Final Audio ZE3000 Series: A Comprehensive Review

1. Introduction: The Final Audio ZE3000 Series in the Competitive TWS Landscape

Final Audio, a Japanese audio marque, has carved a distinct reputation for its meticulous approach to audio engineering, often prioritizing nuanced sound quality and innovative driver technologies, particularly evident in their esteemed wired in-ear monitors (IEMs) and headphones. The company’s stated ambition is to craft audio experiences “as close to natural hearing as possible”. This philosophy frequently translates into an emphasis on acoustic design to achieve desired sound signatures, rather than relying heavily on software-based equalization.

The ZE3000 series marks Final Audio’s significant foray into the burgeoning True Wireless Stereo (TWS) market, an endeavor to transpose their acclaimed wired sound expertise into a wireless paradigm. The original ZE3000, in particular, draws its lineage from the brand’s legendary E3000 wired IEMs, a product that garnered numerous accolades and set a high bar for sonic performance within its category. Subsequently, the ZE3000 SV was introduced, presented as an evolution or a feature-enhanced iteration, notably incorporating Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) and other functionalities common in contemporary TWS offerings. This expansion occurs within a fiercely competitive TWS landscape, where differentiation is a considerable challenge.

Final Audio’s entry into the TWS domain with the ZE3000 series signifies a strategic maneuver to engage a wider consumer base. However, it also presents the inherent challenge of translating a “purist” audio philosophy—typically associated with wired audiophile gear—into a feature-laden wireless segment. The original ZE3000, with its primary focus on sonic fidelity and an eschewing of many prevalent TWS features like ANC or extensive app control, clearly reflected these purist roots. While this approach resonates with a segment of the audiophile community, it potentially limits broader market appeal. The ZE3000 SV, by integrating these very features, suggests an attempt to navigate this tension, balancing the brand’s core tenets with prevailing market demands. This raises a critical question: can a brand celebrated for its bespoke acoustic design successfully integrate into a market often characterized by shared platforms and software-driven features without diluting its fundamental identity, especially when confronted with controversies such as the alleged link to the Roseselsa Ceramics X?

The deliberate “3000” nomenclature for the ZE series forges an explicit connection to the successful and critically acclaimed E3000 wired IEMs. This naming strategy inherently cultivates an expectation of comparable sonic excellence and value. Final Audio itself has stated that the ZE3000 was conceived from the E3000 concept, with an ambition to surpass its predecessor’s performance in a wireless format. This establishes a demanding benchmark against which both the original ZE3000 and its SV variant must be critically evaluated, particularly considering the distinct technological constraints and divergent market expectations inherent to TWS earbuds. The subsequent sections of this review will scrutinize whether this legacy is indeed upheld.

2. Design, Build, and Ergonomics: Aesthetics and Practicality

The physical attributes of the Final Audio ZE3000 series, encompassing their design language, material choices, and user comfort, present distinct characteristics between the original model and its SV counterpart.

Original Final Audio ZE3000

The original ZE3000 showcases a distinctive polygonal, angular housing that immediately sets it apart from many TWS earbuds. This design is often described as having a “futuristic aesthetic”. A key feature is the “Shibo” textured finish applied to the earbuds and charging case. This resin coating, whose name means “crease on paper or leather” in Japanese, imparts a premium tactile sensation and offers practical advantages by resisting fingerprints and smudges.

In terms of build quality, the ZE3000 is generally perceived as durable and well-constructed. The charging case, while functional and portable with the same Shibo finish, had its opening flap noted by one reviewer as potentially benefiting from more resistance to prevent accidental openings. Despite its angular appearance, comfort is a frequently lauded aspect, attributed to Final’s expertise in IEM housing design. The earbuds are designed to sit comfortably at the entrance of the ear canal rather than requiring deep insertion, contributing to prolonged wearability.

Final Audio ZE3000 SV

The ZE3000 SV diverges significantly in its external design from the original. It adopts a more “traditional pod-shaped housing,” a common form factor in the TWS market. A notable consequence of this design is that the SV model protrudes more significantly from the ear compared to the flush-fitting original. This increased protrusion could be a factor for users who prefer a more discreet look or intend to use the earbuds while lying on their side, an activity for which the original design was better suited.

The signature “Shibo” textured coating is retained on the ZE3000 SV, providing a consistent brand aesthetic. Regarding build quality, user feedback suggests the original ZE3000’s case, with its aluminum hinges, felt more robust than the SV’s smaller case. However, the SV’s case is praised for its “insanely small” dimensions, enhancing its pocketability. Final Audio states the SV is designed for a comfortable, lightweight fit with minimal pressure, incorporating an “easy-catch design” for straightforward removal from the case and a firm fit in the ear pocket.

The design shift between the original ZE3000’s unique, flush-fitting form and the ZE3000 SV’s conventional, protruding pod style likely reflects differing design priorities or constraints. The original appears to prioritize Final’s signature aesthetic and established acoustic principles. In contrast, the SV’s form might be influenced by the necessity to accommodate additional technology, such as ANC components and a larger driver, or potentially by the constraints of an underlying OEM hardware platform, as suggested by later-discussed controversies. This deviation could influence users who particularly valued the original’s distinctive and less obtrusive design.

