Final Audio Design Heaven IV - Page 5

The CK10 is pretty forward and hot, it has a spike at 10kHz, but it could be the linear FR all the way up to 10kHz.

I compared FI-BA-A1 and SS within a fairly short time frame, not direct though.

In order to fairly assess ER-4S versus FI-BA-SS, you'd need a few hours and an equalizer, but intuitively, the FI-BA-SS is clearly the Japan Victor, just in my view.

I'd like to think there's more pioneering to it than a nicely ventilated Yashima driver, with stainless steel windows, (like Shigzeo implied).

Edit:  Talking about the ER-4S, FI-BA-SS, Sony EX1000 etc., Final Audio 'doesn't believe' in multi-driver setups.  They're all for the single driver design, some kind of purist principle I think?

Perhaps it makes sense in the way the Sony XBA-3 and TF10 have issues, and the UM Miracle seems to re-render the recording.

I didn't feel any issues or re-rendering in the JH11, it just has excellent low-level detail retrieval and uplifting sound.  In a purist way, I suppose the frequencies are overlapping somewhere, but for riveting performance I'd get te JH11 over the FI-BA-SS any day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

I wouldn't say they're purely form over function --- their products do still sound excellent. I'd say B&O is form over function. FAD pays more attention to the sound. I happen to think the FI-BA-SS is one of the best universals around. Sure, the W4 is half the price and can almost do everything the FI-BA-SS can do, but the FI-BA-SS is a unique entity that brings a sound matched only by the K3003 in my experience. Plus, it really squeezes every little bit out of that single BA driver. I am not saying that it's a good value, but it is truly a top-tier performer in every sense of the word. To dismiss their products as only design-oriented is a poor assessment, in my opinion, as FAD is very capable of engineering very good sounding products, and they are worth at least a long-term assessment.

 

The other thing is that no one is actually crowning FAD as the holy grail of audio. This is a brand designed and dedicated to the domestic Japanese market; these prices were engineered for the mentality of Japanese collectors, rather than for value-conscious audio enthusiasts. This is especially true with the Piano Forte series, but the Heaven line is priced much more realistically. The Heaven S (FI-BA-SB) is priced on par with its competitors at $400; so is the Heaven A. Only the FI-BA-SS breaks the 1K mark, and it is definitely a halo product that matches up with the K3003.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilzc 

The Fi-Ba-SS is hauntingly good. For a single BA, to reproduce bass that well..  is unheard of. Not even the EQ-5/EQ-7 with their MA's come close.

I second both these posts, for a large part of my favorite music there's no other pair of IEMs that I would pick over the FI-BA-SS.

I'd be interested in the Heaven IV too, but sadly their outward angled strain reliefs will make them had to wear over-ears, so I think I'm gonna take a pass this time.

As for the rest of the quarrel discussion, I honestly don't think it's worth the effort, since pretty much of it boils down to different treble sensitivites and preferences, imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by james444 

 

 

I second both these posts, for a large part of my favorite music there's no other pair of IEMs that I would pick over the FI-BA-SS.

 

...

 

As for the rest of the quarrel discussion, I honestly don't think it's worth the effort, since pretty much of it boils down to different treble sensitivites and preferences, imo.

Agreed wholeheartedly on both points. I'd also add "different perceptions of 'value' and different interests / hobbyist's goals" to the second point.

      Quote:

Originally Posted by james444 

[/]
since pretty much of it boils down to different treble sensitivites and preferences, imo.

I respect Inks preference that the ER-4S is more linear and less coloured than the FI-BA-SS.  I think treble sensitivity is mostly acclimatization, i.e. the most recent IEM/HP used extensively.

Different music, source & volume, along with favoritism of price, brand & looks, will vary comments, along with how intoxicated one is by the music, imho.

Hopefully all IEM's sound exactly the same, but if the EX1000 is "hand-tuned", and the FX700 driver is different cuts of wood, perhaps not all the time.

Even the Etymotic ER-4PT has slight variations from model to model in volume, if you look at the included FR sheet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

      Quote:

 

I respect Inks preference that the ER-4S is more linear and less coloured than the FI-BA-SS.  I think treble sensitivity is mostly acclimatization, i.e. the most recent IEM/HP used extensively.

 

Different music, source & volume, along with favoritism of price, brand & looks, will vary comments, along with how intoxicated one is by the music, imho.

 

Hopefully all IEM's sound exactly the same, but if the EX1000 is "hand-tuned", and the FX700 driver is different cuts of wood, perhaps not all the time.

