Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Ocharaku Flat-4 KAEDE (Maple)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ocharaku Flat-4 KAEDE (Maple) - Page 15

post #211 of 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

 

Well, sorry for being one week late with that, but here we go: JVC FX700 vs. Flat-4 SUI

 

Putting the FX700 on again, I'm instantly reminded of how their cable length simply sucks: 87cm (34") as compared to the SUI's generous 130cm (51"). Nuff said, SUI wins hands down in the usability department.

 

 

Very nice James!

 

May I know what source you were using?

 

Many thanks................

post #212 of 1092
Quote:

The same impression continues throughout the upper mids and highs, where the SUI seem aimed at retrieving every tiny bit of detail, whereas the FX700 keep up with them in sheer resolution, but present everything in a slightly smoother and less analytical way.

 

 

Thanks a bunch James

I just got my FX-700 less than a week ago. As you said, the SUI retrieves every tiny bit of detail, which could be unforgiven on some recordings (especially in high frequencies). Anyway, keep up the good work!beerchug.gif

post #213 of 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

 

Well, sorry for being one week late with that, but here we go: JVC FX700 vs. Flat-4 SUI

 

Putting the FX700 on again, I'm instantly reminded of how their cable length simply sucks: 87cm (34") as compared to the SUI's generous 130cm (51"). Nuff said, SUI wins hands down in the usability department.

 

However, things are far closer when it comes to sound quality. Let's start with a fully sealed FX700 first: bass has a lot more impact than the SUI's, even though the latter are no slouch. Moving up to the mids, the FX700 sound significantly warmer and slightly recessed, whereas the SUI stay clearer, though not particularly forward. Moving on upwards, throughout the upper midrange and highs, the SUI start sounding thinner and sharper than the FX700, while presence is about the same. Top extension is excellent on both, at least till the upper limit of my hearing at 16kHz.

 

Looking at their overall signature across the whole range, the FX700 are rather a V and the SUI a U, but both IEMs have some disparity in note-weight, the FX700 being too weighty in the lows and the SUI too feathery in the highs. ymmv.

 

Now, wearing the FX700 with a loose seal (the way I actually prefer them), things change dramatically, and all of a sudden the two contenders seem much more similar. The FX700 lose a good part of their bass impact and warmth, but also a little note-weight in treble, which brings them overall quite close to the SUI. They still retain a tad more mid/upper bass though and I feel that the SUI's bass is more evenly distributed between mid/upper and deep bass. In the midrange, the FX700 gain presence and lie level with the SUI, but the former sound a bit sweeter and lusher, whereas the latter appear a little drier. The same impression continues throughout the upper mids and highs, where the SUI seem aimed at retrieving every tiny bit of detail, whereas the FX700 keep up with them in sheer resolution, but present everything in a slightly smoother and less analytical way.

 

To wrap up my impressions, while I don't feel that either of these has an edge over the other, my personal preference leans towards the JVCs, because their timbre is just to die for, especially with strings.

The SUI, while far from lacking in timbre, can't quite make my skin crawl like the FX700 in that regard. smile_phones.gif

 

Anybody have the FX800 to compare. The cable is now 1.2m so usability need not be an issue. Reports of the new braided cable improving the sound probably still need to be investigated to confirm though.

 

The basic JVC "propaganda" biggrin.gif

2012, JVC introduced a the wood diaphragm headphones new flagship FX800, FX800 used as the new flagship of the FX700 the same specifications unit cavity, but get little wire upgrade, while for cavity tuning unit control do upgrade, is the new flagship of JVC Ear headphone.

Edited by jant71 - 4/7/13 at 7:42am
post #214 of 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkrs01 View Post

 

May I know what source you were using?

 

I started out with my trusty old Xin Supermirco IV (+ Cowon i9), but switched to my Galaxy S3 (international version) when I couldn't detect a difference in sound quality.

post #215 of 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

 

I started out with my trusty old Xin Supermirco IV (+ Cowon i9), but switched to my Galaxy S3 (international version) when I couldn't detect a difference in sound quality.

 

Thanks for the reply!

post #216 of 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by jant71 View Post

 

Anybody have the FX800 to compare. The cable is now 1.2m so usability need not be an issue. Reports of the new braided cable improving the sound probably still need to be investigated to confirm though.

