perhaps the rumored UTWS3 will be like the UTWS1 which was a modified version of the BT20S that had volume control (and a lower noise floor afaik).


----------



## ClieOS

My preordered iBasso CF01 should arrive in less than 2 weeks. I like the OE Audio WS-1 quite a bit, hopefully CF01 will be even better.


----------



## Ocelitgol

ClieOS said:


> My preordered iBasso CF01 should arrive in less than 2 weeks. I like the OE Audio WS-1 quite a bit, hopefully CF01 will be even better.


Looking forward to your impression. I'm debating between the iBasso vs Shure vs Fiio upcoming UTWS3


----------



## ClieOS (Aug 20, 2020)

I just went through TRN's Aliexpress store to look at the new BT20s Pro and it seems to me, at least as far as the spec has suggested, that the new BT20s Pro is merely the old BT20s with modular adapter and battery case design, and then almost doubling the price. I'll probably going to skip this one as I already have the BT20s and I don't need more of the same thing sound wise. Besides, I think I am slightly spoiled by WS-1 for now.


----------



## felix3650

ClieOS said:


> My preordered iBasso CF01 should arrive in less than 2 weeks. I like the OE Audio WS-1 quite a bit, hopefully CF01 will be even better.


A comparison of CF01 and Qudelix 5K on sound quality would be nice once you receive your unit.
Different gadgets I know but still useful info


----------



## lightlight

In a span of few weeks, suddenly so many decent options! I was almost ready to get the WS-1,but then I see this ibasso adapter. Some more the shure aonic 215 is available in stock finally! Unfortunately still not available locally but hopefully soon, now that is available in US. The battery case is a great idea in my opinion, otherwise charging the two sides individually can be a pain in the neck.. 

I wonder if there will be a version with LDAC or aptx HD support.. And will it really make any difference when compared to just aptx.. I really like the sound coming from the wired se846.. If a Bluetooth adapter can replicate that to a large extent, then I am fine with it.. Doesn't have to be perfect.. Trade off some quality for convenience.. But only a bit.. If the Bluetooth adapter makes it sound terrible, then no point again.. So waiting for some reviews for all these adapters..


----------



## ClieOS (Aug 22, 2020)

lightlight said:


> In a span of few weeks, suddenly so many decent options! I was almost ready to get the WS-1,but then I see this ibasso adapter. Some more the shure aonic 215 is available in stock finally! Unfortunately still not available locally but hopefully soon, now that is available in US. The battery case is a great idea in my opinion, otherwise charging the two sides individually can be a pain in the neck..
> 
> I wonder if there will be a version with LDAC or aptx HD support.. And will it really make any difference when compared to just aptx.. I really like the sound coming from the wired se846.. If a Bluetooth adapter can replicate that to a large extent, then I am fine with it.. Doesn't have to be perfect.. Trade off some quality for convenience.. But only a bit.. If the Bluetooth adapter makes it sound terrible, then no point again.. So waiting for some reviews for all these adapters..



Unless you are very partial to Shure as a brand, I won't put AONIC 215 on the top of any recommendation list. The earpiece itself is just regular SE215, which is slightly dated for today's standard as a sub-$100 IEM (*it was released some 9 years ago!). The wireless adapter on their own are listed at $180 - which is more expensive than either WS-1 or CF-01 while doesn't seems to offer anything more than that of BT-20s or UTWS1 spec wise. Only supporting TWS mode but not TWS+ mode is also disappointing. The only good thing is that its has a dedicated app to add a bit more function, otherwise I don't see much attraction there.

On a different note - don't hold your breath for LDAC or aptX-HD to come to TWS setup anytime soon. The current wireless bandwidth speed under BT5.0 for TWS setup is only just enough to run aptX. To support a more complex 'Hi-res' BT codec, we will either have to increase the communication speed (*which doesn't seems to going to happen till beyond BT5.2) or create a more compressed BT codec (*which will also require more powerful SoC to decode). Neither will be easy or cheap.


----------



## Aevum

nevermind, bought a pair of AKG N400, i think im done with BT earphones for a while, these are amazing.


----------



## lightlight

ClieOS said:


> Unless you are very partial to Shure as a brand, I won't put AONIC 215 on the top of any recommendation list. The earpiece itself is just regular SE215, which is slightly dated for today's standard as a sub-$100 IEM (*it was released some 9 years ago!). The wireless adapter on their own are listed at $180 - which is more expensive than either WS-1 or CF-01 while doesn't seems to offer anything more than that of BT-20s or UTWS1 spec wise. Only supporting TWS mode but not TWS+ mode is also disappointing. The only good thing is that its has a dedicated app to add a bit more function, otherwise I don't see much attraction there.
> 
> On a different note - don't hold your breath for LDAC or aptX-HD to come to TWS setup anytime soon. The current wireless bandwidth speed under BT5.0 for TWS setup is only just enough to run aptX. To support a more complex 'Hi-res' BT codec, we will either have to increase the communication speed (*which doesn't seems to going to happen till beyond BT5.2) or create a more compressed BT codec (*which will also require more powerful SoC to decode). Neither will be easy or cheap.




You make good points Bro about the Shure aonic 215... To be fair, I am only interested in the adapter as well. But if the cheaper ones are just as good, then no point really.. Also, in Singapore I still cannot even find the Shure aonic. 

So did you get the ibasso CF01? Eagerly waiting for your review on that...


----------



## ClieOS

lightlight said:


> So did you get the ibasso CF01? Eagerly waiting for your review on that...



Still on its way to me, probably be here in next few days.


----------



## ClieOS (Sep 6, 2020)

Got my iBasso CF-01 yesterday but only get to listen to it today. So here are a few impression:

1) The design of the case is very nice - roomy on the inside, even for a pair of CIEM. I especially like the built-in air cushion that will offer quite a lot of protection to the earpiece.

2) I COMPLETELY dislike the smooth outer finishing of the case - it is very slippy and I almost had the case flying out of my hand a few times when I tried to open the case by one hand.

3) The adapters themselves are nicely finished. The actual size is even smaller than TRN BT20s / FiiO UTWS1, but so are the overall battery life (if you don't consider the battery case). Cable isn't rigid like other but not completely soft either, which I like. Button placement on the top is acceptable, though I prefer it on the side.

3) No hissing detected with my MassDrop Plus.

4) Output impedance is a WHOOPING and very disappointing 20 ohm (measured twice to confirm, which kinda explain why it doesn't hiss at all)

I listened to CF-01 with my dual driver MassDrop Plus first, and it sounded very warm and almost slightly veil - which is not the normal MassDrop Plus's warmish neutral reference sound that I am fairly familiar to, and that made me feel suspicious. A quick measurement revealed that the CF-01 has a very much unforgivable 20 ohm output impedance and that just mess up how MassDrop Plus is supposed to sound. In contrast, OE Audio WS-1 manages just 0.5 ohm of output impedance even though it hiss very faintly with Massdrop Plus (*only on near silence passage and usually close to undetectable during music playback). With an MMCX-to-2-pins adapter, I listened to CF-01 again with MoonDrop SSR (*which is one of my recent good find) - being a single dynamic that doesn't get affected much by output impedance, SSR sounds much more 'correct' than Plus. I can tell SSR still sounds slightly warmer, richer and smoother than usual, but at least it is not offensive.

At this point I am not sure I'll recommend CF-01 - it does a lot of things right, namely the premier overall design and the finishing of the adapters; But it has its faults as well, namely the overly smooth outer finishing and that 20 ohm elephant in the room that can't be ignored by anyone who intends to use CF-01 with multi-driver IEM (*which will probably be like > 90% of people out there these days). Ouch! (and considered this is by far the most expensive TWS adapter I bought yet!!!)


----------



## Paul - iBasso

ClieOS said:


> Got my iBasso CF-01 yesterday but only get to listen to it today. So here are a few impression:
> 
> 1) The design of the case is very nice - roomy on the inside, even for a pair of CIEM. I especially like the built-in air cushion that will offer quite a lot of protection to the earpiece.
> 
> ...


The output impedance is around 1 ohm, not 20 ohms.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

Plot thickens!


----------



## frix

Thak you clieOs for pointing out the output impedance issues.


----------



## ClieOS (Sep 4, 2020)

Paul - iBasso said:


> The output impedance is around 1 ohm, not 20 ohms.



Just measured it again 
(with 1kHz pure tone and True RMS multi-meter)

Right: No load 0.169V
Left: No load 0.170V

Right: 47ohm load: 0.118V
Left: 47ohm Load: 0.118V

Output Impedance Formula: [ (VnL - VL) / VL ] x R
VL = Voltage Loaded
R = Load resistance
VnL = Voltage no load

so just taking Left
[(0.170 - 0.118)] / 0.118 x 47 = 20.7 ohm


----------



## lightlight

@ClieOS Thank you Bro! Been waiting for your review all this while.. Wondering if the impedance issue will be an issue with my earphones .. I want to pair this with my se846.. Which has an impedance of around 10 ohm if I am not mistaken.. What do you guys think?


----------



## Paul - iBasso

ClieOS said:


> Just measured it again
> (with 1kHz pure tone and True RMS multi-meter)
> 
> Right: No load 0.169V
> ...


You have our CF01 outputting 0.17V, this needs to be increased to the output of 0.4~0.5V when doing this measurement.  The output impedance of the CF01 is right around 1 ohm. We would not produce the CF01 to be 20 ohms, that would not work well with many IEMs.


----------



## ClieOS (Sep 4, 2020)

lightlight said:


> @ClieOS Thank you Bro! Been waiting for your review all this while.. Wondering if the impedance issue will be an issue with my earphones .. I want to pair this with my se846.. Which has an impedance of around 10 ohm if I am not mistaken.. What do you guys think?



The general guideline is that the headphone used should have at least 8 times the impedance of the source's output impedance to avoid FR interference. SE846 probably best used with source of sub-1 ohm output impedance if you want to keep to its original sound signature.



Paul - iBasso said:


> You have our CF01 outputting 0.17V, this needs to be increased to the output of 0.4~0.5V when doing this measurement.  The output impedance of the CF01 is right around 1 ohm. We would not produce the CF01 to be 20 ohms, that would not work well with many IEMs.



Just doing one side to save time: Same setup as before, doing it on very low and very high voltage to cover all the bases.

No load: 0.041V
Loaded: 0.029V
[ (0.041V - 0.029V) / 0.029V ] x 47 = 19.4 ohm

No Load: 0.425V
Loaded: 0.297V
[ (0.425V - 0.297V) / 0.297V ] x 47 =  20.3 ohm

No real difference detected.

Besides, how many IEM can take 0.4V for volume?


----------



## Paul - iBasso

ClieOS said:


> The general guideline is that the headphone used should have at least 8 times the impedance of the source's output impedance to avoid FR interference. SE846 probably best used with source of sub-1 ohm output impedance if you want to keep to its original sound signature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is the weekend. I will post some images on Monday and show you what the output impedance is. It is not 20 ohms. Many IEMs would not even sound good at a 20 ohms output impedance.


----------



## ClieOS

Paul - iBasso said:


> It is the weekend. I will post some images on Monday and show you what the output impedance is. It is not 20 ohms. Many IEMs would not even sound good at a 20 ohms output impedance.



The number of my measurement say otherwise and I am not sure how you can disprove that, but I'll entertain the idea. On other hand, it was because my Massdrop Plus doesn't sound good with CF-01 that I went to measure it in the first place.


----------



## ClieOS

Small update: over the weekend I got confirmation from another owner that his measurement also indicates CF-01 has an output impedance of 20 ohm.


----------



## lightlight

ClieOS said:


> Small update: over the weekend I got confirmation from another owner that his measurement also indicates CF-01 has an output impedance of 20 ohm.



Aiyoh! iBasso why like that? Now I am looking to get the shure aonic adapter.. I do not need their SE215...just need that adapter. The reason why I still prefer that over the CF-01 is because of the convenience in charging.. charging the two sides individually seems like an major annoyance, especially in a product that was made for convenience in the first place.. I mean convenience is one of the key selling points of true wireless earphones right?


----------



## ClieOS

lightlight said:


> Aiyoh! iBasso why like that? Now I am looking to get the shure aonic adapter.. I do not need their SE215...just need that adapter. The reason why I still prefer that over the CF-01 is because of the convenience in charging.. charging the two sides individually seems like an major annoyance, especially in a product that was made for convenience in the first place.. I mean convenience is one of the key selling points of true wireless earphones right?



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


----------



## Ocelitgol

What's a cheap and easy way to measure OI? I'd love to confirm this myself


----------



## ClieOS (Sep 9, 2020)

Ocelitgol said:


> What's a cheap and easy way to measure OI? I'd love to confirm this myself



It isn't going to be particularly expensive but definitely not going to be easy.

The tool you need are: First, a load (basically a pair of resistors will do, but keep it to decent wattage rating as you can burn the resistor if the wattage rating is too low). Secondly, you need a volt meter or multi-meter that can measure AC down to mV. Lastly, you need a source (some kind of DAC if the thing you want to measure doesn't have its own). In case of TWS adapter, which already has a DAC inside, you need a frequency generator app that can generate a pure tone. Since my multi-meter is pretty good, I use 1kHz pure tone. For lesser multi-meter, 500Hz pure tone should be used. As it is not easy to measure TWS adapter directly on the MMCX socket or have a load attach to it while still able to measure it directly, I actually also make an custom adapter cable and load in order to make measurement easier and more repeatable (see picture below).

The measurement process is simple: First set the TWS adapter to a decent volume, measure the output without any load. Then measure again with the load, follow the formula I have given previously and you can calculate out the output impedance. Note that usually you don't want to set the volume too high in case there is clipping that will affect the result. You can repeat the measure on different volume setting to double check.


----------



## shortstories

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


----------



## lightlight

ClieOS said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2020)

shortstories said:


> 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

ClieOS said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2020)

shortstories said:


> 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

lightlight said:


> 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.



C_Lindbergh said:


> ...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

ClieOS said:


> 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

Ocelitgol said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2020)

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

ClieOS said:


> 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
> ...


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

frix said:


> 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


----------



## lightlight

Ocelitgol said:


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



Guys, I just found this thread:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/shure-rmce-tw1-shure-cuts-the-cord.928960/

Here, the specs mentioned for the Shure Aonic adapter, I notice that the impedance is 17 Ohm... If we believe that, then it would be almost as bad as the CF-01.


----------



## ClieOS (Sep 18, 2020)

lightlight said:


> Guys, I just found this thread:
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/shure-rmce-tw1-shure-cuts-the-cord.928960/
> 
> Here, the specs mentioned for the Shure Aonic adapter, I notice that the impedance is 17 Ohm... If we believe that, then it would be almost as bad as the CF-01.



Pretty sure those spec was just an typo when someone mistakenly meshed up the spec of SE215 (which Aonic 215 comes with by default) with that of RMCE-TW1. For once, the adapter itself can't have sensitivity rating or even a driver.

Shure never released any particular useful info regarding RMCE-TW1's output power or output impedance, nor did I ever see any measurement of them. However, judging from the fact that it supports aptX, we know it is a Qualcomm chip. From its release time, I'll venture a guess it is likely going to be QCC3020 like almost everyone else is using. The small size of the adapter also suggests that it won't likely have an separated amp chip as there isn't enough space (*and also that fact that Shure doesn't bother telling us about it, nor is Shure ever paid attention to output power, etc). So in all likeliness, this particular Shure adapter should have mostly the same level of hardware as TRN BT20s - On that assumption, output impedance should be fairly low (QCC3020 normal output impedance is sub-1 ohm, unless Shure intentionally added output resistors). Output power is probably just a few mW. None of this is particularly bad information, except perhaps when you considered that the Shure adapter itself is selling for $180 or so while BT20s can be had for $30. For QCC3020 based hardware without any fancy add-on, I think the more reasonable price for a big brand name product should be around $100 or so.


----------



## lightlight

ClieOS said:


> Pretty sure those spec was just an typo when someone mistakenly meshed up the spec of SE215 (which Aonic 215 comes with by default) with that of RMCE-TW1. For once, the adapter itself can't have sensitivity rating or even a driver.
> 
> Shure never released any particular useful info regarding RMCE-TW1's output power or output impedance, nor did I ever see any measurement of them. However, judging from the fact that it supports aptX, we know it is a Qualcomm chip. From its release time, I'll venture a guess it is likely going to be QCC3020 like almost everyone else is using. The small size of the adapter also suggests that it won't likely have an separated amp chip as there isn't enough space (*and also that fact that Shure doesn't bother telling us about it, nor is Shure ever paid attention to output power, etc). So in all likeliness, this particular Shure adapter should have mostly the same level of hardware as TRN BT20s - On that assumption, output impedance should be fairly low (QCC3020 normal output impedance is sub-1 ohm, unless Shure intentionally added output resistors). Output power is probably just a few mW. None of this is particularly bad information, except perhaps when you considered that the Shure adapter itself is selling for $180 or so while BT20s can be had for $30. For QCC3020 based hardware without any fancy add-on, I think the more reasonable price for a big brand name product should be around $100 or so.



