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 35

post #511 of 1876
Hello tomscy2000, I too have noticed a peak in the upper frequencies that I find over brilliant, I have some comply tips coming in that I hope will help in that regard as well as comfort.

I also am liking but not sure I will keep these. I have compared these as having a sonic signature like the SRH-1840 which I still maintain but I actually want more forward mids like the SRH-1440. These are either to neutral or possibly are ever so slightly u shaped. There is nothing wrong with this MANY will love it, but it may not fully suite my tastes. I will probably give these a or 2 full days of burn in before deciding though.

I also find the detail of these to be less than what I like but I am also used to multi hundred dollar full size and IEM products, so my observations are not really fair. At it's price point this IEM competes with most $200 IEM's so is a good value. It just doesn't compete with the best $200 IEM's because they elevate their game to the $3-400 level.

For me these are still the nicest JVC I have heard to date.
post #512 of 1876
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dw1narso View Post

Toms, could you elaborate more, in which frequency range do you fell that sound missing?

 

http://sonove.angry.jp/jvckenwood_HAFXD80.html Looks like there's resonance problem in 3-4KHz (look at the rising impedance at the Z graph... not the FR)...

 

how do you equalize down the 10KHz peak? or more precisely how steep (db/octave) of equalization that you use? looking at the very thin/sharp peak on the FR graph, it would need 24db/octave or better equalizer...

 

Yes, there's a problem in the 3-4 kHz region; I find that the problem is less significant if I EQ up the 200-400 Hz region, essentially putting more body into the sound. The FXD80 doesn't have a problem with clarity. It's innately good at that.

 

Honestly, I'm not very good at EQ; I try to never use it. I basically did a broad sloping cut across 8-12 kHz.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver View Post

Hello tomscy2000, I too have noticed a peak in the upper frequencies that I find over brilliant, I have some comply tips coming in that I hope will help in that regard as well as comfort.
I also am liking but not sure I will keep these. I have compared these as having a sonic signature like the SRH-1840 which I still maintain but I actually want more forward mids like the SRH-1440. These are either to neutral or possibly are ever so slightly u shaped. There is nothing wrong with this MANY will love it, but it may not fully suite my tastes. I will probably give these a or 2 full days of burn in before deciding though.
I also find the detail of these to be less than what I like but I am also used to multi hundred dollar full size and IEM products, so my observations are not really fair. At it's price point this IEM competes with most $200 IEM's so is a good value. It just doesn't compete with the best $200 IEM's because they elevate their game to the $3-400 level.
For me these are still the nicest JVC I have heard to date.

 

Are you sure about their sounding like the 1840? IIRC I've never heard things the same way as you do, but to me the two don't sound all that similar.

 

Anyways, I'm not trying to purposely bash the FXD80; it's a good IEM, but I'd say it's an 'incomplete' sounding earphone. Again, I want to say that I've basically been comparing them to $500-1000 IEM/CIEMs... not exactly a fair fight, but I'm inclined to say that I might actually take a model with inferior technical ability that has a better natural balance, e.g. Phiaton PS210 or something of that ilk.

post #513 of 1876
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver View Post

I also find the detail of these to be less than what I like but I am also used to multi hundred dollar full size and IEM products, so my observations are not really fair. At it's price point this IEM competes with most $200 IEM's so is a good value. It just doesn't compete with the best $200 IEM's because they elevate their game to the $3-400 level.

 

For me they seem to compete pretty well with the XBA-4, which is generally considered an underperformer. I wish I had more on hand to compare with. Now that I've had a longer time with them I can conclude that I still like the XBA-4 more for its smoother mid-range and lusher sound. The JVCs are much easier to live with ergonomically though. I've taken to wearing them in the gym as I'm pretty confident in their build.

post #514 of 1876
When I say they are like the 1840 in signature I mean that in a broad sense and only the signature NOT the quality. The 1840 is neutral in the mids but has a treble peak in my listening. BUT that peak is not as much as the FXD80. So I guess I should say they kinda like the 1840 :-)

I am curious to see what happens with comply tips though since they generally suck out some treble from past experience.

