JVC HA-FXZ 100/200 - Page 118

Quote:

Originally Posted by RatFarm 

My 200's arrived today via amazon.jp. I unpacked them and immediately plugged them into my Musical Fidelity HPA1 amp for burn-in and have Jon Hassell Voiceprint on repeat. Haven't listened to them at all and won't until this weekend after they have some hours on them!

Thank you.  I wish people either did this, or understand that it does change instead of bashing them out of the box.  If you dont believe in burn in, try one of these and you might change your mind.  I believe in some burn in for some things, and these are one of them. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericp10 

 

In the middle of the song (well really toward the end during the sing-along). Yes, either yours or faulty or you don't have a good seal with them (I'm going to guess the latter). These JVCs are interesting in that you can make them bass-lite if you are wearing them in a shallow way, but you get the proper semi-deep seal and that bass (pounding) comes out.

Yeah my ears are funny with angled body, I don't have any larger longer tips to get semi-deep or deep seal, I am using Comply TS at the moment which sounded best, but again, not 100% happy with the seal yet

Quote:

Originally Posted by RatFarm 

My 200's arrived today via amazon.jp. I unpacked them and immediately plugged them into my Musical Fidelity HPA1 amp for burn-in and have Jon Hassell Voiceprint on repeat. Haven't listened to them at all and won't until this weekend after they have some hours on them!

I personally think that you should listen during the burn in and appreciate the 'change', that way you will love it even more...

FlySweep stated he thought the FXZ100 and FXT90 were similar in the bass region (with the 100 being more linear and textured somewhat), but I didn't think so. Yet, I just dug my FXT90s out and I'm going to A/B them again (especially since the 100s has extensive burn-in now). I'll let you know my findings later. I'm going to do the comparison out of one my iPod Classics, as I think it powers both the 100 and 90 well enough.

Okay, I'm finding the sound signatures of the FXT90 and FXZ100 vaguely familiar with each other (as it should be since they're cousins), but each couldn't be more different. Yes, I would call them cousins (second cousins) more than brother and sister or first cousins even. First, the FXZ100 is more refined than the FXT90. I don't really hear much of any sub-bass in the FXT90, and it's kind of shocking to my ears how it's more mid-bass focused than I thought (and that shocking is not a bad thing to me). The FXZ100 sound is fuller and more 3-D (by a bit) than the FXT90 - as I stated earlier. Yet, even with sub-bass, the FXZ100 is a more balanced sounding IEM than the FXT90 throughout the total sound spectrum. Also, there is more micro details in the FXZ100, although the FXT90 does okay in its own right with micro details. 

Now, The FXT90's vocals are more forward (for those of you who really like the vocals upfront that's a plus). Not more detailed necessarily, but more forward. And the highs seem to be pushed more forward in the FXT90 (again, the sound is pretty balanced in the FXZ100). Highs can be a bit harsh and brittle for those who can't stand forward highs. So it sounds like it's more extension in the highs in the FXT90 thank the FXZ100, but that doesn't mean detailed. The FXT90 highs sound a bit unfocused, or should I say not as clear as in the FXZ100. So in conclusion, both the 100 and 90 are tuned quite differently to my ears, and expect the FXZ200 to be tuned differently than the both of these (but more like an older sibling of the 100). I'll try to do the FXZ100 and FXD80 later on in the week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djvkool 

 

Yeah my ears are funny with angled body, I don't have any larger longer tips to get semi-deep or deep seal, I am using Comply TS at the moment which sounded best, but again, not 100% happy with the seal yet

Don't assume you have a poor seal if they do not isolate that well - they seal well enough to get great bass but do not totally eliminate outside souinds when no music is playng through them

Quote:

Originally Posted by shotgunshane 

FXZ200 = Fun-o-phile

 I don't know yet, but I believe. I should know by Friday though.

