Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › The NEW JVC HA-S400. Affordable Carbon Nanotube cans for the masses.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The NEW JVC HA-S400. Affordable Carbon Nanotube cans for the masses. - Page 18

post #256 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickdohc View Post

ok guys.. thats funny and all but lets get this straight. ok?

 

You guys are expecting that a Cheapo 20-25 dollar headphone to sound good? sorry guys, but at this price range all there are averge or even under average headphones, sorry but i am no riding this hype train, i am not expecting nothing cause 25 dollars is peanuts, thats what? almost the price of some mediocre IEMS, thats the price of a cable, or a DVD.  and you all are like.. wow, this S400 are good and all that stuff?  are you kidding me right? where is the candid camera here?

 

mmm... lets see if it lives the exepectations you know..... i got my reserves on these one. i am exepecting them to sound better than my Cobys, maybe on par with the Panas, but more than that,  me not a believer.
 

I am somewhat with you on this one. I've been let down MANY times before, because of folks on Head-Fi. Such as: ath-esw9, ath-esw10jpn, pro900, m50 just to name a few. I will definitely be looking forward to more reviews, especially to those who are somewhat skeptical.

post #257 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideonMorrison View Post

I am somewhat with you on this one. I've been let down MANY times before, because of folks on Head-Fi. Such as: ath-esw9, ath-esw10jpn, pro900, m50 just to name a few. I will definitely be looking forward to more reviews, especially to those who are somewhat skeptical.

 

Then you need to familiar yourself with how YOU prefer it to sound like which unfortunately only comes from trial & error and well EQing can also be useful to learn to know your preferred frequency response balance (basicly compare your EQ settings which you do "based on your own ears" to the measured headphone response for all the headphones you try it with).

 

Ultrasone PRO900 is a typical example, for some people it's only worth $100, for others it's worth $400, it's not about they hear differently, it's more that they WANT to hear differently. All above headphones are good at their price but still that doesn't mean you maybe prefer a different kind of sound signature. Even for $1000 a headphone doesn't necessarily have to sound THAT great to you as it might have the wrong kind of sound signature for your preferences, for example I'd never buy a Sennheiser HD800 ever, I'd most likely get more satisfaction out of my $120 Q40 cuz the former has a very wrong sound signature for my taste and Q40 fits it almost optimally while not technically sounding near as good.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 10/5/12 at 7:05am
post #258 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

 

Then you need to familiar yourself with how YOU prefer it to sound like which unfortunately only comes from trial & error and well EQing can also be useful to learn to know your preferred frequency response balance (basicly compare your EQ settings which you do "based on your own ears" to the measured headphone response for all the headphones you try it with).

 

Ultrasone PRO900 is a typical example, for some people it's only worth $100, for others it's worth $400, it's not about they hear differently, it's more that they WANT to hear differently.

Haha, I know very well what I want. From reading through the s500 and s400 thread, given the way they're described sq wise, my preference goes to the s400. The point I was trying to illustrate, is that many times, even when said sq signatures matches your own there's a relatively small chance it will turn out that way. The problem is that through these kind of hypes expectations can be amped through the roof, thus leading to disappointment, in the end. 

Also, I never fiddle around with EQ, etc. I prefer my source etc to be flat, as I prefer the pure sound as it was intended, mixed and produced. 

Quite frankly I can't wait until the sleeping morons of Europe will start to import both the s500/s400. Just to be tempted one more time by the (wonderful) folks at Head-Fi. And perhaps, letting myself get tempted one more time after that... wink.gif


Edited by gideonMorrison - 10/5/12 at 7:11am
post #259 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideonMorrison View Post

Haha, I know very well what I want. From reading through the s500 and s400 thread, given the way they're described sq wise, my preference goes to the s400. The point I was trying to illustrate, is that many times, even when said sq signatures matches your own there's a relatively small chance it will turn out that way. The problem is that through these kind of hypes expectations can be amped through the roof, thus leading to disappointment, in the end. 

Also, I never fiddle around with EQ, etc. I prefer my source etc to be flat, as I prefer the pure sound as it was intended, mixed and produced. 

Quite frankly I can't wait until the sleeping morons of Europe will start to import both the s500/s400. Just to be tempted one more time by the (wonderful) folks at Head-Fi. And perhaps, letting myself get tempted one more time after that... wink.gif

 

So you prefer flat and you never EQ, that seems contradictory as almost all headphones needs EQing to sound flat. How do you know you prefer it perfectly flat and maybe not maybe about ~3dB+ bump in the mids at say 500~2000Hz range for example? Are you basing it on your ears or you think it's desirable as you read online flat is "best"? There's so many people out there that believes they want perfectly flat response while their invidual taste probably doesn't.

post #260 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

 

So you prefer flat and you never EQ, that seems contradictory as almost all headphones needs EQing to sound flat. How do you know you prefer it perfectly flat and maybe not maybe about ~3dB+ bump in the mids at say 500~2000Hz range for example? Are you basing it on your ears or you think it's desirable as you read online flat is "best"? There's so many people out there that believes they want perfectly flat response while their invidual taste probably doesn't.

I Understand what you mean. My pc setup is hooked up to a Sugden AU51 dac and hs80m's. Surely the sound that they produce isn't completely flat, most likely colored. True flat is hard to realize just by using your ears. What I meant is that I expect a pair of cans (after a significant amount of burn in time) to sound as they were tuned by the manufacturer, from let's say a decent DAP. For example the Fuze (just as the Clip) sounds best 'flat'. Change  the EQ and you know what rubbish sounds like. 

A couple of years ago I was by pleasantly surprised by some random Philips cans. The SHP5400/5401. Only costed me 10 quid back then. I let them burn in, plugged them in and *boom* the effect every Head-Fier loves to experience. 


Edited by gideonMorrison - 10/5/12 at 7:32am
post #261 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideonMorrison View Post

I Understand what you mean. My pc setup is hooked up to a Sugden AU51 dac and hs80m's. Surely the sound that they produce isn't completely flat, most likely colored. True flat is hard to realize just by using your ears. What I meant is that I expect a pair of cans (after a significant amount of burn in time) to sound as they were tuned by the manufacturer, from let's say a decent DAP. For example the Fuze (just as the Clip) sounds best 'flat'. Change  the EQ and you know what rubbish sounds like. 

A couple of years ago I was by pleasantly surprised by some random Philips cans. The SHP5400/5401. Only costed me 10 quid back then. I let them burn in, plugged them in and *boom* the effect every Head-Fier loves to experience. 

 

Not all EQs are equal and what does it matter how they were tuned by the manufacturer if it's not flat to begin with? Sorry just trying to understand your viewpoint as I reason with logic personally and it seems a little illogical to me.

post #262 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

 

Not all EQs are equal and what does it matter how they were tuned by the manufacturer if it's not flat to begin with? Sorry just trying to understand your viewpoint as I reason with logic personally and it seems a little illogical to me.

I reckon because you are failing to see what I'm trying to illustrate. I define flat differently as you do. 

 

 

Edit: I agree with your signature rolleyes.gif


Edited by gideonMorrison - 10/5/12 at 7:42am
post #263 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideonMorrison View Post

I reckon because you are failing to see what I'm trying to illustrate. I define flat differently as you do. 

 

Yea I understand flat as every frequency being on the same amplitude on a frequency response which I'm not personally optimally wanting for example.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 10/5/12 at 7:44am
post #264 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

 

Yea I understand flat as every frequency being on the same amplitude on a frequency response.

Good luck achieving that dude :-)

post #265 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideonMorrison View Post

Good luck achieving that dude :-)

 

I DON'T want that either, that would be a boring sound to me. ;P I prefer about 8~9dB bump around 80Hz for example. Not every1 wants flat sound, it's not some kind of holy grail every1's on a quest to find.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 10/5/12 at 7:46am
post #266 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

 

I DON'T want that either, that would be a boring sound to me. ;P I prefer about 8~9dB bump around 80Hz for example. Not every1 wants flat sound, it's not some kind of holy grail every1's on a quest to find.

Hehe. What I more or less expect is when I plug a (portable) pair of cans into my 'flat' Clip is to hear the sound as it was intended. 

post #267 of 1441
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickdohc View Post

ok guys.. thats funny and all but lets get this straight. ok?

 

You guys are expecting that a Cheapo 20-25 dollar headphone to sound good? sorry guys, but at this price range all there are averge or even under average headphones, sorry but i am no riding this hype train, i am not expecting nothing cause 25 dollars is peanuts, thats what? almost the price of some mediocre IEMS, thats the price of a cable, or a DVD.  and you all are like.. wow, this S400 are good and all that stuff?  are you kidding me right? where is the candid camera here?

 

mmm... lets see if it lives the exepectations you know..... i got my reserves on these one. i am exepecting them to sound better than my Cobys, maybe on par with the Panas, but more than that,  me not a believer.
 

 

Well, to be honest they were $39 when they initially appeared on ebay from Japan, the fact that mass retail outlets have brought the price down to the $20 region has got to be the icing on the cake. I just have a strange feeling that the expectations of the whole population of headphone users in the States will be going up several notches in the coming months.

 

I think a few guys will be getting theirs delivered around next week (including DSnuts), I'll love to hear their take on these phones,

 

Good or bad, ...only time will tell, ...meanwhile I'm stockpiling on rotten vegetables ! tongue.gif ...and preparing the pelting stockage for you.

post #268 of 1441

Well even before I have even heard these. I already know they aren't going to be bad. There isn't a single Carbon nanotube based headphone I have been disappointed with this year. I truly doubt the HA-S400 will be a disappointment. Where these headphones rank among the nanotube crazy headphones that is another matter however. Look forward to getting my headphones and one $4.99 earphone.

post #269 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dsnuts View Post

Well even before I have even heard these. I already know they aren't going to be bad. There isn't a single Carbon nanotube based headphone I have been disappointed with this year. I truly doubt the HA-S400 will be a disappointment. Where these headphones rank among the nanotube crazy headphones that is another matter however. Look forward to getting my headphones and one $4.99 earphone.

I have actually 0,0 idea how nano tube cans sound...

post #270 of 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideonMorrison View Post

Hehe. What I more or less expect is when I plug a (portable) pair of cans into my 'flat' Clip is to hear the sound as it was intended. 

 

What's "intended sound", what I find hard to understand in this case is why it would be more important to hear "sound as intended" over what your senses wants to hear.

 

Here's a rough sketch over my personal ideal frequency response which I've found by auditioning many different headphones, looked at their frequency response and how I EQ'd them, the M-Audio Q40 is the first headphone I haven't needed to EQ because it sounds close to my preferred frequency response balance and I'd have to use DirectSound output instead of WASAPI to use my soundcard's EQ at which that slightly less than ideal FR response makes up for the loss in quality if using DirectSound.

 

My Ideal FR response

 

 

M-Audio Q40:

 


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 10/5/12 at 8:10am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › The NEW JVC HA-S400. Affordable Carbon Nanotube cans for the masses.