I got a set of defective JVC FXZ200s and after I get them returned and refunded, I've kind of decided to get the IM70s instead. They're a lot cheaper but am I understanding correctly that they're not any less good (though obviously very different)?
Even though the left of the FXZ200 I got isn't working properly, I could sort of hear their potential and sound signature and they sound good but a bit too bassy for me and not enough treble. From what I've read the IM70s have more treble which is good, but how does the bass compare? Does it also tighten up after burn-in, because I saw some people saying it was a bit too much initially. And also can people comment more on their isolation? Is it better than the FXZ200s? I had the FXT90s before, which had probably very similar isolation to the FXZ's (average... not great).
I also figured out I want something more airy and spacious than the FXZ's... I think their very warm and lush sound signature can make it a tad congested, but they aren't burnt in and I know that's key for those. Also not fair to judge on a defective pair . But do the IM70s fit the bill for more airiness as well? I listen to mainly classical, but lots of other stuff too, out of ipod classic 160 and FiiO E6. I'm basically just looking for confirmation on these... I was also recommended the RHA MA750 and was looking at the Yamaha EPH-100s so not 100% sure yet. Coming from the FXT90, looking for a bit more bass, slightly more forward mids, but still not overly colored and bassy like I feel the FXZs are. Looking for a fun, impactful, immersive sound, but into detail and clarity... I don't want the bass taking over the rest.
Lastly, more comments on the IM70s sound stage, separation, and detail? If possible compared to FXT90 and the others I mentioned.
Edited by delmonte - 1/19/14 at 3:31pm