Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Final Audio Design website now in English
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Final Audio Design website now in English - Page 3

post #31 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkaze View Post

They look really nice, could've been better if they had detachable cable, it'd really suck if an earphone this expensive breaks because of the cable.

As you are the only person I know that owns a pair of these, you need to give us more information on how it sounds, a review would be even better! :Dtongue_smile.gif



Yeah, the cable isn't detachable which is a shame.  Because the IX's case is made from stainless steel it's fairly weighty compared to every other IEM I've owned so far, so there's a chance if I'm not careful I might damage the cable if I hold it by the cable.  It is nicely braided and not stiff which makes the IX easy to curl up and store.  The cable also seems to tangle-resistant too.

 

I don't mind attempting to write a bit more on how it sounds but my vocab around describing sound is a bit limited so not sure how useful any description I give is going to be tongue_smile.gif

 

What I'll probably do instead is dig out a few of my other IEM's this weekend and compare them with the IX to hopefully give anyone who's interested a better idea of what to expect if they do decide to splash out on a Piano Forte VIII-XI regular_smile%20.gif

post #32 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

Looks like FAD didn't bother to improve ergonomics on the 1602 vs. the 1601 - too bad. The 1601 only sounds muffled if you use them with sealing tips, they sound very clear and detailed with the non-sealing metal tips. I asked FAD whether the 1602 retain the 1601's mid-centric sound signature and they confirmed this, adding that the "horn speaker principle" on the 1602 would produce a more dense sound.

 

Amazing the useful information that one finds in these old threads. This matches my perception that the sound of the 1602SS is thicker than the 1601SC, a surprising development.

post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

 

Amazing the useful information that one finds in these old threads. This matches my perception that the sound of the 1602SS is thicker than the 1601SC, a surprising development.


As you know, I haven't tried the 1601SC but have the 1601SS, and you may remember you once asked me about the differences between the 1602SS & 1601SS and this is what I said to you back then: "The quick answer to your question is: no, it's not worth having both 160X models. These are most definitely siblings, twins perhaps --though not identical-- as they have a lot in common, and some of these sonic differences are rather subtle. However, these phones are different enough for me to not consider selling the 1601SS"

 

Now, my saying "no, it's not worth having both 160X models" has a lot to do not just with the sonic similarities between these phones but their actual cost. I don't know how different SQ-wise the 1601SC & 1601SS are, but FAD's description also matches my own perception of both 160X models I have in my possession — basically, I still have no intention to sell either. It has to be said, though, that with the 1602s (aka the Piano Fortes) FAD were even more bold, more unapologetic than they were with the 1601s.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Final Audio Design website now in English