 

The basic JVC "propaganda" biggrin.gif

2012, JVC introduced a the wood diaphragm headphones new flagship FX800, FX800 used as the new flagship of the FX700 the same specifications unit cavity, but get little wire upgrade, while for cavity tuning unit control do upgrade, is the new flagship of JVC Ear headphone.

Hi Jant71

 

Are you sure there is such thing as JVC FX880? I tried to search for this on JVC's Japanese site, but cannot find FX800.

post #217 of 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by klipschman70 View Post

Hi Jant71

 

Are you sure there is such thing as JVC FX880? I tried to search for this on JVC's Japanese site, but cannot find FX800.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/629833/jvc-ha-fx800

post #218 of 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by klipschman70 View Post

Are you sure there is such thing as JVC FX880? I tried to search for this on JVC's Japanese site, but cannot find FX800.

 

FYI

 

http://www.jvc.com.hk/consumer-products/headphone/ha-fx800.aspx?lang=en#Specifications

post #219 of 1092

Yeah, I doubt we'll ever get all three phones together for a comparison. I'd probably have to go for the FX800 since the cable looks nicer and is the right length and the price is $359 at AccessoryJack. Any possible improvement would be gravy at that price. If it was re-tuned for slightly better balance and the 4N braided cable resolved a bit more that would be pretty sweet.

 

Though, as I stated in the FX800 thread, I am weary about JVC models that don't show up on the Japan page actually being better instead of just changed for a different market.

post #220 of 1092

That's what I thought. FX800 might be designated for Chinese market as it does not show up on the main Japanese site.
 

post #221 of 1092

I find the Flat 4 easier to listen to at higher volumes than on the FX700 since it is more balanced. While the FX700s bass and treble get way out of hand even at reasonable volume levels. Only at very low volume levels was the FX700 acceptable. Otherwise its treble and bass are just too aggressive and overbearing. The Flat 4 is more so dependent upon the source and in certain tracks can be rather bad in the treble particularly. Overall I much prefer the Flat 4.

post #222 of 1092

I've not heard sui, but kaede is way more open and balance than fx700.  The bass on fx700 is too much.

post #223 of 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

I find the Flat 4 easier to listen to at higher volumes than on the FX700 since it is more balanced. While the FX700s bass and treble get way out of hand even at reasonable volume levels. Only at very low volume levels was the FX700 acceptable. Otherwise its treble and bass are just too aggressive and overbearing. The Flat 4 is more so dependent upon the source and in certain tracks can be rather bad in the treble particularly. Overall I much prefer the Flat 4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raylliant View Post

I've not heard sui, but kaede is way more open and balance than fx700.  The bass on fx700 is too much.

 

I agree that fully sealed FX700s are simply too bloated in mid-bass, no doubt. They have about 15db elevation over the midrange, which is about the same mid-bass boost as the Sennheiser IE8/80's (btw, didn't you like these quite a bit, lee730? ;-).

 

However, as Rin demonstrates in his analysis (on second thought #4), wearing the FX700 with a leaky seal can reduce their bass by up to -10db, which easily brings them down to the SUI's bass level, or even lower. This has been my preferred way of wearing them all along, long before Rin confirmed my subjective impression with his measurements.

 

As for treble, both the FX700 and SUI are quite forward and agressive in the high range, and it may well depend on personal sensitivity, which of them one will find easier to tolerate. Btw, my SUI are already scheduled to be sent to Rin for analysis, so we may soon have some visual indication of how it compares to the FX700's sound signature.

post #224 of 1092
Is the mid bass really the issue on the FX700? I was under the impression it is the sub bass that goes overboard but the mid bass is relative to the sub bass in balance. I agree the IE8/IE80 stock has a major mid bass issue. Still I found the IEM more tolerable than the FX700 at normal to higher volume levels. Although the tape mod and silver cable really balanced them out IMO.
post #225 of 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

Is the mid bass really the issue on the FX700? I was under the impression it is the sub bass that goes overboard but the mid bass is relative to the sub bass in balance.

 

Going by Rin's graph, the FX700 peak at 80Hz, same as the IE8/80. Sub-bass is 5-7db down from there. It will be interesting to see the SUI, which I hear as better balanced between mid- and sub-bass than the FX700. I wouldn't be surprised if they turn out looking more like the 334 than the FX700 in bass.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Ocharaku Flat-4 KAEDE (Maple)