If only Shure got this point and adjusted their price, we will all be so happy!  Plus, even after all these months after announcing the product, it is not available in Singapore, where I am currently.. So even if we somehow order and get it from US, there will be no warranty on this product. That is worrisome on such an expensive product. Maybe the prices will come down during black friday or other upcoming holiday period. In the meantime, other products from other brands may also be available in the next few months.. So can wait a tad longer.. But honestly, been waiting for too long for a product like this.. cant wait for much longer!


----------



## Ocelitgol

Personally I'm just waiting for Fiio UTWS3 and for @ClieOS to measure it (hopefully)


----------



## Ric4001

I have FIIO FH7 IEMs that use MMCX connectors.  Will the Shure RMCE-BT2 work with the FH7s?


----------



## ClieOS

Ric4001 said:


> I have FIIO FH7 IEMs that use MMCX connectors.  Will the Shure RMCE-BT2 work with the FH7s?



There is no reason why RMCE-BT2 won't work with any IEM that comes with a regular MMCX socket. How well, however, is a completely different matter.


----------



## C_Lindbergh (Sep 30, 2020)

My initial impressions was awesome, until I noticed this.

How on earth did this pass every step towards production? You put the right adapter on the left side of the charger and vice versa.... What? TRN cmon.

Now you'll get annoyed every time you take adapters on and off.

I was initially enjoying these until i noticed this incredibly stupid mistake, I'll deffo return these if Fiio launches their UTWS3 soon.

This design mistake is only topped by the battery drain issue of the first gen Senn MTW, besides that this is the most stupid decision I've seen in the True Wireless space.

Now in hindsight I can see the same issue on all production images, but I Just didn't notice it because i thought it was obvious for anyone with an IQ above 50. It's not that I look if the turn signals on a new car is mounted on the correct side before buying.


----------



## C_Lindbergh

Another huge problem is the Bluetooth range, despite the propirties of Bluetooth 5.0, the range of these are absolutely terrible. I can't move 3-4 meters to my kitchen without major interference. I've never had this problem with any other Bluetooth 5.0 device, both my phone and PC is aslo connected to the 5 gigahertz Wifi, so you can't blame it on that.


----------



## lightlight

[QUOTE="C_Lindberghl 
Another huge problem is the Bluetooth range, despite the propirties of Bluetooth 5.0, the range of these are absolutely terrible. I can't move 3-4 meters to my kitchen without major interference. I've never had this problem with any other Bluetooth 5.0 device, both my phone and PC is aslo connected to the 5 gigahertz Wifi, so you can't blame it on that.
[/QUOTE]
HI @C_Lindbergh may I know which model are you talking about? Can't recognize any branding from the charging case picture that you posted... I do wonder how did something like pass their Q&A team..


----------



## ClieOS

lightlight said:


> HI @C_Lindbergh may I know which model are you talking about? Can't recognize any branding from the charging case picture that you posted... I do wonder how did something like pass their Q&A team..



TRN BT20s Pro


----------



## lightlight

ClieOS said:


> TRN BT20s Pro


Ooh okay..Thanks. Still no news on the fiio's utws3 release date right?


----------



## ClieOS

lightlight said:


> Ooh okay..Thanks. Still no news on the fiio's utws3 release date right?



Not that I know of.


----------



## lightlight

Just noticed that the shure aonic adapter alone is up for pre order on Stereo Singapore for 269 sgd... 

That is expensive! You can get the high quality Sony wf-1000xm3 true wireless for less than that! 

So now waiting for utws3...


----------



## Ocelitgol

ClieOS said:


> TRN BT20s Pro


are you going to get your hands on the TRN BT20S Pro for review?
You're pretty much the only one I found to measure their OI


----------



## ClieOS

Ocelitgol said:


> are you going to get your hands on the TRN BT20S Pro for review?
> You're pretty much the only one I found to measure their OI



There is no incentive for me to do so since it should have pretty much the same hardware implementation as the regular BT20S, which I already own.


----------



## assassin10000

Ocelitgol said:


> are you going to get your hands on the TRN BT20S Pro for review?
> You're pretty much the only one I found to measure their OI



Maybe ask in the TRN thread or the going fully wireless one? Several people have them, I just don't know if any has the ability to measure OI.


----------



## Ocelitgol

assassin10000 said:


> Maybe ask in the TRN thread or the going fully wireless one? Several people have them, I just don't know if any has the ability to measure OI.


thanks. I didn't think of that.
Although, these probably won't work for me since I'm planning to use it with IER-Z1R. The angled connectors aren't going to play well it them (I've tried)


----------



## Subatomic

Messaged Fiio customer support and they said they are hoping to launch the UTWS3 by the end of the month. Keen.


----------



## Ocelitgol

Subatomic said:


> Messaged Fiio customer support and they said they are hoping to launch the UTWS3 by the end of the month. Keen.


I've been waiting for so long lol


----------



## lightlight

Yeah Man, can't wait any longer...Hopefully the price and performance of utws3 is really worth the wait... else, will be quite sad. Faster fiio faster!


----------



## lightlight

1 more week before this month ends.. what is fiio doing! Release the utws3 already!


----------



## felix3650

lightlight said:


> 1 more week before this month ends.. what is fiio doing! Release the utws3 already!


Maybe they changed the BT chipset from QCC3020 to the QCC5124 for a higher quality codec support (aptX HD/aptX Adaptive). Or maybe bug fixing on the firmware and/or the companion app. If it's the first case and they add LDAC it's an instant buy from me (even with a bit lower battery life). Most probably it's the second case though


----------



## ClieOS

felix3650 said:


> Maybe they changed the BT chipset from QCC3020 to the QCC5124 for a higher quality codec support (aptX HD/aptX Adaptive). Or maybe bug fixing on the firmware and/or the companion app. If it's the first case and they add LDAC it's an instant buy from me (even with a bit lower battery life). Most probably it's the second case though



I do happen to know they have plan for a QCC5xxx device in near future, but it won't be UTWS3. The 1111 (Nov. 11) sale is just around the corner, I doubt they will want to release UTWS3 this month. A likelier choice will be to either introduce UTWS3 during 1111 sale or just wait till 1111 is over (near year's end so they might get a chance to introduce it around CES time).

On a different but somewhat related news, Hiby just introduced a new TWS in-ear in China called WH3 that used QCC5xxx chipset and they are able to make it run UAT (Hiby's own HD codec). Rumor said that Hiby even managed to re-code LDAC to run on WH3 in full TWS+ mode, but was ultimately getting stopped by Sony (which was said that they wanted Hiby to apply for some kind of approval before putting LDAC on WH3). However, story does say that early release of WH3 in China should be able to support LDAC unofficially as long as the user do not update the firmware.


----------



## ClieOS

FiiO Control app has been updated this morning and added support for UTWS3 (along with BTA30), that means it shouldn't be too long till we see an official release.


----------



## lightlight

Today 11.11 already.. Wonder if FIIO plans to release the tws3 today! Make us wait so long long.. damn annoying... By the way, guys I have been reading some good things about a bluetooth adapter called Qudelix 5K... Any of you considering that? It is similar in shape and functionality to the Shute BT2 adapter.. so still has some dangling wires ... not truly wireless...however, it seems to be using some high end qualcomm bluetooth chipset so the sound quality should be good...

Anyone keen on this?


----------



## monsieurfromag3

lightlight said:


> Today 11.11 already.. Wonder if FIIO plans to release the tws3 today! Make us wait so long long.. damn annoying... By the way, guys I have been reading some good things about a bluetooth adapter called Qudelix 5K... Any of you considering that? It is similar in shape and functionality to the Shute BT2 adapter.. so still has some dangling wires ... not truly wireless...however, it seems to be using some high end qualcomm bluetooth chipset so the sound quality should be good...
> 
> Anyone keen on this?


The 5K is next-level in terms of BT connectivity, options, software support, decoding and amping power. But it very much falls out of the scope of this thread and for good reason - the wires are there. Even with a 50 cm cable it’s not the same as having no cable at all. If you order a 5K odds are you won’t be disappointed, but for the use cases where you need true wireless you’re not getting that.


----------



## Ocelitgol

lightlight said:


> Today 11.11 already.. Wonder if FIIO plans to release the tws3 today! Make us wait so long long.. damn annoying... By the way, guys I have been reading some good things about a bluetooth adapter called Qudelix 5K... Any of you considering that? It is similar in shape and functionality to the Shute BT2 adapter.. so still has some dangling wires ... not truly wireless...however, it seems to be using some high end qualcomm bluetooth chipset so the sound quality should be good...
> 
> Anyone keen on this?





monsieurfromag3 said:


> The 5K is next-level in terms of BT connectivity, options, software support, decoding and amping power. But it very much falls out of the scope of this thread and for good reason - the wires are there. Even with a 50 cm cable it’s not the same as having no cable at all. If you order a 5K odds are you won’t be disappointed, but for the use cases where you need true wireless you’re not getting that.


Agree. 5K is good but it is not true wireless. 
I was hoping they'd release today but probably won't.


----------



## FiiO Willson

lightlight said:


> Today 11.11 already.. Wonder if FIIO plans to release the tws3 today! Make us wait so long long.. damn annoying... By the way, guys I have been reading some good things about a bluetooth adapter called Qudelix 5K... Any of you considering that? It is similar in shape and functionality to the Shute BT2 adapter.. so still has some dangling wires ... not truly wireless...however, it seems to be using some high end qualcomm bluetooth chipset so the sound quality should be good...
> 
> Anyone keen on this?



I've got good news for you, our utws3 is coming out soon.


----------



## ClieOS

FiiO Willson said:


> I've got good news for you, our utws3 is coming out soon.



Excellent news!


----------



## ngd3

https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TVert&from=&to=en&a=https://watchmono.com/e/fiio-utws3

This looks like an instant purchase for me


----------



## povidlo

ngd3 said:


> https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TVert&from=&to=en&a=https://watchmono.com/e/fiio-utws3
> 
> This looks like an instant purchase for me


BT codec support is not mentioned, is it?


----------



## ClieOS

povidlo said:


> BT codec support is not mentioned, is it?



Likely just SBC, AAC and aptX.


----------



## povidlo

ClieOS said:


> Likely just SBC, AAC and aptX.


Naturally hoping for aptx-hd or better ldac but probably asking for too much.

Might stick with my Xelento BT dongle which is aptx-hd and universal mmcx. It's very light, unobtrusive, with enough power for most iems/earbuds.


----------



## ClieOS (Nov 13, 2020)

povidlo said:


> Naturally hoping for aptx-hd or better ldac but probably asking for too much.



The QCC3020 SoC that is going to be used on UTWS3 isn't able to support aptX-HD (and thus LDAC) on hardware level.

TWS adapter only gets about half the bandwidth of normal BT connection on each side, making it very difficult to use any HD codec (which usually required more than half the bandwidth even not used in TWS setup)  Realistically speaking, we have to wait till someone make a TWS adapter with Qualcomm 51xx series SoC before aptX-HD and LDAC support is possible because qcc51XX has the extra processing capacity to handle HD codec in TWS setup while QCC3xxx doesn't..Also more likely that we have to wait till Bluetooth 5.2 becomes widely available before we will see a stable HD codec connection for TWS adapter as we will see a 50% bandwidth increase on BT5.2.. I think we are still at least a year or two away from that.


----------



## lightlight

FiiO Willson said:


> I've got good news for you, our utws3 is coming out soon.


HI Fiio Willson... Any specific dates? We have been waiting for so long already..


----------



## Ocelitgol

lightlight said:


> HI Fiio Willson... Any specific dates? We have been waiting for so long already..


Same here man. I've been putting off buying other stuffs like BTR5, Qudelix, TRN BT20S Pro, etc. just for these. 
I think I read somewhere they're releasing this winter, not sure when.


----------



## lightlight

With all this wait, I am reminded of that Bob Marley's Waiting in vain song! 

 I don't want to wait in a vain for your love.....


----------



## FiiO Willson

lightlight said:


> HI Fiio Willson... Any specific dates? We have been waiting for so long already..





lightlight said:


> With all this wait, I am reminded of that Bob Marley's Waiting in vain song!
> 
> I don't want to wait in a vain for your love.....


*Hello, Thank you very much for your support of FiiO!*
More detailed indicators will have to wait until all of our official information is released. *I can only mention some of the main points here:*
1,Qualcomm QCC3020
2,Standalone High Performance Headphone Amplifier
3,*TWS+* *Low Latency Technology* 
4,aptX Lossless Transmission
5,MMCX/0.78mm interface-MMCX will be released first.
6,APP intelligent control 
7, Large-capacity charging case 
8,30 hours long battery life
9,IPX4 waterproof design


----------



## lightlight

FiiO Willson said:


> *Hello, Thank you very much for your support of FiiO!*
> More detailed indicators will have to wait until all of our official information is released. *I can only mention some of the main points here:*
> 1,Qualcomm QCC3020
> 2,Standalone High Performance Headphone Amplifier
> ...




Still no release dates....


----------



## felix3650

What about this? It looks interesting with LDAC/AptX-Adaptive and it's QCC5125 chipset

BGVP M2


----------



## Ocelitgol

felix3650 said:


> What about this? It looks interesting with LDAC/AptX-Adaptive and it's QCC5125 chipset
> 
> BGVP M2


if you're going with the neckband type, I think Fiio has a great version. You can use it as DAC as well. 

That will be my 2nd choice if the upcoming UTWS3 fail


----------



## C_Lindbergh (Nov 26, 2020)

felix3650 said:


> What about this? It looks interesting with LDAC/AptX-Adaptive and it's QCC5125 chipset
> 
> BGVP M2



They deffo look interesting, but can't find a single English review yet.

There are also these for a mere 27 EUR during BF, seller claims this BT cable also supports multipoint.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001773335871.html?spm=a2g0o.detail.1000013.8.2624581fLrsrCe&gps-id=pcDetailBottomMoreThisSeller&scm=1007.13339.169870.0&scm_id=1007.13339.169870.0&scm-url=1007.13339.169870.0&pvid=b235f0ab-8d9e-47c2-957d-3ccecce12283&_t=gps-idcDetailBottomMoreThisSeller,scm-url:1007.13339.169870.0,pvid:b235f0ab-8d9e-47c2-957d-3ccecce12283,tpp_buckets:668#0#131923#0_668#808#4094#790_668#888#3325#11_668#2846#8114#731_668#2717#7567#970_668#1000022185#1000066059#0_668#3468#15607#21

Hmm, might actually go with a cheap alternative like these from Ali, at last until there are premium LC3/bluetooth le audio adapters


----------



## lightlight

Surely, we are digressing from the main topic of this thread  ... But as long as we are already doing that, I am wondering in terms of comfort and ease of use, is the neckband style better than those clip-on adapters such as the fiio btr5 or qudelix 5K both of which also have the new Qualcomm chip...


----------



## C_Lindbergh (Nov 27, 2020)

lightlight said:


> Surely, we are digressing from the main topic of this thread  ... But as long as we are already doing that, I am wondering in terms of comfort and ease of use, is the neckband style better than those clip-on adapters such as the fiio btr5 or qudelix 5K both of which also have the new Qualcomm chip...



Well it's a matter of convenience vs SQ/features and personal taste imo.

Clip on adapter:
Unbeatable when it comes to SQ/feature, but theres still a wire between your chest and IEMs.

Neckband:
You get a bit more freedom from wires, but at the cost of some SQ/features

True Wireless adapters:
Top convenience, total freedom from wires and they are easy to charge and power on/off.


But you'll have higher latency, less battery life on a single charge and prob still not as many features/SQ as a BTR5/5K. The case is also much bigger than non adapter true wireless earbuds. 

Personally I'm a fan of neckband, but true wireless adapters will be awesome once they overcome most of their shortcomings. We'll just have to wait for next gen Bluetooth LE/LC3


----------



## lightlight

The bgvp m2 looks quite good actually.. But when I searched for this model on aliexpress, I see 3rd party sellers listing the exact same model with Bluetooth 5.2, but bgvp official store says 5.1... Wonder why does every single 3rd party seller listing this at 5.2!


----------



## ClieOS

lightlight said:


> The bgvp m2 looks quite good actually.. But when I searched for this model on aliexpress, I see 3rd party sellers listing the exact same model with Bluetooth 5.2, but bgvp official store says 5.1... Wonder why does every single 3rd party seller listing this at 5.2!



