Comparisons

TFZ No.3 Ti vs TFZ No.3

The No.3 Ti has more sub-bass quantity than the No.3 and it boasts greater extension. The sub-bass reproduction on the No.3 Ti has a higher level of incision and it is tighter. The mid-bass on the No.3 has slightly more body and the slam is expressed with less punch than on the No.3 Ti. Each bass note on the No.3 Ti is articulated in a more precise manner. The bass texture on the No.3 Ti is rendered smoothly while the bass decay is quicker. The overall bass expression on the No.3 Ti is full-bodied and impactful. The midrange on the No.3 Ti is presented in a cleaner approach and the transparency level is higher. Vocals on the No.3 Ti are clear and detailed. The lower midrange on the No.3 has slightly more body than the No.3 Ti but with reduced clarity. The upper midrange on the No.3 Ti is emphasized more and female vocals are presented with higher intimacy level. The treble on the No.3 Ti has greater extension and there is a greater amount of air rendered. The No.3 Ti has well defined crisp. The extra sparkle gives the No.3 Ti the edge over the No.3. The presentation on the No.3 Ti is more engaging and detailed. In terms of soundstage, there is a more natural expansion on the No.3 Ti. The No.3 Ti commands greater width magnitude and the depth is less closed in.

TFZ No.3 Ti vs Tanchjim Oxygen

The No.3 Ti has more sub-bass quantity than the Oxygen and it boasts better extension. There is additional depth on the No.3 Ti. The sub-bass reproduction on the No.3 Ti provides more rumble than the Oxygen and there is greater impact. The No.3 Ti provides a punchier feeling. The bass texture on the both is rendered with similar smoothness and the bass decay on the No.3 Ti is slightly quicker. The mid-bass on the Oxygen is fuller and the slam is being delivered in a fuller manner. Each bass note on the No.3 Ti is articulated with precision. The midrange on the Oxygen is warmer than the No.3 Ti. There is higher transparency level on the No.3 Ti. Vocals on the No.3 Ti are clearer. The lower midrange on the Oxygen has slightly more quantity. Male vocals are expressed with additional presence and clarity on the No.3 Ti. The upper midrange on the No.3 Ti is boosted well and the extra forwardness contributes to a more engaging female vocals display. For the treble section, the No.3 Ti has better extension with a brighter presentation and the amount of air rendered is greater. The crisp on the No.3 Ti is more defined. The Oxygen is able to exhibit a little more sparkle at the top end. Lastly, the soundstage expansion on the No.3 Ti is more natural. The No.3 Ti has greater width magnitude and it has the advantage in depth. The soundstage on the No.3 Ti gives a more holographic feeling.

TFZ No.3 Ti vs Acoustune HS1551 CU

The No.3 Ti has more sub-bass quantity than the HS1551 CU with slightly greater extension. The rumble on the No.3 Ti is expressed in a more impactful manner. The mid-bass of the HS1551 CU has slightly more body than the No.3 Ti and the No.3 Ti exhibits greater punch. The HS1551 CU takes on a smoother approach. The bass decay on the HS1551 CU is quicker and the bass texture rendered on the both is rendered with similar smoothness. Each bass note on the No.3 Ti is articulated with a more weighted feeling. The No.3 Ti has a fuller bass performance. The midrange on the HS1551 CU is lusher than the No.3 Ti but with reduced transparency level. The lower midrange on the No.3 has slightly more body and male vocals are presented with extra clarity. The upper midrange on the No.3 Ti is more forward and the boost contributes to a more lively female vocals performance. Next, for the treble section, the No.3 Ti has greater extension while the HS1551 CU has extra body with a smooth expression. The amount of air rendered on the No.3 Ti provides an airier feeling. The No.3 Ti has a more energetic display with additional sparkle to inject liveliness. Lastly, the soundstage expansion on both is natural. The width on the No.3 Ti is greater. The HS1551 CU has a more closed in depth for an intimate feeling.

photo_2019-05-29_22-00-11 (2)

Page 5: Conclusion