vwinter
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Posts
- 4,651
- Likes
- 405
Forward:
These are pretty much my unadulterated, unabridged, and unfiltered impressions of the relatively new Final Audio Design Heaven V Aging. Some of it is very explanatory but its more me thinking things through out loud as opposed to assuming readers wouldn't understand. I'll probably compress it a lot, add some sections and turn it into my first official head-fi review. So this is pretty much a test run for me. If you actually read all of it, let me know what you think.
Heaven V Aging
Impressions
[rule]
I don't have nor have I heard the Heaven V but have read both that they are pretty much identical to the Aging model and that they are different. Take that as you will.
I really want to only get into the sound here. There's a lot to say about ergonomics and build quality and so on but I'd rather not lose focus. I'm going to try to describe what I hear as well as I can without comparing to other specific IEMs and can provide musical references if requested but I'd rather these impressions stand regardless of what's attached to them, doing so in a way that someone reading will be able to imagine their music through the description.
I want to get this out of the way first and I'm going to spend a bit of time on it since its one of the design points of this IEM. I thought I knew imaging, good imaging. I have and have had IEMs that people say image well. No IEM I have or have heard images as well as these, not even by a close margin. I haven't heard any of the new TOTL earphones, though will have the opportunity to do so soon and will provide an update.
The imaging is of a wholistic quality where the entire design of the IEM seems almost built around it. When I say this, I'm referring to the localization of specifically dense and palpable sonic cues within a recreation of space, interacting with the space to form it around the cues. A point of sonic origin followed by a triangulation of sorts to solidify its location, size, and intensity. And they are able to retain this image and stage with respect to impulse.
I think that last line bears repeating. They can sustain an image regardless of reasonable changes in amplitude of the signal. I turn up the volume, the image doesn't move. I decrease the volume, the image doesn't move. It gets louder and quieter sure, but the point of origin doesn't move. This also holds for very dynamic passages within a track. It's especially impressive as you expect the image to deteriorate when a sonic cue, like a singer, crosses over peaks or valleys in the frequency response, but it doesn't. Within reason of course, eg. going from 20% to 80% volume. The Heaven V is excellent for those who like to listen at lower levels.
It also doesn't impose it's soundstage characteristics on recordings as much as other IEMs. This is talking about recorded as opposed to synthesized spaces. It is on the other hand capable of producing probably some of largest soundstages I've heard, and more interestingly, is capable of sounding out of head more often than any other IEM I've heard, as in look up to see nothing making a sound in the corner of the room. It can produce good depth, width, and height, but does so selectively by track, though It has generally more of a forward projection with a ceiling on stereo recordings.
The drivers are plenty fast and the detail levels are very impressive but probably not world changing. What is interesting is that they are fast enough to sound gritty, but the Heaven V have a unique density in their sound. This is especially noticeable on vocals. It's as if the effects of gravity are coming into play and there is weight involved. Not weight in the conventional head-fi sense of moving air but stability and solidity, and grounding in regard to imaging and localization and ultimately the sound, which I can see throwing people off. Vocals can sound liquid without being lush or lacking detail, or gritty without being floaty or airy. There is air around everything but the images themselves are not airy.
Going back to the wholistic nature: these were designed for a specific purpose, to sound 'live' like a concert hall and I believe they succeeded. A part of that is the image separation. The best I can say about it is that it's not unrealistic, for better or worse. A part of having everything grounded in a believable space is that they all need to be in the space to be believable. Here's what I mean: the images are separated in the same space. They don't float in their own separate spaces to be joined in your head as very separated instruments. They are layered front to back and can be heard in front of and behind each other on the same plane. Cymbals will almost always be placed slightly back, I think due to a small dip in the lower treble, but this makes sense. I've never seen cymbals in front of an orchestra or band so it actually works and may have been on purpose, but who knows. I find that they image best on less bassy and less sonically congested tracks, but they never sound congested or image badly.
They have another unique quality of being engaging without being very fatiguing. The wide barrels are more fatiguing really. The sound is pretty balanced across frequencies with probably a slight rise in the mids and midbass. It's not bright because its boosted in the mids and highs so much as because of its focus and clarity. I've heard sibilance but not consistently from track to track so I'm assuming it's in the recordings.
Final Audio Design (FAD) works magic with single balanced armatures. This was a lure for me. I call it the "Art of Engineering." Though in the case of FAD, you might say that they are engineering art.
Part of that magic is the low end, their bass response. They start to roll off a little bit at the lowest of the lows, but they have a truly impressive low end for a single BA driver and better than many dynamics. Their proprietary Balanced Air Movement (BAM) is obviously doing something as there is air to be moved and moved it is. A part of that is the weight and density I mentioned earlier and large drums can be visceral. They can "shake" the stage but the bass in the grand scheme of things isn't overly large. The bass has good texture and articulation but you could say it's not the focal point of the design. While the sound is generally created of very dense images, with focus and intensity, the bass has the ability to soften up, which is characteristic of bass frequencies in general. If you held a gun to my head, I'd say they reproduce instrument bass better synthesized bass but I'd be splitting hairs. It's not my favorite part of the IEM, but it's more than capable and this definitely won't be a situation of I just wish it had more bass. They should satisfy anyone who doesn't absolutely require car alarm triggering bass.
