[dfkt]

I dunno... the FX700 even make my Nintendo DS games sound awesome.
 
The J3 is presumably the exact same hardware as the S9, and I like them out of the S9 with only a tiny bit of BBE and no EQ. I guess this would somewhat resemble a "flat" Sony X, with its slightly boosted default bass and treble. Same goes for my rockboxed Clip and Clip+. But of course that is all personal preference, and not really a useful statement for other people's tastes.

 

[cn11]

Quote:

I dunno... the FX700 even make my Nintendo DS games sound awesome.
 
The J3 is presumably the exact same hardware as the S9, and I like them out of the S9 with only a tiny bit of BBE and no EQ. I guess this would somewhat resemble a "flat" Sony X, with its slightly boosted default bass and treble. Same goes for my rockboxed Clip and Clip+. But of course that is all personal preference, and not really a useful statement for other people's tastes.

Nice to hear about even gaming with them. I would imagine their separation/placement/detail would all help with creating a convincing sonic picture when used for that. 
 
The X is definitely a little more mellow in the treble than the A829 I used to own. Which perhaps could be one reason they match up so well.... I totally agree though about personal preference, and that blanket statements aren't so helpful. 

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

Hey Eric how does your FX change with more burning in? I find that the harshness that occur in the treble at times has almost entirely disappeared. The bass on the FX is really...enjoyable, or should I say enticing. I like the way it does it without interfering with the music as a whole, unlike on my IE8 the bass just screams: listen to me!!! I can sense the distance much better, where the drummer is supposed to be behind the singers. The bass is rich, textured and tight. I am not that good at describing sound, but you should be able to get what I meant. 

Yes it does @ koonhua, and you pretty much answered any question you could ask me about the FX700 yourself. Occasionally some sibilance pops up on certain tracks (it did in a short passage of some Led Zep track I was listening to last night, but I forget which song it was), but this rarely happens. I'm really enjoying the natural highs coming out of the FX700, and as you guys (and girls) already know, I'm not a highs type of person. Bass is just outstanding, but I also noticed more weight being added to instruments with more burn in time. It's just the clearest sound dynamic I've every heard. And I think since it's a universal IEM, it's unfair to try to compare it to a custom. I would hope for the expense that customs on the average do sound better than universal (although a few have said various universal beat their customs). At any rate, ask me for a loan the day you read I've bought a custom, because that will probably mean I've hit the lottery somewhere...lol. 
 
Thank you @ dfkt. I'm glad we pretty much agree on the FX700s

 

[dfkt]

Quote:

The X is definitely a little more mellow in the treble than the A829 I used to own.

I see, interesting. Maybe Sony tweaked the X differently than their other players, I've never heard the X myself. Does the X have an accessible "secret service menu", like the other Sony players? The one where one can change the low-level sound parameters of the device.

 

[odigg]

Quote:

To me the FX700 blows the Denon D2000 out of the water in total sound spectrum, and I thought those were some pretty good cans.

I'm curious, between the FX700 and D2000, which would you say has more bass quantity and where (e.g. lower bass, midbass, etc)?

 

[david1978jp]

 
Quote:

I see, interesting. Maybe Sony tweaked the X differently than their other players, I've never heard the X myself. Does the X have an accessible "secret service menu", like the other Sony players? The one where one can change the low-level sound parameters of the device.

No "secret service menu". I wish it does.
 

 

[cn11]

Quote:

I see, interesting. Maybe Sony tweaked the X differently than their other players, I've never heard the X myself. Does the X have an accessible "secret service menu", like the other Sony players? The one where one can change the low-level sound parameters of the device.

Yeah, they did tweak the sound for the X, with its S-master inboard amplifier. Several early owners compared it to older Walkmans, including the A829, and noticed a distinctly more organic sound quality, yet with equal treble extension. Soundstage is a little more 3D and surrounding too... so overall you get this more mellow, natural, equally detailed, and more spacious sound. When you listen out for any of those aspects individually, it seems like subtleties, but then you notice that all things combined the X has a pretty noticeable difference in its sound signature. 
 
And yeah, as noted, no service menu. I miss that as well. 

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

I'm curious, between the FX700 and D2000, which would you say has more bass quantity and where (e.g. lower bass, midbass, etc)?