 

Even the Etymotic ER-4PT has slight variations from model to model in volume, if you look at the included FR sheet.

 

Well I guess time to go down to audition again...

If people are comparing the Fi BA-SS to the ER4S which is $1000 cheaper where I'm at, then where does that $1400 price tag of the FAD come from and why are people ignoring the giant price difference?

----

 Ok jeremypsp has shut down my argument quite a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

The gradual dip conforms to a natural head-related-transfer, it's adequate no need to take that away. The usual hearing-aid receivers are for the most part, completely different beasts and heavily damped, Etymotic's use brings out all the treble extension needed, take an ER4B, which puts a limit on BA treble extension. Etymotic pretty much found a winning combination due to their extensive research, I think they've probably had some luck involved as well. It's just a plain old Knowles drivers, but it's all about application and effectiveness. Plenty of IEMs with similar bore diameters that sound completely different, don't attribute that to a certain signature. Due to how undampeded the driver is, the bore's tube is actually used to attenuate treble for a more pleasant experience. 

 

If you don't have the former, there's no transparency because you are making significant changes to the recording's voice. Flat speakers are transparent because of their flat response, it's the result of linearity. The A1/SB/SAs are already offensive and the SS have even more midhighs and 8-10k. 

 

FAD isn't using a Yashima driver, it may be proprietary, but I am almost certain it's the same one for the whole Heaven line.

You know, I normally quite respect most things you have to say, but you always seem to lose sight of what is at hand and speak contentiously for the sake of contention. All this time, if you really read what I've written, we've been stating the same exact things, but you tend to want to spin it as though I were slamming the ER4 or needlessly defending FAD without merit. I don't appreciate that.

I never said it was wrong that the ED driver has that limitation; I also expressly said that Etymotic made a great choice in implementing it as their primary driver. My statement was merely addressing the fact that there are other drivers with more headroom for other applications that are less than completely flat in response. With regard to sound tube length and diameter, I suggest you go read Knowles' technical bulletins.

All I have to say about transparency, and this is the last time I'll address it, is that the term 'transparency' is in of itself a subjective term, because it is a projection of the visual definition of transparency onto audible sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProjectDenz 

If people are comparing the Fi BA-SS to the ER4S which is $1000 cheaper where I'm at, then where does that $1400 price tag of the FAD come from and why are people ignoring the giant price difference?

The ER-4S, although good in clarity, doesn't quite come close to the FI-BA-SS's clarity. The ER-4S may be a little more accurate, but the FI-BA-SS gives an added sound that can "wow" you at first listen while first listening to the ER-4S is probably a "bleh". It's truly an IEM to look at. I would pick these over the K3003s too. 

I don't think anyone here is trying to argue the FI-BA-SS is a good value. If people would actually bother to read the impressions of someone like James444 who has experience auditioning the FI-BA-SS, they'd see pretty quickly that price is most certainly a consideration and not something being ignored. Furthermore the price of the FI-BA-SS is more realistically closer to $1000 and not $1400. Just check PriceJapan.

Secondly, saying the ER4S is more linear than the FI-BA-SS isn't the same as equating the two, nor does it mean the two perform on the same level. It simply means the latter has more of a colored sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuppetFace 

I don't think anyone here is trying to argue the FI-BA-SS is a good value. If people would actually bother to read the impressions of someone like James444 who has experience auditioning the FI-BA-SS, they'd see pretty quickly that price is most certainly a consideration and not something being ignored. Furthermore the price of the FI-BA-SS is more realistically closer to $1000 and not $1400. Just check PriceJapan.

 

Secondly, saying the ER4S is more linear than the FI-BA-SS isn't the same as equating the two, nor does it mean the two perform on the same level. It simply means the latter has more of a colored sound.

Thanks for clearing that up, but it really is $1400 in Australia if I wanted any kind of proper warranty support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuppetFace 

I don't think anyone here is trying to argue the FI-BA-SS is a good value. If people would actually bother to read the impressions of someone like James444 who has experience auditioning the FI-BA-SS, they'd see pretty quickly that price is most certainly a consideration and not something being ignored. Furthermore the price of the FI-BA-SS is more realistically closer to $1000 and not $1400. Just check PriceJapan.

 

Secondly, saying the ER4S is more linear than the FI-BA-SS isn't the same as equating the two, nor does it mean the two perform on the same level. It simply means the latter has more of a colored sound.

