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

Final Audio Design Impressions and Discussion Thread - Page 107

post #1591 of 4531
Umm... Muppet, your english is too expert for me to understand hahaha

I stay in a place where i cant audition by my self

I know that the more than double price never equal to double performance
I just affraid if they use the same driver hehehe

If they have different tunning, i will gladly buy the X-G

I think the VIII would more alike to X rather than IX
Because stainless is hard, gold and brass are not as hard as stainless
It means the VIII and X "sound" more smooth than IX (i pressume)

I never see IX
I never see X

I just read articles redface.gif

Thats why i ask if someone heard the X and can tell me the different of them

@inks
Yes, i believe the soundsig would be alike between them
But there must be a different between them (X) because the price range is quite far
And i just ask what is the different? Is the different tunning or speaker? Of just housing
redface.gif
post #1592 of 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Advert View Post

Umm... Muppet, your english is too expert for me to understand hahaha

I stay in a place where i cant audition by my self

I know that the more than double price never equal to double performance
I just affraid if they use the same driver hehehe

If they have different tunning, i will gladly buy the X-G

I think the VIII would more alike to X rather than IX
Because stainless is hard, gold and brass are not as hard as stainless
It means the VIII and X "sound" more smooth than IX (i pressume)

I never see IX
I never see X

I just read articles redface.gif

Thats why i ask if someone heard the X and can tell me the different of them

@inks
Yes, i believe the soundsig would be alike between them
But there must be a different between them (X) because the price range is quite far
And i just ask what is the different? Is the different tunning or speaker? Of just housing
redface.gif

 

They sound different to me and a few other people who tried the different models. Just how big a difference is harder to say. They sound different to me, but not by a lot. It is more subtle to me.

 

Personally I do not think the X-CC / X-G costing double the IX is justified in terms of sound only. You have to also want it because of the exclusive nature of it and the chrome or gold finish. That is my opinion of course.

post #1593 of 4531
@muppet
Thank you for the answers
I downloaded google translator just now
Hahahaha

Yes, i believe the differences between IX and X are quite a lot
I pessume thats because the hard housing stainless VS gold

And the VIII is already a brass housing which is not as hard as stainless
And yes, the VIII i pressume more mid centric and also more liquid than the IX

Thats why i affraid if they use the same driver same tuning, the VIII and the X would have more alike sound than the X - IX

Did you heard the VIII?
post #1594 of 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

I called the VIII being the same as ix and I was right. That line up all use the same driver, FAD did the same with the Heaven series. When two fads look the same, they use the same driver just different housinf

 

No, you posted two FR graphs for the VIII & IX which were almost identical, that's all, and it's good to take them into account, but you yourself don't know for a fact what the IXs actually sounds like because you simply will not accept that there may be certain elements of sound not shown in a graph. You yourself have not heard both models, nor have you listened to the other PF models. You have only tried the 1601SS & PF VIII (aka 1602 SB).

Earlier you said, "FADs line-ups tends to use the same driver", yet the graphs for the FI-BA-SB & FI-BA-SS are not identical, very similar, yes, but NOT identical — they're, in fact, more different than the two graphs you posted for the PF VIII & IX a few days ago. I have both SB & SS models in my possession and hear small differences indeed and, in fact, prefer ever so slightly the rendering of mid frequencies on the cheaper FI-BA-SB — now, whether this is a result of tuning or simply the materials used in each IEM—or both— I have no idea.

For someone so obsessed with measurements and data like you clearly seem to be, you should equally be absolutely clear & honest about your comments and where they stem from, not merely speculating as you so often do, annoying people a great deal in the process with your pronouncements and an attitude that more and more frequently leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Advert View Post

Yes, i know the material brings a whole different signature
But, i affraid if the material is the ONLY the different between them
Because the price range is quite far

I am planning to buy the pf X-G
Thats why i asked that question

Because,
I already have the VIII smily_headphones1.gif

And i feel it is a big waste if i have them and knowing they use exactly the same driver / tuning
Its okay for me if they use the different tuning and speaker inside

I search a lot of articles but there is no one could answer my question


Don't know whether the different materials "bring a whole different signature" and—to be perfectly honest—, I doubt the sonic differences are that marked between all PF models, unless each model has also been tuned differently, or maybe if the PF X alone was intended to be more different SQ-wise than the rest of the PF line-up (still very much doubt it, though).

 

Let's not forget people tend to exaggerate the sonic merits of more expensive and/or exclusive gear although there may be other reasons why people may genuinely believe they hear significant differences between one piece of gear and another (I touched on the subject—the different variables, often overlooked or ignored—a couple of weeks ago in a different post in this thread).

 

It's often hard to rely on people's impressions with products of this nature, specially when there are so few impressions around. But, for what it's worth, if it was me, and I had the money to spend, I personally would not get the PF X unless I was able to audition it AND compare it side-by-side with my PF IX (and 1601SS) and came to the conclusion I should get a pair.


Edited by music_4321 - 5/6/13 at 10:22am
post #1595 of 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

Until recently, my HD800s had been getting most of my ear-time, but the PF IXs (& 1601SS) have been quietly and gradually giving my Senns a serious run for their money in the attention department.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmAZWKdCvmI)

 

Another excellent track through the IX's. The intro and outtro are particularly engaging here.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

Fit can be hit or miss with the PFs and, to make matters worse, you have no tips to choose from, though things can still be done to try and get a better / more secure fit (eg wearing these with the cable over the ears). I'm personally quite lucky because in my case my PF IXs stay put — I can shake my head vigorously and the earpieces just won't fall out of my ears. But, IIRC, MuppetFace has had difficulty with the PF's fit and Ianmedium has reported having to be rather careful and not move his head much as one (or is it both?) of the earpieces may easily slip out; I believe cooperpwc seems to have no issues like me. It'd be interesting to hear about others' fit issues or lack thereof.

This has been mentioned before, but perhaps worth repeating: The are several aspects people should bear in mind when considering getting a pair of PFs, apart from the often discussed sonics:

 

  • practically zero isolation
  • a fixed cable
  • no strain reliefs at the housings
  • possible fit issues
  • a longer cable (1.4m / 56'') than the standard length for universals (1.2m / 48").
  • very heavy earpieces

 


That said, here's a few things, apart from the actual sonics and design, that I love about the PFs:

 

  • cable is absolutely non-microphonic, very flexible and, why not say it, very smart-looking.
  • In my case I prefer the longer PF's 1.4m cable as that also allows me to use my desktop amp if I wish to and have plenty of room to move about without the need of a cable expension.
  • Have always preferred a right-angled plug like the one on the PFs (aka 1602s) over the straight one found on the 1601s (and other IEMs).
  • And a KEY aspect for me: how incredibly natural and comfortable the PFs feel in my ears after just a few minutes with them, allowing my ears to breathe and, as a result, among other things, getting less earwax when used frequently for long listening sessions.
  • Much like my open-back HD800s, I prefer to be fairly aware of my surroundings (hear the phone ring, the doorbell, people talking to me), so in that sense the PF's almost complete lack of isolation is a huge added bonus for me.

 

A long segment to quote, but after some time, all above are valid points and I agree with each of them. Personally I can walk around the house and do some 'light' head-banging (probably closer to vigorous nodding) without losing them. I would also add that the case is very well designed for these.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post

It is also nice to have an unattainable goal...sometimes when the quest ends you feel empty.

 

Lots of truth here.

post #1596 of 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodcans View Post

 I would also add that the case is very well designed for these.

 

Agreed. It's the same case used for the FI-BA-SS & FI-BA-SB, and possibly my all-time favourite case for any IEM.

 

--------------------------------

 

A wonderful performance of a wonderful song, where the 160Xs, once again, deliver in spades: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrke0X28Ot0

post #1597 of 4531
Paul, congratulations, I am really looking forward to some more in-depth thoughts on how they compare with the IX's!
post #1598 of 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

 

No, you posted two FR graphs for the VIII & IX which were almost identical, that's all, and it's good to take them into account, but you yourself don't know for a fact what the IXs actually sounds like because you simply will not accept that there may be certain elements of sound not shown in a graph. You yourself have not heard both models, nor have you listened to the other PF models. You have only tried the 1601SS & PF VIII (aka 1602 SB).

 

What are those elements? The whole design is identical, soundstage and transients not shown in FR will be the same based on that. There just isn't anything that's been put forth that will make one distinct, I showed proof, but I am just getting replied with assumptioins. Housing material is different...that's it and we know that housing difference on sonics based on the SB and SA diffference is minute...

 


Earlier you said, "FADs line-ups tends to use the same driver", yet the graphs for the FI-BA-SB & FI-BA-SS are not identical, very similar, yes, but NOT identical — they're, in fact, more different than the two graphs you posted for the PF VIII & IX a few days ago. I have both SB & SS models in my possession and hear small differences indeed and, in fact, prefer ever so slightly the rendering of mid frequencies on the cheaper FI-BA-SB — now, whether this is a result of tuning or simply the materials used in each IEM—or both— I have no idea.

 

SB and SS use the same driver [as do heaven A and C], the SS does tend to sound different though because the different housing comforms better to the ear, which makes it less peaky. Soundstage is a bit different on them too, but they are still very very similar. 

post #1599 of 4531

A 71-year-old singer & the PF IXs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LE84CNowkw —— wonderful!

post #1600 of 4531

PF IX + Morphine = Buena (turn it up).


Edited by woodcans - 5/6/13 at 5:42pm
post #1601 of 4531

Just got the IX and spent around 100 hours for burning , did i have to burn more ?? i see the driver quite big ............ the headphone quite big too , i saw on the website they put whole the earphone into their ear but it's too big i cant put it all into my ear X_X


Edited by LyPForever - 5/6/13 at 11:36pm
post #1602 of 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyPForever View Post

Just got the IX and spent around 100 hours for burning , did i have to burn more ?? i see the driver quite big ............ the headphone quite big too , i saw on the website they put whole the earphone into their ear but it's too big i cant put it all into my ear X_X

 

Not to worry: those website pictures are seriously Photoshopped. I especially enjoy the models with perfectly symmetrical faces that warp according to the headphone that they are wearing. It's a FAD style thing.  biggrin.gif

post #1603 of 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

Paul, congratulations, I am really looking forward to some more in-depth thoughts on how they compare with the IX's!

 

Thanks, Ian. It now looks like I may get three or four consecutive days at home around this weekend. I am in northern China with my IE800 to keep me company but I am jonesing for more time with the 1601SC.


Edited by cooperpwc - 5/7/13 at 12:27am
post #1604 of 4531
hey advert - for what it's worth I spent some time with the Vlll, lX and the X. muppet's on the money. the differences weren't major but they were there. the Vlll sounded the most balanced or normal wink.gif if that makes sense. the X was the most mid centric and the lX somewhere in between.
Edited by up late - 5/7/13 at 6:15am
post #1605 of 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by up late View Post

hey advert - for what it's worth I spent some time with the Vlll, lX and the X. muppet's on the money. the differences weren't major but they were there. the Vlll sounded the most balanced or normal wink.gif if that makes sense. the X was the most mid centric and the lX somewhere in between.

Thank you very much
I really appreciate
redface.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Final Audio Design Impressions and Discussion Thread