I would say the FX700 - to me - has more bass quantity and quality than the D2000. And you didn't ask, but way better mids and highs. It's better whole spectrum-wise with micro details I never heard when I owned the D2000. Now, if you were to buy the Fx700, don't expect to hear this way in the first week or two. The drivers need time burn in and settle (and with the right tips) before it will reveal itself in its full glory. To my ears the D2000 doesn't come anywhere close to the Fx700, and I thought the D2000 were a decent pair of cans (sans the midrange, unless amped).
 

 

[HONEYBOY]

Quote:

Yeah, they did tweak the sound for the X, with its S-master inboard amplifier. Several early owners compared it to older Walkmans, including the A829, and noticed a distinctly more organic sound quality, yet with equal treble extension. Soundstage is a little more 3D and surrounding too... so overall you get this more mellow, natural, equally detailed, and more spacious sound. When you listen out for any of those aspects individually, it seems like subtleties, but then you notice that all things combined the X has a pretty noticeable difference in its sound signature.
 
And yeah, as noted, no service menu. I miss that as well. 

Very well said. I have been comparing the X , S738 and touch 2G lately and these subtleties when viewed holistically are what makes the X better to my ears as well. It's actually quite scary to me because once you start appreciating subtleties in audio it's a definite death penalty to the wallet! haha
 
I seemed to have miss quite a bit of the impressions of this thread. I thought you'd be the perfect one to ask haha.Having experienced the FX500, what are some of the qualities or improvements that the FX700 has to offer over the FX500. Which has the more bass and bass extension?
 
P.S you can mention the subtleties haha!

 

[soozieq]

Stupid multi quote crap, and still no 'single' quote either for me at the moment

 
So, dkft - I had the S9 too, but not with the FX700. I would have thought the J3 hardware was the same as the S9, but I remember that the S9 on totally flat, no EQ, no BBE, nothing - sounded very flat and boring to my ears. But the J3 (when it worked!) was actually listenable on flat with no enhancements (even without the JVC). Once I played around with all the EQ settings, it sounded pretty much like the S9, only the flat setting seemed to be different. I can't believe I imagined it, because I simply couldn't listen to the S9 on totally flat.
 
The biggest difference I hear with the JVC + X is that the vocals are much closer and sound more clear and open. With the J3, it's as if the vocalist is standing two steps up from the rest of the band (in direct comparison with the X). It doesn't sound bad at all, but I just prefer the way the X presents vocals. Other differences are that the X soundstage is more enveloping (although it's smaller than the J3 when the J3 has BBE applied) and that the overall sound of the J3 is warmer than the X. The bass also seems better defined with the X, but really, I'm just nitpicking for the hell of it because the J3 is a really nice dap. But for my ears, I'd want much brighter phones with it to reduce some of the warmth. Even though the Sony also has a warm sound, it still sounds clearer and more dynamic with the JVC than the J3.
 
I should add that my other Sony daps don't have the same mid-forward presentation of the X, so if I didn't have the X, I could easily enjoy the J3. Well, except for the bricking part after disconnecting it, and the fact it couldn't detect a 16gb micro card, so I had to put it in a card reader to add music

 

[odigg]

 
Quote:

I would say the FX700 - to me - has more bass quantity and quality than the D2000. And you didn't ask, but way better mids and highs. It's better whole spectrum-wise with micro details I never heard when I owned the D2000. Now, if you were to buy the Fx700, don't expect to hear this way in the first week or two. The drivers need time burn in and settle (and with the right tips) before it will reveal itself in its full glory. To my ears the D2000 doesn't come anywhere close to the Fx700, and I thought the D2000 were a decent pair of cans (sans the midrange, unless amped).
 

That's really interesting about the bass.  I like a little extra bass, but the whole Denon line is just about at that point (for me) where the quantity starts spoiling music with a good bass line - although that might just have to do with a lack of bass control and quality, even with the D7K.
 
As for the mids, I can definitely agree that once you get used to more clarity and forwardness in the mids from some other phone the Denon mids seem quite ordinary (even lacking) in comparison.
 
Hmm...biting nails as I think about if I should buy...
 
Thanks for the info.

 

[cn11]

Quote:

Very well said. I have been comparing the X , S738 and touch 2G lately and these subtleties when viewed holistically are what makes the X better to my ears as well. It's actually quite scary to me because once you start appreciating subtleties in audio it's a definite death penalty to the wallet! haha
 
I seemed to have miss quite a bit of the impressions of this thread. I thought you'd be the perfect one to ask haha.Having experienced the FX500, what are some of the qualities or improvements that the FX700 has to offer over the FX500. Which has the more bass and bass extension?
 
