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 7

post #91 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by soozieq View Post
Hey HONEYBOY, nice description of the bass and I totally agree with it. Today, when I was going back and forth between the W3 and JVC today, I tried to 'measure' the extra JVC bass in my head - and it sounded like it had around 40% extra weight and went about 20% lower. It's a pretty noticeable difference, so much so that I've actually turned down the bass on my Sony by one notch because I discovered I don't need that much bass
You're really hitting the nail on the head as far as my ears can tell from the limited burn in with the JVCs.I think they also have more bass weight than the IE8s (on minimum dial ) and seem to be distributed over a larger area. More experience users like yourself haha may have to clarify this: I think the IE8s and W3s bass may be more focused and have a greater impact but in terms of definition/accuracy and producing the sub bass that you really feel; I'll give that to the JVCs. The JVCs bass just comes out of no where and punches you in the stomach!! haha

Quote:
EDIT: HONEYBOY, I meant to add that when I got my Triple.fi, I listened to them for a couple of weeks exclusively, and when I went back to the C700's, they'd become unlistenable in comparison. I kept fiddling with the fit because I couldn't work out where half the music had gone, it was weird! Would love to know what the C700's sound like to you after a week or two's exclusive listening to the JVC
The IE8s did the same thing to the C700's. In fact what prompted me to purchase the IE8s was when you "jokingly" said something of the nature that the IE8's kicked the C700s out into the street and into the dustbin!! haha Couldn't have said it better!

@cn11
Quote:
HONEYBOY-
If you don't mind me asking, what specifically is it about the IE8's sound that you still prefer over the FX500? I do like hearing that they reach lower than the IE8's, because, I do like me some bass.
I've only had the IE8s for a few weeks and love them to death so might be some element of bias I have just over 10 hours on the JVCs so impressions may change.Here's my noobish look as to why I prefer the iE8s overall SQ.

The IE8s have a much better focus and higher resolution, in that they possess greater timbral accuracy in which each instrument in an ensemble can be more distinctly defined. This to me leads to better instrument separation/Imaging within its more expansive headstage and soundstage. Despite having a smaller soundstage than the IE8s theres something about the FX500s that I haven't yet put my hands on that makes them appear very open sounding though. I also think that the IE8s are more coherent in that everything just comes together to form one nice engaging musical bonanza!!.

I also have a predilection for forward/upfront vocals and the IE8s are much more forward than the JVCs. I really dig the way vocals are presented on the IE8s, they're very organic, smooth, full bodied and breathable. The vocals of the JVCs are much thinner and perhaps ( note that I didn't say "anemic" as that of the iE8 may be a bit too rich for some folks haha).The vocals on the IE8 as of now seem to also possess greater "textural range" which I like as well.
P.S I hope I didn't sound as if I was bashing the FX500s as I think they're great phones, just that I prefer the IE8s.
post #92 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post
haha, i am glad that others are finding them... but geeze! i poured my heart and soul into that review (with all its bad grammar and spelling) and expected an angelic awakening on the other end, but discovered rather, the sound of silence.
Hey Shigzeo I think I understand what you mean. Some of the best and most balanced reviews are more often than not overlooked LOL. I saw the review when I was a forum lurker but already had the C700s and didn't pay much attention haha. I read the whole thread last night though. I love re reading threads after I buy the headphones as it helps me to remember the folks who hears things the way I do!!. You did a great job comparing these to the C700s

regards
post #93 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by HONEYBOY View Post
I've only had the IE8s for a few weeks and love them to death so might be some element of bias I have just over 10 hours on the JVCs so impressions may change.Here's my noobish look as to why I prefer the iE8s overall SQ.

The IE8s have a much better focus and higher resolution, in that they possess greater timbral accuracy in which each instrument in an ensemble can be more distinctly defined. This to me leads to better instrument separation/Imaging within its more expansive headstage and soundstage. Despite having a smaller soundstage than the IE8s theres something about the FX500s that I haven't yet put my hands on that makes them appear very open sounding though. I also think that the IE8s are more coherent in that everything just comes together to form one nice engaging musical bonanza!!.

I also have a predilection for forward/upfront vocals and the IE8s are much more forward than the JVCs. I really dig the way vocals are presented on the IE8s, they're very organic, smooth, full bodied and breathable. The vocals of the JVCs are much thinner and perhaps ( note that I didn't say "anemic" as that of the iE8 may be a bit too rich for some folks haha).The vocals on the IE8 as of now seem to also possess greater "textural range" which I like as well.
P.S I hope I didn't sound as if I was bashing the FX500s as I think they're great phones, just that I prefer the IE8s.
I have seen this kind of review several times, and again, this makes me wonder - despite the title of the thread, and the discussion that has ensued, if the FX1000 really are rebranded FX500, because I really do not hear what is shown above (or in the other a/b compairsons I have read between the FX and IE)...

