1 Dynamic Driver 4 Balanced Armature 8 Electrostatic Driver Flagship IEMs, FIIO FX17

[baneand]

that all sounds promising

 

[Vamp898]

I don't understand why there isn't even a single graph of the FX17 in all of Squig... it's really weird

Because nobody with measuring gear owns one

But these measurements are limited anyway, there is no way around testing it, if you are interested in one

 

[mikaik]

Because nobody with measuring gear owns one

But these measurements are limited anyway, there is no way around testing it, if you are interested in one

And this is exactly why we keep asking for a tour
Alas, HighEnd is coming, hopefully FiiO will be there, with the FX17.

 

[Vamp898]

And this is exactly why we keep asking for a tour
Alas, HighEnd is coming, hopefully FiiO will be there, with the FX17.

They cost almost as much as real titan custom IEM, i think without an road tour, their chances of good sales will be rather low but maybe i am wrong and it sells good enough, that FiiO simply doesn't care about one.

But i somewhat doubt that. Its not even listed at e-earphone, they did not make a video for its release too. So at least in Japan, its not ""officially"" sold (outside of Aliexpress)

 

[Tobit]

The FX17 has clean, controlled bass. It just takes time to develop. That's the nature of dynamic transducers. The FX17 was probably too new for the Headfonia reviewer.

 

[firesign]

Because nobody with measuring gear owns one

But these measurements are limited anyway, there is no way around testing it, if you are interested in one

I get a much more accurate approximation of an IEM's sound from a graph (however limited it may be) than from any review, as it is an objective graph and all reviews are subjective.

 

[Vamp898]

I get a much more accurate approximation of an IEM's sound from a graph (however limited it may be) than from any review, as it is an objective graph and all reviews are subjective.

The last thing to ever trust would be an review that is true. I did not mean to say that, i meant you have to test it yourself.

Graphs are done using ear-simulators that neither simulate air pressure, nor insertion depth nor take distortion or impulse response into account nor how linear the impedance is.

The graph shows you the frequency response at one given volume how the ear simulator assumes it might sound into your ear. There are more than enough IEM that measure almost identical (inside the realm of measuring accuracy) but have a day/night difference in your ear.

Two IEM may sound very close at 95db but completely different at 65db. An closed IEM will always sound different than a vented IEM when used with silicone earpieces but may sound almost identical using foam and so on.

When 10 people compare an Custom IEM, they will almost all tell the same things about it. Give the same 10 people the universal version of the same IEM, suddenly they start to report different things because the Custom IEM compensated for the different ear canal sizes while the universal does not do that.

Graphs tell you, as a consumer, absolutely nothing. They are for the maker to verify the earphone performs how it should, it was never designed nor can be used to tell you, as a customer, how something sounds.

They might work good for speakers and maybe okayish for headphones but at least when you reach the realm of IEM, graphs are way to unreliable to tell you anything from relevance. Unrelated to that, most reviewers use cheap copies of ear simulators that do absolutely not perform how the real thing would. Some IEM have insane peaks where the graph shows flat, others are flat where the graph shows a big dip. Especially everything beyond 7kHz is basically just guessing.

 

[ddlo]

back to my home town and resumed office work for a day then it's happy weekend again!

after collecting my pre-ordered RX-78 umbrella (looks really awesome!), i randomly walked around toys store and headphone stores in the area. i saw fiio fx-17 already on the shelf but there's no demo unit. however, the store offered me a 25% off which sounds pretty sweet deal . . . having been a loyal fiio users for sometimes, i ended up bringing this home (another unwise blind purchase). it's the first run of production but my units already in s/n 5xx.

as other owners testified already, it's built very solidly and the shell was quite big yet still fitting in very stably in my ears with the default tip choice. it feels quite a lot lighter than the similarly look dunu glacier too (12.2g vs 17.5g per side in reality). the bass really impactful and delivered in very good quality. the treble is very smooth and attractive too. details are nicely rendered and it seems to deliver some of the most detailed sound in recent IEMs i've come across. besides the vents on the side wall, i found there's a bigger opening on the side facing the ear. maybe vents on two sides?

i've got the NG audio erebus which also used 8 nos. of sonion EST drivers too. comparing the two, the bass is definitely stronger in fx-17. from my very remote memory, erebus has similarly smooth yet very detailed treble. sensitivity is very high, on the default 4.4mm plug, i'm listening only on vol. 32 (same for sharona on 3.5mm) with BTR17.

the package and product design are both not upto the standard of 1st tier iem makers. i believe campfire, VE and alike might be much smaller in production scale than fiio but their product design is significant better and years ahead of fiio. the packing (e.g. boxes), quality of accessories (e.g. case) are really only acceptable for iems selling at $300 or so. at this price level, it is really quite a big let down. btw, not sure why fiio didn't etch or print any marking or s/n # on the iems itself? instead of providing a small metal piece with the s/n #, why not just marked in on the iems? most other brands do so!

so far the experience is mostly positive. sound quality is really great for the price with great and solid built quality. while i'm all good for fx-17 on wearing comfort and sound quality aspects, my opinion, again, is that fiio need to invest more on industrial and product design to elevate the overall user experience, especially when it's trying to move upmarket with product like fx-17.

 

[firesign]

The last thing to ever trust would be an review that is true. I did not mean to say that, i meant you have to test it yourself.

Graphs are done using ear-simulators that neither simulate air pressure, nor insertion depth nor take distortion or impulse response into account nor how linear the impedance is.