BTW I hope I haven't been misleading anyone into thinking these are on par with the Shure flagship headphones. These definitely do compete with either the 1840 or 1440 as both of those headphones are the gold standard to which I compare everything too. The 1440 in particular has ruined my enjoyment of darn near everything else I own, I like it that much.
post #515 of 1876
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into the engine of the hype train, but after spending the past two weeks with the FXD80, my opinion of it has cooled significantly. Yes, I do own it, and I listened to it before I bought it, but its initial novelty has worn off and I have found it wanting.

 

To me, its biggest problem is the 10 kHz peak. I call it the 'anti-veil', since it's not that muddy sound that comes with a hump at 200-400 Hz, but it's so prominent that everything else is overshadowed by it. I have to EQ down that peak about 6.5 dB in order for things to sound right. Once that peak is taken out, however, I found that there were so many frequencies here and there that seemed to be 'missing'. I attribute this effect to the midrange essentially being a series of peaks and valleys, rather than one smooth curve.

 

Perhaps it has been a while since I've spent a significant amount of time with IEMs in the sub-$100 category, but for all the high level resolution and extreme clarity the FXD80 has, I can't seem to spend long periods of time with it and enjoy the music because I always feel that there are elements to the music that I'm listening to that are not being brought out by the FXD80. Perhaps a more politically correct way of putting it is that JVC decided to accentuate only the most important elements of the music when they were tuning the FXD80, and left all the subtle embellishments by the wayside. The parts that do get accentuated (save for that ridiculous 10k peak) are very nice (excellent in fact), but I'm always left desiring to hear other elements.

 

FR looks similar to ER-4S in that area, can you compare what you hear with the FXD80 to the ER-4S! 

post #516 of 1876
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

Yes, there's a problem in the 3-4 kHz region; I find that the problem is less significant if I EQ up the 200-400 Hz region, essentially putting more body into the sound. The FXD80 doesn't have a problem with clarity. It's innately good at that.

 

Honestly, I'm not very good at EQ; I try to never use it. I basically did a broad sloping cut across 8-12 kHz.

 

 

Are you sure about their sounding like the 1840? IIRC I've never heard things the same way as you do, but to me the two don't sound all that similar.

 

Anyways, I'm not trying to purposely bash the FXD80; it's a good IEM, but I'd say it's an 'incomplete' sounding earphone. Again, I want to say that I've basically been comparing them to $500-1000 IEM/CIEMs... not exactly a fair fight, but I'm inclined to say that I might actually take a model with inferior technical ability that has a better natural balance, e.g. Phiaton PS210 or something of that ilk.

And down goes the popularity of the FXD80! 

post #517 of 1876
Quote:
Originally Posted by dw1narso View Post

 

Toms, could you elaborate more, in which frequency range do you fell that sound missing?

 

http://sonove.angry.jp/jvckenwood_HAFXD80.html Looks like there's resonance problem in 3-4KHz (look at the rising impedance at the Z graph... not the FR)...

 

how do you equalize down the 10KHz peak? or more precisely how steep (db/octave) of equalization that you use? looking at the very thin/sharp peak on the FR graph, it would need 24db/octave or better equalizer...


I think you would have to lower the 10kHz peak by 4 or 5dB to bring it in line with the U-shaped fr-curve. My bigger concern is the resonance problem between 2 and 4kHz. My biggest concern though is the major drop-off after 15 or 16kHz and the fact the those higher frequencies (10kHz upward) don't end up being within that U-shaped fr-curve.


Edited by Soul_Est - 7/5/12 at 7:14am
post #518 of 1876
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

Honestly, I'm not very good at EQ; I try to never use it. I basically did a broad sloping cut across 8-12 kHz.

 

 

I'm not a fan on equalization.... but equalizer that allow narrow band control (1/3 per octave like this foobar component) would be useful for removing that kind of peak while minimizing the effect on the neighboring octave bands (5-10KHz and 10-12KHz in the case of 10KHz center point)

post #519 of 1876
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into the engine of the hype train, but after spending the past two weeks with the FXD80, my opinion of it has cooled significantly. Yes, I do own it, and I listened to it before I bought it, but its initial novelty has worn off and I have found it wanting.

