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 108

post #1606 of 1763


Not sure if you understood my comment but I do own an FX700b as well :). I just want to get a small extension cable that isn't to thick or thin and doesn't compromise the FX700s sound :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by tienbasse View Post

I got some (don't expect Shure isolation though...) isolation with FX700 using Ts-500 Comply foams (Ts, not T).

Very comfy, and insertion is shallow enough so FX700s sound their best.

Sound wasn't modified when compared to provided large silicon tips.

 

Pros: cables are not detachable, but the strain reliefs are top notch (long and souple) so there shouldn't be any issue. And for the record, the cable is completely tangle-free and yet very souple but a bit short.

Cons: the connector is nothing special, and the provided extension cable is much lower quality than the IEM cable.



 

post #1607 of 1763

The provided extension makes it sound worse? WTF...confused_face%281%29.gif

post #1608 of 1763

The FX700's extension cable's resistance is 1.05Ω, and the FX700's impedance change is very minimal, only the 3k-4 region change. At most, it's a 1db difference, mainly at 3k. I've seen a japanese graph of the difference and it's almost not there, whether that <1db at 3k makes that much of difference is for the user to decide. 

 

The Shure cable should have less resistance since it's so short, length usually coincides with more resistance beside how efficient the cable's components are.

 

I had the Shure cable with it and it didn't change it at all in general. 


Edited by Inks - 2/11/12 at 1:54pm
post #1609 of 1763

Sorry I wasn't clear, the extension cable doesn't make the sound worse, but the build quality just feels cheap when compared to the IEM cable (thin cable, with cheap connectors).

Visually it is striking and I think JVC could pay more attention to details like this, especially given the top tier price.

 

There was a post inserted before I posted mine, so without quote, my post suddenly looked out of place. wink.gif


Edited by tienbasse - 2/11/12 at 2:02pm
post #1610 of 1763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selenium View Post

The provided extension makes it sound worse? WTF...confused_face%281%29.gif



Yeah its strange to me. As inks says its adds resistance. For me it is noticeable and with my OCD it just pisses me off when I heard the difference thus making me not want to use that cable lol.

post #1611 of 1763
Quote:
Originally Posted by tienbasse View Post

Sorry I wasn't clear, the extension cable doesn't make the sound worse, but the build quality just feels cheap when compared to the IEM cable (thin cable, with cheap connectors).

Visually it is striking and I think JVC could pay more attention to details like this, especially given the top tier price.

 

There was a post inserted before I posted mine, so without quote, my post suddenly looked out of place. wink.gif

Thanks for clarifying tienbasse.
 

 

post #1612 of 1763


Where can you get this sure cable and is it nickel plated? Gold plated seems to transmit the signal better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

The FX700's extension cable's resistance is 1.05Ω, and the FX700's impedance change is very minimal, only the 3k-4 region change. At most, it's a 1db difference, mainly at 3k. I've seen a japanese graph of the difference and it's almost not there, whether that <1db at 3k makes that much of difference is for the user to decide. 

 

The Shure cable should have less resistance since it's so short, length usually coincides with more resistance beside how efficient the cable's components are.

 

I had the Shure cable with it and it didn't change it at all in general. 



 

post #1613 of 1763

gold i think. I don't think it's been well proven that gold is that much better, the extent of that can be very minimal, i think the strands are of more importance. 

post #1614 of 1763

I am now an owner of the FX700.ksc75smile.gif

post #1615 of 1763

And what are your impressions? I'm sure you'll consider the EX1000 far superior like most seem to. :)


Edited by lee730 - 2/12/12 at 2:01am
post #1616 of 1763

You would be correct. Well, not "far superior." I think I need MOAR brain-in. I do find them to be a bit more forgiving than the EX1000, but if there's sibilance in the recording you're just about as likely to hear it with the FX700, just not as pronounced at times perhaps. And while I'd have to do some serious A/Bing to determine which has better instrumental timbre, I find that the EX1000 has slightly more realistic sounding vocals. The FX700 gives a more satisfying guitar crunch, and I'd definitely reach for them for hip-hop instead of the EX1000. So there's that.

 

But more time is needed. I haven't even tried them with classical yet.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

And what are your impressions? I'm sure you'll consider the EX1000 far superior like most seem to. :)



 

post #1617 of 1763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selenium View Post

You would be correct. Well, not "far superior." I think I need MOAR brain-in. I do find them to be a bit more forgiving than the EX1000, but if there's sibilance in the recording you're just about as likely to hear it with the FX700, just not as pronounced at times perhaps. And while I'd have to do some serious A/Bing to determine which has better instrumental timbre, I find that the EX1000 has slightly more realistic sounding vocals. The FX700 gives a more satisfying guitar crunch, and I'd definitely reach for them for hip-hop instead of the EX1000. So there's that.

 

But more time is needed. I haven't even tried them with classical yet.
 


 

Would you put the SQ about equal for EX600 and FX700 (they are, after all just 100 apart :-))

 

post #1618 of 1763

I'd give the FX700 a slight edge. It's more resolving while also being more forgiving. The timbre of the EX600 is just as good IMO. It really is a fantastic value for $130.

 

The soundstage of the FX700 is awesome. Wide, deep, and tall.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by olear View Post

Would you put the SQ about equal for EX600 and FX700 (they are, after all just 100 apart :-))

 



 

post #1619 of 1763
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selenium View Post

I'd give the FX700 a slight edge. It's more resolving while also being more forgiving. The timbre of the EX600 is just as good IMO. It really is a fantastic value for $130.

 

The soundstage of the FX700 is awesome. Wide, deep, and tall.


x2. Welcome to the FX700 club! smile_phones.gif

post #1620 of 1763

^^^Thanks!

 

Still enjoying and getting to know these 'phones. They are incredible with classical. I can see why some would prefer these over the EX1000 given the bigger bass, lusher mids, and more forgiving treble. Their presentations are completely different too, though I imagine that's the case with the EX 'phones vs. almost every other IEM.

 

From a usability standpoint, they're very easy to just pop in and out. But in walking around with them I don't find the fit very secure. I think it's because of their weight and shallow fit, they always feel like they're on the precipice of falling out. And I can actually feel them shifting around at times. I have a good seal, using Monster silicons. They do isolate SOME, but not as much as the EX1000. Case in point, when I was at the grocery store with them, I could hear the vocal commands of the automated checkout, which I typically don't hear using other IEMs.

 

Also, I got a static electricity shock from them. They would have become my definite work IEM if not for that. I will give them more time of course but I'm not sure I'll end up keeping them.

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!)