The graph shows you the frequency response at one given volume how the ear simulator assumes it might sound into your ear. There are more than enough IEM that measure almost identical (inside the realm of measuring accuracy) but have a day/night difference in your ear.

Two IEM may sound very close at 95db but completely different at 65db. An closed IEM will always sound different than a vented IEM when used with silicone earpieces but may sound almost identical using foam and so on.

When 10 people compare an Custom IEM, they will almost all tell the same things about it. Give the same 10 people the universal version of the same IEM, suddenly they start to report different things because the Custom IEM compensated for the different ear canal sizes while the universal does not do that.

Graphs tell you, as a consumer, absolutely nothing. They are for the maker to verify the earphone performs how it should, it was never designed nor can be used to tell you, as a customer, how something sounds.

They might work good for speakers and maybe okayish for headphones but at least when you reach the realm of IEM, graphs are way to unreliable to tell you anything from relevance. Unrelated to that, most reviewers use cheap copies of ear simulators that do absolutely not perform how the real thing would. Some IEM have insane peaks where the graph shows flat, others are flat where the graph shows a big dip. Especially everything beyond 7kHz is basically just guessing.

I understand everything you're saying, but over the years, I've managed to get a good initial idea of the sound of an IEM or headphone thanks to its graph. Or at least, it can serve as a basis for determining whether it's worth trying it out, or whether it's not for me.

FiiO IEMs sound very different from each other. Some have very high upper mids that I find shouty and aggressive, while others have that much more relaxed area. Other FiiO IEMs have aggressive or peaky treble, which I also don't like, while others aren't like that at all. By testing them, I've been able to verify this and assimilate it to the graph for each model.
That way, if I look at the FX17 graph now, I'll be able to know whether to rule it out (if I see a lot of upper mids or treble peaks on the graph), or if it might be an option for me.

Of course, "try it yourself" is ideal, but it's also practically impossible for almost everyone without buying blindly first.

 

[FiiO-Yellow]

And this is exactly why we keep asking for a tour
Alas, HighEnd is coming, hopefully FiiO will be there, with the FX17.

hi, yes, FX17 will be at High End Munich

 

[baneand]

Received my unit today - good first impressions - trebble was first thing that got my attention, great extension and a bit forward but never fatiguing (burn in has just started I assume it will change). Bass is excellent for my taste, last few iems I used had classic boosted mid or sub-bass - maven has more sub-bass emphasis, prestige has too much mid-bass that it sometimes makes me want to reduce volume while using on desktop gear.
Fx17 has enough, maybe the sub-bass can use few db but it is far from lacking, I wont be doing any EQ. I like how the bass shows up when called and rattles the head. Talking while listening to drum and bass which I mostly do.
Very musical sounding.

I was surprised with shells - first time I saw them I thought they were big and uncomfortable but when put in the ear I almost don't feel them. For some reason this shape fits me better than Maven which has smaller shells. Luckily cable is also lightweight, these days audiphiles just brag about cable sounds without mentioning heavy and stiff clothed cables. This one totaly great on ergonomics side.

We will see what will next week or two of listening be.

 

[Tobit]

The bass has improved a lot for me. I've got about 100 hours of listening time now, and I'm absolutely thrilled.

 

[mikaik]

The last thing to ever trust would be an review that is true. I did not mean to say that, i meant you have to test it yourself.

Graphs are done using ear-simulators that neither simulate air pressure, nor insertion depth nor take distortion or impulse response into account nor how linear the impedance is.

The graph shows you the frequency response at one given volume how the ear simulator assumes it might sound into your ear. There are more than enough IEM that measure almost identical (inside the realm of measuring accuracy) but have a day/night difference in your ear.

Two IEM may sound very close at 95db but completely different at 65db. An closed IEM will always sound different than a vented IEM when used with silicone earpieces but may sound almost identical using foam and so on.

When 10 people compare an Custom IEM, they will almost all tell the same things about it. Give the same 10 people the universal version of the same IEM, suddenly they start to report different things because the Custom IEM compensated for the different ear canal sizes while the universal does not do that.

Graphs tell you, as a consumer, absolutely nothing. They are for the maker to verify the earphone performs how it should, it was never designed nor can be used to tell you, as a customer, how something sounds.

They might work good for speakers and maybe okayish for headphones but at least when you reach the realm of IEM, graphs are way to unreliable to tell you anything from relevance. Unrelated to that, most reviewers use cheap copies of ear simulators that do absolutely not perform how the real thing would. Some IEM have insane peaks where the graph shows flat, others are flat where the graph shows a big dip. Especially everything beyond 7kHz is basically just guessing.

I've already experienced what you're describing with my cheap Ali sensor. Some graphs are very similar, but what I hear is completely different, Plus, there is no info on the stage, imaging, body, etc. Even though I graph all the IEMs that fall into my hands, I certainly am not confident enough to give a verdict based on FR graph alone.

I get a much more accurate approximation of an IEM's sound from a graph (however limited it may be) than from any review, as it is an objective graph and all reviews are subjective.

I am not an expert, I admit, but if you want, tell me what you think of this

Bassy, not bassy? Mids depressed or uplifted? Treble enough or too much?

 

[ddlo]

just an update - was using fx-17 during this weekend mostly in the busy city. the passive isolation is just so-so with the stock HS-18 tips. I've tried switching to eletech baroque but still the isolation is not really very good. maybe this is due to those vents on the shell?

 

[mungster]

Nice