Delivery Content:
In-Ears, cable, shirt clip, carrying pouch, three pairs of narrow bore silicone tips, four pairs of wide bore silicone tips.
This and That:
Quite nice cable but lacks chin-slider.
The plastic shells appear a bit thin.
Sound:
I've only used low impedance sources as well as the included tips for listening.
What slightly surprised me about the unit I received, in a very positive way, was its extremely good channel matching with a deviation of less than 0.3 dB (not +/-, but in total!) per side from 20 to 20 kHz, which is something that only very rarely occurs. Maybe a sign for really good acoustic quality control and consistency at TFZ?
Tonality:
The narrow bore tips will basically have a slightly splashier upper treble response.
The following observations were done using the included wide bore tips.
Well, the Series 2 follows a tuning that is quite commonly found among many Asian dynamic driver and hybrid in-ears, since it follows a w-shape with an elevated sub-bass, bright and highlighted upper mids, and an emphasised upper treble. In case of the TFZ, while the implementation of the bass emphasis on its own is done tremendously well, the company might have gone just a little overboard with the upper midrange and treble.
Starting with the good thing, regarded on its own, the bass, that is implemented really well: it doesn’t start climbing before 550 Hz, and then climbs down with a quite slow and gradual increase, peaking at 30 Hz with an emphasis of around 10 or 14 dB compared to an in-ear that is diffuse-field neutral in the bass, such as the Etymotic ER-4S/SR, depending on whether the inner vent is fully open or blocked, which will ultimately depend on one’s individual ear anatomy.
So yes, what you get is a pretty perfect sub-bass elevation that gets along without any bloom, added warmth or even the tiniest bit of bloat.
While a slowly, gradually increasing bass emphasis that peaks in the sub-bass, as found in the TFZ Series 2, is generally desirable, a more traditional and warm midbass hump with a warm fundamental range and lower midrange would have been the more harmonious and pleasant implementation for this in-ear since its midrange unfortunately lacks some countervailing warmth.
Moving on to the midrange, what we find is a quite thin and rather artificial presentation with a boosted upper midrange that makes male vocals lack body and appear on the thinner side, while female vocals tend to be slightly shrill at times and thin as well. Remember my comment about the bass right above? Yeah, the Series 2 unfortunately lacks some warmth to make up for the upper midrange elevation.
An upper midrange elevation, if done tastefully, can emphasise clarity, air and female vocals, but here it is a bit too much and even surpasses the Shozy x AAW Hibiki’s midrange brightness to some degree, leading to a quite artificial and thin midrange presentation.
In-ears such as the UPQ Q-music QE80 (Fidue A83 OEM), iBasso IT03 or Echobox Finder X1, just to name three examples, show how a bright midrange and treble tuning can be done rather well for what it aims for, but no, in case of the TFZ it is just a bit too much in the upper mids, skewing the timbre and vocal balance to a degree that comes across as quite unnatural and thin. Either way, an elevated, bright upper midrange will always be a double-edged sword. Some will like the gimmicky and airy nature of it, while others will miss the realism and naturalness.
From 1 to 10 kHz, level climbs almost continuously, with definitely too much energy between 3 and 5 kHz to create a realistic midrange, only a slight dip around 6 kHz that is definitely too mild to generate headroom for the elevation(s), and a bright 9 to 10 kHz upper treble with a super treble extension past 10 kHz that is bright as well. Nope, what’s missing here is definitely a dip in the middle highs to create headroom for the brightness.
While the gradually increasing upper midrange to upper treble emphasis is quite even wherefore one won’t find any sudden, edgy peaks, the treble comes across as a bit too hard and also somewhat edgy. Cymbals (and other instruments such as pianos and violins) by the way don’t sound like cymbals either but appear more like some (badly done) electronically generated sounds.
Resolution:
Detail retrieval, unlike the treble and midrange tuning is where the TFZ, quite surprisingly, doesn’t suck.
Starting once again with the bass, the Series 2 surprises the listener with a nicely nimble, quick, tight and well-controlled bass response with sub-bass notes that are textured well. Yup, the lows are definitely a strong point of this in-ear and among the better that is available at this price.
Speech intelligibility and midrange resolution are good for the price and don’t leave anything left to be desired.
Unfortunately not the same can be said about the treble , since while it is adequately detailed and separated for the price, it just lacks the softness and ultimate resolution to really pull this emphasis off. It is just a bit too hard and also a bit edgy to fit to the lean upper-end implementation.
Soundstage:
The spatial presentation doesn’t really stand out, nor is it bad in any way.
The soundstage appears to be quite circular, with quite good openness for a semi-open dynamic driver in-ear while it doesn’t really leave the base of my head by much.
Layering, separation and placement of instruments are appropriate for the price – while they aren’t any bad and surpass some models, most higher-priced in-ears perform better in this regard, as it could be expected anyway.
---------
In Comparison with other In-Ears:
I used the Series 2 with the largest included wide bore silicone tips for the following comparisons.
TTPod T1 (Non-E):
My T1 rolls somewhat off towards the sub-bass, however it has what the TFZ lacks in the lows: countervailing warmth and fullness in the root (fundamental range).
When it comes to midrange, despite also being slightly boosted in the upper mids/lower treble, the TTPod features the much more mature, even and natural implementation, which also goes for the treble in general that is implemented considerably more tastefully and naturally, despite being slightly too bright around 10 kHz. Either way, the T1 reproduces instruments a good bit more realistically and is definitely more coherent when it comes to tuning.
The TFZ has got the slightly cleaner treble separation whereas the T1 has got the slightly higher midrange resolution, but otherwise they are pretty similar in terms of details and bass quality.
In terms of soundstage, the T1 has got a little more width while depth is about comparable. Separation is slightly cleaner on the Series 2.
final E3000:
Depending on if the inner vents are free, as designed, or blocked, there might either be a sub-bass roll-off present on the final, or a strong sub-bass emphasis. Either way, the E3000 has got the thicker, warmer and (much) more body-focused fundamental range and lower midrange, and is considerably darker in the midrange and treble in comparison to the bright Series 2.
Instruments are reproduced noticeably more naturally on the final despite having a good bit more body than neutral.
When it comes to detail retrieval, both in-ears are more or less comparable.
The E3000 is slightly ahead when it comes to midrange details, while the TFZ has got the tighter, faster and better controlled bass.
Soundstage is about comparable with the TFZ having a bit more spatial depth and the final slightly more width.
Conclusion:
Good technical performance that is clearly held back by an artificial and unpleasant midrange as well as treble tuning.