Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › JVC's Micro HD Line: HA-FXD80/70/60
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JVC's Micro HD Line: HA-FXD80/70/60 - Page 93

post #1381 of 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by WAYNENUMM View Post


Different beasts I suppose.


FXd80 is more bassy, i got both (fxd70 and 80's).

post #1382 of 1814

Now I almost want to try the FXD70 ...

post #1383 of 1814

Nevermind, don't want the FXD70 no more... you guys all gotta hear this crap on the FXD80... insert deeply and turn up the volume basshead.gif

 

Is it just me or does the FXD80 have better quality bass than like... every single Ultrasone?!  Lol.

 

post #1384 of 1814

Has anybody done a detailed comparison of any these versus the FXT90? I've seen some brief impressions, but not much. I also would love to see some measurements for FXD series. FXT90 is one of my favorite 'phones BTW.


Edited by Pianist - 11/24/12 at 7:53pm
post #1385 of 1814

The FXT-90 has some glare and hardness in the highs, the FXD80 has more brilliance.  The FXD80 has the driver in the tip of the nozzle, which presents a different, unique soundspace, with high imaging.

 

 

The FXD80 is stainless steel, the FXT-90 is plastic.

 

The FXD80 uses a single Carbon Nanotube sheet driver, the FXT-90 uses something else.

 

They are both pretty good IEM's in different ways, I liked the FXT-90 with rock music a lot (quick listen), but the FXD80 stainless steel and and single driver in the tip of the nozzle make them much more lovely IEM's.  The FXD80 is the more perfect design, and sound.

 

 

The FR however, is highly imperfect unless you want to use it for movies and RnB.

 

Measurements are here (and an iPhone app which will make them dead flat like $1000 studio monitors...) - http://ko.goldenears.net/board/2534070

 

 

JVC HA-FRD80-Z 이어폰 리뷰 - 측정편 : 01.EQ_JVC_HA-FRD80-Z.png

post #1386 of 1814

^ Thanks for the info kiteki. And I agree that FXT90 is great with rock - it's just so forward and lively sounding, but not excessively so. I find it great with many other types of music as well though. Actually, FXT90 uses carbon nanotubes drivers too - apparently for the tweeter - and a "carbon diaphragm" for the woofer I think, whatever that means. This IEM also has a peak around 8-9 kHz which can be annoying at times, but the quality of the treble is very good on the FXT90 IMO - other than that peak, I hear the highs as pretty even and natural sounding. Quite detailed too. I think the hardness and glare that you refer to is the result of that peak. With a good seal, the high even out quite a bit for me and sound just fine. A bit of EQ can also be very helpful. FXT90 has limited soundstage width, but really good depth. In fact, it has better depth than many full sized cans I heard. Dynamics are decent too, but a little compressed at times. Do you think FXD80 has anything extra to offer over FXT90 in dynamics or soundstage depth? Does it have better soundstage width?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

Measurements are here (and an iPhone app which will make them dead flat like $1000 studio monitors...) - http://ko.goldenears.net/board/2534070

 

Now, that's interesting. I wonder if the same can be done with FXT90.


Edited by Pianist - 11/25/12 at 10:00am
post #1387 of 1814
The 80 has more sub-bass, less mid-bass, more recessed mids, less emphasized upper-mids and more forward, detailed highs. The mids overall on the 80 are colder yet very detailed. Background vocals were easier to detect and image on the 80. Sound stage is wider and deeper as well. They are very different iems overall and I think the FXD80 does more right, but personal preference for warm or less recessed mids might be a deal breaker for some.
post #1388 of 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

The 80 has more sub-bass, less mid-bass, more recessed mids, less emphasized upper-mids and more forward, detailed highs. The mids overall on the 80 are colder yet very detailed. Background vocals were easier to detect and image on the 80. Sound stage is wider and deeper as well. They are very different iems overall and I think the FXD80 does more right, but personal preference for warm or less recessed mids might be a deal breaker for some.

 

So FXD80 has even more soundstage depth than FXT90. Wow. I actually have trouble imagining that. I do have a problem with the more forward and detailed highs than FXT90 though, if that's the case, because I think that FXT90 highs are often borderline too forward. I think the mids on FXT90 sound about right - they are forward and lively with just enough warmth to sound involving. I guess I will be OK with somewhat colder mids though as long as they are even and natural - like on my ER4.

post #1389 of 1814
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

Do you think FXD80 has anything extra to offer over FXT90 in dynamics or soundstage depth? Does it have better soundstage width?