Sometime it is hardware related, but sometime it is software(firmware) related. 

QCC5125, as listed by Qualcomm, is so far the only QCC512x series that is BT5.1. However, QCC5121 and QCC5124 (*the one in Qudelix 5K) are technically a more powerful SoC.and yet they are BT5.0 for now. We have seen in the past that Qualcomm can upgrade an older BT chip to newer BT version by firmware, so it is possible that we will also see QCC5121 / 5124 getting BT5.1 as well. As for BT5.2 - it is technically still not available in the market - if I recalled correctly, the schedule time to start rolling out BT5.2 is 2022. Qualcomm currently only lists QCC514x series as 'BT5.2 compatible' though those chips are not actually released yet.

On the other hand, going from BT5.0 to BT5.1 actually is a very minor upgrade as the only thing that seems to be difference is that BT5.1 can offer a faster pairing process, which means there really won't be any benefit audio wise going from BT5.0 to BT5.1. Going to BT5.2 is however the major upgrade as we will see a 50% increase in bandwidth, which will make for a strong connection as well as possible better HD codec, or even HD codec for TWS setup. However, we are still a bit distance away from BT5.2 and there is no actual BT chips in the market that is truly BT5.2.


----------



## lightlight

ClieOS said:


> Sometime it is hardware related, but sometime it is software(firmware) related.
> 
> QCC5125, as listed by Qualcomm, is so far the only QCC512x series that is BT5.1. However, QCC5121 and QCC5124 (*the one in Qudelix 5K) are technically a more powerful SoC.and yet they are BT5.0 for now. We have seen in the past that Qualcomm can upgrade an older BT chip to newer BT version by firmware, so it is possible that we will also see QCC5121 / 5124 getting BT5.1 as well. As for BT5.2 - it is technically still not available in the market - if I recalled correctly, the schedule time to start rolling out BT5.2 is 2022. Qualcomm currently only lists QCC514x series as 'BT5.2 compatible' though those chips are not actually released yet.
> 
> On the other hand, going from BT5.0 to BT5.1 actually is a very minor upgrade as the only thing that seems to be difference is that BT5.1 can offer a faster pairing process, which means there really won't be any benefit audio wise going from BT5.0 to BT5.1. Going to BT5.2 is however the major upgrade as we will see a 50% increase in bandwidth, which will make for a strong connection as well as possible better HD codec, or even HD codec for TWS setup. However, we are still a bit distance away from BT5.2 and there is no actual BT chips in the market that is truly BT5.2.


Thanks @ClieOS for the explanation... I am thinking of ordering this bgvp m2 then..


----------



## FiiO Willson

Ocelitgol said:


> if you're going with the neckband type, I think Fiio has a great version. You can use it as DAC as well.
> 
> That will be my 2nd choice if the upcoming UTWS3 fail


I think you're right, when buying a frequently used product, it's important to consider not only its configuration, but also its stability and ease of use.


----------



## FiiO Willson

Hello Everyone.
Thank you very much for your support, *FiiO utws3 will be released in the near future* and will be reopened in the following link, please post your comments here!
We will gradually update some of the content that can be made public.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fii...tpa6140a2-bluetooth-5-0.948458/#post-16007746


----------



## slex

ClieOS said:


> Sometime it is hardware related, but sometime it is software(firmware) related.
> 
> QCC5125, as listed by Qualcomm, is so far the only QCC512x series that is BT5.1. However, QCC5121 and QCC5124 (*the one in Qudelix 5K) are technically a more powerful SoC.and yet they are BT5.0 for now. We have seen in the past that Qualcomm can upgrade an older BT chip to newer BT version by firmware, so it is possible that we will also see QCC5121 / 5124 getting BT5.1 as well. As for BT5.2 - it is technically still not available in the market - if I recalled correctly, the schedule time to start rolling out BT5.2 is 2022. Qualcomm currently only lists QCC514x series as 'BT5.2 compatible' though those chips are not actually released yet.
> 
> On the other hand, going from BT5.0 to BT5.1 actually is a very minor upgrade as the only thing that seems to be difference is that BT5.1 can offer a faster pairing process, which means there really won't be any benefit audio wise going from BT5.0 to BT5.1. Going to BT5.2 is however the major upgrade as we will see a 50% increase in bandwidth, which will make for a strong connection as well as possible better HD codec, or even HD codec for TWS setup. However, we are still a bit distance away from BT5.2 and there is no actual BT chips in the market that is truly BT5.2.


Any possibility with LDAC codec in the making for these bluetooth adapter? How I wish Quedelix can produce one. Maybe it's just wishful thinking.😆


----------



## ClieOS

slex said:


> Any possibility with LDAC codec in the making for these bluetooth adapter? How I wish Quedelix can produce one. Maybe it's just wishful thinking.😆



Technically you will need a fairly advanced SoC, likely one of the better Qualcomm QCC512x series, to able to handle LDAC in TWS+ setup. Another one of the big issue is bandwidth under BT5.0 (and BT5.1) isn't going to be enough for HD 24/96 codec under TWS+ setup, but BT5.2 will. Last but not least is the aptx-HD and LDAC are currently not optimized for TWS+. But it is not all bad news - rumor said Hiby actually was able to implement LDAC in a TWS+ setup just last month on one of their new TWS+ IEM (*which uses one fo those QCC512x SoC) released in China, but they were forced to disable it under the request of Sony due to some licensing / compliance issue. So I will said the possibility is low but not completely impossible.


----------



## slex

ClieOS said:


> Technically you will need a fairly advanced SoC, likely one of the better Qualcomm QCC512x series, to able to handle LDAC in TWS+ setup. Another one of the big issue is bandwidth under BT5.0 (and BT5.1) isn't going to be enough for HD 24/96 codec under TWS+ setup, but BT5.2 will. Last but not least is the aptx-HD and LDAC are currently not optimized for TWS+. But it is not all bad news - rumor said Hiby actually was able to implement LDAC in a TWS+ setup just last month on one of their new TWS+ IEM (*which uses one fo those QCC512x SoC) released in China, but they were forced to disable it under the request of Sony due to some licensing / compliance issue. So I will said the possibility is low but not completely impossible.


Thanks for the expertise in this area👍


----------



## ClieOS

As kind of what I have predicted before, FiiO has announced an official release date for UTWS3 on 12.12 (Dec. 12) in China.


----------



## lightlight

Has Fiio released the price already? At least for China?


----------



## FiiO Willson

*FiiO FD5&UTWS3 will Release Today,It will be live-streamed on Bilibili at 7pm Beijing time. Stay tuned! https://live.bilibili.com/21313666 *


----------



## FiiO Willson

lightlight said:


> Has Fiio released the price already? At least for China?



It's Only ￥498 in China, and on sale on 18th Dec.


----------



## ClieOS

UTWS3 is here, first impression is very positive.


----------



## FiiO Willson

ClieOS said:


> UTWS3 is here, first impression is very positive.


We are pleased to have satisfied you.
Tonight we are having a Facebook event for our users, please join us if you have time.


----------



## lightlight

ClieOS said:


> UTWS3 is here, first impression is very positive.


Hey @ClieOS how did you manage to get so quickly Bro? I checked all the stores in Singapore and none of them is carrying this yet... Did you order from aliexpress to Johor?


----------



## ClieOS (Dec 29, 2020)

lightlight said:


> Hey @ClieOS how did you manage to get so quickly Bro? I checked all the stores in Singapore and none of them is carrying this yet... Did you order from aliexpress to Johor?



How? By skipping all the middleman of course. I buy things directly from Taobao, usually from the manufacturer official store, and have them forwarded by a third-party forwarding service. It usually only takes a week or less to arrive at my doorstep. While forwarding service will cost more, that is usually offset by Taobao lower retail price and much faster shipping and thus well worth the effort.


----------



## ClieOS

Just measured my UTWS3 - output impedance is calculated at around 1.5 ohm or so, which is fairly respectable.


----------



## ClieOS

Just listened to my Massdrop Plus with UTWS3 and can confirm that I didn't hear any hiss at all. I used the same IEM for WS-1 but I can hear hiss. While there is no hiss with CF-01, the IEM sounds rather bad (due to CF-01 super high output impedance messing with the IEM crossover). To me, Massdrop Plus sounds the most 'correct' with UTWS3. This is definitely the best sounding TWS adapter in my collection now.


----------



## akarise

ClieOS said:


> UTWS3 is here, first impression is very positive.


Could you perhaps compare the sound from the UTWS3 to the BTR3K? I would expect the BTR3K to sound better but I'm wondering whether or not the difference in sound quality is too big of a tradeoff for the convenience factor. I would be using them with the Meze Rai Penta btw.


----------



## ClieOS

akarise said:


> Could you perhaps compare the sound from the UTWS3 to the BTR3K? I would expect the BTR3K to sound better but I'm wondering whether or not the difference in sound quality is too big of a tradeoff for the convenience factor. I would be using them with the Meze Rai Penta btw.



There is a trade-off, but not nearly as big to the point that I'll opt for BTR3K instead of UTWS3. In fact, the opposite is kinda true as I tend t reach for UTWS3 most of the time. Note that UTWS3 is fairly close (though not quite equal) to BTR3K's single-ended (3.5mm socket) in term of output power, so it will drive most headphone that BTR3K can driver over single-ended. The only two area where UTWS3 can't compete are (1) BTR3K's balanced output power and (2) overall back ground hiss (*though to be fair, UTWS3 is probably one of the lowest hissing TWS adapter around)


----------



## ClieOS

I was meant to measure just how output impedance can affect FR curve, but never did find the time till now. So here are 4 examples Etymotic ER4SR (Single BA), Sony XBA-A3 (multi-drivers hybrid), FiiO FD5 (single dynamic) and MassDrop+ (multi-driver BA), measured with iBasso CF01 (20 ohm output impedance) and UTWS3 (around 1.5 ohm normally)

Source is FiiO M6 (both as wired as well as wireless BT source), measurement is repeated 4 times for each earphones and averaged. Graphs are all centered on 1kHz.



































A few observations:

1) There are consistent elevation of FR on wireless BT measurement on mid to upper range, especially noticeable over 2kHz and 5kHz. This is regardless of whether it is CF01 or UTWS3 - that led me to conclude that this is most likely caused by aptX codec used by both CF01 and UTWS3.

2) Even for earphones that have a flatter impedance curve over its frequency range and less affected by output impedance of the source, you can still tell that the high output impedance of CF01 is causing roll off in bass. 

3) With MassDrop+, which does affect by output impedance by a lot, you can see the CF01 almost completely changed its sound signature to something else.


----------



## Ocelitgol

ClieOS said:


> I was meant to measure just how output impedance can affect FR curve, but never did find the time till now. So here are 4 examples Etymotic ER4SR (Single BA), Sony XBA-A3 (multi-drivers hybrid), FiiO FD5 (single dynamic) and MassDrop+ (multi-driver BA), measured with iBasso CF01 (20 ohm output impedance) and UTWS3 (around 1.5 ohm normally)
> 
> Source is FiiO M6 (both as wired as well as wireless BT source), measurement is repeated 4 times for each earphones and averaged. Graphs are all centered on 1kHz.
> 
> ...


finally someone did this! thank you!

out of curiosity, do you think the same change will apply with using AAC codec instead of AptX?


----------



## ClieOS

Ocelitgol said:


> out of curiosity, do you think the same change will apply with using AAC codec instead of AptX?



No idea. However, AAC is known to be different by noticeable margin between manufacturers (*with Apple generally doing a better job) so there is likely going to be some difference.


----------



## FiiO Willson

ClieOS said:


> I was meant to measure just how output impedance can affect FR curve, but never did find the time till now. So here are 4 examples Etymotic ER4SR (Single BA), Sony XBA-A3 (multi-drivers hybrid), FiiO FD5 (single dynamic) and MassDrop+ (multi-driver BA), measured with iBasso CF01 (20 ohm output impedance) and UTWS3 (around 1.5 ohm normally)
> 
> Source is FiiO M6 (both as wired as well as wireless BT source), measurement is repeated 4 times for each earphones and averaged. Graphs are all centered on 1kHz.
> 
> ...


Hi
You are so professional, your spirit is worth learning from us


----------



## Urnamaster13

TWS+ is required to be on the output device as well ? like my phone or a DAP.  I have a Fiio M6 and was wondering if it can  get an update to output audio signal via TWS+( which is Aptx TWS+ if i am not mistaken)

if anybody has used both UWTS3 and Shure Aonic adapter, let us know how they both compare...in terms of comfort etc.


----------



## ClieOS

Urnamaster13 said:


> TWS+ is required to be on the output device as well ? like my phone or a DAP.  I have a Fiio M6 and was wondering if it can  get an update to output audio signal via TWS+( which is Aptx TWS+ if i am not mistaken)
> 
> if anybody has used both UWTS3 and Shure Aonic adapter, let us know how they both compare...in terms of comfort etc.


TWS+ will only be activated when both the source as well as the TWS adapter (*also applicable to TWS IEM) support it. Since TWS+ is an Qualcomm exclusive feature, it means the source as well as the TWS adapter needs to use Qualcomm chips. For the source, the SoC (= CPU) needs to be a more recent, higher end Qualcomm chip as older and lower end Qualcomm SoC don't support TWS+ mode. For TWS adapter, most Qualcomm QCC series of chips that can be used on TWS setup will supports TWS+ mode.  All of Qualcomm QCC chips also support aptX, but it is unrelated to TWS+.

Since FiiO M6 doesn't have a Qualcomm SoC at all, it can't support TWS+ but only normal TWS mode.


----------



## Urnamaster13

ClieOS said:


> TWS+ will only be activated when both the source as well as the TWS adapter (*also applicable to TWS IEM) support it. Since TWS+ is an Qualcomm exclusive feature, it means the source as well as the TWS adapter needs to use Qualcomm chips. For the source, the SoC (= CPU) needs to be a more recent, higher end Qualcomm chip as older and lower end Qualcomm SoC don't support TWS+ mode. For TWS adapter, most Qualcomm QCC series of chips that can be used on TWS setup will supports TWS+ mode.  All of Qualcomm QCC chips also support aptX, but it is unrelated to TWS+.
> 
> Since FiiO M6 doesn't have a Qualcomm SoC at all, it can't support TWS+ but only normal TWS mode.


Thanks for your prompt and clear response.

One doubt, if Fiio M6 can have aptX codecs despite not having a Qualcomm SoC, can Fiio put TWS+ on it in future ?  @FiiO Willson 

also i am trying to find, in normal TWS is sound still using a master-slave method ? does it not play independently in both earbuds ?

In what way is TWS+ exactly beneficial compared to normal TWS ? is TWS/TWS+ only way to output send music via bluetooth on TWS type earbuds ?
it seems this codec is needed on smartwatches or small sized DAP also.


----------



## ClieOS (Mar 15, 2021)

Urnamaster13 said:


> Thanks for your prompt and clear response.
> 
> One doubt, if Fiio M6 can have aptX codecs despite not having a Qualcomm SoC, can Fiio put TWS+ on it in future ?  @FiiO Willson
> 
> ...



FiiO M6 has aptX because it runs a simplified version of Android (*though it is also very possible that M6 is using Qualcomm Bluetooth chip inside as Qualcomm is one of the biggest BT chip supplier around). aptX generally is fairly easy to implement on Android as it has very little hardware requirement and licensing from Qualcomm isn't very difficult to get. Basically any Android devices that uses an Qualcomm BT chip should have no problem getting aptX to work.

TWS+ on the other hand is a different story - Qualcomm is making TWS+ as a special feature on some of its higher-end SoC in order to push more manufacturer to use its SoC (and generally any manufacturer that use Qualcomm SoC will almost always going to use its BT chip as well) - so the situation is, if a devices has a Qualcoom SoC that supports TWS+, it will almost always has aptX as well. But if the devices has aptX, it however doesn't means it can support TWS+ at all. These are two different features offered by two different components - aptX by BT chips and TWS+ by SoC.

----

Yes, normal TWS configuration is a master-slave setup, where both left and right audio channel are transmitted via a single BT wireless channel to the master side first (*while the master side only playback one audio channel), then the master re-transmits the other channel to the slave side. TWS is less efficient because its needs to push two audio channel into one BT channel, then required another BT channel between master and slave side (*which will not be as easy since they are block by the human head). The master side will need to do a double duty. TWS+ is more efficient as two sides can operate independently using two BT channels and typically the connection will be stronger / more stable since the source will likely has a stronger connection to each side than the two sides between each other.