I do want to note something interesting at this point. Many of my friends are bassheads and not audiophiles. They generally are not overly impressed with IEMs I have them listen to, much to my dismay. They like them, the bass heavier sets more generally, but I've never seen a look of wonder appear on their faces until now. Every one of them was taken aback by the sound. Some didn't want to give them back to me, one of whom is very much a basshead and mainly listens to synthesized music. I guess "MOAR Bass!" isn't everything.
The midrange is interesting. It's a sort of concentrated energy. It often teeters on the edge and every so often peers over just to keep you on your toes. I'd venture a guess that there's pretty short decay here, and that might be part of what allows such clear echoes to form the space. Oddly there's a liquidity or density of the sonic cues, producing say a smoother vocal presentation, but the speed and energy allows all the little interesting vocal details to pop. You'll hear the moisture popping in the throat or when a wet tongue smacks against teeth, all the little inflections, but when a singer has high vocal clarity and smoothness, it's like watching a Cabernet Sauvignon or sometimes even a Pinot Noir being poured from the bottle; there's no froth or breaking or grit. And similar to most reds, there's a warmth to them, but not at the expense of clarity. The lack of porousness and density is something to get used to because it does change vocal timbre a bit from what I'm used to. I can't yet decide if it's for the better or worse for my preferences.
On the topic of timbre, it's one of the best I've heard. (Almost of famed FX700 quality I feel, but I can't depend on my notes to be sure of how close without hearing it again.) Strings and instruments made of brass are especially good. Orchestras are breathtakingly vivid. Drums and wind instruments are very recording dependent but are capable of realism. I've heard IEM's that make a specific instrument sound better but maybe none that make so many sound so good. There might be something to this whole usage of specific materials thing.
The highs are shimmery and precise. They'll occasionally make their presence more known, but in general, I wouldn't characterize them as edgy or peaky or anything. I find them to be a great energizing compliment to the mids and would definitely agree that they have a brighter but non-fatiguing quality.
The Heaven V are an amazing balance of being utterly engaging and energetic without being very fatiguing. Songs and albums I'd long given up on have come to life. They won't make a bad recording sound like a good one but they will find the potential energy of a track and convert it to kinetic.
Thanks to MuppetFace for helping me decide on these. And thanks to music.
These are pretty much my unadulterated, unabridged, and unfiltered impressions of the relatively new Final Audio Design Heaven V Aging. Some of it is very explanatory but its more me thinking things through out loud as opposed to assuming readers wouldn't understand. I'll probably compress it a lot, add some sections and turn it into my first official head-fi review. So this is pretty much a test run for me. If you actually read all of it, let me know what you think.
Heaven V Aging
Impressions
[rule]
I don't have nor have I heard the Heaven V but have read both that they are pretty much identical to the Aging model and that they are different. Take that as you will.
I really want to only get into the sound here. There's a lot to say about ergonomics and build quality and so on but I'd rather not lose focus. I'm going to try to describe what I hear as well as I can without comparing to other specific IEMs and can provide musical references if requested but I'd rather these impressions stand regardless of what's attached to them, doing so in a way that someone reading will be able to imagine their music through the description.
I want to get this out of the way first and I'm going to spend a bit of time on it since its one of the design points of this IEM. I thought I knew imaging, good imaging. I have and have had IEMs that people say image well. No IEM I have or have heard images as well as these, not even by a close margin. I haven't heard any of the new TOTL earphones, though will have the opportunity to do so soon and will provide an update.
The imaging is of a wholistic quality where the entire design of the IEM seems almost built around it. When I say this, I'm referring to the localization of specifically dense and palpable sonic cues within a recreation of space, interacting with the space to form it around the cues. A point of sonic origin followed by a triangulation of sorts to solidify its location, size, and intensity. And they are able to retain this image and stage with respect to impulse.
I think that last line bears repeating. They can sustain an image regardless of reasonable changes in amplitude of the signal. I turn up the volume, the image doesn't move. I decrease the volume, the image doesn't move. It gets louder and quieter sure, but the point of origin doesn't move. This also holds for very dynamic passages within a track. It's especially impressive as you expect the image to deteriorate when a sonic cue, like a singer, crosses over peaks or valleys in the frequency response, but it doesn't. Within reason of course, eg. going from 20% to 80% volume. The Heaven V is excellent for those who like to listen at lower levels.
It also doesn't impose it's soundstage characteristics on recordings as much as other IEMs. This is talking about recorded as opposed to synthesized spaces. It is on the other hand capable of producing probably some of largest soundstages I've heard, and more interestingly, is capable of sounding out of head more often than any other IEM I've heard, as in look up to see nothing making a sound in the corner of the room. It can produce good depth, width, and height, but does so selectively by track, though It has generally more of a forward projection with a ceiling on stereo recordings.