 

To me, its biggest problem is the 10 kHz peak. I call it the 'anti-veil', since it's not that muddy sound that comes with a hump at 200-400 Hz, but it's so prominent that everything else is overshadowed by it. I have to EQ down that peak about 6.5 dB in order for things to sound right. Once that peak is taken out, however, I found that there were so many frequencies here and there that seemed to be 'missing'. I attribute this effect to the midrange essentially being a series of peaks and valleys, rather than one smooth curve.

 

Perhaps it has been a while since I've spent a significant amount of time with IEMs in the sub-$100 category, but for all the high level resolution and extreme clarity the FXD80 has, I can't seem to spend long periods of time with it and enjoy the music because I always feel that there are elements to the music that I'm listening to that are not being brought out by the FXD80. Perhaps a more politically correct way of putting it is that JVC decided to accentuate only the most important elements of the music when they were tuning the FXD80, and left all the subtle embellishments by the wayside. The parts that do get accentuated (save for that ridiculous 10k peak) are very nice (excellent in fact), but I'm always left desiring to hear other elements.

 

 

Interesting (and I haven't heard the FXD80 yet but should have it Friday) but I must say your experience may not derail the hype train. Why? Well simply because in my opinion I haven't heard one "perfect" IEM ($15 or $500) yet. I haven't heard one perfect headphone yet either (although my experience with headphones is much more limited). There will always be something given and something missing - in amounts greater or lesser depending on the product. In the end we each have to decide what we can live with in sound quality and what we absolutely can't live without. Front that standpoint I'm grateful that I can appreciate a variety of sound signatures (that's why in some ways I put the ASG-1.2, W4, and 1964-Q on the same level).  In some lessor ways, the AF56, AF78, CKM500 and GR07 aren't too far behind. 

post #520 of 1876
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post  FR looks similar to ER-4S in that area, can you compare what you hear with the FXD80 to the ER-4S! 

 

Perceived frequency response is dependent on relative levels of midrange with respect to bass and treble; the Sonove graph is normalized to 1 kHz but that doesn't mean the mids will sound like the ER4S, unless you EQ down the bass and the upper treble.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul_Est View Post  I think you would have to lower the 10kHz peak by 4 or 5dB to bring it in line with the U-shaped fr-curve. My bigger concern is the resonance problem between 2 and 4kHz. My biggest concern though is the major drop-off after 15 or 16kHz and the fact the those higher frequencies (10kHz upward) don't end up being within that U-shaped fr-curve.

 

Measurements above 8.5 kHz are generally unreliable due to inconsistencies in driver positioning with respect to the eardrum. We only know that there's a spike at 10 kHz; I thought I only had to EQ down about 4 dB, but it turned out to need more. The same argument applies to the upper extension 'drop-off', we don't know how accurate that graph is there. Besides, most music doesn't have anything of significance in that range anyways. No one will really hear it in their music.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dw1narso View Post  I'm not a fan on equalization.... but equalizer that allow narrow band control (1/3 per octave like this foobar component) would be useful for removing that kind of peak while minimizing the effect on the neighboring octave bands (5-10KHz and 10-12KHz in the case of 10KHz center point)

 

That's the equalizer I used.

post #521 of 1876

FR_FI_BA_SS.gif FR_FXD80.gif

 

 

Lookin' good to me Tom.

post #522 of 1876

Just pulled the trigger on the Vsonic GR07 MKII from China, and my FXD80 is shipping from Japan soon, can't wait to see which gets here first!

post #523 of 1876
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post  Lookin' good to me Tom.

 

Look at the y-scale; the differences are quite significant. +10dB boost @50 Hz for the FXD80, versus 5-6 dB boost for the SS, the FXD80 swings 12 dB from 3 to 4 kHz, while it swings <5 dB in the same range (and in the opposite direction) for the SS. The SS is actually more prone to sibilance than the FXD80 (something that JVC did well on) but it doesn't have that annoying 10 kHz peak that drapes over absolutely everything.

post #524 of 1876
Thread Starter 

I will say one thing, foam tips do a lot in helping smooth out the sound. I'm now using de-cored olives, inserted all the way to the second bend. I may never get used to the U-shaped sound, however.

post #525 of 1876

Good to have an objective view on this iem and well put in words from a formidable member for those about to purchase this earphone in the future.  For me, I am not technical, I do not eq and when I hear something that I thoroughly enjoy I know it and these JVC's are amongst them.  

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