Despite these differences, the “Shibo” finish serves as a consistent branding element across both models and their respective cases. This tactile and visual signature aims to differentiate Final’s TWS offerings from the multitude of smooth plastic competitors, contributing to brand identity and a perception of quality, even if, in the SV’s case, underlying components might be shared with other products.

Shared Attributes

Both the original ZE3000 and the ZE3000 SV carry an IPX4 water resistance rating. This certification indicates protection against splashes of water from any direction, making them suitable for use during light rain or exercise.

Table 1: Specifications Comparison – Final Audio ZE3000 vs. ZE3000 SV vs. Roseselsa Ceramics X

This table provides a structured overview, facilitating a direct comparison of key technical specifications. The inclusion of the Roseselsa Ceramics X is pivotal due to the ensuing discussion regarding its relationship with the ZE3000 SV. This juxtaposition immediately highlights disparities in pricing versus features and specifications, laying the groundwork for a more detailed examination of value, particularly concerning the allegations of an OEM relationship.

3. Audio Performance: Deconstructing the “Final Sound”

Final Audio’s reputation is built upon a distinctive sonic character, and the ZE3000 series attempts to translate this into the wireless domain. The two models, original and SV, employ different driver technologies and offer varied feature sets that influence their audio output.

The Original Final Audio ZE3000

The original ZE3000 is frequently characterized by a balanced, natural, clear, and detailed sound signature, prioritizing sonic fidelity over artificial enhancements. Some reviewers describe its aim as achieving “flat sound reproduction” or a “silky presentation”. However, alternative user perceptions note a V-shaped tuning with warmth or a slightly more pronounced mid-bass.

At its heart, the ZE3000 utilizes a 6mm “f-Core for Wireless” dynamic driver, specifically developed to achieve ultra-low distortion. This is complemented by Final’s “f-LINK Damping System,” an internal mechanism designed to regulate air pressure within the earbud housing, thereby mimicking the acoustic design principles of vented wired earphones but without requiring external vents. This system is crucial to its natural sound profile and also contributes to its water resistance.

Bass: The low-frequency reproduction is present but generally not overstated, with a tendency to favor definition in the low-mids rather than impactful sub-bass. Descriptions include “tight,” “clean,” “fast-attacking,” “punchy,” and “well-textured,” with an important characteristic being that it avoids bleeding into the midrange frequencies. While not tailored for bass enthusiasts, the bass is considered satisfying and articulate.

Mids: The midrange is reported as nearly flat, with some subtle, pleasant adjustments that contribute to its overall character. It is described as natural and realistic, maintaining good resolution with low levels of distortion. Vocals, both male and female, are rendered clearly, often perceived as front-of-stage and well-presented. A slight lift in the presence region has also been noted, enhancing instruments like acoustic guitars and pianos.

Treble: The high frequencies provide an expansive sense of air and articulation. This range is largely uncolored, with some light “cleaning” in the frequency spectrum noted by reviewers. Details such as cymbals and vocal breaths are prevalent and well-defined. The treble is generally smooth, possessing Final’s signature “airiness,” and is resolving and well-extended without becoming sharp, harsh, or fatiguing over long listening sessions. The ZE3000 is also noted to excel in the reproduction of reverbs, lending a lush and warm quality to such effects.

Soundstage & Imaging: For a TWS earbud, the ZE3000 offers a wide and encompassing soundstage with good separation between instruments. The treatment of spatial details and airy reverb tails is a standout quality. Imaging is generally accurate within its linear presentation, though lead instruments can occasionally feel somewhat cluttered. While the staging is exceptionally wide, it may not offer the same depth as some higher-tier wired IEMs, and center imaging has been reported to suffer slightly in some instances.

Clarity & Resolution: A high level of fidelity, clarity, and resolution for a wireless product is consistently reported, with comparisons drawn to Final’s own wired IEMs.

The Final Audio ZE3000 SV

The ZE3000 SV is marketed with the ambition of achieving a sound profile comparable to high-end wired earphones, purportedly without reliance on software equalization, and aiming for a sound “as close to natural hearing as possible”. User reports often suggest a sonic character very similar to the original ZE3000, with the most frequently noted difference being a slightly more pronounced bass response. One review specifically mentioned more bass but potentially a slightly diminished soundstage compared to the original model.

Technologically, the SV variant features a new, larger 10mm “f-Core SV” dynamic driver. This is paired with Final’s “f-LINK port” technology, designed to optimize internal acoustic pressure. This system is claimed to enable superior control over low frequencies and contribute to more vivid vocal reproduction. The support for the LDAC codec allows for higher-resolution audio transmission (up to 96kHz/24bit) with compatible source devices and audio files, which theoretically should enhance detail and clarity. However, it’s important to note that engaging the multipoint connection feature precludes the use of LDAC; users must choose one or the other.

Bass, Mids, Treble, Soundstage (based on technology and limited direct reviews): The larger driver and the f-LINK port’s emphasis on low-frequency control suggest that the bass on the ZE3000 SV is likely to be more impactful and present than on the original, a perception corroborated by user feedback. For the mids, the stated goal is “realistically vivid vocals”. Detailed descriptions of the treble performance are scarce beyond the general aspiration for a high-end wired sound. Regarding soundstage and imaging, the aim for “audio that is as close to natural hearing as possible” implies a focus on natural spatial representation, though, as mentioned, one review hinted at a potentially smaller soundstage than the original.

