Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Final Audio Design Appreciation/Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Final Audio Design Appreciation/Discussion Thread - Page 8

post #106 of 4114

Not even kidding but if you have or can pick up a cheap iPod Nano and pair it with a hippo cricri it is bliss and super portable, use it way more than my Cowon J3 now. The iPod i use is a Nano 4G. Oh and isn't the soundstage great on these FADs ;)

post #107 of 4114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsMeHere View Post

Try emailing Musica Acoustics or Jaben, both might have it in stock.

Just bought the Heaven C from Musica Acoustics.

 

I'm looking forward receiving my new toy ksc75smile.gif

post #108 of 4114
Quote:
Originally Posted by piccolochimico View Post

Just bought the Heaven C from Musica Acoustics.

 

I'm looking forward receiving my new toy ksc75smile.gif

 

Congrats. You should post your impressions here when you get it.

post #109 of 4114
Thread Starter 

good choice you made there =)
Do post up impression too.

post #110 of 4114

For all the FAD owners with the stainless steel, rose copper, brass, etc. models --- I'm considering getting some high quality carnauba wax and putting on a few layers of it to hide scuffs and to protect it it the future. I'm only concerned that doing so will affect the resonant properties of the shell. What do y'all think?

post #111 of 4114
Thread Starter 

it can be a great option, however there are vents around the design must be cautious.

post #112 of 4114
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

For all the FAD owners with the stainless steel, rose copper, brass, etc. models --- I'm considering getting some high quality carnauba wax and putting on a few layers of it to hide scuffs and to protect it it the future. I'm only concerned that doing so will affect the resonant properties of the shell. What do y'all think?

 

I think the wax is not the best choice because it can melt and for a vented shell might be a trouble: try to wonder if the wax gets inside!
I don't think the wax's layer (which is outside the shell) may affect the sound because it does not change the structure of the metal used.
 
Of course your thought is right, so may i suggest the use of the parafilm?
There's no need of glue, it can be removed easily and it does not leave any trace
post #113 of 4114

Hello,

 

I've come back to this Forum after many months (been very busy with work) and was pleasantly surprised to see this thread!

 

Some of you, like James444, will know of my passion for FAD. For those who are not familiar, I have owned the 1601SB for two years, and the BA-SS for the past one year. I enjoy them both immensely, especially the BA-SS - for me it's the perfect IEM, so satisfying that I have not been tempted to even think of any other.

 

Having read thru this entire thread, just one point I'd like to make is that I agree with James - I did not find that much difference between the 1601SB and SS - the SS was slightly more refined, the SB, in my opinion at least, had better bass. I listened the 1601SC too - that one was highly refined but for my taste, slightly light weight in the bass. That's just my opinion, others would perceive the differences differently I guess...

 

James, I look forward to your impressions of the 1602!

post #114 of 4114
Quote:
Originally Posted by piccolochimico View Post

 

I think the wax is not the best choice because it can melt and for a vented shell might be a trouble: try to wonder if the wax gets inside!
I don't think the wax's layer (which is outside the shell) may affect the sound because it does not change the structure of the metal used.
 
Of course your thought is right, so may i suggest the use of the parafilm?
There's no need of glue, it can be removed easily and it does not leave any trace

 

This is car wax, though. It doesn't melt all over cars... I'm gonna make sure it doesn't get throgh the vents.... just the body.

post #115 of 4114
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

This is car wax, though. It doesn't melt all over cars... I'm gonna make sure it doesn't get throgh the vents.... just the body.

 

In all sincerity, I think that this is a bad idea. It won't prevent scratches. It might clog those tiny vents. My advice is don't go there.

 

I could be wrong. Good luck if you decide to do it. Please keep us informed.

 

But don't do it.  ;-)

post #116 of 4114

Can someone explain me why some IEM's manufacturers use a metal's body?

If i think to the hi-fi or studio monitors the case is in wood, so why this choice?

The metal is definitely more reflective than wood and it does not absorb the sound....  popcorn.gif

post #117 of 4114
Quote:
Originally Posted by piccolochimico View Post

Can someone explain me why some IEM's manufacturers use a metal's body?