True, the FI-BA-SS is more colored than the ER-4S, but that isn't a bad thing, in fact it boosts it's naturality. 

Somehow, at the very top of the food chain, I rarely encounter many 'neutral' and 'uncoloured' products, be it IEMs, CIEMs or headphones.

There are of course exceptions to this rule, the HD800 and the UERM being of those. Even then some might argue the HD800s are neutral but lean towards the brighter side of things.

An artist can use the same colour palette but paint a picture and convey emotions far better than that of a talentless 10 year old. This is the difference between a top class IEM and the lesser ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilzc 

Somehow, at the very top of the food chain, I rarely encounter many 'neutral' and 'uncoloured' products, be it IEMs, CIEMs or headphones.

 

There are of course exceptions to this rule, the HD800 and the UERM being of those. Even then some might argue the HD800s are neutral but lean towards the brighter side of things.

 

An artist can use the same colour palette but paint a picture and convey emotions far better than that of a talentless 10 year old. This is the difference between a top class IEM and the lesser ones.

True, I have yet to heard a real neutral IEM, even the ER-4, the most accurate universal is bright and cold. But then again, I don't really go for neutral IEMs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

 

You know, I normally quite respect most things you have to say, but you always seem to lose sight of what is at hand and speak contentiously for the sake of contention. All this time, if you really read what I've written, we've been stating the same exact things, but you tend to want to spin it as though I were slamming the ER4 or needlessly defending FAD without merit. I don't appreciate that.

 

I never said it was wrong that the ED driver has that limitation; I also expressly said that Etymotic made a great choice in implementing it as their primary driver. My statement was merely addressing the fact that there are other drivers with more headroom for other applications that are less than completely flat in response. With regard to sound tube length and diameter, I suggest you go read Knowles' technical bulletins.

 

All I have to say about transparency, and this is the last time I'll address it, is that the term 'transparency' is in of itself a subjective term, because it is a projection of the visual definition of transparency onto audible sound.

A shame it's getting personal. Why do you assume it's for my content? I try to be as informative as I can that is why my posts are well-laid out and in depth. There were some disagreements that is why I  replied with my knowledge and interpretations. I'v been backing up what I kept saying with different information, that's what happening. I am being informative not personal, I hope you can be the same. I do know that you agreeing in some points, but I'm trying to paint a fuller picture of the things you mention. 

It's wrong if it's a limitation, it's a strength if it works, the gradual dip simply works and there's plenty of air. Yes there are drivers like that, but uning should be everything, no point in using a carbon-nanotube diaphragm if it can't be done right. Sorry, what is it about Knowles' technical bulletins that I should read? If anything I would think Etymotic will know more of it's tube diameter and length since they are the ones with the reasoning behind it. 

Thing is when you get something like the FAD-SS you really aren't paying purely for performance, you're paying for that specific sound. I heard it and I do think it's quite competent, but hardly one of the best universals I've heard but...

People loosely speak of what's better, without any guidelines, a  basis that can be objectively looked upon would yield the best system of rating. This is why I rate technical ability with transparency, the closest response to flat with HRTF in mind. With this, you know exactly what I'm looking for and there are actually studies backing up the HRTF in the treble, so it's closest the closest thing to being objective. One can think any other colored IEM is better, that's fine, but there is objective reasoning if trying to rate an IEM without a personal matter. 

I don't think you understand the concept. Think of a transparent DAP, what's it's function? To keep the purity of the recording/listening chain as closely as you can without adding or taking away anything, as if it weren't there, transparent. Something like the 601 via it's HO isn't transparent because it roll-offs the treble in the chain, it's adding color by subtracting something. Flat spearkers are transparent because they're flat, they compromise the least because they distribute every frequency as evenly as possible. Because of how even the response is, the nature of the recording is kept as closely as possible, so it's transparent to the chain. IEMs can also be close to it (though never to the same level as speakers due to the missing 6db rule) but you need HRTF. There are rules, there's a science, there's a process of what to look for, so I don't understand why it's laid out as simply subjective. Yes there can be two speaker set-ups that are transparent that sound a bit different, but when there's transparency differences are much slighter and both will still be labeled as transparent despite a preference of one over the other. Nothing is perfect, but it's about getting close here.

Certain IEMs can also be very transparent in certain regions despite not being so as a whole. The new batch Apple buds with Fostex drivers have a pretty transparent lower midrange despite being far from transparent as whole. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

Replied to you via PM.