Final Audio’s foundational philosophy of achieving sound quality primarily through physical acoustic design—evidenced by technologies like the “f-LINK Damping System” in the original and the “f-LINK Port” in the SV—rather than extensive reliance on Digital Signal Processing (DSP) or equalization, stands as a key differentiator in the crowded TWS market. This approach can lead to a more “organic” or less processed sound, which often appeals to audio purists. The original ZE3000, lacking an app or EQ, epitomizes this. While the ZE3000 SV does offer a 7-band equalizer via its companion app—a concession to market expectations—the brand’s primary tuning philosophy appears to remain hardware-first, aiming for satisfactory sound quality out-of-the-box without equalizer adjustments. The potential downside to this approach is reduced flexibility for users who prefer to extensively customize the sound signature to their specific tastes.

The inclusion of LDAC support on the ZE3000 SV represents a significant upgrade for audiophiles using compatible devices, offering the potential for enhanced wireless audio fidelity. However, the real-world audible benefit of LDAC is contingent upon the entire audio chain, including the quality of the source material, the capabilities of the source device, and, crucially, the inherent ability of the earphone’s driver and tuning to resolve the additional detail provided by the higher bitrate codec. The practical trade-off of being unable to use LDAC concurrently with the multipoint connection feature forces users to prioritize either maximum audio fidelity with a single device or the convenience of simultaneous connections to two devices, likely with a lower-quality codec. This is a common compromise found in TWS earbuds that support LDAC.

Despite the ZE3000 SV boasting a larger driver and new port technology, which would typically suggest noticeable sonic alterations, user reports frequently describe its sound as “very similar” to the original ZE3000. The most consistently reported difference is a “slightly more pronounced bass” in the SV model. This observation suggests that either Final’s core tuning philosophy is the predominant factor shaping the resultant sound signature, leading to a consistent “Final sound” across different driver implementations, or that the changes introduced by the new driver and port technology result in subtle, incremental improvements rather than a transformative overhaul of the sound character. This aspect also becomes pertinent when considering the controversy surrounding the Roseselsa Ceramics X; if the core driver in the SV is indeed similar to that in the Roseselsa model, then Final’s primary contribution would lie in their specific tuning, the implementation of the “f-LINK port,” and the characteristic Shibo finish. The perceived sonic similarity to the original ZE3000 could then be attributed to Final applying their consistent tuning philosophy to this different hardware base.

4. Features and Daily Usability

The user experience with TWS earbuds is heavily influenced by their feature set and ease of use in daily scenarios. The Final Audio ZE3000 and ZE3000 SV offer markedly different propositions in this regard.

Original Final Audio ZE3000

The original ZE3000 embodies a philosophy of simplicity, with several reviewers noting its focus on sound quality over an extensive list of features or “gimmicks”. The deliberate omission of Active Noise Cancellation (ANC), Ambient Aware mode, and an onboard equalizer is seen by some as a conscious design choice catering to audio purists who prefer an unadulterated listening experience.

Touch controls on the ZE3000 are generally described as intuitively laid out and responsive. However, one review mentioned that these controls could occasionally be oversensitive, leading to unintended activations. Conversely, a different user found the touch controls finicky, non-intuitive, and reported that the sharp edges of the earbuds became painful after extended periods of use.

Connectivity is handled by Bluetooth 5.2, incorporating the Qualcomm QCC3040 chipset, which supports aptX and aptX Adaptive codecs for potentially higher-resolution and lower-latency audio transmission with compatible devices. Pairing is generally quick and straightforward, with most users experiencing a strong and stable connection. However, isolated issues, such as mono mode interfering with the pairing process or intermittent connection problems, have been reported by some users.

Final Audio ZE3000 SV

The ZE3000 SV is equipped with a broader array of modern TWS features. Chief among these is Final’s “Comfort ANC,” which is engineered to balance sound quality with noise isolation, purportedly avoiding the feeling of pressure or listening fatigue often associated with more aggressive ANC implementations. User feedback on its performance is mixed. Some find the ANC “perfectly adequate” for reducing ambient noise but not creating a “wall of silence”. Another user described the ANC as “nothing to write home about,” finding it barely noticeable except in windy conditions and preferring to disable it to conserve battery life. A particularly critical review dismissed the ANC and ambient mode as “barely clear,” with “turning on/off has almost no difference”. Final Audio has stated their intention was to implement ANC with minimal impact on the frequency response of the headphones.

A “Wind Cut Mode” is included to reduce wind noise picked up by the microphones during calls or when using ambient sound mode. Some users report that it works as advertised but can introduce a quiet, low-frequency rumble as a side effect, leading them to prefer the standard noise-canceling mode in windy conditions. One negative account claims the mode is ineffective due to the earbud’s large physical design.

For gamers and video watchers, a “Gaming Mode” is available via the Final CONNECT app, promising a low-latency connection of up to 60ms for better synchronization between audio and video. The ZE3000 SV also supports “Multi-Point Connection,” allowing simultaneous connection to two devices, a feature also managed through the app. This feature was reported to work seamlessly by one user, although, as previously noted, it cannot be used in conjunction with the LDAC codec. An “Ambient Sound Mode” is also accessible via the app.