The drivers are plenty fast and the detail levels are very impressive but probably not world changing. What is interesting is that they are fast enough to sound gritty, but the Heaven V have a unique density in their sound. This is especially noticeable on vocals. It's as if the effects of gravity are coming into play and there is weight involved. Not weight in the conventional head-fi sense of moving air but stability and solidity, and grounding in regard to imaging and localization and ultimately the sound, which I can see throwing people off. Vocals can sound liquid without being lush or lacking detail, or gritty without being floaty or airy. There is air around everything but the images themselves are not airy.
Going back to the wholistic nature: these were designed for a specific purpose, to sound 'live' like a concert hall and I believe they succeeded. A part of that is the image separation. The best I can say about it is that it's not unrealistic, for better or worse. A part of having everything grounded in a believable space is that they all need to be in the space to be believable. Here's what I mean: the images are separated in the same space. They don't float in their own separate spaces to be joined in your head as very separated instruments. They are layered front to back and can be heard in front of and behind each other on the same plane. Cymbals will almost always be placed slightly back, I think due to a small dip in the lower treble, but this makes sense. I've never seen cymbals in front of an orchestra or band so it actually works and may have been on purpose, but who knows. I find that they image best on less bassy and less sonically congested tracks, but they never sound congested or image badly.
They have another unique quality of being engaging without being very fatiguing. The wide barrels are more fatiguing really. The sound is pretty balanced across frequencies with probably a slight rise in the mids and midbass. It's not bright because its boosted in the mids and highs so much as because of its focus and clarity. I've heard sibilance but not consistently from track to track so I'm assuming it's in the recordings.
Final Audio Design (FAD) works magic with single balanced armatures. This was a lure for me. I call it the "Art of Engineering." Though in the case of FAD, you might say that they are engineering art.
Part of that magic is the low end, their bass response. They start to roll off a little bit at the lowest of the lows, but they have a truly impressive low end for a single BA driver and better than many dynamics. Their proprietary Balanced Air Movement (BAM) is obviously doing something as there is air to be moved and moved it is. A part of that is the weight and density I mentioned earlier and large drums can be visceral. They can "shake" the stage but the bass in the grand scheme of things isn't overly large. The bass has good texture and articulation but you could say it's not the focal point of the design. While the sound is generally created of very dense images, with focus and intensity, the bass has the ability to soften up, which is characteristic of bass frequencies in general. If you held a gun to my head, I'd say they reproduce instrument bass better synthesized bass but I'd be splitting hairs. It's not my favorite part of the IEM, but it's more than capable and this definitely won't be a situation of I just wish it had more bass. They should satisfy anyone who doesn't absolutely require car alarm triggering bass.
I do want to note something interesting at this point. Many of my friends are bassheads and not audiophiles. They generally are not overly impressed with IEMs I have them listen to, much to my dismay. They like them, the bass heavier sets more generally, but I've never seen a look of wonder appear on their faces until now. Every one of them was taken aback by the sound. Some didn't want to give them back to me, one of whom is very much a basshead and mainly listens to synthesized music. I guess "MOAR Bass!" isn't everything.
The midrange is interesting. It's a sort of concentrated energy. It often teeters on the edge and every so often peers over just to keep you on your toes. I'd venture a guess that there's pretty short decay here, and that might be part of what allows such clear echoes to form the space. Oddly there's a liquidity or density of the sonic cues, producing say a smoother vocal presentation, but the speed and energy allows all the little interesting vocal details to pop. You'll hear the moisture popping in the throat or when a wet tongue smacks against teeth, all the little inflections, but when a singer has high vocal clarity and smoothness, it's like watching a Cabernet Sauvignon or sometimes even a Pinot Noir being poured from the bottle; there's no froth or breaking or grit. And similar to most reds, there's a warmth to them, but not at the expense of clarity. The lack of porousness and density is something to get used to because it does change vocal timbre a bit from what I'm used to. I can't yet decide if it's for the better or worse for my preferences.
On the topic of timbre, it's one of the best I've heard. (Almost of famed FX700 quality I feel, but I can't depend on my notes to be sure of how close without hearing it again.) Strings and instruments made of brass are especially good. Orchestras are breathtakingly vivid. Drums and wind instruments are very recording dependent but are capable of realism. I've heard IEM's that make a specific instrument sound better but maybe none that make so many sound so good. There might be something to this whole usage of specific materials thing.
The highs are shimmery and precise. They'll occasionally make their presence more known, but in general, I wouldn't characterize them as edgy or peaky or anything. I find them to be a great energizing compliment to the mids and would definitely agree that they have a brighter but non-fatiguing quality.
The Heaven V are an amazing balance of being utterly engaging and energetic without being very fatiguing. Songs and albums I'd long given up on have come to life. They won't make a bad recording sound like a good one but they will find the potential energy of a track and convert it to kinetic.
Thanks to MuppetFace for helping me decide on these. And thanks to music.
)))))
Just enter that name in you tube and you will see what i mean. His songs are a legend on the Costa's!
