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 6

post #76 of 4096

The 1601s are interesting. This is a good comparison shot that I found of the 1601SB and 1602SB.

 

 

700

 

 

James, it seems that 1601SB has some kind of anodization on the brass? It is quite a different look from the 1602.

post #77 of 4096
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by driver 8 View Post

I wish I could justify buying in-ears that don't isolate :/  Was there going to be a tour of these at some point?  I'd love to hear a pair, though. 

Well, with the limitation on earbud that everyone is mentioning, FAD embrace the idea further and venture into a range that nobody dare to try it.
It is outrageous to be frank, An earbud that cost more 2000USD which is more expensive then a sophisticated CIEM, or a full size new innovation of HD800 or LCD3.

It is a luxury product, with the design, sound tuning and idea behind, it creates a brand new perception and view over to an old, fade off product type in the market.

How is the sound presentation?
unique + shock is what i can type in here.   

post #78 of 4096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

 

 

James, it seems that 1601SB has some kind of anodization on the brass? It is quite a different look from the 1602.

 

I believe the coating over the brass on the 1601SB is rhodium. The coating on the brass of the 1602SB is gold-plating.


Edited by MuppetFace - 7/23/12 at 4:52am
post #79 of 4096
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post
I believe the coating over the brass on the 1601SB is rhodium. The coating on the bass of the 1602SB is gold-plating.

 

Thanks on the rhodium. (I had to look it up: a chemical element that is a rare, silvery-white, hard, and chemically inert transition metal and a member of the platinum group.)

 

However, I do not believe that the 1602SB is gold plated. The original plan was for four high-end Piano Forte IEMs, with both an X-CC and a gold plated X-G. (This is the relevant FAD archive page.) By this plan, the SB was also going to be gold plated. It seems that they dropped the gold plating altogether. The X-G was never released and the SB is now just described as having a brass housing.

 

It looks like brass in the pictures.

post #80 of 4096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

Thanks on the rhodium. (I had to look it up: a chemical element that is a rare, silvery-white, hard, and chemically inert transition metal
 and a member of the platinum group
.)


However, I do not believe that the 1602SB is gold plated. The original plan was for four high-end Piano Forte IEMs, with both an X-CC and a gold plated X-G. (This is the relevant FAD archive page.) By this plan, the SB was also going to be gold plated. It seems that they dropped the gold plating altogether. The X-G was never released and the SB is now just described as having a brass housing.

It looks like brass in the pictures.

Okay, I was only going by FAD's old information on the 1602SB. The gold 1602SC however was in fact released, though they've since stopped production. However when I was buying mine, the supplier originally got me the gold version, and I asked to exchange it because I like the ionized copper finish more.
post #81 of 4096

Interesting on the SC-G as I never encountered a picture of them in the outside world. I am with you completely on your choice. The SC-C is gorgeous. Why would you plate it with gold?


Edited by cooperpwc - 7/23/12 at 3:38am
post #82 of 4096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

It looks like brass in the pictures.

 

I can confirm that the 1602SB are brass without coating.

 

Of course it's a matter of personal taste, but I actually prefer the matte finish on both SB models over the shiny 1601SS.

 

Didn't know about the rhodium either, so thanks @MuppetFace.

post #83 of 4096
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

 

I can confirm that the 1602SB are brass without coating.

 

Of course it's a matter of personal taste, but I actually prefer the matte finish on both SB models over the shiny 1601SS.

 

Thanks. For looks, I really like the VIII too. Also fingerprints on the IX are going to be a nightmare.

post #84 of 4096
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

 

I can confirm that the 1602SB are brass without coating.

 

Of course it's a matter of personal taste, but I actually prefer the matte finish on both SB models over the shiny 1601SS.

 

Didn't know about the rhodium either, so thanks @MuppetFace.

 

That may be so, and I'd probably agree with you there, but at least we can safely --and objectively-- say that sonically the 160XSS models wipe the floor with the 160XSB models, that the sonic differences are way beyond night & day.  ;)

post #85 of 4096
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

at least we can safely --and objectively-- say that sonically the 160XSS models wipe the floor with the 160XSB models, that the sonic differences are way beyond night & day.  ;)

 

Of course, music, but only if you insert them to the 2nd bend. tongue.gif

post #86 of 4096

^  Hey, now I'm seriously confused -- already someone here called the 160Xs "earbuds", and I take it that's the most 'accurate' description for these phones. How can you have an earbud reach the 2nd bend of the ear?! Some in-ears with certain tips maybe, but earbuds? Buds? Are you saying I've been trashing Apple earbuds all these years on every forum under the sun because I simply never got a 2nd bend fit with them? I'm starting to feel really embarrassed.


Edited by music_4321 - 7/23/12 at 7:14am
post #87 of 4096

2nd bend fit is not needed much if the transducer is of low acoustic impedance, most dynamic are this way. 

 

Keep it mature. 


Edited by Inks - 7/23/12 at 3:55pm
post #88 of 4096

^ I was just joking. There's no way you can fit these giant 160x housings anywhere as deeply. To the contrary, they need a shallow fit and ample airflow, since any kind of seal will make them sound noticeably muffled.

 

Speaking of which, I think that FAD's promo pics for the 1602 must have been photoshopped. I have large ears and wide canals (even by male standards) and the housings still stick out a bit more than from this delicate asian model's ears.

 

1000

post #89 of 4096
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

Speaking of which, I think that FAD's promo pics for the 1602 must have been photoshopped. I have large ears and wide canals (even by male standards) and the housings still stick out a bit more than from this delicate asian model's ears.

 

 

Hah!

 

I remember thinking the same thing when I saw those pictures. I've stood in front of a mirror trying to get the 1602 to fit the same way, but it just wouldn't happen. 

post #90 of 4096

I'm pretty sure a lot of the forward facing pictures on their site are photoshopped to make the models look more symmetrical, which is kind of hilarious.

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