[shotgunshane]

I have to disagree on the signature of the FXA7. I find it to be a W type response, similar to the UM Martian but with slightly more bass presence. I don't find vocals recessed at all. I find a small bump in middle mids and a rise thru upper mids to a lower treble peak. The result is a midrange that is clear and refined that can provide moderately intimate vocals without sounding overly forward. In contrast, my ASG 1-Plus has a slight V shaped response. Vocals are not as forward in the mix.

What the FXA7 doesn't have is boosted lower mids, which would give the impression of very forward and intimate vocals, which actually results in a more V shaped response, as usually upper mids are recessed when boosting lower mids. The psychoacoustics of boosted lower mids can be deceiving but it is a V shape.

 

[talan7]

Do all of the new fender iems use the same cable?

 

[shotgunshane]

Do all of the new fender iems use the same cable?

Yes.

 

[FastAndClean]

i think is unacceptable to pay 500 dollars for earphones with treble extension similar to cheap single balanced armature in ear

 

[Forty6]

i think is unacceptable to pay 500 dollars for earphones with treble extension similar to cheap single balanced armature in ear

Email this to fenders .

 

[Dkoukou]

Today i had the opportunity to directly compare the FXA-7 with SE846. Obviously the Shure is not a "bright" IEM. The FXA-7 has definitely more sparkle in my opinion. And again, in my opinion, graphs don't always tell the whole truth.

 

 

[FastAndClean]

  Today i had the opportunity to directly compare the FXA-7 with SE846. Obviously the Shure is not a "bright" IEM. The FXA-7 has definitely more sparkle in my opinion. And again, in my opinion, graphs don't always tell the whole truth.

they have sparkle at 8khz, they lack extension, there is a big difference

 

[Brooko]

  they have sparkle at 8khz, they lack extension, there is a big difference

 
Who did the graph, what was the coupler, what was the set-up, what tips, what source etc?
 
The graph states it is uncompensated.  If it's been done on a Veritas coupler with no calibration - they portray anything above 4-5 kHz as much lower than it actually is, and upper treble is a roll of the dice (unless you're using a proper professional system).
 
Add to that - the graph shows pretty good lower treble extension (which includes the majority of the harmonics that will affect the majority of instruments), so I can't see what the issue is. And if this is Fender's intended tuning, and you don't like it, then simply don't buy it.  That graph actually looks OK to me (a bit too much sub-bass for my liking) - but it's impossible to read anything into that measurement unless I see the set-up, OR see an equivalent measurement for another set of IEMs I know well - on the same set-up.
 
Until you get either - posting a random graph as an illustration without qualifiers pretty much means nothing.

 

[FastAndClean]

   
Who did the graph, what was the coupler, what was the set-up, what tips, what source etc?
 
The graph states it is uncompensated.  If it's been done on a Veritas coupler with no calibration - they portray anything above 4-5 kHz as much lower than it actually is, and upper treble is a roll of the dice (unless you're using a proper professional system).
 
Add to that - the graph shows pretty good lower treble extension (which includes the majority of the harmonics that will affect the majority of instruments), so I can't see what the issue is. And if this is Fender's intended tuning, and you don't like it, then simply don't buy it.  That graph actually looks OK to me (a bit too much sub-bass for my liking) - but it's impossible to read anything into that measurement unless I see the set-up, OR see an equivalent measurement for another set of IEMs I know well - on the same set-up.
 
Until you get either - posting a random graph as an illustration without qualifiers pretty much means nothing.

speakerphone, https://cymbacavum.com/2015/04/15/electroacoustic-measurements-from-speakerphone/
here are the full Measurements http://clarityfidelity.blogspot.no/2016/08/fender-fxa7-pro-iem.html
i had these in ears, they sound like they measure, no upper treble at all, my point is that there is a better options for the price, that's all.

 

[Brooko]

  speakerphone, https://cymbacavum.com/2015/04/15/electroacoustic-measurements-from-speakerphone/
here are the full Measurements http://clarityfidelity.blogspot.no/2016/08/fender-fxa7-pro-iem.html
i had these in ears, they sound like they measure, no upper treble at all, my point is that there is a better options for the price, that's all.

 
Thanks - that helps the understanding a lot more.  He's using pretty good gear and utilising some good calibration by the looks of things. I checked some of the IEMs we have in common, and his graphs are pretty close to my latest ones (Ken Ball from Campfire helped me calibrate my coupler properly).
 
I haven't heard the Fenders so I don't have an opinion on them - but I would caution against judging an IEM based on what you see on a graph - especially when after seeing the graph you can start hearing what you're seeing.  I always listen first, then do the graphs afterwards to try and understand what i'm hearing.
 
I see he also graphed the Campfire Orion - here's mine for reference (ours are similar)
 

 
Funnily enough you'd look at the upper treble and say "it can't sound good - look at the lack of extension / roll-off".  However - it's one of the cleanest and clearest BA earphones I've heard.
 
A lot of people put emphasis on upper treble - but its one of the least important areas in the spectrum. There is comparatively very little above 10 kHz - no fundamentals, and mostly just harmonics - affecting mainly instruments like cymbals and violins. If it is over-emphasised music can sound a little brittle - but it has to be really sharp to make this happen.  Above 15 kHz it doesn't matter as its not actually heard anyway - mostly masked by the rest of the spectrum.
 
I guess all I'm saying is that graphs are good for trying to understand what you hear - but its dangerous to rely on them too much.  With your Fender graph, I'd be less worried about the treble extension, and more worried about the amount of bass being shown. I'd be willing to bet if you cut that bass, the dullness you were describing would disappear.  They're just a bass heavy earphone by the looks of things.  What you're experiencing is more masking than lack of extension IMO. 