As for TWS+ vs. TWS - the main benefit is stability by a stronger BT connection. You won't get instant better SQ by going from TWS to TWS+. If you can get a stable TWS connection as much as you can get from TWS+, then you won't likely to notice any different when using the same BT codec

Remember, TWS+ is NOT a BT Codec. It is a special BT connection scheme that only certain Qualcomm SoC can support - so you can't just 'upgrade' to TWS+ if the device doesn't has any of those SoC. BT codec like aptX on the other hand is mostly software based and doesn't have as much restriction.


----------



## Urnamaster13

Thanks for clearing it up.

BTW Fiio M6 has an exynos 7270 SoC and SAMSUNG S5N5C10B01-6330 bluetooth chip.

I am looking for a TWS solution for pairing with my Shure earphones, at present it seems LDAC support is not possible.   Might go for Fiio UTWS3 is i can find it.


----------



## killaHz

I have literally never seen a DAP with a chipset that will do TWS+. And I have been looking.

I have to assume that there are some phones out there with the appropriate SoC. There don’t seem to be many. I haven’t been looking for one, though, since I sold my soul to the ghost of Steve Jobs in a blood-fueled ritual.

But mostly, it seems like TWS+ is a feature that gets advertised on earphones with complete disregard for the fact that the required transmitter just doesn’t exist in the wild. It’s really kind of sad to think how many people out there are being tricked—just like I was—into thinking their earphones are doing anything to prevent the evils of the daisy-chained Bluetooth connection.


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

killaHz said:


> I have literally never seen a DAP with a chipset that will do TWS+. And I have been looking.
> 
> I have to assume that there are some phones out there with the appropriate SoC. There don’t seem to be many. I haven’t been looking for one, though, since I sold my soul to the ghost of Steve Jobs in a blood-fueled ritual.
> 
> But mostly, it seems like TWS+ is a feature that gets advertised on earphones with complete disregard for the fact that the required transmitter just doesn’t exist in the wild. It’s really kind of sad to think how many people out there are being tricked—just like I was—into thinking their earphones are doing anything to prevent the evils of the daisy-chained Bluetooth connection.


At times, it's even about SoC as most Qualcomm mid to premium range chipsets support TWS+ but the device manufacturers simply don't turn it on OOTB. Some do via OTA updates and some simply don't bother.

Same goes for DAPs if they're using a  Qualcomm SoC then they can enable it by default but probably don't due to reasons known to them.


----------



## killaHz

Barusu Lamperouge said:


> At times, it's even about SoC as most Qualcomm mid to premium range chipsets support TWS+ but the device manufacturers simply don't turn it on OOTB. Some do via OTA updates and some simply don't bother.
> 
> Same goes for DAPs *if they're using a  Qualcomm SoC then they can enable it by default* but probably don't due to reasons known to them.


I had seen somewhere that not all the Snapdragon chipsets can support TWS+—that it was only in the model numbers 700+. Is that not right?


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

killaHz said:


> I had seen somewhere that not all the Snapdragon chipsets can support TWS+—that it was only in the model numbers 700+. Is that not right?


Even the newer budget chipsets support TWS+ and most of the BT chipset used in the DAPs use QCC3xx which supports TWS+. It's not like they have to add a separate modem for TWS+ like 5G.


----------



## ClieOS

killaHz said:


> I had seen somewhere that not all the Snapdragon chipsets can support TWS+—that it was only in the model numbers 700+. Is that not right?





Barusu Lamperouge said:


> Even the newer budget chipsets support TWS+ and most of the BT chipset used in the DAPs use QCC3xx which supports TWS+. It's not like they have to add a separate modem for TWS+ like 5G.



@killaHz Yes. Last I check, only the mid- to top range SnapDragon supports TWS+.

@Barusu Lamperouge You need both the source as well and the receiver chipset to support TWS+ in order for it to work. Having only the receiver's end supporting TWS+ is not enough.


----------



## assassin10000

ClieOS said:


> You need both the source as well and the receiver chipset to support TWS+ in order for it to work. Having only the receiver's end supporting TWS+ is not enough.



Not only that, the firmware also needs to support it.

Many of the Pixel phones have a TWS+ compatible chip but do NOT have the firmware which enables TWS+.


----------



## Peddler

I have to say that I'm a big fan of the iBasso CF01 adaptor. They don't seem to be getting  a lot of love in this thread.  I'm currently using them with their own iBasso IT00 IEM's and think that this is a match made in heaven.  Definitely the flattest, most accurate and powerful bluetooth headphones in my collection. I have also tried the adaptors with the Magaosi K3 Pro's to good effect (even though these are multi-driver balanced armature hybrids). 

I also like their form factor - the charging case is well thought out and features wireless charging.


----------



## ClieOS (May 3, 2021)

Peddler said:


> ....They don't seem to be getting  a lot of love in this thread..


20 ohm of output impedance is hard to love, especially when it messed up my IEM's frequency response. Opposite to your experience, it is the least accurate of all the BT adapter I have tested and don't have much power either.


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

ClieOS said:


> @killaHz Yes. Last I check, only the mid- to top range SnapDragon supports TWS+.
> 
> @Barusu Lamperouge You need both the source as well and the receiver chipset to support TWS+ in order for it to work. Having only the receiver's end supporting TWS+ is not enough.


I was referring to the post by @killaHz where he stated that despite having TWS+ enabled earphones, one is unable to use them with his mobile and DAPs


assassin10000 said:


> Not only that, the firmware also needs to support it.
> 
> Many of the Pixel phones have a TWS+ compatible chip but do NOT have the firmware which enables TWS+.


This. The implementation has to be enabled via firmware as most of the newer chips are compatible with TWS+.


----------



## FiiO Willson

Urnamaster13 said:


> Thanks for your prompt and clear response.
> 
> One doubt, if Fiio M6 can have aptX codecs despite not having a Qualcomm SoC, can Fiio put TWS+ on it in future ?  @FiiO Willson
> 
> ...





ClieOS said:


> FiiO M6 has aptX because it runs a simplified version of Android (*though it is also very possible that M6 is using Qualcomm Bluetooth chip inside as Qualcomm is one of the biggest BT chip supplier around). aptX generally is fairly easy to implement on Android as it has very little hardware requirement and licensing from Qualcomm isn't very difficult to get. Basically any Android devices that uses an Qualcomm BT chip should have no problem getting aptX to work.
> 
> TWS+ on the other hand is a different story - Qualcomm is making TWS+ as a special feature on some of its higher-end SoC in order to push more manufacturer to use its SoC (and generally any manufacturer that use Qualcomm SoC will almost always going to use its BT chip as well) - so the situation is, if a devices has a Qualcoom SoC that supports TWS+, it will almost always has aptX as well. But if the devices has aptX, it however doesn't means it can support TWS+ at all. These are two different features offered by two different components - aptX by BT chips and TWS+ by SoC.
> 
> ...


Yes,@ClieOS 's answer is correct.

TWS+&TWS are two different types of connections.
In addition, Qualcomm has a TWM connection, which is similar to Apple's TWS, and is the most opt-in connection method.

UTWS3 now support TWS+, and UTWS5 will support TWM.

Because of the limitations of the technical solution, our current TWS headset is still in the fumbling stage.


----------



## Nalin

FiiO Willson said:


> Yes,@ClieOS
> UTWS3 now support TWS+, and UTWS5 will support TWM.


Any estimate on UTWS5 launch date?


----------



## monsieurfromag3

Has anyone tried Null-Audio’s Nyx?


----------



## Urnamaster13

Sony latest TWS are supposed to support LDAC, the Sony WF-1000XM4.


----------



## Urnamaster13 (May 31, 2021)

FiiO Willson said:


> Yes,@ClieOS 's answer is correct.
> 
> TWS+&TWS are two different types of connections.
> In addition, Qualcomm has a TWM connection, which is similar to Apple's TWS, and is the most opt-in connection method.
> ...


TWM is better or TWS+ ?   also any chance UTWS 5 will support LDAC ?

also, will you launch any music players which output using TWS+ ? preferably same size as M6 player


----------



## ClieOS (May 31, 2021)

Urnamaster13 said:


> TWM is better or TWS+ ?   also any chance UTWS 5 will support LDAC ?
> 
> also, will you launch any music players which output using TWS+ ? preferably same size as M6 player



TWM is an evolution of the original TWS, but not necessary going to be better than TWS+ SQ wise. In original TWS, one side of the TWS setup acts as a master device while the other is the slave device. The smartphone connects to the master device only, then the master re-transmit the signal the the slave device. Generally speaking, if the connection between the smartphone and the master device is lost, the slave device will automatically lost connection as well - in a TWM however, the slave device will automatically take over as the master (while the master switches to slave), which means the overall connection between a TWM setup is going to be much more stable than a TWS setup.  TWS+ on the other hand allow both side to connect to the smartphone at the same time ((so basically they are both master devices on their own channel), sop losing connection to one side doesn't cut off the other side.

So in a way, if the connection isn't the most stable, TWM can in theory better than TWS+. But of the connection is very good, then they are likely not going to be any significant different between TWM and TWS+. Of course, Qualcomm is more likely going to push for TWM as it is in theory a more versatile solution, but I'll imagine they will likely going to limit TWM support only to smartphone with Qualcomm SoC, and maybe even only to higher end SoC like they do with TWS+. It is still too early to tell.

As mentioned before, TWS+ support required the source has a higher end Qualcomm SoC, which isn't going to be easy as those are not cheap or easy to find (*well, not on smartphone, but on DAP). I'll say the chance is slim - very slim in fact.


----------



## FiiO Willson

ClieOS said:


> TWM is an evolution of the original TWS, but not necessary going to be better than TWS+ SQ wise. In original TWS, one side of the TWS setup acts as a master device while the other is the slave device. The smartphone connects to the master device only, then the master re-transmit the signal the the slave device. Generally speaking, if the connection between the smartphone and the master device is lost, the slave device will automatically lost connection as well - in a TWM however, the slave device will automatically take over as the master (while the master switches to slave), which means the overall connection between a TWM setup is going to be much more stable than a TWS setup.  TWS+ on the other hand allow both side to connect to the smartphone at the same time ((so basically they are both master devices on their own channel), sop losing connection to one side doesn't cut off the other side.
> 
> So in a way, if the connection isn't the most stable, TWM can in theory better than TWS+. But of the connection is very good, then they are likely not going to be any significant different between TWM and TWS+. Of course, Qualcomm is more likely going to push for TWM as it is in theory a more versatile solution, but I'll imagine they will likely going to limit TWM support only to smartphone with Qualcomm SoC, and maybe even only to higher end SoC like they do with TWS+. It is still too early to tell.
> 
> As mentioned before, TWS+ support required the source has a higher end Qualcomm SoC, which isn't going to be easy as those are not cheap or easy to find (*well, not on smartphone, but on DAP). I'll say the chance is slim - very slim in fact.


At the moment it feels like Qualcomm has given up on TWS+ and they seem to be more willing to push TWM.


----------



## FiiO Willson

Urnamaster13 said:


> Sony latest TWS are supposed to support LDAC, the Sony WF-1000XM4.


The Sony WF-1000XM3 also supports LDAC


----------



## ClieOS

Let's hope Sony will release the LDAC SDK for TWS soon.


----------



## FiiO Willson

ClieOS said:


> Let's hope Sony will release the LDAC SDK for TWS soon.


Sony now still trying to solve some problems~~


----------



## Mikerules

Anyone knows if Fiio is planning to release new Bluetooth neckband?
What's the best neckband adapter on the market today?


----------



## Urnamaster13

ClieOS said:


> TWM is an evolution of the original TWS, but not necessary going to be better than TWS+ SQ wise. In original TWS, one side of the TWS setup acts as a master device while the other is the slave device. The smartphone connects to the master device only, then the master re-transmit the signal the the slave device. Generally speaking, if the connection between the smartphone and the master device is lost, the slave device will automatically lost connection as well - in a TWM however, the slave device will automatically take over as the master (while the master switches to slave), which means the overall connection between a TWM setup is going to be much more stable than a TWS setup.  TWS+ on the other hand allow both side to connect to the smartphone at the same time ((so basically they are both master devices on their own channel), sop losing connection to one side doesn't cut off the other side.
> 
> So in a way, if the connection isn't the most stable, TWM can in theory better than TWS+. But of the connection is very good, then they are likely not going to be any significant different between TWM and TWS+. Of course, Qualcomm is more likely going to push for TWM as it is in theory a more versatile solution, but I'll imagine they will likely going to limit TWM support only to smartphone with Qualcomm SoC, and maybe even only to higher end SoC like they do with TWS+. It is still too early to tell.
> 
> As mentioned before, TWS+ support required the source has a higher end Qualcomm SoC, which isn't going to be easy as those are not cheap or easy to find (*well, not on smartphone, but on DAP). I'll say the chance is slim - very slim in fact.


I feel TWS+ might have one benefit that both earbuds stay at same battery level with equal use. It might be annoying in day to day usage if one earbud went low on battery earlier than other.


----------



## Urnamaster13

FiiO Willson said:


> Sony now still trying to solve some problems~~


What problems ? if WF 10003 had LDAC it's great news, do they have problems despite managing to implement it in such TWS earbuds ?


----------



## Bobbetybob

FiiO Willson said:


> The Sony WF-1000XM3 also supports LDAC


The WH-1000XM3 & 4 are the ones with LDAC, the on ear headphones, the TWS haven't had it yet I think because of power consumption, guessing there's a new chip for the XM4's to help with this.

Side note: I wish Sonys naming wasn't so awful, I guess WH stands for "wireless headphone" but what the hell is WF and why does it need so many letters and numbers anyway, what does the 1000 add? It's like they give their products an internal stock number for their system and then forget to actually give them a proper name for consumers.


----------



## WoodyLuvr

"WH" stands for "wireless headphones" and “*WF*” stands for “wireless free".


----------



## Luke Skywalker

ClieOS said:


> 20 ohm of output impedance is hard to love, especially when it messed up my IEM's frequency response. Opposite to your experience, it is the least accurate of all the BT adapter I have tested and don't have much power either.


This is great info!  someone recommended the iBasso CF01 to me but I’m looking for something more high-end (but the same form factor…) to pair with some new IEMs. Any suggestions?  I have some JH Lola’s but I want to keep this for wired listening


----------



## ClieOS

Luke Skywalker said:


> This is great info!  someone recommended the iBasso CF01 to me but I’m looking for something more high-end (but the same form factor…) to pair with some new IEMs. Any suggestions?  I have some JH Lola’s but I want to keep this for wired listening



The best TWS adapter in the market now is FiiO UTWS3


----------



## Luke Skywalker

ClieOS said:


> The best TWS adapter in the market now is FiiO UTWS3


 thanks for the advice!  what makes It better than the iBasso?  What would be the best IEM(s) to use with it for classical/opera, female vocals, electronic, instrumental, blues… (not a bass head)


----------



## ClieOS

Luke Skywalker said:


> thanks for the advice!  what makes It better than the iBasso?  What would be the best IEM(s) to use with it for classical/opera, female vocals, electronic, instrumental, blues… (not a bass head)



Good power output, low output impedance, app support (Android only), clean sound.

I don't keep track of the current IEM market, so   I don't know which IEM will best fit your need.


----------



## Luke Skywalker

Thank you my friend.

I’m trying to figure out my next moves with IEMs… 

I‘m leaning toward using my Lola’s with the Fiio and then getting a pair of high-end custom IEMs (Elysium perhaps) as soon as I can listen to some different ones and get impressions made.


----------



## Luke Skywalker

HiBy has LDAC TWS coming out. WH2


----------



## Luke Skywalker

Hmm… so much for using my JH Lola’s with the Fiio or the iBasso TWS adapter. Mine use a 4-pin connector which neither adapter seems to have


----------



## Ocelitgol

Luke Skywalker said:


> Hmm… so much for using my JH Lola’s with the Fiio or the iBasso TWS adapter. Mine use a 4-pin connector which neither adapter seems to have


maybe you can look for mmcx or 2 pin to 4 pin converter.


----------



## FiiO Willson

Mikerules said:


> Anyone knows if Fiio is planning to release new Bluetooth neckband?
> What's the best neckband adapter on the market today?


Sorry, There are currently no plans to release an new Bluetooth neckband for FiiO.


----------



## ClieOS

Luke Skywalker said:


> Hmm… so much for using my JH Lola’s with the Fiio or the iBasso TWS adapter. Mine use a 4-pin connector which neither adapter seems to have



Pretty sure you will need an adapter regardless as no TWS adapter that I know of come with 4 pins.


----------



## Luke Skywalker

Ocelitgol said:


> maybe you can look for mmcx or 2 pin to 4 pin converter.