The “Final CONNECT” app serves as the control hub for these features, providing access to ANC, Ambient Sound, and Wind Cut modes, a 7-band equalizer, the Gaming Mode toggle, and multi-point connection settings. User opinions on the app vary. One user found it “a little sparse but everything you need is there”. Another felt it “leaves a bit to be desired,” lacking features like EQ presets or control customization found in competitor apps. More concerning are reports of app crashes and instability.

Touch controls on the ZE3000 SV have also drawn criticism. One user found the touch target to be small and the shortcut commands unintuitive. Another described “terrible control functions,” requiring hard taps that resulted in audible thumping noises in the ears.

The feature set of the ZE3000 SV, while appearing comprehensive on paper with additions like ANC, app control, LDAC, and a gaming mode, seems to encounter challenges in real-world performance and usability according to a segment of users. Issues with ANC effectiveness, app stability, and control responsiveness potentially undermine its value proposition, especially when compared against more polished offerings from established competitors in the TWS market. This becomes particularly relevant when considering its price point and the controversy surrounding its alleged OEM origins.

Final’s “Comfort ANC” appears to be a deliberate tuning choice, prioritizing the preservation of sound quality and minimizing listener discomfort (like pressure sensations) over achieving maximum noise attenuation. This approach might appeal to audiophiles who are sensitive to the side effects of strong ANC, but it is likely to disappoint users seeking a high degree of noise cancellation for commuting or noisy environments. The mixed performance of the “Wind Cut Mode,” with reports of introduced rumble or general ineffectiveness, further complicates the noise management capabilities of the ZE3000 SV, suggesting that these features may not consistently deliver on their intended benefits.

5. Call Quality: Microphone Performance in Various Environments

Microphone performance is a critical aspect of TWS earbuds, heavily influencing their utility for calls and voice assistant interactions.

Original Final Audio ZE3000

The original ZE3000 generally receives positive reports regarding its call quality. One reviewer described its performance during phone calls and Google Meet sessions as “excellent,” with the inbuilt microphone on each earpiece being clear and strong. Another source echoed this sentiment, rating the microphone quality as “excellent” and “perfect for taking calls at home or on the go”. Good overall performance in terms of call quality and voice transmission was also noted elsewhere.

Final Audio ZE3000 SV

Reports on the ZE3000 SV’s microphone performance are more varied. One user found the call quality to be great, with no complaints, and a recorded test sample on a PC showed no popping or hissing artifacts. However, this positive account is contrasted by a YouTube review that cited “subpar microphone quality” as a significant drawback. The “Wind Cut Mode” is designed to improve call clarity in windy conditions, but its effectiveness is a point of contention among users, as discussed previously. There is limited specific information regarding the SV’s microphone performance in generally noisy environments beyond the Wind Cut Mode’s intended function.

Roseselsa Ceramics X (for context)

For comparative context, the Roseselsa Ceramics X, which the ZE3000 SV is alleged to be based on, reportedly features GoerTek Quad-Mics. Its microphone quality was found to be very good in quiet environments, albeit with some slight background noise. However, in the presence of direct wind (simulated by a fan), the audio quality was poor with significant noise intrusion.

The discrepancy in reported microphone performance for the ZE3000 SV—ranging from a positive user experience to a lack of strong endorsement in professional reviews—suggests that its call quality may be variable or context-dependent, rather than a consistent standout strength. This is a notable point, as the original ZE3000 garnered more consistently positive feedback in this area. If the ZE3000 SV indeed shares microphone hardware or core design elements with the Roseselsa Ceramics X, as suggested by claims of “Same microphone location” and “Same noise-cancelling microphone”, then the mixed performance of the Ceramics X (good in quiet, poor in noise) could offer an indication of what to expect from the SV. The absence of consistent, strong positive feedback for the SV’s microphone from multiple sources is a concern for a product in its price category, where clear call quality is often a key purchasing factor.

Furthermore, the “Wind Cut Mode” on the SV, while a dedicated feature intended to address a common issue, may not serve as a reliable solution for calls in windy or very noisy environments if it introduces other audio artifacts like rumbling or proves ineffective, as some user experiences suggest. This indicates that simply having such a mode does not guarantee superior performance, and the real-world effectiveness for calls under challenging conditions remains an open question for the ZE3000 SV.

6. Battery Endurance: Powering Your Listening Sessions

Battery life is a crucial practical consideration for TWS earbuds, impacting their suitability for extended use and travel.

Original Final Audio ZE3000

The original ZE3000 offers up to 7 hours of playtime on a single charge from the earbuds themselves. The included charging case extends the total listening time to approximately 35 hours. The earbuds require about 1.5 hours to fully charge, while the case itself takes around 2 hours to recharge. No specific quick charge functionality was highlighted for the original model in the reviewed materials.

Final Audio ZE3000 SV

The ZE3000 SV is rated for up to 7 hours of playback from the earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) turned on. Some user reports indicate that the SV offers “significantly better” battery life compared to the original model. The charging case, which has a capacity of 400mAh, provides a total playtime of up to 28 hours with ANC enabled. The earbuds and the case each take approximately 1.5 hours to charge. A quick charge feature is present, with a 10-minute charge reportedly yielding about 1 hour of playback, while another source suggests a 15-minute charge can deliver around 2 hours of playtime.

However, there are significant user complaints regarding the SV’s battery performance. One highly critical review detailed “terrible battery life,” stating the earbuds run “barely up to the promised 4h level. I get 3max maybe. 2:30 mostly,” even with low volume and features turned off. This user also reported issues with the earbuds never emerging from the case fully charged (consistently at 90%) and instances of the earbuds waking up and reconnecting while still inside the fully charged case.