I will have to get a pair of FX500s to find out for myself..
post #94 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post
I have seen this kind of review several times, and again, this makes me wonder - despite the title of the thread, and the discussion that has ensued, if the FX1000 really are rebranded FX500, because I really do not hear what is shown above (or in the other a/b compairsons I have read between the FX and IE)...

I will have to get a pair of FX500s to find out for myself..
Agreed, I think that will be for your and everyones benefit Best way to finally put this issue to bed is to be ABing both FX500 and FX1000. I still stand by what I've described above. Bare in mind that I've been using these out of my S738 and not via the X1000 which has be indicated be quite synergystic with the FX1000.
post #95 of 183
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HONEYBOY View Post
Agreed, I think that will be for your and everyones benefit Best way to finally put this issue to bed is to be ABing both FX500 and FX1000. I still stand by what I've described above. Bare in mind that I've been using these out of my S738 and not via the X1000 which has be indicated be quite synergystic with the FX1000.
Hey HONEYBOY, your comments are very interesting. I loved the IE8 vocals initially, and then the excess warmth started to irritate me. The W3 fixed the warmth issue and the JVC gives me that very sweet treble detail and rumbling bass

But I also find the JVC vocals not forward enough unless I use the Dynamic Normalizer on my Sony X. Then it's forward enough but not as warm as the IE8 or the W3. If the JVC had a little more warmth to the vocals, they'd be pretty much perfect. Oh, and to my ears, the JVC has a much harder-hitting impact than either the IE8 or the W3.

They're such different phones though, it's easy to see how either one can be preferred over the other.

EDIT: I forgot to say that the JVC has clearer vocals to me than both the W3 and the IE8, and I miss that if I switch back to the W3.
post #96 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by cn11 View Post
shigzeo-
I actually wanted to try them way back when because of your review, but it just seemed to be a bit of a hassle to get them to the USA.
Ditto that.
post #97 of 183
Got mine today... FAST shipping from Seyo.

First impression, they're bright. Way brighter than I was expecting. The upper mids and treble are quite a bit more obvious than UM3X.

I'll have to do some more listening when I've burned them in. Hopefully my right ear will have healed by then (got a weird reaction from the Shure silicone tips again).
post #98 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by kloan View Post
Got mine today... FAST shipping from Seyo.

First impression, they're bright. Way brighter than I was expecting. The upper mids and treble are quite a bit more obvious than UM3X.

I'll have to do some more listening when I've burned them in. Hopefully my right ear will have healed by then (got a weird reaction from the Shure silicone tips again).
Awesome. I plan on buying from Seyo soon as well!
Anyway, if you have an allergic reaction to the silicone tips, stop using them and/or see a doc/audiologist!
post #99 of 183
Get some foam tips and save yourself from the misery.
post #100 of 183
Maybe the Sennheiser 'Soamie' hard foams will fit/work well with these?? I'm hoping so, and I'll find out next week!
post #101 of 183
They should, the stems look to be about the same. I was actually thinking about trying to track some down, they're pretty comfortable and seem to seal easily for me.

These do come with small black foam tips, very similar to what come with the Senns... they're a little softer, but fit the same.
post #102 of 183
I've had them for more than two weeks now and I'm really surprised that you would find them bright!
To me they're a warmish, smooth iem...
I'm using the stock silicone tips and my impressions would be more in line with Honeyboy's, they're definitely warmer than my pl30 for comparison.
Speaking about tips, are there better options than the stock ones?
And did anyone use an impedance adapter with those? Using them with my Zero amp can be painful because the gain is too high.

EDIT: just tried them with an Ipod I had laying around and I have to say they sound different than from my fuze...clearer, maybe the fuze is too warm for them.
post #103 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by kloan View Post
They should, the stems look to be about the same. I was actually thinking about trying to track some down, they're pretty comfortable and seem to seal easily for me.

These do come with small black foam tips, very similar to what come with the Senns... they're a little softer, but fit the same.
Thanks for the info kloan. I really like the Senn foamies, so it's great to hear that the JVC's are quite similar. I'm also thinking that Sony EX tips will be good with these, or the Sony hybrids. My FX500's should be in tomorrow.
post #104 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by cn11 View Post
Thanks for the info kloan. I really like the Senn foamies, so it's great to hear that the JVC's are quite similar. I'm also thinking that Sony EX tips will be good with these, or the Sony hybrids. My FX500's should be in tomorrow.
waiting for your preview
post #105 of 183
the victors come with the same type of foams. i am listening to a wonderful pair of loaned ie8 now and am not ready to make bold statements yet, but i do agree that the victor is more forward than the ie8 especially in mids. the senn is more forward in upper bass and i think the victor may reach lower or at least vibrate with greater voraciousness down low than the ie8. however, i have never, ever heard an iem with this width of stage... it is simply frightening.
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.