Not sure if it’d be worth the hassle. I’ll prob just try to figure out a good pair of IEMs to buy to pair with the Fiio.  Would appreciate any recommendations!

thanks for the Help


----------



## Ocelitgol

Luke Skywalker said:


> Not sure if it’d be worth the hassle. I’ll prob just try to figure out a good pair of IEMs to buy to pair with the Fiio.  Would appreciate any recommendations!
> 
> thanks for the Help


My best recommendation would be choosing an iem with same sound with your favorite if you're set on using the Fiio UTWS3. Crinacle has a website that compares different graph if you need a place to start looking. Otherwise, I'd always say pick the IEM first before everything else. For example: I love my Sony IER-Z1R to death and it fits the UTWS3, but if it didn't, I would just find a different modules for it instead of getting another IEM. 

Perhaps you can take a look at Qudelix 5K. It was a very nice device for me.


----------



## Luke Skywalker

Ocelitgol said:


> My best recommendation would be choosing an iem with same sound with your favorite if you're set on using the Fiio UTWS3. Crinacle has a website that compares different graph if you need a place to start looking. Otherwise, I'd always say pick the IEM first before everything else. For example: I love my Sony IER-Z1R to death and it fits the UTWS3, but if it didn't, I would just find a different modules for it instead of getting another IEM.
> 
> Perhaps you can take a look at Qudelix 5K. It was a very nice device for me.


Thank you, my friend. I wish the local audio store where I bought my LCD-2s had IEMs to audition.  I rolled the dice on the Lola’s and ended up loving them.


----------



## FiiO Willson

Ocelitgol said:


> My best recommendation would be choosing an iem with same sound with your favorite if you're set on using the Fiio UTWS3. Crinacle has a website that compares different graph if you need a place to start looking. Otherwise, I'd always say pick the IEM first before everything else. For example: I love my Sony IER-Z1R to death and it fits the UTWS3, but if it didn't, I would just find a different modules for it instead of getting another IEM.
> 
> Perhaps you can take a look at Qudelix 5K. It was a very nice device for me.





Luke Skywalker said:


> Thank you, my friend. I wish the local audio store where I bought my LCD-2s had IEMs to audition.  I rolled the dice on the Lola’s and ended up loving them.



Perhaps you can take a look at FiiO BTR5


----------



## Luke Skywalker

FiiO Willson said:


> Perhaps you can take a look at FiiO BTR5


Very nice!  However I already have some devices like that (ES100) and rarely use them. I’m looking for something like the UTWS3 or the iBasso to get a TWS-like solution that is superior to the TWS buds out there.


----------



## ClieOS (Jun 20, 2021)

NiceHCK just launched the HB2 TWS adapter a few days ago, judging by spec, it is pretty similar to that of TRN BT20 pro with Qualcomm QCC3040 (a slightly more advanced version of 3020 used on BT20s pro) and an exchangeable connector design. It will have all mmcx, protruding 0.78mm and recessing 0.78mm connector all come standard in one package, but no battery case (charging done via Type-C port on the TWS adapter itself). Price is similar to that of BT20s Pro as well (though BTs20 pro has a battery case, it only comes with one pair of connector and you need to pay extra for others).


----------



## assassin10000

ClieOS said:


> NiceHCK just launched the HB2 TWS adapter a few days ago, judging by spec, it is pretty similar to that of TRN BT20 pro with Qualcomm QCC3040 (a slightly more advanced version of 3020 used on BT20s pro) and an exchangeable connector design. It will have all mmcx, protruding 0.78mm and recessing 0.78mm connector all come standard in one package, but no battery case (charging done via Type-C port on the TWS adapter itself). Price is similar to that of BT20s Pro as well (though BTs20 pro has a battery case, it only comes with one pair of connector and you need to pay extra for others).


Neat. But maybe a step behind.

I wonder what the noisefloor/gain is like compared to the BT20S or BT20S Pro. 

Probably won't come close to touching the UTWS3.


----------



## ClieOS

assassin10000 said:


> Neat. But maybe a step behind.
> 
> I wonder what the noisefloor/gain is like compared to the BT20S or BT20S Pro.
> 
> Probably won't come close to touching the UTWS3.



There is no independent codec chip inside, so generally speaking the basic SNR and output power will be fairly similar to that of QCC3020 used on BT20s series (*this is pretty much true to all Qualcomm QCC chips as their built-in DAC/amp section is about the same, even for the higher end QCC5xxx series).


----------



## assassin10000

ClieOS said:


> There is no independent codec chip inside, so generally speaking the basic SNR and output power will be fairly similar to that of QCC3020 used on BT20s series (*this is pretty much true to all Qualcomm QCC chips as their built-in DAC/amp section is about the same, even for the higher end QCC5xxx series).


Makes sense.


I meant more on the implementation side of things, but I wasn't clear in my post.

I feel like the gain was cranked up on the BT20S and therefore it had an unnecessarily high noisefloor. Probably due to complaints of low volume levels on the original BT20. And that maybe they backed that down on the BT20S Pro. 



Will you be getting a pair to try?


----------



## ClieOS

assassin10000 said:


> Will you be getting a pair to try?



Probably won't as the only thing that mildly enticed me is the QCC3040 (verse 3020 on my other TWS adapter). I am more interested in waiting out for UTWS5, which  hopefully we might see before the end of the year (or at least I think we will see BTR5K?)


----------



## FiiO Willson

ClieOS said:


> Probably won't as the only thing that mildly enticed me is the QCC3040 (verse 3020 on my other TWS adapter). I am more interested in waiting out for UTWS5, which  hopefully we might see before the end of the year (or at least I think we will see BTR5K?)


What solution do you have in mind for the ideal UTWS5?


----------



## ClieOS

FiiO Willson said:


> What solution do you have in mind for the ideal UTWS5?



QCC5xxx with DAC/amp chip, LDAC support, EQ maybe?


----------



## funnyjoke (Jun 21, 2021)

Guys, forgive me if this is not appropriate to ask here, but can someone recommend the best TWS BT adapter for use at the gym? I will be using my iBasso IT01 with them and maybe the JVC HA-FDX1 I have too. Budget is around $100, willing to spend more if worth it. I have an iPhone 7 btw and might purchase an Android DAP soon and will use the adapter with these two devices.


----------



## assassin10000 (Jun 21, 2021)

ClieOS said:


> QCC5xxx with DAC/amp chip, LDAC support, EQ maybe?


This. And wireless charging for the case. @FiiO Willson

Ldac optional for me tho.


----------



## xSDMx

FiiO Willson said:


> What solution do you have in mind for the ideal UTWS5?


Multipoint pairing, please!


----------



## ngd3

xSDMx said:


> Multipoint pairing, please!


Transparency mode please


----------



## Urnamaster13

FiiO Willson said:


> What solution do you have in mind for the ideal UTWS5?


LDAC, multipoint, TWM or TWS+,  Decent ANC, same size as UTWS3 and should be comfortable .  Wireless charging case

should work with my Fiio M6


----------



## ClieOS

ANC, as mentioned before, is impossible to implement in a TWS adapter as it required precise tuning using specific transducer's FR curve. If it is tuned to work with one particular transducer, it won't work with other transducer anymore.


----------



## FiiO Willson

ClieOS said:


> QCC5xxx with DAC/amp chip, LDAC support, EQ maybe?


EQ should be possible to achieve
With DAC Chip is possible
LDAC-There are a number of issues on TWS at the moment, the current products that are available are very poor experiences and it is uncertain if they can be supported.

Finally, there is a little suspense as to what Qualcomm chip will be used, and I don't think you will be disappointed.


----------



## FiiO Willson

Urnamaster13 said:


> LDAC, multipoint, TWM or TWS+,  Decent ANC, same size as UTWS3 and should be comfortable .  Wireless charging case
> 
> should work with my Fiio M6


Hi
LDAC-There are a number of issues on TWS at the moment, the current products that are available are very poor experiences and it is uncertain if they can be supported.
Multipoint--This is a common problem with Qualcomm solutions and is not easy to solve.
TWM
ANC--UTWS5 will not support, but will support call noise reduction.
Wireless charging case----No difficulty with this one


----------



## FiiO Willson

assassin10000 said:


> This. And wireless charging for the case. @FiiO Willson
> 
> Ldac optional for me tho.


wireless charging for the case ---No difficulty with this one


----------



## FiiO Willson

xSDMx said:


> Multipoint pairing, please!


Very difficult


----------



## FiiO Willson

ngd3 said:


> Transparency mode please


We will try to implement ambient sound mode in our new model.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

@FiiO Willson 
Interchangeable iem connectors in the box! MMCX + flushed 0.78 2-pin + recessed 0.78 2-pin.
The lack of compatibility with various earpiece sockets is the reason why I didn’t get the UTWS3.


----------



## povidlo

Would aptx-hd be possible? Not as good as ldac but better than aptx.

More granular volume steps would be great.


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

monsieurfromag3 said:


> @FiiO Willson
> Interchangeable iem connectors in the box! MMCX + flushed 0.78 2-pin + recessed 0.78 2-pin.
> The lack of compatibility with various earpiece sockets is the reason why I didn’t get the UTWS3.


+1 a modular design is a must have.


----------



## xSDMx

FiiO Willson said:


> Very difficult



If not multipoint pairing, would very much appreciate the "next to pair gets connection precedence" quality of life feature we discussed for the UTWS3. That would be amazing!


----------



## Urnamaster13

Ambient noise, if not LDAC then aptxHD and aptxLL.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

Or aptX Adaptive! I know not that many sources support it but it’s the quickest and best optimized high-quality codec, with no latency.


----------



## Luke Skywalker

I love the UTSW3 except… my JH Lolas don’t fit in the case while connected. I’d actually rather have no charging case and independent USB-C / wireless charging so I don’t have to disconnect them every time I need to charge


----------



## akatsuki

So is there an answer on Bluetooth 5.2 on the BGVP.  My perfect cable would be flesh behind the neck, USB-C charging (Qi charging would be even better) and BT 5.2 for that increased bandwidth. 

Looking to pair with


----------



## kozzie (Jul 18, 2021)

ClieOS said:


> QCC5xxx with DAC/amp chip, LDAC support, EQ maybe?


Right on - at the moment my  utws3 is gathering dust because  while SQ might be good compared to other tws  is not good enough for critical listening. Make it  sound like a portable dac/AMp thats worthy of pairing with decent IEMs and I am there. (and not only that  you'll totally dominate the market)


----------



## Nalin

@FiiO Willson 

Any expected timeframe for UTSW5 release, I am expecting it next year perhaps or maybe end of this year.


----------



## FiiO Willson

Nalin said:


> @FiiO Willson
> 
> Any expected timeframe for UTSW5 release, I am expecting it next year perhaps or maybe end of this year.


Soon, it may be released in August or September


----------



## ClieOS

FiiO Willson said:


> Soon, it may be released in August or September


Now that's good news.


----------



## asura196

FiiO Willson said:


> What solution do you have in mind for the ideal UTWS5?


probably super late to answer this, but:

- larger room for bigger IEMs. I've seen a couple of pictures of people modding their cases to fit their CIEMs. would be cool to see bigger charging case to fit everything
- modular connectors! adding to the standard MMCX and 0.78 2-pins (both recessed and flat), maybe introduce QDC type connectors as they're becoming more and more popular in newer midrange-budget IEMs
- QCC5125 with great AAC support?

cheers!


----------



## ClieOS

asura196 said:


> probably super late to answer this, but:
> 
> - larger room for bigger IEMs. I've seen a couple of pictures of people modding their cases to fit their CIEMs. would be cool to see bigger charging case to fit everything
> - modular connectors! adding to the standard MMCX and 0.78 2-pins (both recessed and flat), maybe introduce QDC type connectors as they're becoming more and more popular in newer midrange-budget IEMs
> ...



Actually by the picture found on FCC, UTWS5 will have almost identical outer design as in UTWS3 - so no larger case or modular connector.


----------



## asura196

ClieOS said:


> Actually by the picture found on FCC, UTWS5 will have almost identical outer design as in UTWS3 - so no larger case or modular connector.


just checked that, and yeah... sadly this could be the case (no pun intended), but thank you!


----------



## assassin10000

asura196 said:


> just checked that, and yeah... sadly this could be the case (no pun intended), but thank you!



Then there's those like me which would only use it with small IEM or earbuds... and would prefer a much smaller case that is easy to pocket.


----------



## xSDMx

All I want is support for easy/quick device switching and re-pairing.


----------



## ClieOS

Made by Yongse (*a fairly well known headphone cable brand in China). Modular design, QCC3040 + amp chip. ETA in August, no other detail yet


----------



## xSDMx

Looks very similar to the iBasso, but with modular functionality.


----------



## C_Lindbergh

ClieOS said:


> Made by Yongse (*a fairly well known headphone cable brand in China). Modular design, QCC3040 + amp chip. ETA in August, no other detail yet



Hmm, no cable to hold the adapter over the ear?


----------



## ClieOS

C_Lindbergh said:


> Hmm, no cable to hold the adapter over the ear?


Of course there will be cable, just not in the pictures.


----------



## C_Lindbergh

A new update for the Shure Play app says the following:

"Support for the AONIC TW2", does this mean Shure will release another TWS adapter?


----------



## ClieOS

C_Lindbergh said:


> A new update for the Shure Play app says the following:
> 
> "Support for the AONIC TW2", does this mean Shure will release another TWS adapter?



Yes and no. Shure just updated all their Aonic series of IEM to Gen 2, and the original BT wireless adapter (*RMCE-TW1) to TW2. As far as I can tell from the spec however, TW2 seems to be almost identical to TW1. I really doubt Shure has made any real change on the inside.


----------



## ricthaman

I am very curious to the new UTWS 5 (if it will be called that), as I need to upgrade and there's no TWS to my liking. @FiiO Willson any update on the planned release date? Will it still be this month?


----------



## FiiO Willson (Sep 9, 2021)

ricthaman said:


> I am very curious to the new UTWS 5 (if it will be called that), as I need to upgrade and there's no TWS to my liking. @FiiO Willson any update on the planned release date? Will it still be this month?


The current progress, probably at the end of September, in China's market in small quantities, is expected to October can be sold Globally 


I really do not have much time recently, I can only give you a brief introduction about some of the specifications
1, the world's first independent DAC Bluetooth earhook
2, Qualcomm's flagship QCC514x chip
3, support wireless charging
4, support aptX adaptive* 96k 24bit*
5, TWM transmission, Bluetooth 5.2 protocol
6, 10 bands EQ adjustment
7, more powerful features to be officially announced at the end of the month launch


----------



## monsieurfromag3

FiiO Willson said:


> The current progress, probably at the end of September, in China's market in small quantities, is expected to October can be sold Globally
> 
> 
> I really do not have much time recently, I can only give you a brief introduction about some of the specifications
> ...


Wow! First TWS receivers with aptX Adaptive I know of, and you’ve somehow improved on the standard 48k sample rate.
Is that because there’s an “independent DAC”? As in, a dedicated DAC instead of the one in the Qualcomm chip? I have a BT cable by Null-Audio with a dedicated amp that rivals entry-level DAPs easily, so this development sounds very interesting…
Kudos Fiio.
I just hope the connectors are more modular/flexible/adaptable than in the first iterations.


----------



## C_Lindbergh

FiiO Willson said:


> The current progress, probably at the end of September, in China's market in small quantities, is expected to October can be sold Globally
> 
> 
> I really do not have much time recently, I can only give you a brief introduction about some of the specifications
> ...



Out of curiosity, what is "TWM transmission"? Some new version of TWS+?

Oh, I also hope for ambient mode and fully customizable controls


----------



## ClieOS (Sep 9, 2021)

monsieurfromag3 said:


> Is that because there’s an “independent DAC”? As in, a dedicated DAC instead of the one in the Qualcomm chip?...



Not because of the independent DAC/amp chips, but because of the Qualcomm QCC514x chips. Any QCC series of chips that support aptx Adaptive and TWS function will support 24/96. aptx Adaptive is basically apt HD (24/96) with alptx LL-like dynamic scaling. What the independent DAC/amp chip will offer is better SQ, higher output power and likely a darker background (as compared to the DAC/amp built into the the BT chip.



C_Lindbergh said:


> Out of curiosity, what is "TWM transmission"? Some new version of TWS+?
> 
> Oh, I also hope for ambient mode and fully customizable controls



Yes and no, it is really more as an improved version of the original TWS, by combing some of TWS+ feature

TWS uses one side of the earpieces as master and the other as slave, so signal goes from smartphone > master > slave. The upside is this is a simple configuration and most smartphone have no problem supporting this. The downside is that if you lose connection to the master, you will lose connection the slave as well. Also, the connection between master and slave is often not nearly as strong as the connection between smartphone and master, so slave can often lose connection on its own.