 

I keep saying this... the FXD80 (I'd think the entire FXD series, FXC, FRD, perhaps the Yamaha too) with an over-ear deep insertion, has an intimate presentation... second to none.

 

If you want spacious soundstage, then the Sony EX600 is right... if you want height and accurate imaging, TWFK IEM's.  If you want intimate and surreal... FXD80.

 

 

FXT-90 vs FXD80, the highs are sharper and more piercing in the FXD, however... they are more nicely placed (10kHz to my ears) in the FXD.

post #1390 of 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

So FXD80 has even more soundstage depth than FXT90. Wow. I actually have trouble imagining that. I do have a problem with the more forward and detailed highs than FXT90 though, if that's the case, because I think that FXT90 highs are often borderline too forward. I think the mids on FXT90 sound about right - they are forward and lively with just enough warmth to sound involving. I guess I will be OK with somewhat colder mids though as long as they are even and natural - like on my ER4.

I think the sound stage depth is partly to do with imaging, which the 80 does much better than the fxt90. On the 80 it is much easier to discern where sounds are placed not only from left to right but from front to back as well. The drivers are placed very close to the nozzle though so it can seem intimate as well. Earlier a few of us were talking about sound stage and I came to the conclusion that it largely depends on the listener. Given the price of the 80's I would definitely recommend giving them a try and reporting back. smily_headphones1.gif
post #1391 of 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post


I think the sound stage depth is partly to do with imaging, which the 80 does much better than the fxt90. On the 80 it is much easier to discern where sounds are placed not only from left to right but from front to back as well. The drivers are placed very close to the nozzle though so it can seem intimate as well. Earlier a few of us were talking about sound stage and I came to the conclusion that it largely depends on the listener. Given the price of the 80's I would definitely recommend giving them a try and reporting back. smily_headphones1.gif

 

Will do. FXD80 is the next IEM to try on my list. biggrin.gif

post #1392 of 1814
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

 

Will do. FXD80 is the next IEM to try on my list. biggrin.gif

 

Just remember... Ultrasone sub-bass, JVC mids, Qualia highs.


Edited by kiteki - 11/25/12 at 11:33am
post #1393 of 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

I keep saying this... the FXD80 (I'd think the entire FXD series, FXC, FRD, perhaps the Yamaha too) with an over-ear deep insertion, has an intimate presentation... second to none.

 

If you want spacious soundstage, then the Sony EX600 is right... if you want height and accurate imaging, TWFK IEM's.  If you want intimate and surreal... FXD80.

 

 

FXT-90 vs FXD80, the highs are sharper and more piercing in the FXD, however... they are more nicely placed (10kHz to my ears) in the FXD.

 

Alright, thanks for the info. If you think TWFK image well, try Westone 4 - those have the most impressive soundstage and imaging I ever heard in IEMs hands down, although I am not sure how true to the recording it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

Just remember... Ultrasone sub-bass, JVC mids, Qualia highs.

 

lol Ok... I hope not PRO900 bass though - those things almost blew my brains out with the insane amount of bass they have. eek.gif And the bass was very low quality on them too. PRO750 and DJ1 were far more tolerable to my ears though. I like JVC mids. biggrin.gif As for Qualia - never tried those.

post #1394 of 1814
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

 

lol Ok... I hope not PRO900 bass though - / the insane amount of bass they have. eek.gif

 

Just don't insert them deep and put Bassgasm (#1383) on max volume and you'll be ok.

 

Remember to watch an action movie, quality sub-bass + 10kHz is what cinematic sound is all about, it's just usually not... in your head!  Ok i'll stop ravin'.

post #1395 of 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

Nevermind, don't want the FXD70 no more... you guys all gotta hear this crap on the FXD80... insert deeply and turn up the volume basshead.gif

Is it just me or does the FXD80 have better quality bass than like... every single Ultrasone?!  Lol.

Well, you should still try the 70's. They might not have the bass impact of the 80's, but they sure do produce an overall beautiful sound.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › JVC's Micro HD Line: HA-FXD80/70/60