Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › JVC/Victor FX700 - The Successor (early Easter Bunny brought something very nice!)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JVC/Victor FX700 - The Successor (early Easter Bunny brought something very nice!) - Page 8

post #106 of 1763
james-
I'm hoping so too. The straight fit, long body type of IEM never seems to work very well for me. Thankfully I had no problems whatsoever with the FX500's, so I'm hoping the same is true for the FX700's. Deep fit never really works for me either. The Monster Miles Davis, even though they're on the long-ish side, are one of the rare straight fit phones which do fit fine. I really wish I'd been able to hear the e-Q7's at their best considering all the positive comments they continue to receive.
post #107 of 1763
Well, I'm weak. I ordered a pair. I'm not worried about the extra heft since I've been using the Denon C710 which look similar in size.
post #108 of 1763
Thread Starter 

FX700 vs. e-Q7 (short comparison)

Got my Ortofons back yesterday evening and immediately took them for a short comparison with the FX700. Wow, that transparency again! I don't think any of my other IEMs can hold a candle to the e-Q7 in this regard. My memory about them was definitely right, they are so different to the JVCs, very very unobtrusive in their presentation, the mids slightly forward, but first and foremost neutral, relaxed, composed.

Did I just think bass-light? Not by themselves, normally the bass on the Ortofons is *just right* for me and has great definition and clarity, but next to the FX700... lol. The JVC have that kind of authoritative, impressive bass that reminds you of much larger phones. On the Eagles' Hotel California live intro the kick drum really makes you jump. Not that it feels lacking with the e-Q7, but it doesn't startle you in any way. It's more like some polite servant asking: "Is it allright if we play some bass, Sir?"

On the other hand, comparing them to the Ortofons underlines what I've been noticing before, the FX700 have a tiny bit too much mid-bass for my liking. It's more apparent with some tracks than with others, but overall I'd prefer about -5db less in the 100Hz range and still wouldn't feel them lacking. The Ortofon's bass is considerably lighter, but clearer.

The midrange is a tad more forward on the e-Q7, but the JVCs are not recessed. Detail is unmatched on the Ortofons, yet still very good on the FX700. Both have excellent refinement with instruments and voices, the FX700 sound noticably warmer than the neutral Ortofons, due to their "bassment", but they also have an appealing silkyness and what I'm tempted to call the famous JVC timbre. I've said it before and have to say it again, IMO timbre of acoustic instruments doesn't get much better than on the FX500 and FX700.

There's more similarity in treble between these two than in the other frequency ranges and both are impressively detailed and refined, with the JVCs being slightly more extended. Sibilance is not a problem with both phones, but if sibilance is already in the recording the FX700 are less forgiving than the e-Q7.

I have no complaints regarding soundstage, seperation and imaging, both perform on an excellent level and can keep up with the very best.

Bottom line and like I said earlier, both are excellent but decidedly different phones. The e-Q7 are masters of understatement and transparency, taking themselves out of the equation and simply letting you enjoy the music. For the FX700 by contrast, exercising restraint is not an option. They shamelessly capture and hold your attention with their emotional performance, and can leave you... well, not fatigued, but kind of exhausted in a good way.
post #109 of 1763
Nice James!