TWS+ uses two separate channels to each earpieces, so there is no master or slave but both sides run somewhat independently. Upside is that you avoid all the problem that TWS faces, downside is that it takes extra implementation to work and only a few (* and generally the more expensive) Qualcomm Snapdragon SoC can support it.

TWM is similar to TWS that it also uses a master + slave configuration, but they can automatics change between being master and slave depends on connection strength. So if the master side loses connection, the slave side will immediately take over as master and resume back, so in theory losing connection to both side at the same time can be avoided, while at the same time it should be more compatible to more smartphone than TWS+.


----------



## xSDMx

Multi pairing or easy pairing support!?


----------



## monsieurfromag3

ClieOS said:


> Not because of the independent DAC/amp chips, but because of the Qualcomm QCC514x chips. Any QCC series of chips that support aptx Adaptive and TWS function will support 24/96. aptx Adaptive is basically apt HD (24/96) with alptx LL-like dynamic scaling. What the independent DAC/amp chip will offer is better SQ, higher output power and likely a darker background (as compared to the DAC/amp built into the the BT chip.


Actually aptX Adaptive and HD top out at 48kHz, but it’s probably the 514x chip that makes the difference as you say, since it’s part of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Sound thing which sets out to enable 96kHz via Bluetooth.

Eager to hear more about the UTWS5.


----------



## ClieOS

monsieurfromag3 said:


> Actually aptX Adaptive and HD top out at 48kHz, but it’s probably the 514x chip that makes the difference as you say, since it’s part of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Sound thing which sets out to enable 96kHz via Bluetooth.
> 
> Eager to hear more about the UTWS5.


Yep, you are right.


----------



## FiiO Willson

ClieOS said:


> Not because of the independent DAC/amp chips, but because of the Qualcomm QCC514x chips. Any QCC series of chips that support aptx Adaptive and TWS function will support 24/96. aptx Adaptive is basically apt HD (24/96) with alptx LL-like dynamic scaling. What the independent DAC/amp chip will offer is better SQ, higher output power and likely a darker background (as compared to the DAC/amp built into the the BT chip.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent, very standard explanation！
TWM is more technologically advanced and adapted to more devices than TWS+


----------



## ClieOS

This was announced almost a month ago but somehow I missed the whole thing.

TRN BT30: 
BT5.2, Qualcomm QCC3040 + amp chip, aptX, modular design, large charging case, 20hr battery life.


----------



## Urnamaster13

i got the RMCE- TW 2 shure gen 2 adapter.  While it feels comfortable to use, one drawback is i am experiencing huge mismatch between left and right side battery levels.


----------



## ClieOS

Urnamaster13 said:


> i got the RMCE- TW 2 shure gen 2 adapter.  While it feels comfortable to use, one drawback is i am experiencing huge mismatch between left and right side battery levels.


if it is not run on TWS+ mode but only TWS mode, then it is normal for the master side to use more battery than the slave side.


----------



## Urnamaster13

Yes but


ClieOS said:


> if it is not run on TWS+ mode but only TWS mode, then it is normal for the master side to use more battery than the slave side.


Yes but the difference was 81 % in L and 63 % in R.  Anyway i have had it for 24 hours or so only.  I will test it more and report my usage experience.   I am not sure how we can select TWS or TWS+ manually. I used a Fiio M6 and a Samsung galaxy tab S6 to pair with it.


----------



## ClieOS

Urnamaster13 said:


> Yes but
> 
> Yes but the difference was 81 % in L and 63 % in R.  Anyway i have had it for 24 hours or so only.  I will test it more and report my usage experience.   I am not sure how we can select TWS or TWS+ manually. I used a Fiio M6 and a Samsung galaxy tab S6 to pair with it.



Only source (*mainly smartphones) with selected higher end Qualcomm Snapdragon SoC can support TWS+ mode. Otherwise it will uses TWS mode as default.


----------



## ClieOS

TRN BT30

Too early to draw a conclusion, but initial impression is that it is about the same level as OE Audio WS-1 and FiiO UTWS3.


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

ClieOS said:


> TRN BT30
> 
> Too early to draw a conclusion, but initial impression is that it is about the same level as OE Audio WS-1 and FiiO UTWS3.


Hope they do better job with QC. My BT20S Pro box died within 3 months. Now I have dongles and connectors rendered practically useless as I can't charge them.


----------



## BigZ12

ClieOS said:


> TRN BT30
> 
> Too early to draw a conclusion, but initial impression is that it is about the same level as OE Audio WS-1 and FiiO UTWS3.


Got these today.

Sound is really good with Tripowin x HBB Mele.
Very comfortable to wear.
Connection is great with AAC from iPhone 12. 

Would love an app, volume controls and a smaller case...
I regret not waiting for Fiio UTWS5... even if the TRN is a bit cheaper.


----------



## BigZ12

BigZ12 said:


> Got these today.
> 
> Sound is really good with Tripowin x HBB Mele.
> Very comfortable to wear.
> ...


Because there's no app, is there?


----------



## ClieOS

BigZ12 said:


> Because there's no app, is there?



Up until UTWS5 with its DAC/amp setup, there is almost no reason to have app. TRN / UTWS3 / WS-1 alike all has an amp chip inside and those don't support app since nothing can be adjusted via software. UTWS5 will be the first that can really benefit from app.


----------



## BigZ12

ClieOS said:


> Up until UTWS5 with its DAC/amp setup, there is almost no reason to have app. TRN / UTWS3 / WS-1 alike all has an amp chip inside and those don't support app since nothing can be adjusted via software. UTWS5 will be the first that can really benefit from app.


Thanks for answering and explaining. 
Well, with app (EQ) and volume controls on the UTWS5, I'm sold... will order on Amazon when it's available 
(not that I dislike the TRNs, cause they work rock solid and sound very good)


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

@ClieOS have you tried UTWS5? I'm planning to get one as a fit it and forget it solution. Appreciate it if you can point me to your impressions if you have shared and I have missed it. Unfortunately, can't locate it


----------



## ClieOS

Barusu Lamperouge said:


> @ClieOS have you tried UTWS5? I'm planning to get one as a fit it and forget it solution. Appreciate it if you can point me to your impressions if you have shared and I have missed it. Unfortunately, can't locate it


You must have missed my posts on the UTWS5 thread - got my first pair and it turned out to be a lemon, so I am currently waiting for my 2nd pair to come in. Should be here next week.

As far as SQ goes, based my limited experience on the 1st pair, UTWS5 is definitely the best ear hook style adapter out in the market now, bar none.


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

ClieOS said:


> You must have missed my posts on the UTWS5 thread - got my first pair and it turned out to be a lemon, so I am currently waiting for my 2nd pair to come in. Should be here next week.
> 
> As far as SQ goes, based my limited experience on the 1st pair, UTWS5 is definitely the best ear hook style adapter out in the market now, bar none.


Yes, I think I did as I was not active on this forum for last 3-4 weeks. Sad to hear about your lemon. Hopefully the new one is good.

Yes, in terms of overall package, I think it's head and shoulders above anything that's available. After my BT20S Pro box went bust, I'm looking for a good quality replacement. Don't want to get another TRN product as my luck with them has been extremely poor (1/8 products I purchased are functional).


----------



## ClieOS (Oct 26, 2021)

Output impedance:
TRN BT30: 3.3 ohm
FiiO UTWS5: 0.4 ohm

Output impedance is a little higher than I like on the BT30, but it is not completely unusable. I'll recommend not to use any multi-driver IEM that are under 24 ohm with BT30. UTWS5's on the other hand is just excellent.


----------



## Andreeww

Does anyone know if there is there anything that supports UE ipx socket(estron t2, same on 64 audio and inearz)?


----------



## Pro-Jules

ClieOS said:


> Output impedance:
> TRN BT30: 3.3 ohm
> FiiO UTWS5: 0.4 ohm
> 
> Output impedance is a little higher than I like on the BT30, but it is not completely unusable. I'll recommend not to use any multi-driver IEM that are under 24 ohm with BT30. UTWS5's on the other hand is just excellent.


----------



## Pro-Jules

Is that with a 2 pin connector?


----------



## ClieOS

Pro-Jules said:


> Is that with a 2 pin connector?


Both are MMCX, though I do have all the different (0.78mm, 0.75mm, etc) earhook accessories for the BT30.


----------



## Aevum

Just ordered this off Aliexpress
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002842506128.html?spm=a2g0o.placeorder.0.0.7593321exd9ADl&mp=1

it claims LDAC support and QCC5125 which means APTX LL and APTX Adaptive, going to see how it works with my blessing 2

Looks interesting.


----------



## LCMusicLover

Aevum said:


> Just ordered this off Aliexpress
> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002842506128.html?spm=a2g0o.placeorder.0.0.7593321exd9ADl&mp=1
> 
> it claims LDAC support and QCC5125 which means APTX LL and APTX Adaptive, going to see how it works with my blessing 2
> ...


Link didn't take me any place interesting.

But this one did:  https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002842506128.html


----------



## inf.h5n1

Hi, currently running the utws1 but they're starting to fake on battery level and glitch out, and sq in general is not great. time to upgrade.  
Got quite confused on which new tws adapter should I get. I read that utws5 is currently considered best in category, but I'm looking to invest about 80 usd. What should I go with? Utws3? Nicehbk hb2? Bts20pro? bts30?

For reference, will use with CIEMs with 2/4 ab drivers.

 Every input will be appreciated.


----------



## inf.h5n1

inf.h5n1 said:


> Hi, currently running the utws1 but they're starting to fake on battery level and glitch out, and sq in general is not great. time to upgrade.
> Got quite confused on which new tws adapter should I get. I read that utws5 is currently considered best in category, but I'm looking to invest about 80 usd. What should I go with? Utws3? Nicehbk hb2? Bts20pro? bts30?
> 
> For reference, will use with CIEMs with 2/4 ab drivers.
> ...


Up, someone?


----------



## redguardsoldier

inf.h5n1 said:


> Up, someone?


You can consider KZ AZ09 Pro 

The biggest con is that it only comes in KZ's style 2-pin so some modding would be necessary.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

Heads-up: Null-Audio are updating their Nyx cable to support LDAC and aptX Adaptive. It will be the Nyx+, still with a dedicated class A amp. It’s about to launch, and about $25 more expensive than the original Nyx.


----------



## LCMusicLover

monsieurfromag3 said:


> Heads-up: Null-Audio are updating their Nyx cable to support LDAC and aptX Adaptive. It will be the Nyx+, still with a dedicated class A amp. It’s about to launch, and about $25 more expensive than the original Nyx.


Interesting -- any timeframe?


----------



## monsieurfromag3

LCMusicLover said:


> Interesting -- any timeframe?


Very soon: I am sending them back my Nyx next week, and they offered to replace it with the Nyx+ for a $25 top-up. Null will launch a sale later this week too, the Nyx+ will probably get a launch discount.


----------



## Infoseeker

That would make the Nyx+ still quite affordable.


----------



## dh0licious

monsieurfromag3 said:


> Very soon: I am sending them back my Nyx next week, and they offered to replace it with the Nyx+ for a $25 top-up. Null will launch a sale later this week too, the Nyx+ will probably get a launch discount.


Where can I find out more?


----------



## Jaysound (Jun 23, 2022)

RE: Nyx+

How might SQ compare to FiiO BTR5? And does it offer the same volume and track controls?

When practicing my tai chi etc, I've been using a BTR5 on LDAC with Shure SE415 IEMs with the cable they came with, which has onboard controls that mimic actuating the BTR5 controls and uses MMCX connectors. I wear a cloth belt for the phone's belt clip holster and the BTR5. This way I can route the cable behind my back and through the belt in a reasonably stable way, and frequently grabbing the phone doesn't interfere with the cable. Nonetheless, cable management is still very inconvenient with my setup.

The TWS BT cable offered by Shure doesn't come close to the SQ of the BTR5 (and doesn't support LDAC).

If a TWS solution like the Nyx+, or any other product I haven't come across yet, provides comparable SQ and track controls that would be great. I'd even pay more if I find one.

(I'm not a fan of two earbuds with no cable connecting them. Seems like too much BT signal going right through the head, and probably makes control buttons too limiting.)


----------



## Infoseeker

Jaysound said:


> RE: Nyx+
> 
> How might SQ compare to FiiO BTR5? And does it offer the same volume and track controls?
> 
> ...


If we are talking other form factors. What surprised me with SQ that rivals my Qudelix 5k:

If you want good SQ, the Fiio UTWS5. This is their model that finally caught up to other gear.

Lots of imaging and depth in the presentation that an iem can scale with. This is despite it not having LDAC but aptX-adaptive & LDHC. My Thieaudio V16 Divinity really shines in imaging and seperation with this iem. As well as retaining it's BA bass punchiness. Highly recommended combo as well.


----------



## LCMusicLover

Infoseeker said:


> If we are talking other form factors. What surprised me with SQ that rivals my Qudelix 5k:
> 
> If you want good SQ, the Fiio UTWS5. This is their model that finally caught up to other gear.
> 
> Lots of imaging and depth in the presentation that an iem can scale with. This is despite it not having LDAC but aptX-adaptive & LDHC. My Thieaudio V16 Divinity really shines in imaging and seperation with this iem. As well as retaining it's BA bass punchiness. Highly recommended combo as well.


Agree.  As I've been saying on the UTWS5 thread, very good paired with my iBasso IT07s.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

dh0licious said:


> Where can I find out more?


The page for the OG Nyx is here. No announcement about the Nyx+ that I know of, their support only told me about it because I was reporting an issue with my cable.


Jaysound said:


> RE: Nyx+
> 
> How might SQ compare to FiiO BTR5? And does it offer the same volume and track controls?
> 
> ...


I agree with your point about signal going through the head.
The remote will probably be the same and it does give volume and track control. It’s a much more convenient solution for movement-based practices than a BT receiver, especially for something like Tai Chi. For static strength work a receiver works reasonably well. I like that there is a cable linking the buds, it’s much more convenient than TWS where you have nowhere to stash the bud if you take it off the ear. For workouts I use Final’s ZE3000 TWS, which sound crazy good, and fit better than the Nyx which has some stiffness and makes me fiddle. That being said, my wife uses the Nyx with her whole body spinning at hyper speed, or upside down, with no issue!


Infoseeker said:


> If we are talking other form factors. What surprised me with SQ that rivals my Qudelix 5k:
> 
> If you want good SQ, the Fiio UTWS5. This is their model that finally caught up to other gear.
> 
> Lots of imaging and depth in the presentation that an iem can scale with. This is despite it not having LDAC but aptX-adaptive & LDHC. My Thieaudio V16 Divinity really shines in imaging and seperation with this iem. As well as retaining it's BA bass punchiness. Highly recommended combo as well.


I often found myself using the Nyx and thinking to myself I really wasn’t missing anything compared to the 5K. The Qudelix is great but the integrated ES9218/9 uses a well-optimized class D amp if I’m not mistaken. The DAC chip in the Nyx is nothing special, possibly Qualcomm’s own, which is decent since you don’t need DSD capabilities for BT gear, but they have managed to cram a class A amp in there and that makes a big difference. Class A but with huge battery life! I would be curious in a comparison between the Nyx and Hiby’s R5II.
Also Null Audio are proper cable makers and have a very nice customer service, which is also why I am talking about the Nyx+. After I got in touch they installed a special connector at no extra charge for compatibility with my IMR iems.


----------



## emlin

monsieurfromag3 said:


> The page for the OG Nyx is here. No announcement about the Nyx+ that I know of, their support only told me about it because I was reporting an issue with my cable.
> 
> I agree with your point about signal going through the head.
> The remote will probably be the same and it does give volume and track control. It’s a much more convenient solution for movement-based practices than a BT receiver, especially for something like Tai Chi. For static strength work a receiver works reasonably well. I like that there is a cable linking the buds, it’s much more convenient than TWS where you have nowhere to stash the bud if you take it off the ear. For workouts I use Final’s ZE3000 TWS, which sound crazy good, and fit better than the Nyx which has some stiffness and makes me fiddle. That being said, my wife uses the Nyx with her whole body spinning at hyper speed, or upside down, with no issue!
> ...


And breathe...


----------



## Jaysound

Is anyone able to comment on how SQ compares between BTR5 and UTWS5? And maybe also Nyx+?

Note that I like my music to be as clean as possible. That's why I opted for the Shure SE425. I had tried the SE525 and the bass boost ruined the SQ for me. (Yes, I know there are better IEMs that are still clean -- haven't had the budget yet.)