Roseselsa Ceramics X (for context)

The Roseselsa Ceramics X, for comparison, claims a battery life of 10 hours for the earbuds and a total of 50 hours with the 400mAh charging case. It also boasts a very rapid fast charge: 10 minutes of charging is said to provide 10 hours of playback. It is not explicitly stated if these figures are with ANC on or off, but ANC is a feature of the device, rated for up to 55dB of noise reduction.

The contradiction in reported battery life for the ZE3000 SV is noteworthy. Official specifications and some positive user anecdotes paint a picture of competitive, if not improved, battery performance. However, the severe complaints from at least one user detailing drastically underperforming battery life, coupled with charging anomalies like not reaching a full charge and waking unexpectedly in the case, point towards potential quality control inconsistencies or reliability problems with some ZE3000 SV units. This is a significant concern for prospective buyers.

Moreover, when comparing stated specifications, the ZE3000 SV’s battery life with ANC (7 hours for earbuds, 28 hours total) is respectable. However, the Roseselsa Ceramics X, which the SV is allegedly based upon, claims substantially better figures (10 hours for earbuds, 50 hours total). If the Roseselsa figures are accurate and apply to usage scenarios comparable to the SV’s (i.e., with ANC active or at least representing typical mixed usage), this discrepancy further calls into question the value and performance attributes of the ZE3000 SV. Given the alleged shared internal hardware, such a significant difference in battery endurance, especially if users are indeed experiencing the severely diminished battery life reported in the negative review of the SV, would be another considerable point against the ZE3000 SV’s overall proposition.

7. The ZE3000 SV and Roseselsa Ceramics X: Unpacking the Controversy

A significant point of contention surrounding the Final Audio ZE3000 SV is the persistent allegation that it is, in essence, an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) version of the considerably less expensive Rose Technics Ceramics X (often referred to as Roseselsa Ceramics X). These claims are not mere speculation but are supported by detailed comparisons and forum discussions.

The Allegations and Evidence

Multiple sources, most notably a visual component-by-component comparison by reviewer Poorting on BiliBili (a Chinese video sharing platform), have presented evidence suggesting extensive similarities between the two products. These comparisons indicate:

• Identical Internal Structures: The internal layouts of the shells are reportedly identical. This includes the same microphone placement, the same location and shape for the touch sensors, identical PCB (Printed Circuit Board) designs (specifically mentioning an F8-W motherboard with a WQ7033 System-on-Chip), identical acoustic chamber shapes, pressure vents, and tuning filters. Even the battery size is reported to be the same.
• Interchangeable Components: Parts such as shell components and charging contacts are said to be interchangeable between the ZE3000 SV and the Ceramics X. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the earbuds can pair and function correctly even when placed in each other’s charging cases.
• Driver Similarities: The dynamic driver design appears to be the same or very similar. One source did note a potential difference in diaphragm material, with the Ceramics X purportedly using a multi-layer diaphragm while the ZE3000 SV uses a single-layer diaphragm. The implications of this specific difference on sound quality are not fully elaborated but raise questions about whether it represents a cost-saving measure or a deliberate acoustic choice by Final.
• Wiring Discrepancy: Perhaps one of the more surprising claims is that the more expensive ZE3000 SV allegedly features “worse old wires hanging outside the parts,” whereas the cheaper Ceramics X is said to utilize “newer and better wires integrated in FPC (Flexible Printed Circuit)”. If accurate, this would suggest that the lower-cost model might, in some minor construction aspects, be more refined.
• Release Timeline: The Ceramics X was reportedly released in March 2024, while the ZE3000 SV was noted with a December 2024 release in one snippet. However, these dates appear problematic given other information dating the original ZE3000 to late 2021/early 2022 and the ZE3000 SV being available for review or purchase seemingly before December 2024 according to other contexts. Regardless of the exact dates, the core of the allegation is that the Ceramics X represents the base OEM model.

Points of Differentiation

Despite the extensive internal similarities, Final Audio markets the ZE3000 SV with its own branding and claimed technological refinements:

• “Shibo” Finish: The distinctive textured coating is a hallmark of Final’s TWS products.
• Proprietary Technology Names: Final refers to the driver as the “f-Core SV” and highlights the “f-LINK port” for acoustic optimization.
• “Comfort ANC” Tuning: The specific tuning of the Active Noise Cancellation is presented as a Final Audio innovation.
• LDAC Support: While the ZE3000 SV supports LDAC, it’s important to note that the Roseselsa Ceramics X also supports this high-resolution codec.

Implications of the Controversy

The implications of these allegations are far-reaching:

• Value Proposition: The most immediate consequence is a severe questioning of the ZE3000 SV’s value. With a price point of approximately $89-$100 compared to the Roseselsa Ceramics X’s $30-$40, consumers are faced with paying a significant premium for what appears to be largely identical core hardware. This leads to accusations of Final Audio “saving tons of R&D cost” and benefiting from a “greater profit margin” at the consumer’s expense.
• Brand Perception: Such revelations can significantly damage brand trust, particularly for a company like Final Audio, which is often associated with meticulous in-house engineering for its higher-end products. The situation has fueled broader criticisms, with some users accusing the brand of engaging in “peak scams,” “snake oil marketing,” and providing poor customer service.