The FX700's are starting to sound like MTPC's with more timbre, a touch more bass, more forward mids and a bit more extended treble. So if the MTPC's are a hot French maid, the FX700's are a hot latina maid w/ a bigger rack and more junk in the trunk? ;P
post #110 of 1763
your description of the bass comparing the two sounds exactly like what happened today when I put the e-Q7 on after using the monsters most of the day :P I felt like there was no bass but I was using such a bass heavy iem most of the day so that's expected.
post #111 of 1763
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post
So if the MTPC's are a hot French maid, the FX700's are a hot latina maid w/ a bigger rack and more junk in the trunk? ;P
Once you start comparing IEMs to chicks you know something's seriously wrong.
post #112 of 1763
Hey James have you heard the monster turbine copper pro or the monster miles davis tribute? or does anyone have either of those and the FX 700? how would FX 700 compare to those? which one has a tighter bassline? which one has a more fluid presentation?
post #113 of 1763
Again thanks for the review @james! Would like to hear the famous JVC timbre one day.
post #114 of 1763
i am seriously considering eq7,damn it! .its kinda of hard to go back to iems once you hear full size headphones on a quality tube amp or even SS,but this stupid qrtofon appears to be something unique.
james,are you by any chance going to get the qrtofon amp that is listed on ALO website?that would be mega intersting.
And yes timbre is something VERY unique on fx500 and i am sure it is on fx700.the fx500 resembles that of my d5000 with its mahogony wood in terms of timbre,but believe me when i say its timbre is sometimes better and more organic than d5000 which have to say how special it is.
post #115 of 1763
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midoo1990 View Post
i am seriously considering eq7,damn it! .its kinda of hard to go back to iems once you hear full size headphones on a quality tube amp or even SS,but this stupid qrtofon appears to be something unique.
james,are you by any chance going to get the qrtofon amp that is listed on ALO website?that would be mega intersting.
Yes, the e-Q7 is really something unique IMO, at least among the phones I have. I would surely have considered getting the amp too, if it were portable. But I have no use for an Ortofon home amp.
post #116 of 1763
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by koonhua90 View Post
Hey James have you heard the monster turbine copper pro or the monster miles davis tribute? or does anyone have either of those and the FX 700? how would FX 700 compare to those? which one has a tighter bassline? which one has a more fluid presentation?
Sorry, no monster IEMs here, but I'm looking forward to cn11 covering that topic.
post #117 of 1763
oh its Ortofon not Qrtofon...i always thought it was a Q.
Anyway,i may pull the plunge but i am sick of selling items because there is one or more things wrong with them and i am in the process of selling d5000.so i have some questions if you dont mind:
1-is the treble fatiguing as ck10 for prolonged listening hours?i remember you answered this question but i want to make sure i dont make the same mistake as i did with the ck10.
2-does the orto recquire deep insertion as the ck10 or is it shallow like the ie8?the maximum inserion i can tolerate is something like the fx500 and anything beyond that like the ck10,i experiance ear pressure and my ears get blocked.
3-is the bass quantity close to that of ck10 or is it much bigger?
4-is it as fast as ck10?
5-is the level of detail like the ck10 or more detailed?
6-is there ANY kind of hiss with your DAPS?this is extremly important to me because i am very sensitive to hiss and i heard it on the ck10+touch combo and it was very annoying.
7-does it benefit from amping?
8-vocals are closer to ie8,fx500 or ck10?
9-timbre,is it blunt like ck10 or sound like dynamic iems?

i know thats alot of question but i greatly appreciate it if you can answer them james.thanks.
post #118 of 1763
I guess I'll provide an additional answer when james answers your questions since it;s always better to have multiple answers than just one.

1. The e-Q7 will probably be less fatiguing to your ears. The treble isn't quite like the CK10.
2. That depends on the size of your ear. It does go in deep but not as much as the CK10. It's somewhere in between a TF10 which is pretty shallow and a CK10 which is pretty deep(with triple flanges at least)
3. e-Q7 has more bass
4. It's fast but I think a bit slower.
5.I find the CK10 more detailed
6. I don't hear any hiss but dont have a touch.
9. Timbre is definitely better than the CK10 but probably not as good as the fx500 would be.

james: how much more bass do you think these have compared to the e-Q7 or an IE8?
post #119 of 1763
So I'm guessing the JVC FX's can't really be beaten for on timbre? I'm guessing the eQ-7 has less timbre than the FX700? If so, how much? Cuz even though it's even now harder to decide, the eQ-7's are creeping even so slightly ahead in my 'I want more' books.
post #120 of 1763
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post
I guess I'll provide an additional answer when james answers your questions since it;s always better to have multiple answers than just one.

1. The e-Q7 will probably be less fatiguing to your ears. The treble isn't quite like the CK10.
2. That depends on the size of your ear. It does go in deep but not as much as the CK10. It's somewhere in between a TF10 which is pretty shallow and a CK10 which is pretty deep(with triple flanges at least)
3. e-Q7 has more bass
4. It's fast but I think a bit slower.
5.I find the CK10 more detailed
6. I don't hear any hiss but dont have a touch.
9. Timbre is definitely better than the CK10 but probably not as good as the fx500 would be.

james: how much more bass do you think these have compared to the e-Q7 or an IE8?
No.1 and No.3 caught my eyes

Regarding No.5, you said the CK10 is more detailed than e-Q7, just wonder in which frequencies CK10 has more details than e-Q7? Or just simply CK10 has more details overall (along the whole frequencies) compared to e-Q7?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › JVC/Victor FX700 - The Successor (early Easter Bunny brought something very nice!)