----------



## emlin

Jaysound said:


> Is anyone able to comment on how SQ compares between BTR5 and UTWS5? And maybe also Nyx+?
> 
> Note that I like my music to be as clean as possible. That's why I opted for the Shure SE425. I had tried the SE525 and the bass boost ruined the SQ for me. (Yes, I know there are better IEMs that are still clean -- haven't had the budget yet.)


It would be great if we had accurate measurements for all of these products. Like watts RMS, output impedance, FR, distortion. You know, the things that actually matter.


----------



## Jaysound

Hmph. One might want to check out the reviews on the UTWS5 (MMCX anyway) on Amazon. Many people say SQ is good but say everything else is bad enough to stay away.

(I wonder why I don't see the Nyx on Amazon, or maybe search can't find it buried under all the Nyx makeup products.)

If Nyx+ is ready for purchase, a link, please?


----------



## monsieurfromag3

Jaysound said:


> Hmph. One might want to check out the reviews on the UTWS5 (MMCX anyway) on Amazon. Many people say SQ is good but say everything else is bad enough to stay away.
> 
> (I wonder why I don't see the Nyx on Amazon, or maybe search can't find it buried under all the Nyx makeup products.)
> 
> If Nyx+ is ready for purchase, a link, please?


No link yet I’m afraid, it hasn’t yet been officially launched.
I don’t think it will be on Amazon, it seems like it’s distributed through Null and their distributors directly, like their regular cables. I know Zeppelin carry a bunch of their cables, but that’s in Singapore too. Otherwise you can check their Where to Buy page, but the best bet would be to ask Null directly.


----------



## LCMusicLover

Jaysound said:


> Hmph. One might want to check out the reviews on the UTWS5 (MMCX anyway) on Amazon. Many people say SQ is good but say everything else is bad enough to stay away.
> 
> (I wonder why I don't see the Nyx on Amazon, or maybe search can't find it buried under all the Nyx makeup products.)
> 
> If Nyx+ is ready for purchase, a link, please?


I've probably been as big a fanboy of the UTWS5 as anyone here -- I really like the sound quality I get from them paired with my iBasso IT07s.

I read all 8 of the one, two and three star reviews on Amazon.  Kind of hit-or-miss in terms of validity:

Old complaints about ambient which have been fixed
_- works fine for me now_
2 complaints about about not charging in case
- _I haven't had this happen to me, but maybe I'm just lucky_
Several complaints about stealing BT connection when in case and supposedly not connected
-_ I've probably never run into this as I don't connect something else to my phone_
Complaints about the FiiO control app on Apple
- _My iPhone won't run the app (old iPhone 6 won't run iOS 13) but it's fine on my iPad, just as good as on my Android DAP_

The vast majority of my use is BT audio from my FiiO M15 or iPad or a Windows 10 laptop, with a smaller amount of use with my iPhone for both calls and music. 

So I'm not really qualified to comment on UTWS5's suitability as a phone headset.  But I think they offer top-tier sound quality when paired with good IEMs.

BTW, I couldn't find Nyx on Amazon either. Lots of Null Audio, and lots of Nyx (makeup) but no Null Audio Nyx.


----------



## Jaysound

Thanks. I didn't realize there were only 8 of the one, tow, and three-star reviews. I should have looked at the quantity and not just the percent. At that low of a number, a certain common technical issue comes to mind that could easily account for most of those bad reviews (I don't recall the term but I think it rhymes with "loser terror").

So, any idea how SQ of the UTWS5 compares to the BTR5?

(And any psychic "guess" about how those will compare with the Nyx+?)


----------



## LCMusicLover

Jaysound said:


> Thanks. I didn't realize there were only 8 of the one, tow, and three-star reviews. I should have looked at the quantity and not just the percent. At that low of a number, a certain common technical issue comes to mind that could easily account for most of those bad reviews (I don't recall the term but I think it rhymes with "loser terror").
> 
> So, any idea how SQ of the UTWS5 compares to the BTR5?
> 
> (And any psychic "guess" about how those will compare with the Nyx+?)


Sorry, never heard BRT5.  And I'm waiting for the Nyx+.  I'll probably get one to use with my 2-pin Penon Volts.


----------



## emlin

LCMusicLover said:


> Sorry, never heard BRT5.  And I'm waiting for the Nyx+.  I'll probably get one to use with my 2-pin Penon Volts.


Before you've got any data on its performance? Bold.


----------



## LCMusicLover

LCMusicLover said:


> I've probably been as big a fanboy of the UTWS5 as anyone here -- I really like the sound quality I get from them paired with my iBasso IT07s.
> 
> I read all 8 of the one, two and three star reviews on Amazon.  Kind of hit-or-miss in terms of validity:
> 
> ...


Forgot to mention one complaint that volume was too low _-- not true for me.  With my IT07s, UTWS5s can play 'way too loud'.  When I turn them all the way up, comfortable volume on the M15 is about 20 (max volume is 120). So I don't know what the reviewer was experiencing -- super inefficient IEMs? low output volume on his source? defective?_


----------



## LCMusicLover

emlin said:


> ... Bold.


I'd go with _stupid _


----------



## emlin (Jun 23, 2022)

In response to Elsie :

Oh, great, on a sample of one we can all rest assured that we will experience no problems.

On the other hand, based on a sample of many more...


----------



## Jaysound

I went to buy the Nyx BT5 on the Null-Audio website but reviews say the computer voice is in Chinese. Is that still the case now?


----------



## monsieurfromag3

Jaysound said:


> I went to buy the Nyx BT5 on the Null-Audio website but reviews say the computer voice is in Chinese. Is that still the case now?


I ordered two, one had the English voice, the other is Asian. Not a problem, it’s just two cues, one for on/off, the other for connection, I just recognize them and the voice is too cute. In the Order section you can add a comment to request that they check the language.

I don’t get the posts calling people stupid, the Nyx+ is basically the Nyx with a better BT chipset. If you need reviews there are 54 of them on Null Audio’s website, not all of them glowing, maybe start there.


----------



## LCMusicLover

monsieurfromag3 said:


> I ordered two, one had the English voice, the other is Asian. Not a problem, it’s just two cues, one for on/off, the other for connection, I just recognize them and the voice is too cute. In the Order section you can add a comment to request that they check the language.
> 
> I don’t get the posts calling people stupid, the Nyx+ is basically the Nyx with a better BT chipset. If you need reviews there are 54 of them on Null Audio’s website, not all of them glowing, maybe start there.


To be clear, 'stupid' was a self-own.  I have been repeatedly found guilty of impulse purchases based on limited information and relying on a few glowing impressions.

@emlin was trying to cut me a little slack with _*bold* _-- thanks!

I don't really consider myself 'stupid', but it's easier to type than 'impatient/impetuous/impulsive'


----------



## monsieurfromag3

LCMusicLover said:


> To be clear, 'stupid' was a self-own.  I have been repeatedly found guilty of impulse purchases based on limited information and relying on a few glowing impressions.
> 
> @emlin was trying to cut me a little slack with _*bold* _-- thanks!
> 
> I don't really consider myself 'stupid', but it's easier to type than 'impatient/impetuous/impulsive'


My bad, totally sorry I didn’t get that, I wasn’t paying attention enough to who was posting what! I applaud your boldness…


----------



## Jaysound

Null-Audio just responded to my inquiry about when and where the Nyx+ will be available for purchase and specs:

Thank you for your interests in Nyx+. It will be available for purchase via website in 2-3 weeks time.
Specifications will be shown on the product webpage.
Stay tuned


----------



## Jaysound

Suggestions, please?

I've been loving the FiiO BTR5 with my Shure SE415s and the Shure cable with controls. But the cable management headache combined with the BTR5 on a cloth belt hitting buttons by accident while practicing tai chi and chi gong has become too much of a hassle.

I'm now on the hunt for BT for IEMs that either connect to each other with a cable (to wrap up for transport and hang on the neck when pausing, versus a solid band) or a BT cable-free set. In either case, I need over-ear form factor for stability while jumping around (occasionally play with kung fu), MMCX connectors, controls for volume up-down, track forward-back, and pause-play, and yes a mic so I can give Google Assisant verbal commands about the music and can answer a call on the fly (I don't care about mic quality since I always change to a dedicated phone BT device after answering a call).

I've been spoiled with LDAC with the BTR5. (I'm currently using a Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra, which has LDAC support, as did my prior Android phone.)

FiiO? Shure? Null-Audio? Something else?

My budget is up to about $250 I guess, if I must, though under $200 would be nice, too.

Thanks so much!


----------



## emlin

I got some Shure TW2 ear hooks yesterday and so far I am very pleased with them. No LDAC, but aptx seems to work well. Well worth a look, I'd say.


----------



## Jaysound

Thanks. That's what I've been eyeing, too. I just hope the SQ is substantially better than the discontinued Shure Bluetooth RMCE-BT2, which left much to be desired (too much).


----------



## xSDMx (Jul 4, 2022)

Another vote for the Shure TW2 adapters. I've had them for the past half year and absolutely love them with my SE846. SQ is great even over AAC codec, app is solid, ambient mode is fantastic (configurable ambient on pause in particular), and usability is perfect. They've pretty much satisfied my TWS itch. The only improvements I'd want are unrelated to the SQ and core experience: wireless charging and a more pocketable charging case.


----------



## ClieOS

If it must be earhook, my recommendation goes to FiiO UTWS5.


----------



## emlin

ClieOS said:


> If it must be earhook, my recommendation goes to FiiO UTWS5.


Unobtanium in the UK, allegedly because their distributor had too many returns.


----------



## Jaysound

ClieOS said:


> If it must be earhook, my recommendation goes to FiiO UTWS5.


I realize Amazon is not exactly an audiophile review site, but reviews on it there are not very impressive.

Interesting that they state it provides "wireless and lossless transmission".


----------



## Jaysound

ClieOS said:


> If it must be earhook, my recommendation goes to FiiO UTWS5.


Not necessarily free earhooks. Earhooks with a cable connecting them (with the controls and battery on the cable) are also of interest. I'm not sure what the term is for that.


----------



## xSDMx

I didn't have a very positive experience with either the FiiO UTWS3 or UTWS5. I went through two replacements before I gave up and happily found the TW2. The FiiO hardware is great and everything seems perfect on paper, but the implementation, usability, and quality control were IMO lacking vs the Shure solution. If you only care about SQ or have a hard to drive IEM and can possibly deal with a few exchanges and fiddling, the FiiO options might be worthwhile. Otherwise, I'd strongly recommend the TW2 instead.


----------



## ClieOS

emlin said:


> Unobtanium in the UK, allegedly because their distributor had too many returns.


Mine still works perfectly fine and I have one the the earliest batch.


----------



## Jaysound

xSDMx said:


> I didn't have a very positive experience with either the FiiO UTWS3 or UTWS5. I went through two replacements before I gave up and happily found the TW2. The FiiO hardware is great and everything seems perfect on paper, but the implementation, usability, and quality control were IMO lacking vs the Shure solution. If you only care about SQ or have a hard to drive IEM and can possibly deal with a few exchanges and fiddling, the FiiO options might be worthwhile. Otherwise, I'd strongly recommend the TW2 instead.


Are you suggesting SQ was superior with the FiiO vs Shure in your judgment?


----------



## xSDMx

Jaysound said:


> Are you suggesting SQ was superior with the FiiO vs Shure in your judgment?


In practice, it was not noticeable to me. But, theoretically, yes. 

On paper, the AMP and DAC in the UTWS5 are "better" than the TW2 hardware with stronger power output and better codec support. If you have a hard to drive IEM (the SE846 are not hard to drive), you might notice a difference in volume output or relative noise floor. Similarly, if you've convinced yourself you can audibly perceive differences between Bluetooth audio codecs and have a full AptX Adaptive signal path (few output devices support this codec), then maybe that will also improve SQ. The TW2 supports basic AptX and the UTWS5 supports AptX Adaptive. Adaptive requires the source to support it as well. It won't do the AptX HD equivalent unless your source can also negotiate that. Otherwise, it will just fall back to the same bitrate the basic AptX codec also available on the TW2 provides.

Now, all of this is moot for me, personally. The UTWS5 provided an awful usability experience. Ambient mode is poorly implemented. The magnetic switch in the charging case would sometimes randomly not "close" and result in the UTWS5 staying connected to my source device and draining overnight instead of charging. The FiiO app and firmware update process is a nerve-wracking mess that left one of my sets totally bricked. Managing device pairing with multiple devices is a nightmare. It's such a PITA to switch from, say, your phone to your laptop to do a work conference, etc. Shure NAILS the usability and that's what's ultimately most important to me. 

If you're just sitting in a chair and doing critical listening, probably the usability aspect doesn't matter. But I use my TW2 when out and about, exercising, for work, etc. and they are light-years beyond the FiiO experience.


----------



## xSDMx

"Perfect" timing... @Jaysound Definitely read through the latest replies in the main UTWS5 thread to get a good sense of the QC and usability issues.


----------



## ClieOS

I think it is worth noting that you will only get the full benefit of UTWS5's aptx Adaptive if you have (or planned to have) Android smartphone with Snapdragon 888+ or later, where 24/96 is supported. Anything older / different might only get get you the regular 16/48 aptx Adaptive - which is still better than AAC, but not quite as noticeable. Of course if you are using iPhone, then you are stuck with AAC regardless so the source devices matter as well, not just which BT adapter.


----------



## xSDMx

I heard a rumour that the upcoming Nyx+ from Null Audio might support LDAC. The anticipation is building!


----------



## Pro-Jules (Jul 7, 2022)

Because My iems are a very deep custom fit it's really difficult to get them out of my ears - this combined with two pin connectors (that come undone while I attempt to dig my iems out of my ears) makes it almost impossible for me to use neck band models - I seriously risk an iem detaching, falling down and rolling into drain when out in the street.

I have owned Fiio & Plussound neck band models

But I like following these threads


----------



## Jaysound (Jul 16, 2022)

I've purchased the Shure TW2 and am having an interesting adventure trying to get really good SQ from them.

I'm using them with Shure SE425s. Samsung S22 Ultra phone. Tidal HD streaming music for the most part.

I was previously using a FiiO BTR5 and love it! And I have never used any software for EQ with the BTR5, just ran the default.

On comparing SQ between the TW2 and BTR5 using the TW2 default settings, there is no comparison. TW2 is sorely lacking.

(I have the Shure PLAY software running, and I set it for the SE425s.)

By the time I'd get volume up high enough to feel the bass, which was actually the phone's max volume setting or one click below max, the mids and especially the highs were too overpowering to even listen to.

Note that with the TW2 using the volume control in the TW2 or the volume control on the phone have the same result -- the TW2 volume control just changes the volume control on the phone.

I tried the EQ Presets in PLAY for boosting or cutting bass or treble but any improvements came with pro and con tradeoffs.

I really don't want to use EQ anyway. I use the SE425s because they're known for producing natural, undistorted sound.

Then I tried the EQ Present "Loudness" and that seemed to help. It says it helps when listening at low volume, but for me it helped when listening and high volume, which is where I had the most problems. I was able to keep the phone's volume setting a bit lower to have the same level of actual output volume, and that corresponded to less of the overwhelm I was getting at defaults with the same output volume level.

So, that led me to thinking: maybe the Loudness EQ preset is just boosting things across the spectrum a little bit, allowing me to keep the phone's volume setting a bit lower, and the reason it sounds better this way is because the software's EQ boosting is apparently doing a better job of adding volume than the phone's volume control is.

So, I created a custom EQ setting and tried setting everything to max across the board, but it doesn't allow the high end to go to max and the result was that I had lost some high end -- but other than that it was a substantial improvement over what I'd have before and, yes, I was of course able to keep the phone's volume setting even lower than before to get the same output volume level I'd had. This, of course, further supported the theory that the TW2's ability to increase volume without a detrimental effect on SQ is better than the phone's ability to increase volume.

So, to compensate for the fact that it doesn't allow maxing the high end, I brought everything down to about 50% above the default baseline, so now it all was even. And the result was a dramatic improvement. I could keep the phone's volume setting much lower than before and yet the SQ is far superior to anything I'd been getting from the TW2 previously.

Then I decided to try it in the other direction. It occurred to me that I had learned on this forum a while back when I first got the BTR5 that when there is a series of two output devices it's usually best to have the device that's first in the line set to max volume output and then use the second device to actually adjust the volume. It also occurred to me that the BTR5 does spectacularly well when the phone is set to max volume. So, maybe the goal should not just be to have the volume on the phone set lower than its max, and maybe the problem isn't actually how the phone outputs at high volume.