This controversy underscores a potential vulnerability for established audiophile brands venturing into the fast-paced TWS market. Leveraging OEM/ODM solutions can offer a quicker route to market with a competitive feature set. However, if the similarities to much cheaper, readily available products become public knowledge, it can erode the perceived value of proprietary technologies, specialized tuning, and brand cachet. The public exposure of the ZE3000 SV’s apparent origins, coupled with the substantial price difference, leads to the perception that Final is overcharging for what amounts to minor differentiators like the brand name, the Shibo finish, and perhaps subtle tuning adjustments. This can be particularly damaging among informed consumers who expect a higher degree of originality and engineering from a premium audio brand, making claims about unique “f-Core SV” drivers or “f-LINK ports” appear as marketing embellishments if the underlying hardware is largely shared.

The specific allegation regarding potentially inferior wiring in the more expensive ZE3000 SV compared to the Ceramics X, if substantiated, is especially concerning. Typically, one might expect a premium-priced version of an OEM product to involve better components or stricter quality control. This claim suggests the opposite in at least one aspect of assembly, adding weight to the idea that the premium paid for the Final brand may not translate into across-the-board superior component quality over the budget alternative. It reinforces the notion that the differentiation might primarily be cosmetic and tuning-based, rather than indicative of a fundamental hardware upgrade.

8. Comparative Analysis and Market Positioning

Understanding the Final Audio ZE3000 series requires comparing the two models directly and assessing their standing against relevant competitors, particularly in light of the Roseselsa Ceramics X controversy.

Final Audio ZE3000 vs. ZE3000 SV

• Sound Quality: The original ZE3000 is widely praised for its natural, balanced, and detailed sound signature. The ZE3000 SV is reported by users to offer a very similar sound profile, with the most notable difference being a potentially more pronounced bass response. The SV also adds LDAC support, which can offer higher fidelity with compatible sources.
• Features: This is where the two models diverge significantly. The original ZE3000 is a barebones, sound-focused TWS earbud, lacking ANC, a companion app, or EQ customization. The ZE3000 SV, conversely, is feature-rich, incorporating “Comfort ANC,” the Final CONNECT app with a 7-band EQ, a Gaming Mode, and multi-point connectivity.
• Design & Fit: The original boasts a unique polygonal, relatively flush-fitting design that many find comfortable and distinctive. The SV adopts a more generic pod-style housing that protrudes more from the ear. The charging case of the original was perceived by one user as potentially more robust, while the SV’s case is significantly smaller and more pocketable.
• Price: The original ZE3000 typically retailed for around $149, while the ZE3000 SV is priced in the $89-$100 range.
• Suitability: The original ZE3000 appeals to audiophile purists who prioritize Final’s signature sound and a unique design, and for whom advanced TWS features are secondary. One user explicitly stated a preference for the older, original version if ANC and the SV’s purported battery boost were not needed, especially if it could be found at a lower price. The ZE3000 SV targets users seeking a more comprehensive feature set, including LDAC and ANC, but this comes with a more conventional design and the significant caveats raised by the Roseselsa controversy.

Value Assessment: ZE3000 SV vs. Roseselsa Ceramics X

This comparison is critical given the evidence of shared origins.

• Hardware: As detailed previously, the core internal hardware appears largely identical. Notably, the Roseselsa Ceramics X claims an IPX5 water resistance rating, slightly better than the ZE3000 SV’s IPX4. The Ceramics X also boasts significantly longer claimed battery life (10 hours earbuds, 50 hours total vs. SV’s 7 hours earbuds ANC on, 28 hours total).
• Features: Both models offer ANC, app support, and LDAC compatibility. The Roseselsa Ceramics X specifies its ANC can achieve up to 55dB of noise reduction and details a low latency mode of 54ms. The Final ZE3000 SV describes its “Comfort ANC” and a 60ms Gaming Mode.
• Price: The price disparity is stark: the ZE3000 SV costs between $89 and $100, while the Roseselsa Ceramics X is available for $30 to $40.
• Conclusion on Value: If the sound quality and core feature performance are indeed comparable, the Roseselsa Ceramics X appears to offer vastly superior value. The substantial premium for the ZE3000 SV seemingly covers the Final Audio brand name, the Shibo finish, and Final’s specific tuning of its “Comfort ANC” and overall sound signature. As one reviewer concluded, it is “hard to recommend when you can get basically the same thing for a lot less money”.

The market position of the ZE3000 SV is severely compromised by the existence and public awareness of the Roseselsa Ceramics X. If the fundamental performance characteristics are similar, the SV becomes a niche offering primarily for consumers who place a very high value on the Final brand aesthetic (specifically the Shibo finish) and have unwavering trust in Final’s proprietary tuning to an extent that justifies a two to threefold price increase, or for those simply unaware of the much cheaper alternative.

Market Context

The original Final Audio ZE3000 competed primarily on its sound purity and unique design against a backdrop of more feature-rich alternatives in its price bracket. The ZE3000 SV, priced around $90-$100, enters a highly competitive segment populated by strong offerings from brands like EarFun (e.g., Air Pro 4) and Soundcore (e.g., Liberty 4 NC), as well as budget-friendly options from major players like Samsung (e.g., Galaxy Buds FE). These competitors often provide robust feature sets, effective ANC, and commendable sound quality, making the ZE3000 SV’s value proposition, especially in light of the Roseselsa comparison, particularly precarious.