 

[Forty6]

speakerphone, https://cymbacavum.com/2015/04/15/electroacoustic-measurements-from-speakerphone/
here are the full [COLOR=000000]Measurements[/COLOR] http://clarityfidelity.blogspot.no/2016/08/fender-fxa7-pro-iem.html
i had these in ears, they sound like they measure, no upper treble at all, my point is that there is a better options for the price, that's all.

Did you try Eq it ? Maybe like what the mod has advise , cut that bass off a little bit via eq . Or pair them up with various dap , dac/amp you able to get your hands of .
Maybe you get a different impression after cutting it down , or with a different rigs .

Thanks - that helps the understanding a lot more.  He's using pretty good gear and utilising some good calibration by the looks of things. I checked some of the IEMs we have in common, and his graphs are pretty close to my latest ones (Ken Ball from Campfire helped me calibrate my coupler properly).

I haven't heard the Fenders so I don't have an opinion on them - but I would caution against judging an IEM based on what you see on a graph - especially when after seeing the graph you can start hearing what you're seeing.  I always listen first, then do the graphs afterwards to try and understand what i'm hearing.

I see he also graphed the Campfire Orion - here's mine for reference (ours are similar)




Funnily enough you'd look at the upper treble and say "it can't sound good - look at the lack of extension / roll-off".  However - it's one of the cleanest and clearest BA earphones I've heard.

A lot of people put emphasis on upper treble - but its one of the least important areas in the spectrum. There is comparatively very little above 10 kHz - no fundamentals, and mostly just harmonics - affecting mainly instruments like cymbals and violins. If it is over-emphasised music can sound a little brittle - but it has to be really sharp to make this happen.  Above 15 kHz it doesn't matter as its not actually heard anyway - mostly masked by the rest of the spectrum.

I guess all I'm saying is that graphs are good for trying to understand what you hear - but its dangerous to rely on them too much.  With your Fender graph, I'd be less worried about the treble extension, and more worried about the amount of bass being shown. I'd be willing to bet if you cut that bass, the dullness you were describing would disappear.  They're just a bass heavy earphone by the looks of things.  What you're experiencing is more masking than lack of extension IMO. 

Usually iem with graph similar to these , other than using eq to property address it , what the next best option to consider addressing the problem ?
The last resort may be due to not suitable and sell it off , but is there any other options worth to try it out other than eq ?

Advise thanks .

 

[Brooko]

Did you try Eq it ? Maybe like what the mod has advise , cut that bass off a little bit via eq . Or pair them up with various dap , dac/amp you able to get your hands of .
Maybe you get a different impression after cutting it down , or with a different rigs .
Usually iem with graph similar to these , other than using eq to property address it , what the next best option to consider addressing the problem ?
The last resort may be due to not suitable and sell it off , but is there any other options worth to try it out other than eq ?

Advise thanks .

 
I agree with you - EQing the bass makes the most sense.
 
Another way I like to test is with a graphic equaliser (linear one in 1 kHz increments is fine) and starting dropping each slider from 20 kHz by 10 dB and see what it does while your are listening - eg 20 kHz, then 19 kHz, then 18 kHz etc.  I pretty much guarantee that unless you are a trained listener that from 15-20 kHz, a 10 dB cut won't affect the vast majority of listeners.  In fact they'll hardly notice.
 
Between 10-14 kHz will depend on music being played, and sensitivity of one's hearing.
 
But actually the last option is the one that makes most sense.  If you've tried EQing the bass back, and still think you're missing something - then it might be best to try a different IEM.

 

[Forty6]

I agree with you - EQing the bass makes the most sense.

Another way I like to test is with a graphic equaliser (linear one in 1 kHz increments is fine) and starting dropping each slider from 20 kHz by 10 dB and see what it does while your are listening - eg 20 kHz, then 19 kHz, then 18 kHz etc.  I pretty much guarantee that unless you are a trained listener that from 15-20 kHz, a 10 dB cut won't affect the vast majority of listeners.  In fact they'll hardly notice.

Between 10-14 kHz will depend on music being played, and sensitivity of one's hearing.

But actually the last option is the one that makes most sense.  If you've tried EQing the bass back, and still think you're missing something - then it might be best to try a different IEM.

Understood .

it's always wise to max out our available options on hand to try and see whether or not it could be rectify , EQ is a good option to do , Ofcouse it could not actually change the nature of the signature on the iem , but at least it could make a little bit of a difference , the difference might be towards making it worse or better .
But eq is definitely something worth to spend quality time on it before one choose to throw in the towel and sold it off .
cos it doesn't even cost a arm or a leg , compared to the dollars spent on the iem .

 

[Brooko]

Understood .

it's always wise to max out our available options on hand to try and see whether or not it could be rectify , EQ is a good option to do , Ofcouse it could not actually change the nature of the signature on the iem , but at least it could make a little bit of a difference , the difference might be towards making it worse or better .
But eq is definitely something worth to spend quality time on it .
cos it doesn't even cost a arm or a leg , compared to the dollars spent on the iem .

 
Agree again - and for those who don't like to EQ - something simple like FiiO's E17K amp (with tone controls) is a simple, way of providing instant EQ.
 
Anyway - we're veering off-topic a little bit.  I'll leave you guys to go back to the Fender discussion.

 

[MoonGred]

I don't know what is going on but my replacement set of Harmony's have now started developing the connector defect on the left hand side. I truly love the sound that these IEMs produce, but the QC has been extremely lackluster. 
This will be the 3rd time that I'm sending a pair back within 9 months.