So I tried a new custom EQ setting that brings everything equally down about 50% from the default baseline, allowing me to have the phone's volume setting at max or just below max, thereby giving the TW2 the most source audio to work with.

The result seems to be about as good as I can hope for. The high is a bit much at max volume, so I brought that down a bit.

To have volume control when desired, I'll just may create two or three of these, so the phone's volume is always set at max.

I wanted to share this in case it helps anyone, or anyone wants to play with this and share their experience, and if anyone wants to share their advice. (I have no idea how to use the EQ so I just used the middle -/+ to lower the heights of the dots.)

I guess at the end of the day I can just use the Presets for Bass Boost or Treble Cut and end up close to what I'm doing.

It's too bad all this tinkering is needed for decent SQ from these. But at least the EQ is there and one can get decent results.

All in all the TW2 is great in my opinion. The implementation and convenience are superb! (I just wish SQ matched the BTR5.)

EDIT: Yes, I realize the BTR5 is running LDAC while the TW2 is running aptX. All in all, once using the EQ, it's darned good.


----------



## ngd3

If you had to buy/keep one - BTR5 or Qudelix? And why?


----------



## emlin

Jaysound said:


> I've purchased the Shure TW2 and am having an interesting adventure trying to get really good SQ from them.
> 
> I'm using them with Shure SE425s. Samsung S22 Ultra phone. Tidal HD streaming music for the most part.
> 
> ...


Have you tried turning off absolute volume in developer options?


----------



## Jaysound

emlin said:


> Have you tried turning off absolute volume in developer options?


My novice ears may be mistaken but that does seem to smooth things out and tamp down the overpowering highs at high volume. I wonder why that is? Any idea?

I can't say yet whether there are SQ downsides to this approach. 

The one obvious usability downside with this approach, though, is that one loses any hint of granular control over volume levels. The up-down buttons on the phone are rather course -- it makes big jumps with each click -- and the user has to go into "Media output" for the manual slider to gain more granular control, but at least that is available. With "Disable Absolute Volume" enabled that's lost and one has to use the TW2 volume control, which of course is just the "press > press and hold" on the TW2 itself, which is about as opposite from granular control as one can get. Wouldn't a simple manual slider in the PLAY app be nice? And it would be simple for Shure to add.


----------



## emlin (Jul 17, 2022)

Jaysound said:


> My novice ears may be mistaken but that does seem to smooth things out and tamp down the overpowering highs at high volume. I wonder why that is? Any idea?
> 
> I can't say yet whether there are SQ downsides to this approach.
> 
> The one obvious usability downside with this approach, though, is that one loses any hint of granular control over volume levels. The up-down buttons on the phone are rather course -- it makes big jumps with each click -- and the user has to go into "Media output" for the manual slider to gain more granular control, but at least that is available. With "Disable Absolute Volume" enabled that's lost and one has to use the TW2 volume control, which of course is just the "press > press and hold" on the TW2 itself, which is about as opposite from granular control as one can get. Wouldn't a simple manual slider in the PLAY app be nice? And it would be simple for Shure to add.


You could try setting the volume to max on the TW2 and just using the phone for volume adjustment. The only possible advantage of either approach is that you are disabling one of the volume controls.


----------



## Jaysound

emlin said:


> You could try setting the volume to max on the TW2 and just using the phone for volume adjustment. The only possible advantage of either approach is that you are disabling one of the volume controls.



This is a curiosity for me now.

Obviously, as is clear when one uses Disable Absolute Volume and gets two separate volume controls, one for the phone's volume and one for the TW2's volume, then the question is when it's all at default and the phone and TW2 volume controls are tied together with Absolute Volume enabled by default, what is *actually *going up and down when hitting the volume controls (any volume controls since they move together), the phone's volume control or the TW2's volume control?

Is it, perhaps, indeed keeping the phone at max and adjusting the TW2's volume only?

And, the inevitable next question is whether there's reason to expect one should be more capable of producing optimal SQ than the other? Would it indeed be best, at least in theory or on paper, to do as you suggested and have the phone at max and use the TW2's volume control to set the desired listening level (consistent with what I wrote earlier about having been told that ideally the first output device should be at max and the second should be used to set the listening level)?


----------



## jmwant

Jaysound said:


> Null-Audio just responded to my inquiry about when and where the Nyx+ will be available for purchase and specs:
> 
> Thank you for your interests in Nyx+. It will be available for purchase via website in 2-3 weeks time.
> Specifications will be shown on the product webpage.
> Stay tuned


At same Price range?


----------



## Jaysound

jmwant said:


> At same Price range?


I didn't ask about price.

I did correspond with them again last week about when it will be available to purchase on their site and they said probably next week. (They didn't respond to my question about whether it will have LDAC.)


----------



## monsieurfromag3

The Nyx+ has LDAC, will cost about $25 more, and switches from class A to D amplification.


----------



## emlin

monsieurfromag3 said:


> The Nyx+ has LDAC, will cost about $25 more, and switches from class A to D amplification.


Class D should mean longer battery life.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

emlin said:


> Class D should mean longer battery life.


I think battery life is the same. Which must mean it was some variation on class A before anyway, since it’s rated for 20 hours! I can confirm the Nyx has very long battery life and packs a lot of driving power. It’s what you would expect from a neckband, without the rigid band. More playback time and volume headroom than with TWS if you plug in iems with average impedance/sensitivity specs.


----------



## Jaysound (Jul 17, 2022)

monsieurfromag3 said:


> I think battery life is the same. Which must mean it was some variation on class A before anyway, since it’s rated for 20 hours! I can confirm the Nyx has very long battery life and packs a lot of driving power. It’s what you would expect from a neckband, without the rigid band. More playback time and volume headroom than with TWS if you plug in iems with average impedance/sensitivity specs.


So do you have a guess as to whether SQ might rival the Shure TW2? The prices are two-fold apart. The TW2 has EQ/software/environment (ambient sound) mode that could account for the price difference since it only has aptX (etc), while the Nyx+ apparently has LDAC.


----------



## xSDMx

Jaysound said:


> So do you have a guess as to whether SQ might rival the Shure TW2? The prices are two-fold apart. The TW2 has EQ/software/environment (ambient sound) mode that could account for the price difference since it only has aptX (etc), while the Nyx+ apparently has LDAC.


It'll depend on your use case. The Nyx+ with LDAC should definitely be better from a SQ standpoint. But you lose ambient mode and gain a wire around your neck. Different tools for different jobs.


----------



## monsieurfromag3

Jaysound said:


> So do you have a guess as to whether SQ might rival the Shure TW2? The prices are two-fold apart. The TW2 has EQ/software/environment (ambient sound) mode that could account for the price difference since it only has aptX (etc), while the Nyx+ apparently has LDAC.


I would tend to agree with @xSDMx because the cable makes it possible to have a beefier dac/amp unit, but I have never heard the Shure. Codecs don’t say everything, you can have great sound with aptX.


----------



## Jaysound

The response I received today from Null-Audio regarding the launch of the Nyx+ is below.

=============

Support (NASTECH) 
Jul 22, 2022, 16:04 GMT+8

Hi Jay,

Thanks for your enthusiasm in Nyx+. Cables production is completed and engineers are running final testing to get more specs.

Planning to launch end July or early August. Newsletter will be sent out. Stay tuned with us~

Regards,
Support Executive


----------



## Luke Skywalker

I’m using the UTWS5 + Monarch Mk2 and the sound is astonishing. I love the controls and the ear hooks are comfortable


----------



## Urnamaster13

I am using the Shure TW2 for nearly a year, with Shure 215 earphone.    It is almost perfect for how i require them to function. The pause-play and trigger environment/ambient mode works very well. 
and is useful.
 Major issues i feel can be improved-   
1.  The uneven battery drain- from what i understood from this forum, it is a side-effect of qualcomm TWM codec for all True wireless earbuds, so it is not issue specific to Shure. However, it is annoying when using and hope they can somehow fix this.  TWM stereo+ or something does give even battery drain but i think not many audio sources can output using it.
2. The case can be a bit smaller and have wireless charging for this price.
3. AptX only - Hope they can come out with a version which has LDAC. Many new android devices are opting out of AptX codecs but still have LDAC.


----------



## ClieOS (Aug 7, 2022)

Urnamaster13 said:


> ...
> 3. AptX only - Hope they can come out with a version which has LDAC. Many new android devices are opting out of AptX codecs but still have LDAC.


Qualcomm chipset that currently support TWS function doesn't support LDAC. This would seems to be mainly an Qualcomm issue as they don't want to help the competition. Actually most Android smartphones these days that use Qualcomm processor (*which are a lot) will almost certain has a Qualcomm bluetooth chip as well. Qualcomm is pushing aptx Adaptive as an LDAC replacement so they are unlikely want to make it easy to implement LDAC on their products. The reason you see many Android devices with LDAC support has to do with the fact that Sony has contributed the LDAC source code (*the encoding part) to Android and thus is is free to include with any Android devices. aptx on the other hand is a paid feature that comes with Qualcomm bluetooth chipset.


----------



## Urnamaster13

ClieOS said:


> Qualcomm chipset that currently support TWS function doesn't support LDAC. This would seems to be mainly an Qualcomm issue as they don't want to help the competition. Actually most Android smartphones these days that use Qualcomm processor (*which are a lot) will almost certain has a Qualcomm bluetooth chip as well. Qualcomm is pushing aptx Adaptive as an LDAC replacement so they are unlikely want to make it easy to implement LDAC on their products. The reason you see many Android devices with LDAC support has to do with the fact that Sony has contributed the LDAC source code (*the encoding part) to Android and thus is is free to include with any Android devices. aptx on the other hand is a paid feature that comes with Qualcomm bluetooth chipset.



This is why Samsung developed their own codec called SSC for their own TWS. i seriously wish the codec confusion is settled. Qualcomm is probaly being too greedy on the amount required to license the codec. 
The AptX adaptive codec seems to be what they will settle on, but i am worried it will work on high end chips only, leading to lack of power efficient or cheap chips for portable music players.


----------



## RPKwan

Got the CF01 free when I bought the DX320. I was curious so I dug out some old classics and they sound incredible. 

Was so great to do con-calls with Sony EX1000.


----------



## RPKwan




----------



## RPKwan

These are all MMCX so no need for any adapter, plus they're incredibly light so you don't even feel them.

Top: Xelento 
Middle: Modded Sony MH755
Bottom: Radius TWF41


----------



## ClieOS

Good thing you got it for free. It doesn't really worth the asking price.


----------



## xSDMx

Looks good with the EX1000! Unfortunately, I had a lot of connectivity issues with the CF01 and the noise floor was not great IIRC, so I returned them pretty quickly.


----------



## RPKwan

ClieOS said:


> Good thing you got it for free. It doesn't really worth the asking price.


Totally agree. I wouldn't buy it at all if it wasn't a gift, however with these classic and easy-to-drive IEMs it's great.


----------



## Urnamaster13

@ClieOS I use Shure TW2 with- Fiio M6 and my phone or tablet.   It sounds very low on Fiio M6 compared to phone or tablet source. I have to crank it up to 70-90 on M6 for decent level sound.

Why does it work that way ? is the audio signal ampliefied a lot on phone/tab compared to M6 ?


----------



## ClieOS

Urnamaster13 said:


> @ClieOS I use Shure TW2 with- Fiio M6 and my phone or tablet.   It sounds very low on Fiio M6 compared to phone or tablet source. I have to crank it up to 70-90 on M6 for decent level sound.
> 
> Why does it work that way ? is the audio signal ampliefied a lot on phone/tab compared to M6 ?


Don't have TW2 so I can't be 100% certain. However, volume control on M6 over BT should be fully digital and doesn't have any amplification on the M6's side. Have you tried adjusting the gain setting to see if it makes any difference?


----------



## LCMusicLover (Aug 19, 2022)

Nyx+ BT5.1 Wireless In-Ear Monitor Cable now available at Null Audio for $89.

Turns out to be about $115 between $21 shipping and a $5 'item personalization' fee -- which appears to be an up-charge related to getting anything other than 2-pin connectors.

Perhaps these will show up at another vendor -- after doing a little research it appears that Null Audio's customer service is a little ... inconsistent.


----------



## xSDMx (Aug 19, 2022)

LCMusicLover said:


> Nyx+ BT5.1 Wireless In-Ear Monitor Cable now available at Null Audio for $89.
> 
> Turns out to be about $115 between $21 shipping and a $5 'item personalization' fee -- which appears to be an up-charge related to getting anything other than 2-pin connectors.
> 
> Perhaps these will show up at another vendor -- after doing a little research it appears that Null Audio's customer service is a little ... inconsistent.


I wish someone would release one of these neckband adapters with transparency/ambient mode, the hardware should technically support it. The TW2 have spoiled me and I'm hesitant to buy something else now because passive "noise cancellation" combined with active transparency mode is amazing.


----------



## Jaysound

> xSDMx said:
> 
> 
> > I wish someone would release one of these neckband adapters with transparency/ambient mode, the hardware should technically support it. The TW2 have spoiled me and I'm hesitant to buy something else now because passive "noise cancellation" combined with active transparency mode is amazing.


I totally agree. Still, will try Nyx+.


----------



## OscarMayerWiener

I just recently lost my BGVP M2 set, which is a shame. They had the best implementation of multipoint switching I had seen yet. I was able to seamlessly switch between my notebook and my phone. I've tried the Fiio Lc-bt1 and Mee Btx2 as well, but they are not as smooth by a long shot. Is there any alternative or update that supports this as well?


----------



## lexnihilo

Jaysound said:


> I totally agree. Still, will try Nyx+.


Just be warned, the cable is super short - copying and pasting the review I left on their product page below. Since leaving it, Null Audio replied to another review with similar complaints saying they're aware of the issue and looking at making the cable longer. Shanling MW200 is still better if you're looking for something with regular MMCX connectors. I'd say the Fiio neckband is second, but it has a problem with cable relief - the wire inside the cable connecting the IEM to the neckband will eventually slice through the rubbery insulation where it joins the neckband. And the Hiby WU1 has serious latency issues causing audio to be out of sync with video.



> Purchased the Nyx+ because of the option to select connectors for my Sennheiser IE 600s. Audio sounds good-to-great. Microphone is ok, higher amount of detail but also *much* less noise cancellation than any other neckband mmcx adapter I have. Where it really falls flat is, the cables between the iem connectors and pods, and between the pods themselves are waaaay too short. So short that there's no way to wear it without it flopping around with any quick side-to-side head movement. Behind the neck, the center cable is too short and pulls the two pods backwards to lie along side your neck. In front of the neck, the pods dangle just under my jaw, so turning your head causes them to swing and smack against your jaw - which is *very* audibly picked up by the mic if you're on a call.
> 
> Overall, to me, this is a swing-and-miss. I prefer neckband type BT DACs for using iems when I'm active and don't want a long cable to a separate BT DAC like the qudelix 5k swinging around. The Nyx+ goes too far the other way, and leaves the cables so short that the pods can't rest on your shoulders like other wire-type neckbands, e.g. Hiby WU1.


----------



## Urnamaster13

ClieOS said:


> Don't have TW2 so I can't be 100% certain. However, volume control on M6 over BT should be fully digital and doesn't have any amplification on the M6's side. Have you tried adjusting the gain setting to see if it makes any difference?


 I tested, It seems the volume level of earphones changes as per the device i connect it to.  What was happening that if i connected the Shure Gen2 to my tab or phone, it took the volume level i had on that device, and when i connected to Fiio M6, it stayed at that level.   Changing volume level on the Fiio M6 seemed to be independent of the volume level of the Shure Gen 2 Wireless adpater.

Workaround i am using is to first connect the Shure gen 2 to my PC, leavve it at 100 % volume and then connect to the Fiio M6, or else i use the button controls on the Adapter whenever i connect to Fiio M6 directly.


----------



## BCool

Any neckband adaptors to look out for on 11.11? My BT20s Pro had been falling off a few time this year and I finally lost it for good (though, thankfully not the IEM attached to the hook) last night in the rain. I'm looking for something that can be used in the gym, preferably MMCX.

Thanks!


----------



## C4PPY

lexnihilo said:


> Just be warned, the cable is super short - copying and pasting the review I left on their product page below. Since leaving it, Null Audio replied to another review with similar complaints saying they're aware of the issue and looking at making the cable longer. Shanling MW200 is still better if you're looking for something with regular MMCX connectors. I'd say the Fiio neckband is second, but it has a problem with cable relief - the wire inside the cable connecting the IEM to the neckband will eventually slice through the rubbery insulation where it joins the neckband. And the Hiby WU1 has serious latency issues causing audio to be out of sync with video.


So if they made the cable longer it would be a better option then the MW200?


----------