The evolution from the original ZE3000 to the SV, alongside the OEM controversy, may suggest that Final Audio is grappling with defining its unique selling proposition in the mainstream TWS market beyond “good sound”—a quality that is becoming increasingly democratized and available at lower price points. The original ZE3000 presented a clear, albeit niche, value proposition based on its unique design and sound-first philosophy. The ZE3000 SV, by attempting to compete on features through an OEM-based product, has exposed the brand to criticism regarding value and originality. This indicates a potential difficulty in effectively leveraging traditional strengths, such as bespoke acoustic engineering, within this specific product category without incurring substantial R&D costs that would likely price their products out of the mainstream segment.

9. User Experiences and Potential Issues

Real-world user feedback provides invaluable context to a product’s performance and reliability beyond lab tests or manufacturer claims.

Original Final Audio ZE3000

Praises: Users frequently lauded the original ZE3000 for its excellent sound quality within the TWS category, often described as natural and detailed. Its lightweight and comfortable fit, coupled with the premium feel of the Shibo finish, were also common points of positive feedback. Good passive noise isolation, due to the fit, was another appreciated aspect. Many users expressed a preference for its sound over more expensive TWS options. Touch controls were generally considered good by several reviewers, and Bluetooth connectivity was typically stable.

Criticisms/Issues: The most common criticism was its lack of modern TWS features, such as ANC, a companion app, or EQ customization, which some users view as a significant con. For some, the touch controls could be overly sensitive or finicky, and one user found the sharp edges of the earbuds caused discomfort after prolonged use. The durability of the charging case lid was a minor concern for one reviewer. Isolated incidents of intermittent connection issues were reported. Some users with a preference for neutral-bright sound signatures found the bass to be slightly excessive.

Final Audio ZE3000 SV

Praises: Some users reported good sound quality from the SV, often describing it as similar to the original but with more bass. The inclusion of an app for EQ adjustment was seen as a positive addition. One user found the multipoint connection to be seamless. The Wind Cut mode was reported to work by some, and the very small size of the charging case was appreciated for its pocketability. The sound was described by some as open, clean, and natural, and one user had a good experience with call quality.

Criticisms/Issues (Significant and Numerous): The ZE3000 SV has been subject to a range of serious user complaints:

• Reliability and Battery: The most alarming reports concern battery life, with one detailed account claiming actual playtime was a mere 2.5-3 hours, far short of the advertised 7 hours. This user also experienced issues with the earbuds not charging to 100% (stuck at 90%) and spontaneously waking up and connecting while inside the fully charged case.
• Active Noise Cancellation (ANC): The “Comfort ANC” is frequently described as underwhelming or ineffective. Users have stated it’s “nothing to write home about” or makes “almost no difference”.
• Controls: Touch controls have been criticized as “terrible,” requiring hard taps that can be audible and unpleasant, with a small touch target and unintuitive shortcuts.
• App: The Final CONNECT app has been described as sparse, prone to crashes, and lacking desired features compared to competitor apps.
• Design and Fit: The SV’s design protrudes significantly from the ear, which can be an issue for activities like sleeping on one’s side. One user described it as having a “Frankenstein look,” found it difficult to achieve a good tip fit due to a lack of a nozzle lip, and experienced a constant suction feeling.
• Wind Performance: While some found the Wind Cut mode functional, others reported it as ineffective due to the earbud’s large body, or that it introduced an undesirable low-frequency rumble.
• Customer Service: Beyond product-specific issues, there are general complaints regarding Final Audio’s customer service being unresponsive or unhelpful when issues arise.

The volume and severity of user complaints regarding the ZE3000 SV’s fundamental functionalities—such as battery performance, charging reliability, control usability, and app stability—are concerning. These reports, particularly the detailed negative experiences, suggest potential widespread quality control problems or inherent design flaws that go beyond typical isolated negative reviews. This situation contrasts sharply with the generally more positive, albeit feature-limited, user experience reported for the original ZE3000 model. While the original ZE3000 had minor criticisms related to touch sensitivity or its minimalist feature set, user sentiment regarding its core performance attributes (sound, comfort, build) was largely favorable. The ZE3000 SV, however, has attracted a cluster of highly negative reviews detailing failures in multiple critical operational areas. These are not merely subjective disagreements on sound preference but point to objective functional shortcomings. This pattern suggests that the SV model may suffer from poorer reliability or quality control than its predecessor, a particularly worrying prospect if it is indeed an OEM product where Final Audio might have less direct oversight over all aspects of production.

The negative experiences with the ZE3000 SV, especially when compounded by the controversy surrounding its relationship with the Roseselsa Ceramics X and the general complaints about Final Audio’s customer service, create a significant risk to the brand’s reputation among TWS consumers. The SV is already under scrutiny for its OEM origins and its high price relative to the Roseselsa X. Adding severe functional complaints to this mix makes the product appear even less appealing and potentially unreliable. Furthermore, reports of poor customer service from Final imply that if users encounter these significant issues with the SV, they may not receive adequate or timely support. This combination—a high price for an OEM product, coupled with reports of functional issues and subpar customer support—is highly detrimental for a brand attempting to establish and maintain a positive image in a fiercely competitive market segment.