If i think to the hi-fi or studio monitors the case is in wood, so why this choice?

The metal is definitely more reflective than wood and it does not absorb the sound....  popcorn.gif

 

 

I'm sure others could explain it better, but in the most basic sense it comes down to the fact that certain materials resonate and reflect sound waves differently than others. When designing headphones or earphones, ideally you'd want to minimize these resonances and reflections as much as possible so that you're just hearing the drivers rather than the chambers that house them. To that end, some types of metal---though not all---and plastics are more inert than wood. If you think about musical instruments that are designed to resonate, they are made with very specific materials like woods and certain metals because those materials impart the desired timbrel qualities to the sound.

 

So why would some manufacturers use woods and less inert metals? Similar to their use in instruments, some people like the coloration they give headphones and earphones, so in that sense the "interference" of the wooden or metal chambers is desired because it flavors the sound, imparting a specific quality to it.

post #118 of 4114

I get my 1602SS tomorrow. cool.gif

 

Waiting is the hardest part.  frown.gif

post #119 of 4114
Quote:
Originally Posted by firoze View Post

Hello,

 

I've come back to this Forum after many months (been very busy with work) and was pleasantly surprised to see this thread!

 

Some of you, like James444, will know of my passion for FAD. For those who are not familiar, I have owned the 1601SB for two years, and the BA-SS for the past one year. I enjoy them both immensely, especially the BA-SS - for me it's the perfect IEM, so satisfying that I have not been tempted to even think of any other.

 

Having read thru this entire thread, just one point I'd like to make is that I agree with James - I did not find that much difference between the 1601SB and SS - the SS was slightly more refined, the SB, in my opinion at least, had better bass. I listened the 1601SC too - that one was highly refined but for my taste, slightly light weight in the bass. That's just my opinion, others would perceive the differences differently I guess...

 

James, I look forward to your impressions of the 1602!

 

Hello and welcome back firoze! smile_phones.gif

 

So I've been going back and forth between the 1601s and 1602s for some time and find myself constantly struggling for words to describe their differences adequately and at the same time do these very special phones justice. Yes, I could be talking about how FAD not only brazenly ignored to address the 1601s' weaknesses and went ahead to make the 1602s sound even more off-beat. I could rant about how the 1601s at least had a massive soundstage to accompany their shamelessly mid-centric presentation and how the 1602s even deprive you of this and at times make you feel like Nipper, poking your snout into one of those old horn-speaker's openings. I could go on about strange echoes and resonances from their metal housings and how I could EQ the 1601s to a pretty decent "normal" sound signature, but would fail miserably at doing the same with the 1602s, 'cause they just seem to throw an all-enveloping veil of nostalgia over everything I listen to. I could... but that would mean to completely miss the point.

 

The truth is, much like MuppetFace and music_4321 have said, that you have to accept these Final Audios for what they are, not fight them. If you don't feel comfortable with spending that much money for something so idiosyncratic, then please do yourself a favor and stay away from their 160x models.

 

So, since I'm obviously at a loss for words, why not let pictures do the talking?

 

Here's how a real street scene might look like - and any accurate, true-to-the-source type of phone would render it just like that:

 

1000

 

Here's how the 1601 would render the same scene, the very highs and lows shifted towards a colorful, glowing midrange:

 

1000

 

And finally, the 1602s: that strange midrange glow's still there and probably even more intense, but everything's tinted in sepia, like an old movie or photograph:

 

1000


Disclaimer: of course, none of this is to be taken literally and in reality the 1601s and 1602s sound much closer to each other than the pictures would suggest.

In fact, this is not so much an attempt to visualize sound signatures as an illustration of how I'd envision these pictures while listening to said phones.

 

Am I still making sense to you? I fear not. But then again, take a closer look at the pics... wink.gif


Edited by james444 - 7/29/12 at 4:01am
post #120 of 4114

^  I think I'll have three glasses of pink champagne & orange juice for breakfast and re-read you post again.  ;)

A very interesting & creative post. And an admirable attempt at conveying some of the sonic characteristics of the 160Xs


Edited by music_4321 - 7/29/12 at 1:09am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Final Audio Design Appreciation/Discussion Thread