Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › CONFIRMATION: JVC HA-FX1000 IS the JVC Victor HP-FX500.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CONFIRMATION: JVC HA-FX1000 IS the JVC Victor HP-FX500. - Page 9

post #121 of 183
You must like treble! I find even with the foams the high end is too much.
post #122 of 183
well, i do! i am a big trance fan and without treble, the entire scope of the music is sheered down. but, even to non-treble fans, i would think the foams make it rather dark. well, i have abnormally small ear canals so the foam would bunch up in them causing the sound to be muffled. that is why i chose the ety foam and chopped it short so that the foam would only stabilise itself in my ears and the music would not be as effected.
post #123 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by kloan View Post
... do tone down the high end a little bit, but still not quite enough. I also think the bass isn't nearly as impactful as the IE8 ...
Perhaps not every wooden diaphragm is exactly alike? Seems like it wood be hard to control for natural variations in wood.
post #124 of 183
It's probably more likely that I'm just too picky and expect perfection from everything I hear....
post #125 of 183
Oh well, it looks like I will have to buy a pair of these now to go with my x-1060

Poor old C-751's....

Argh... damn you Head-Fi!!
post #126 of 183
Could it also be a matter of synergy and taste? I understand that the JVC's are a little bit bright, this probably goes well with Duncan's Sony X1060 but less synergy with Kloan's touch? And Shigzeo seems to like an exposed top-end.
post #127 of 183
Okay, one thing I want to note in the early stages at this point (I don't want to discuss too much about the audio qualities before a little more burn in takes place)-

I really am blown away by the level of dynamics these maintain at lower listening volumes. Only the Ultrasone 780's are this satisfying down low like this. This is a great quality since it'll encourage me to keep it down.
post #128 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by cn11 View Post
Okay, one thing I want to note in the early stages at this point (I don't want to discuss too much about the audio qualities before a little more burn in takes place)-

I really am blown away by the level of dynamics these maintain at lower listening volumes. Only the Ultrasone 780's are this satisfying down low like this. This is a great quality since it'll encourage me to keep it down.
That's exactly what I love about my IE8s. Good bass punch at low volumes even with background noise around me. How would you compare the Victors to the Senns in that regard?
post #129 of 183
To my ears it seems that the FX500's reach a little lower than the IE8's, and it's more controlled too. There's less mid bass coloration, which helps it all seem cleaner on the low end.
post #130 of 183
funny, i took out the filter to expose the top end even more! but, i was coming from er4s and the denon c700, both of which are more energetic in treble than the victor.
post #131 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by cn11 View Post
To my ears it seems that the FX500's reach a little lower than the IE8's, and it's more controlled too. There's less mid bass coloration, which helps it all seem cleaner on the low end.
is there a match of soundstage between IE8 and Fx500?If it is not, I can put my idea of getting it to rest
post #132 of 183
gameboy115-

The size of the soundstage is definitely a bit smaller with the FX500's, but not much at all. By comparison, I find it larger than with the Denon C700's, Turbines, or Atrios. It's second only to the IE8's. And I kind of hesitate to give a very concrete answer at this point because I know they may still be evolving through burn in since this only the second full day I've had them. I was just doing direct back to back comparing with the IE8's to give you a good answer, and just now tonight I found it much closer than I remember in comparing them last night. So, more to come.........
post #133 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post
funny, i took out the filter to expose the top end even more! but, i was coming from er4s and the denon c700, both of which are more energetic in treble than the victor.
Ha ha, and I wish I could get a thicker filter.
post #134 of 183
Come on, cheques (yes, cheques not checks damn American use) go through...

Me want these. bad.
The more I read of this thread the more I want them cn11, you're not helping!
post #135 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by cn11 View Post
gameboy115-

The size of the soundstage is definitely a bit smaller with the FX500's, but not much at all. By comparison, I find it larger than with the Denon C700's, Turbines, or Atrios. It's second only to the IE8's. And I kind of hesitate to give a very concrete answer at this point because I know they may still be evolving through burn in since this only the second full day I've had them. I was just doing direct back to back comparing with the IE8's to give you a good answer, and just now tonight I found it much closer than I remember in comparing them last night. So, more to come.........
Thanks for comparison. Yea, may be it is still too fast to tell. Waiting for detail review after burn in
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › CONFIRMATION: JVC HA-FX1000 IS the JVC Victor HP-FX500.