10. Conclusion: The Final Verdict on the ZE3000 Series

The Final Audio ZE3000 series presents two distinct true wireless earbuds, each with its own set of strengths, weaknesses, and market implications. The original ZE3000 carved a niche for itself with its sound-first philosophy, while the ZE3000 SV aimed to broaden appeal with a modern feature set, albeit with significant accompanying controversies and reported issues.

Recap of Strengths and Weaknesses

Original Final Audio ZE3000:

• Strengths: The standout characteristic is its excellent sound quality for a TWS earbud, frequently described as natural, balanced, and detailed, often punching above its price point. Its unique polygonal design is both aesthetically distinctive and generally comfortable, providing a relatively flush fit. Good passive noise isolation is another benefit stemming from its secure fit. Its simple, purist approach appeals to users who prioritize audio fidelity over extensive features.
• Weaknesses: The primary drawback is the lack of modern TWS features such as Active Noise Cancellation (ANC), a companion app for customization, or an equalizer. Touch controls, while generally responsive for some, were reported as finicky or overly sensitive by others. A minor concern was raised about the durability of the charging case lid.

Final Audio ZE3000 SV:

• Strengths (Intended/Reported by Some): The SV is also reported to offer good sound quality, often characterized as similar to the original but with enhanced bass, and benefits from LDAC codec support for potentially higher-resolution audio. It is feature-rich on paper, including “Comfort ANC,” Wind Cut Mode, a Gaming Mode, and multi-point connectivity. The Final CONNECT app provides a 7-band equalizer for sound customization. Its charging case is notably compact and pocketable. Some users have reported improved battery life over the original and positive experiences with call quality and the Wind Cut mode.
• Weaknesses (Significant & Widely Reported): The “Comfort ANC” is frequently described by users as weak or ineffective, failing to provide significant noise reduction. There are alarming user complaints regarding actual battery life falling far short of specifications, along with charging reliability issues. Touch controls and the companion app have been reported as buggy, unintuitive, or prone to crashing. The generic pod-style design protrudes noticeably from the ear, which is a departure from the original’s aesthetic and fit. Most critically, there are severe questions about its value proposition due to overwhelming evidence suggesting it is an OEM version of the much cheaper Roseselsa Ceramics X, sharing similar core hardware and features. Compounding these issues are reports of poor customer service from Final Audio, and a general picture of potential overall reliability problems with the SV model.

Table 2: Summary of Pros and Cons – Final Audio ZE3000 & ZE3000 SV

Final Recommendations

• For the Audiophile Purist Seeking Unique Design and Sound: The original Final Audio ZE3000 remains a compelling option if exceptional sound quality, a distinctive and comfortable design, and a minimalist approach are the primary considerations, and if advanced TWS features are not essential. Its sonic performance has been widely lauded and often preferred over more expensive, feature-laden competitors.

• Regarding the Final Audio ZE3000 SV: Extreme caution is strongly advised. While it offers an expanded feature set on paper, including LDAC and a form of ANC, the numerous and severe user complaints regarding core functionalities (battery life, charging, controls, app stability) are deeply concerning. Coupled with the overwhelming evidence that it is a significantly marked-up OEM version of the Roseselsa Ceramics X, the ZE3000 SV becomes very difficult to recommend. Potential buyers should be acutely aware of these issues, the questionable value proposition, and Final Audio’s reportedly subpar customer support.

• For the Budget-Conscious Feature Seeker: The Roseselsa Ceramics X emerges as a far more sensible consideration for anyone interested in the feature set offered by the ZE3000 SV. Based on available specifications and the direct comparisons suggesting shared core hardware, the Ceramics X appears to provide most, if not all, of the SV’s key functionalities (including LDAC and ANC) at a fraction of the price. It should be the primary product to investigate for those seeking these features without the premium price tag and associated concerns of the ZE3000 SV.

• Overall Assessment: The original Final Audio ZE3000 successfully carved out a niche by delivering on its promise of high-quality sound in a unique package. The Final Audio ZE3000 SV, however, appears to be a significant misstep. Its questionable value, stemming from its apparent OEM origins, and the multitude of reported operational and reliability issues, risk damaging Final Audio’s reputation in the competitive TWS market.

The journey of the ZE3000 series illustrates a critical juncture for specialized audio companies like Final Audio as they navigate the TWS landscape. One path involves adhering to core competencies—prioritizing sound engineering and unique design, as seen with the original ZE3000—which may resonate strongly with a niche audience but could limit mass-market appeal. The alternative path, attempting to compete broadly on features, often involves leveraging OEM/ODM solutions to manage costs and development timelines, as seemingly pursued with the ZE3000 SV. However, this latter approach carries substantial risks: if not executed with meticulous attention to quality control and genuine value addition, it can lead to brand dilution and customer dissatisfaction, especially when more affordable, near-identical alternatives become known.

The ZE3000 SV situation also serves as a broader cautionary tale for consumers in the TWS market. It highlights the importance of critically evaluating brand premiums and looking beyond marketing claims to investigate underlying hardware and real-world performance, particularly when budget alternatives with strikingly similar specifications are available. Diligent research can empower consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions, potentially saving significant money or avoiding products with questionable value and reliability.

With over two decades of experience in digital publishing, this seasoned writer and editor has established a reputation for delivering authoritative content, enhancing the platform’s credibility and authority online.