P.S you can mention the subtleties haha!

 
 
The biggest difference is that with the FX700 they've fixed the recessed midrange issue which was so prevalent on the 500's. Now vocals seem placed just right (to me anyway, I think I've seen one owner who thinks they're still a tad recessed, but nowhere near as bad as the FX500), and you definitely hear the presence of acoustic guitars, strings, or any other midrange-based instrument, in a more full bodied manner.
 
The other big area is treble. They have all the detail and separation of the FX500's, but with much more refinement. That bite the 500's have is much, much lessened (and burn in seems to help lessen it even more) while being more layered and sophisticated. James, who was the first to get them, noted how nice instrument timbre is on them, and he was not kidding in the least... you sit back and feel the texture of each instrument so much. The life these breathe into music is just something you have to hear. Soundstage is improved too I think. 
 
As for bass, it seems there's slighlty more mid bass presence than the FX500. And it's nicely controlled, just like it was on the 500's. I find it hard to say which has more ultimate low end extension, going from memory, but I'd say it's very close in that regard. 
 
So with the improvements in treble, more present mids, and slightly bigger/more 3D soundstage, they're a substantial improvement and definitely the FX500's successor.
 
Oh, and they play sooooo well with the X. A match made in heaven it would seem. 

 

[dfkt]

Quote:

I would have thought the J3 hardware was the same as the S9, but I remember that the S9 on totally flat, no EQ, no BBE, nothing - sounded very flat and boring to my ears. But the J3 (when it worked!) was actually listenable on flat with no enhancements (even without the JVC). Once I played around with all the EQ settings, it sounded pretty much like the S9, only the flat setting seemed to be different. I can't believe I imagined it, because I simply couldn't listen to the S9 on totally flat.

I agree, most Cowons are no good played flat, especially paired with low-imp/hi-sens IEMs. I'm not even using any Cowon without a decent amp (Arrow, Headsix, etc). The only decent sounding ones are the O2 and V5 (IMO), but they're no audio players - seems Cowon for once got their circuit layout right with these two. I'm very intrigued by the fact that they might have gotten the J3 right as well. Always hated the curve of the S9, and the SD expansion of the J3 is a plus as well.

 

[koonhua90]

@ Chris, if you'd allow me to add some of my opinions...I feel that the 'forwardness' of midrange depends quite a lot of the different tips you use. With the large tips, and some large Sennheiser tips, I found that a times it can be considered as recessed. But with the smaller tip (and assuming the user get a seal while using it), the mid range is quite forward (which I like). You can hear lips brushing, the subtle nuances, etc. The mid bass on it is there, but no where compared to IE8's level. In my opinion, I feel that the bass on it is much faster than the bass on IE8, with a more natural reverb to it.
 
As for the 'texture of each instrument', I am assuming that they are the micro details of instrument. And yes, the FX presents them wonderfully, especially with string instrument. It's crisp and very realistic.

 

[cn11]

Quote:

@ Chris, if you'd allow me to add some of my opinions...I feel that the 'forwardness' of midrange depends quite a lot of the different tips you use. With the large tips, and some large Sennheiser tips, I found that a times it can be considered as recessed. But with the smaller tip (and assuming the user get a seal while using it), the mid range is quite forward (which I like). You can hear lips brushing, the subtle nuances, etc. The mid bass on it is there, but no where compared to IE8's level. In my opinion, I feel that the bass on it is much faster than the bass on IE8, with a more natural reverb to it.
 
As for the 'texture of each instrument', I am assuming that they are the micro details of instrument. And yes, the FX presents them wonderfully, especially with string instrument. It's crisp and very realistic.

No worries! I agree totally, because with the medium stock silicone tips, I get a perfect seal and hear the mids as just right myself (I personally don't feel they're recessed, just offered up that comment which I'd seen before). I hear all that micro detail, and lips brushing on the mic, etc. And I personally like the touch of mid bass emphasis they have, which definitely is nothing like the mid bass 'bloom' on the IE8's because it in no way detracts from the rest of the music. I didn't mean any of those points to be seen as negatives, just the inherent characteristics of the FX's presentation.