New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FX67 Review | A Hidden Gem - Page 6

post #76 of 149

Ordered a pair.  There's something irresistable about them being so highly praised at $20 (I bought them $16 shipped)

 

I hope this is a KSC75 of IEMs.  (I ended up buying the KSC75s the exact same way XD)

post #77 of 149

I've got a pair for sale in black if anyone is interested, there in mint condition as new.

 

8GBP includes shipping UK.

9GBP includes shipping EU,

Payment via Paypal gift.


Edited by anadin - 6/6/11 at 1:55am
post #78 of 149

I love these!  Very warm and bass-forward, with a very full sound.  It's a little thick, yet it's not too overpowering.  It's inoffensive and really to my taste.  Awesome, especially for $13. 

 

I've been looking for a nice, bass-forward IEM to counteract the fact that neutral cans sound bass-anemic in the car... and now I have a pair that sounds great in silence AND on the car!  Thanks for the suggestion!

post #79 of 149
Thread Starter 

If anyone finds the sound of these muddy, masked, veiled, too dark, or too heavy; I highly recommend experimenting with your EQ settings.

 

I have found an EQ I absolutely love, and use it as my default as opposed to flat for all my music:

 

80: -2db

220: -1db

780: +2db

3K: +1db

13K: 0db

post #80 of 149

Would just like to plug these again after 2 days of burn-in.  Really, really awesome IEMs.  I like them more than I liked my Sunrise SW-Xcapes, which are a 10/10 value in ljokerl's review.  Those were $80.

 

Like someone said, sound signature >> "detail", and yet these really don't lose too badly in detail to the Xcapes imo.

It's the warmth that makes these so awesome.  It's got a v-curve yet I don't feel like I'm missing too much of the mids, like I did with the M50s.

post #81 of 149

Going to try these.  Haven't been back here in years but my PK2's went missing and am in need of a cheap portable.

post #82 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayang View Post

Ordered a pair.  There's something irresistable about them being so highly praised at $20 (I bought them $16 shipped)

 

I hope this is a KSC75 of IEMs.  (I ended up buying the KSC75s the exact same way XD)

I think I have been spoiled by my Portapros, so I am only finding these 67s to be just OK so far. The bass response is great, but he overall tone of the mids and highs seem a tad pinched and nasal sounding. I will tinker with them, but I don't see them replacing any of my KOSS sets once they come back from repair. For the price though, I don't think there is much to complain about.


Edited by azmodien - 7/12/11 at 12:38am
post #83 of 149
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azmodien View Post

I think I have been spoiled by my Portapros, so I am only finding these 67s to be just OK so far.


Heh, I've been spoiled by MANY headphones, and still enjoy them quite a bit.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by azmodien View Post

The bass response is great, but he overall tone of the mids and highs seem a tad pinched and nasal sounding.

 

Yeah, definitely experiment with an EQ. I've personally bumped the mids and cut back the bass a tad. Fabulous sound.

I've actually come to enjoy my FXC51 more, and are now my gold standard for IEMs. Yeah, I even like them more than these.

post #84 of 149



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katun View Post

I've actually come to enjoy my FXC51 more, and are now my gold standard for IEMs. Yeah, I even like them more than these.



****, I wish you had of posted this yesterday before I bought the 67s.

 

How would you describe the difference in sound stepping up to the 51s? When you say they are your gold standard, are you comparing them to high-end IEMs as well?

 

post #85 of 149
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azmodien View Post

****, I wish you had of posted this yesterday before I bought the 67s.

 

How would you describe the difference in sound stepping up to the 51s? When you say they are your gold standard, are you comparing them to high-end IEMs as well?

 


Heh, don't worry. It was only $20. Another good reason to buy cheap. rolleyes.gif

And besides, if you decide to get the 51s one day, you can compare to see what you like better.

 

The entire sound is more balanced and more clear. I also am finding I like the fit better and they isolate better as well.

Gold standard out of every IEM I've tried. And in fact, almost the gold standard out of full sized as well. They're my 2nd favorite of all time.

 

NOTE: The 51s sound decent with no EQ, but sound AMAZING with one applied. I've been tweaking for weeks to see what I like best, and I think I've landed on my favorite one. Only a slight problem. I use a Cowon iAudio 7, and it has a very customizable EQ. I tried to EQ with my Sony E354 and failed miserably. If you have a Cowon player (even all the Cowon players have a different base sound, so I'm not sure how they'd react) or more specifically, the iAudio 7, you are in for a real treat. Let's just say, I have never once in my life been cured from upgradeitis, until now. FX67's are really quite good, but I wanted just a pinch more from them. I knew with how much I liked JVC IEMs, I had to try the FXC51, especially since it was about the same price. Man, I'm SO glad I did.

 

 

 

post #86 of 149

Katun, could you describe any differences in the frequency balance?  Like, more lower midrange, more treble, etc.

