Compare TFT Accoustics Earphone to other leading brands

This comparison chart really shows the superior quality of Thin Film Technology with the TFTA2100-2v1s vs Monsters Flag carrier, the Turbine Pro. Monster produce an excellent top of the range albeit expensive, at £250, in-ear headset but the sound quality is exceptional. You will see from the chart that our 2100-2v1s comprehensively outperforms Monsters headset throughout the frequency range. When comparing the two headsets side by side the lower bass frequencies of the TFTA2100-2v1s really sorts the men from the boys. The TFTA2100-3v2b has even better lower sub bass response than the 2100-2v1s and is truly a Goliath amongst the in-ear headsets. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

The Daddy of them all the 2100-3vsb “b” for BASS destroys the opposition. There is no comparable headset available today that can outperform this headset for sub-bass response. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Our mid range in-ear model 2101 has an incredible, superior bass response than even the considerably more expensive, £200 Sennheiser IE8. The comparison of the 2101 for the rest of the frequency range is just below the IE8. Not bad for our 70% cheaper 2101 mid range alternative headset. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

When compared to the Ultimate Ears Triple Fi10 Pro it is clear to see that the Ultimate Ears complex system is quite superior in the mid range 200Hz – 5,000Hz area than our mid range model. Take a closer look at the graph however and it shows that our Thin Film Technology 2101 completely dominates the UE product with its bass response and higher frequencies. For our mid-range headset to have a lower bass and higher treble frequency than the 6 speaker UE headset, which costs over £250, is quite remarkable. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Our entry level 2200 in-ear headset demonstrates how well it performs against one of the top headsets on sale today. Costing only 10% of the Monster Turbine Pro headphone the graph shows how well it performs. You make your own judgement on the results. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

This is a chalk and cheese comparison but we thought it worth showing. The way the in-ear headset works, by using the inner ear to transmit the bass sounds, cannot directly compare with the on-ear design. The chart shows that except for the bass response, where the Monster Turbine Pro is, as expected superior, the chart shows that for the rest of the frequency range our entry level 1200 on-ear headset is amazingly superior. Quite remarkable. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Our entry level 1200 plastic speaker compares exceptionally well to the Apple Standard headphone. As you can see from the chart the TFT1200 has a superior response to the Apple product in every area except between 500Hz-2000Hz where the Apple speaker is slightly better. In real terms there is no comparison as the sound quality from the TFTA1200 is far superior in every area. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Scrolling through the review pages on the internet there are many references saying how good the Audio-Technica CKS50, ER-4P and Sony MDR-EX1000 headphones are, all being referred to as monitor headphones. The various write-ups are very positive and talk highly of all three manufacturers products. Looking further down, within one particular article, there was a graph frequency comparison of all 3 headphones. Out of curiosity we added an overlay of our TFTA2100 to the graph, which is what you see below. It needs to be mentioned that this is not a true true test because they were not conducted at the same time on the same equipment. The comparison takes the frequency range of each earpiece and that is what we have used here to compare. So maybe it’s not 100% fair but it cannot be too far out either. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Compare TFT Accoustics Earphone to other leading brands

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Compare TFT Accoustics Earphone to other leading brands

Similar to Compare TFT Accoustics Earphone to other leading brands (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Compare TFT Accoustics Earphone to other leading brands