or Connect
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 142

post #2116 of 6694
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundFreaq View Post

 

I listened to both last night with the same material. They are SO similar man. MuppetFace and mine impressions differ somewhat, but that is probably due to the tip variance that we are using. Which goes to show, how similar they are.

 

MF thinks the VI has a touch more robust bass, I don't think so. With the same tips, VI may have a bit more sub-bass. I think if you have the V, no reason to go to VI unless you just love the look. I think the Vi might have a tiny touch more upper mid energy, which on some stuff can sound cleaner, or have more glare. The VI may be a smidgeon more refined. If you did a double-blind test on me with the two, it would definitely be very difficult to tell them apart. Both the V and VI are excellent. And the V represents one of the best values around. They do things nothing else can. 

 

I like the gold and brown of the VI myself...

 

So you also think that the Heaven V outperforms the ES5?

 

So you think that the Heaven V has the same euphonic vocal qualities as the Heaven VI?

 

Maybe. To be clear, I have not heard the Heaven V. I just doubt that brass and chrome copper sound the same given my experience with the other FAD headphones. 

 

I am guessing that instead you are committing the mistake of A/B'ing similar products instead of comparing the long-term experience of listening to each.

 

I just question the statement "I think if you have the V, no reason to go to VI unless you just love the look". I doubt it, as good as the Heaven V may be.

 

I am arguing from logic and inference only. Did I mention that I have not heard the Heaven V?


Edited by cooperpwc - 6/6/13 at 10:39am
post #2117 of 6694
I own IV an VI and used to try V in the shop. Different material housing had different sound signature for me.
post #2118 of 6694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdoffice View Post

I own IV an VI and used to try V in the shop. Different material housing had different sound signature for me.

 

I don't doubt that, but the question is, just how significant are these differences sonically? SoundFreaq seems to hear very subtle, perhaps insignificant SQ differences between both the V & VI. MF seems to also perceive very minor SQ changes. Our auditory memory, even during very short intervals (seconds / minutes), can be rather poor. Our focus cannot be identical. And even when testing during longer stretches (days / weeks) a single piece of gear, there's no guarantee we'll be able to tell two very similar phones apart accurately... but, the more we are aware of these aspects / variables, the more we can strive to not fool ourselves.

 

I think, unfortunately, we often fall into a kind of a trap where we often want to hear something that may not actually be there, or not be there to the extent we'd like to / had hoped, when we pay (a lot) more for something. The sonic differences between the FI-BA-SS and FI-BA-SB, for instance, are marginal to these ears, yet I'm sure some will claim the former is markedly better than the latter. I, for one, find the cheaper FI-BA-SB's midrange ever so slightly more appealing than its much more expensive sibling. In fact, I'd personally take the FI-BA-SB over the much more expensive Sony EX1000 & FitEar F111 (and I'm sure many would raise an eyebrow at my choice over the F111) — ageing flawed sparrow's ears, says I; seems I love distortion (FI-BA-SS & FI-BA-SB), incoherence & treble spikes (K3003) and "abominations" (1601SS & PF IX).

Very curious about the V & VI, though.


Edited by music_4321 - 6/6/13 at 11:39am
post #2119 of 6694

The IV and VI will have the most difference. 

 

All I am saying is that the V is really similar to the VI. Same, it is not. I guess it's all about priorities. For me, I am glad I have both and will keep both. But I am also an avid FAD fan. If you're not, and you like what the Heaven V does, and the spot it fills, but are not interested in hearing all the similarities and differences in the Heaven line (like us), then there's no need to go VI from V. If you have the money, and you like exploring FAD, go for it. I would just think a lot of people would rather spend around $500 bucks on something completely different, rather than going for something that is so very similar. But that's what makes us special. 

 

There have been both camps represented here in this thread. Those looking to see what the small differences are like, and those wondering if the VI is a leap from the V, which it is not. 

 

Yes, I would rather listen to the V than my ES5. Over all, I prefer the VI over the V - the sound and the looks, but it's not by much. If I did not have either one, I would go for the VI, and that's what I tell people. But If you have the V, trust me, you're not missing much. Spending the cash is up to you. 

post #2120 of 6694
It would be helpful to know what people are using upstream of their headphones in order to make meaningful comparisons. Comparisons with an iPod or other comparable DAP as the source are fine, IMO, as that is how a lot of people will be using them, but I think this needs to be stated. Clearly some FAD models scale significantly with a high quality setup; the FI-BA-SS being one of them.
post #2121 of 6694
The PF's definitely scale with amplification and source and not by a small margin! I found the same with my SB's feed them something good and they rise to the occasion.
Often the so called "faults" people find with the better quality stuff is down to the poorer quality of the components used with it.

Also, and here I go on my old hobby horse, I will say until I am blue in the face, I do not care what those folks can measure over at the SS forum, nor do I care about ABX or blind testing. There IS a difference in quality between lossy and uncompressed files.