 

I like the FX67 a lot, but compared to my Fischer Eternas and FA-003s ($65 and $170) they are indeed kinda thin sounding in the midrange.  I'd like some more warmth there.  The bass is nice, but I too am used to having a nice PX100/KSC75 lower midrange boost to make the sound smoother.

 

BUT they're still a mile ahead of any other $20 IEM i've tried.


Edited by Hayang - 7/12/11 at 8:22pm
post #87 of 149
Thread Starter 

Are you talking before or after EQ? They are two sides of a coin.

post #88 of 149

Can we people from this thread form the official Team Cheap-Fi?  President Joe Bloggs of Team EQ founded 2002 extends his greetings biggrin.gif

 

If this is the official Cheap-Fi appreciation thread, can I plug my Philips SHE3580 here? (link to review)  From descriptions here I doubt these sound as good as the FX67 out of the box, these Philips have really recessed mids and overbright highs to start with.  But I've been EQing them for 6 months and really struck gold when I came across PiccoloNamek's EQ tutorial.  Besides introducing me to the concept of compensating for headphone-ear-canal resonance, he also sent me out to experiment extensively with parametric equalizers for the first time, and I've never looked back (though there are things he said that I don't agree with, see my response to his thread).  This is like making a sculpture with a full set of chisels as opposed to trying to make one with an axe if you're using graphic EQ!

 

I've long since gotten the sound quality up to a level where I prefer the SHE3580 over the Etymotic ER-4P I had.  Listening to music I was familiar with on the ER-4P I have to say that not only do I prefer the SHE3580's presentation (electric guitars are rocking fun like I've never heard them before), but they even beat the etys on a strictly technical basis.

 

- detail wise, I had always been picking out extra instruments on the Philips that I didn't even notice on the etys, especially faint cymbals in the background.  Before the EQ was perfected, this was at the expense of harsh highs.  Now, the highs are silky smooth, yet at the same time energetic and just as detailed as before.  With the highs tamed I am now evening hearing guitar and bass lines more clearly than I ever remembered.  Plus the perfectly balanced frequency response allows me to play the music louder with the SHE3580 than would be plesurable with the etys, allowing me to pick up even more details and groove to the music like never before.  Dangerous but oh oh so fun basshead.gifL3000.gif (we're not talking about really loud volumes of course, I was a quiet listener to start with and have always been afraid of loud noises.)

 

- bass is looser than on the etys, but have a very pleasurable impact that I think is only possible with dynamic drivers and shallow-insertion canalphones rather than BA drivers and deep-insertion canalphones.  I remembered trying to boost the low bass of the etys, I could feel this very tight, very low bass going up in strength but contained only within my ear canals, it hurt my head.  And the ety bass may have been TOO tight for its own good, it sounds unnatural.  Nowhere other than from BA deep-insertion canalphones would bass be SO tight and clean, it simply lacks any of the associated reverberation that our ears take for granted from bass.

 

- fidelity-wise, these do not suffer from the one-note bass that were the Achille's heel of the EX70ER.  And these phones are even more sensitive to distortion in the recording than I remembered the etys to be.  If anything was overdriven in the studio, intentionally or unintentionally, you WILL hear it with these Philips.  If it's analog clipping, you'll get this warm fuzzy feeling, if it's digital clipping, you'll get this nasty buzz--all as it should be.

 

I think part of the reason these sound so good after EQ is that they come with neither bass ports in the enclosure nor foam over the nozzles.  The latter feature resulted in some of the overbrightest sound I've ever heard out of the box but also means there's nothing between the drivers and my eardrums when listening and the drivers need minimal excursion to reproduce treble details, minimizing distortion.

post #89 of 149

Thanks for sharing that, Joe!

 

Katun, I mean before the EQ.  I don't have any good way to EQ my headphones when listening from my iPod classic besides treble reducer, bass reducer, etc.

post #90 of 149
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Can we people from this thread form the official Team Cheap-Fi?  President Joe Bloggs of Team EQ founded 2002 extends his greetings biggrin.gif

 

If this is the official Cheap-Fi appreciation thread, can I plug my Philips SHE3580 here?


Sure, why not? I guess I could always rename the thread, "Cheap-Fi Appreciation Thread".

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayang View Post

Thanks for sharing that, Joe!

 

Katun, I mean before the EQ.  I don't have any good way to EQ my headphones when listening from my iPod classic besides treble reducer, bass reducer, etc.

 

I'll just put it this way. The 51's have deeper and more impactful bass, slightly less midrange (from what I remember, could possibly be a toss up), and MUCH more metallic / bright treble. Yet, overall signature of the 51 is a bit brighter and more clear than the darker and less clear signature of the FX67. Mind you, all this is from a flat EQ, and tweaking a bit with one can drastically change both of these, especially the 51. Once EQ'ed, both will instantly sound like completely new IEMs, and also sound WAY ahead of their league. But generally, I'd play it safe with the 67 if you aren't using an EQ, the 51's are to risky without one.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: