The NEW JVC HA-S400. Affordable Carbon Nanotube cans for the masses. - Page 19

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD 

 

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.

 

 

Bless me with your wisdom and tell me how I should tweak and improve my Clip's flat EQ 

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideonMorrison 

Bless me with your wisdom and tell me how I should tweak and improve my Clip's flat EQ 

I can't tell you that, only yourself can. Chances are:

1) You happen to like the sound of your current headphones with flat EQ at which you just have whatever frequency response the headphone and the clip delivers

2) Clip's EQ sucks

3) You're doing it wrong

The moral of the story I tried to point out is we all have our preferred sound signatures which noone but yourself knows.

I think that Morrison is saying is that he prefers to use heaphones without Eqing nothing, just plug and play. The sound frecuency response without no Eqing is what he judges on a headphone, not that the FR is flat so maybe he didnt explained himself whel.   thats all me thinks.
 

Wizard, what do you think about the Frecuency Response of the S500, seems that the +5 boost in bass will not be enough for you ?
 

AHhhhhhhh I can't decide between these and the S500's, any ideas? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosshorn 

AHhhhhhhh I can't decide between these and the S500's, any ideas? 

just wait until next week when more people get them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickdohc 

Wizard, what do you think about the Frecuency Response of the S500, seems that the +5 boost in bass will not be enough for you ?
 

I'd say it's a bit more than a 5dB boost, about 7dB which corresponds well to subjective listening opinions versus M50 that it's a bit bassier.

I think for the price it measures relatively nice, for my personal taste not bad either, the bass is roughly thereabouts I want it to be in quantity but I think it extends too far, all the way up to 300Hz in the upper-end which is the same as XB500 and this is what affects the midrange so much on XB500, I'm also guessing that's where we see improvements in by swapping the pads happen, optimally it should roll-off at least by 200Hz or so. Very interested to see how S400 compares like once Tylls gets them measured. S400 with the AKG pads that makes the S400 bassier than with stock pads might be better for me possibly, the midrange looks a little less than ideal on S500 and probably a slight downgrade versus Q40.

ooh.. i see, so i am learing here and you know what you are talking about, so tell me something,  when you say it extends to the 300 hz, sonicaly what you hearing is more midbass?  thanks, just learning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD 

 

I can't tell you that, only yourself can. Chances are:

 

1) You happen to like the sound of your current headphones with flat EQ at which you just have whatever frequency response the headphone and the clip delivers

 

2) Clip's EQ sucks

 

3) You're doing it wrong

 

The moral of the story I tried to point out is we all have our preferred sound signatures which noone but yourself knows.

And we have a winner, the answer is number 2 

You both make valid points, lets just agree to disagree and move on....................... cuz at the end of the day it's all about YOUR personal preference on how you want your music to sound with your gear. Some like EQing and some don't. For me I swing both ways. heeeeee 

I am with Ghost and Dsnuts on this one, RICKY boi take your BIG FAT L and brace yourself for those incoming yummy veges Ghost has in-store for you.

Just because these S400s are selling for so cheap doesn't mean a thing, nothing physically has change on them from the time they were released in Jpn to now, unless sneaky JVC really did replace the carbon nanotube drivers with "Neodymium Driver" as it's INCORRECTLY listed on the American sites, these S400s should sound very close to the S500s.

These S400s has the exact same tech/ similar housing as the S500s but only with a smaller driver, a 30.mm one instead of the 40.mm, which I don't think will change the sound signature much. AND as JVC's FX40s all the way up to their FXD series has already shown, these carbon nanotube drivers are very similar in their sound, only difference is their housing and how well JVC tunes/ refines them. If JVC had refined the FX40s a bit more, taking out that sibilance/ harsh highs and source revealing nature out, I would gladly sell off my "higher-end" JVC gears, these S500s included. 

But the S500s for me are exactly what/ how I want my FX40s to sound (with my personal EQing that is) and these S500s has lived up to my expectation and then some.  As exemplified by the cheapo FX40s ALL carbon nanotech drivers are similar in sound no matter the prices (ericp was just ranting about this issue on the discovery thread the other day) so surly these S400s will not disappoint.  I BELIEVE!!! LoL Don't lose faith my brothers in our carbon nanotube deity just cuz of their low price, it's "core" remains true and is priceless. That Carbon Nanotube gospel is DA TROOF.

/rant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickdohc 

ooh.. i see, so i am learing here and you know what you are talking about, so tell me something,  when you say it extends to the 300 hz, sonicaly what you hearing is more midbass?  thanks, just learning.

Well this is my way of measuring the balance in terms of mid & subbass ratio which to me has worked very well so far and matched quite well with all the headphones I've auditioned; I check 20 - 200Hz range, draw the barrier between mid and subbass at 80Hz and then just compare quantity wise in this case "area size", now on S500 it looks fairly balanced with perhaps slightly more subbass, I'd say aprox 55/45 % subbass / midbass ratio, now I haven't heard the headphones but maybe some of the owners can fill you in better on this.

What's that green help line I draw for the frequency response you may be wondering? Well first let's get this straight, the vertical axis means absolutely nothing in frequency response graphs, it's NOT versus these values you have to measure it but to the "average frequency response amplitude" of the headphone which is like a median value that goes right there that works like "peaks eats up the dips" or vice versa so you get a rough average amplitude so to speak as remember frequency response is all about balance. You should more view it as one frequency area versus how much it differs from another area on the graph and bass quantity should always be measured against its average amplitude.

Now this "average amplitude" will look different on for example innerfidelity's and goldenears'/headphone.com's graphs. On Goldenears and Headphone.com you want a "straight line" for a flat response, on Tyll's graphs you have to skew it a bit downwards after 1kHz to get it "neutral", a perfectly straight line on Tyll's graph would mean the headphone would actually sound brighter than neutral. The reason behind this is just because of different techniques/ways of measuring and presenting the graph. I might illustrate using M50's graph which all these 3 sites have later on if I'm not too lazy.

wow Wizard, thanks.. so lets see if i understood these with my first try,  for example.. the XB500

The blue area is the Mid bass , in these case the Xb500 has more midbass , more impact/hit than a low rumble, right?

what i am not getting is,  for example in my ears the Xb500 hits harder, more bass than the S500 but the graphs shows the bass under 0.  also i must asume that the 30hz scare graph also has to do with how i hear the bass?

Looks correct except for the "average amplitude", it should be adjusted so that it's following the -10dB line. =) TBH I'm not sure exactly where to place the upper-end limit for the bass, 250Hz might be more accurate, on XB500 it would make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc-holliday 

Damn i picked up my ipad and saw that this thread blew up with 27 unread posts............ I thought the s400 musta gone on sale at amazon for $10 or something amazing......
Only to be disappointed with a very, very, very long conversation about flat eq.... Zzzzzzzzzz......Zzzzzzzzzz.....

LoL, I feel you doc. 

@mosshorn

I would get these S400s 1st if you live in the states JUST because they are selling for so cheap, and if you like their sound sig, go for the S500s later on, (there is a good chance the S500s will be released in the states as well). The S400s can hold you over in the meanwhile and if the S500s are released here you can get it for CHEAP.  Or just wait another week to see more impressions on these S400s then move forward with your choices.