If someone cannot feel the difference (for it is the emotional engagement rather than missing details) then they either have cloth ears or equipment not able to uncover the differences!

Often I am asked by friends how to improve their systems and the first thing I say before spending any money on new gear is go at least to ALAC or FLAC or best to wav as it will make a difference.

There, off my hobby horse and rant! biggrin.gif
post #2122 of 6694

That is very important. I was just saying how source and amp definitely have an impact on the FAD sounds. 

 

Unless stated otherwise, I am using CLAS -dB 2v version, to a P-51. ALO interconnect into amp, and wireworld violet USB cable at computer. 

post #2123 of 6694
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

The PF's definitely scale with amplification and source and not by a small margin! 

 

And yes, my PF's out of my Liquid Glass is quite profound. Holy moly. Rolled in some Genelax Gold Lion tubes for a smooth, sparly high end, lush enveloping mids, and robust rich bass. Heaven! in a PF... tongue.gif

post #2124 of 6694
Oh yeah, lets taunt those poor folks who don't have really good tube amps with our tales of aural delight with PF's and Tubes! biggrin.gif

I just cannot get over the quality of the Nima Ben David CD I got yesterday from MA recordings, I think it truly one of the best CD's I have ever purchased, simply amazingly emotional experience listening to it through the PF's and my T5P's. Likewise Todd through in a sampler and I already have some more CD's earmarked!
post #2125 of 6694

Housing material does play a role in differentiating the overall sound of FAD's models in my experience, though I would personally characterize it as subtle. Another thing to consider is that FAD employs a very unique means of damping their earphones. Having talked to some folks who opened theirs up (yikes!), they've all reported a very curious sand-like material inside of them. It's likely FAD uses this in conjunction with the different housing materials to tune their earphones. Even if they used the same BA drivers across their product range, they could achieve audible differences in sound based on these methods. This is consistent with what I've personally experienced.

 

Their copper earphones tend to sound thicker and more lush to me, and the Heaven VI is no exception. Keep in mind my previous qualifier of it being a subtle difference. Indeed, I hear the Heaven V and VI as being more similar than dissimilar personally, just like I hear the Piano Forte models as being more alike than not. However the difference is there to my ears: the Heaven VI sounds slightly more full bodied than the V. Part of this has to do with a very slight difference in bass presence as I noted in my earlier impressions. However it also has to do with a genuine timbrel difference I hear in FAD's copper models.

 

Again, it's a slight difference. Of course "slight" to me might be someone else's negligible or yet another person's pronounced. Also bass response in particular can be influenced by numerous factors. I mean, there was a vendor in Japan who swore there were even differences in bass between the Heaven V and V Aging. I didn't detect this, but I believe they genuinely did.

post #2126 of 6694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridleyguy View Post

Clearly some FAD models scale significantly with a high quality setup; the FI-BA-SS being one of them.

 

From my experience, source synergy is most important with the FI-BA-SS. To my ears they neither pair well with the Tera Player, nor the RWAK100. On the other hand they sound amazing from my Galaxy S3.

post #2127 of 6694
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post
 

 

How can someone with such impeccable writing skills insist on using "timbrel" instead of "timbral"? Are they related or interchangeable at all? (honest question) And if they are (I really don't think they are, but I might be wrong), is it perhaps MF's way of being a little like our awfully charming sparrow who refuses to use "CIEM" and always insists on using "customs" or "custom IEMs"? A not so serious enquiring mind wants to know.

post #2128 of 6694
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

Again, it's a slight difference. Of course "slight" to me might be someone else's negligible or yet another person's pronounced. Also bass response in particular can be influenced by numerous factors. I mean, there was a vendor in Japan who swore there were even differences in bass between the Heaven V and V Aging. I didn't detect this, but I believe they genuinely did.

 

Well here you have two FAD fans that hear it and qualify it as subtle/slight. And those "numerous factors" can even be the tips themselves that contribute to "subtle" difference. 

 

Wish I could hear the Aging. But I am sure I could not tell the difference if MF could not. 

post #2129 of 6694
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

Very curious about the V & VI, though.

 

I'm 'Very curious' about your impression(s) of the Heaven(s).

post #2130 of 6694
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodcans View Post

 

I'm 'Very curious' about your impression(s) of the Heaven(s).

 

This time not so sure I get what you're saying, woodcans, but, FWIW, I'm genuinely curious to hear the Heaven V & VI, but not really sure I'll be doing that since these days it's really only my HD800s & 160Xs I reach for (not using IEMs as much as I used to thanks to the Senns). However, the V & VI, along with the StageDiver SD2 and FitEar Parterre are the only IEMs that I'd love to try these days (curious about the new Cardas phones, too, but no impressions on those ones yet).


Edited by music_4321 - 6/6/13 at 2:27pm
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