I thought the T90 & Z100 were more alike in the mids than in the treble or bass.. they both share a certain forward/aggressiveness & tonal quality through midrange.. this is what i was referencing in terms of both phones sharing a 'foundation.'  While the Z100's has some midbass emphasis, it isn't as boosted/humped as it is on the T90.. as I mentioned, the Z100 extends further down and offers better linearity.  The T90 can be prone to sibilance due to the crisp nature (boosted 4-6K region), this isn't as much of an issue on the Z100.. in fact that same region is a bit shallow on the Z100, IME.  This explains why the soundstage sounds a bit more "closed in" to my ears.  Despite that.. they still detail quite well in the treble region (better than the T90).  So in these ways, I think the T90 & Z100 are definitely 'linked.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlySweep 

I thought the T90 & Z100 were more alike in the mids than in the treble or bass.. they both share a certain forward/aggressiveness & tonal quality through midrange.. this is what i was referencing in terms of both phones sharing a 'foundation.'  While the Z100's has some midbass emphasis, it isn't as boosted/humped as it is on the T90.. as I mentioned, the Z100 extends further down and offers better linearity.  The T90 can be prone to sibilance due to the crisp nature (boosted 4-6K region), this isn't as much of an issue on the Z100.. in fact that same region is a bit shallow on the Z100, IME.  This explains why the soundstage sounds a bit more "closed in" to my ears.  Despite that.. they still detail quite well in the treble region (better than the T90).  So in these ways, I think the T90 & Z100 are definitely 'linked.'

I see, my friend. That's much more clearer to me now. I get it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by fzman 

Don't assume you have a poor seal if they do not isolate that well - they seal well enough to get great bass but do not totally eliminate outside souinds when no music is playng through them

I'm not assuming, the Jay Kay live gig that ericp10 posted above, I don't hear/feel the drum thump that he hears in the same track.

Also, I don't feel any suction pressure in my canal that I get when I have perfect seal from my other IEM's (except the vented ones)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericp10 

Okay, I'm finding the sound signatures of the FXT90 and FXZ100 vaguely familiar with each other (as it should be since they're cousins), but each couldn't be more different. Yes, I would call them cousins (second cousins) more than brother and sister or first cousins even. First, the FXZ100 is more refined than the FXT90. I don't really hear much of any sub-bass in the FXT90, and it's kind of shocking to my ears how it's more mid-bass focused than I thought (and that shocking is not a bad thing to me). The FXZ100 sound is fuller and more 3-D (by a bit) than the FXT90 - as I stated earlier. Yet, even with sub-bass, the FXZ100 is a more balanced sounding IEM than the FXT90 throughout the total sound spectrum. Also, there is more micro details in the FXZ100, although the FXT90 does okay in its own right with micro details. 

Now, The FXT90's vocals are more forward (for those of you who really like the vocals upfront that's a plus). Not more detailed necessarily, but more forward. And the highs seem to be pushed more forward in the FXT90 (again, the sound is pretty balanced in the FXZ100). Highs can be a bit harsh and brittle for those who can't stand forward highs. So it sounds like it's more extension in the highs in the FXT90 thank the FXZ100, but that doesn't mean detailed. The FXT90 highs sound a bit unfocused, or should I say not as clear as in the FXZ100. So in conclusion, both the 100 and 90 are tuned quite differently to my ears, and expect the FXZ200 to be tuned differently than the both of these (but more like an older sibling of the 100). I'll try to do the FXZ100 and FXD80 later on in the week.

I'd be very interested to see a comparison of the two. I have been listening to the FXD80 lately and I find it to be sharp and cold which are two characteristics I'm not a fan of. I plan on buying the FXZ200, but a comparison with the 100 would still be informative.

Maybe I need to buy these 200s and get something else for running... too tempting. Joining the site was my greatest mistake 

How much would the FXZ-200 be when ordered from amazon.co.jp through tenso.com?

I haven't tried tenso because I have only ever bought music CD's from amazon Japan and they ship to the US within 3 days! Around $20 for the first item and $5 additional the last time I bought from amazon.co.jp.

Anyone ordered through the amazon-tenso route? How much did everything cost total?

Also, how is the AMOUNT of bass compared to the JVC HA-FX101? I know it's ridiculous considering that the FX101 is a $14 headphone but it's the only other JVC I have. I'm a basshead who doesn't care about minimal muddiness. I prefer the CX400/CX500 for bass, especially that I can turn the bass up as loud as my threshold of pain allows and still have that deep and full big bass sound, and would love to know how the FXZ-200 would please me.

I'm considering about getting an IE80, but now the FXZ-200 is obviously much more exciting. I need more comparative reviews though.

190€ + 70€ customs fees. 250€ total. Still much cheaper than a SM3 and better performance, especially bass.

Whats amazing in this thread is that not a single person has disliked them. That says alot.