[crinacle]

Just received my F9 in the mail today. Special thanks to @FiiO for the opportunity.

FiiO F9 (widebore tips)

Initial impressions

• Recessed mids. Quite distant from the rest of the frequency.
• Midrange (notably vocals) don't have a lot of layering ability and lack weight. Singers feel like they are constantly using head voice, resulting in a thin and sometimes shrill sound.
• Pretty bright, could see it being sibilant for some. It's pretty borderline for me; then again I'm quite sensitive to high frequencies.
• Bass is very well done, well-textured and with decent-enough decay. Skewed more towards midbass; subbass is noticably backgrounded.

Again, these are first impressions. I'm using my TOTL IEMs as comparison, so these may sound quite negative for obvious reasons. I'll be publishing a full review in which I'll be more reasoned with its $100 price tag.

Tentative Grade: C

 

[Francisk]

Just received my F9 in the mail today. Special thanks to @FiiO for the opportunity.

FiiO F9 (widebore tips)

Initial impressions

• Recessed mids. Quite distant from the rest of the frequency.
• Midrange (notably vocals) don't have a lot of layering ability and lack weight. Singers feel like they are constantly using head voice, resulting in a thin and sometimes shrill sound.
• Pretty bright, could see it being sibilant for some. It's pretty borderline for me; then again I'm quite sensitive to high frequencies.
• Bass is very well done, well-textured and with decent-enough decay. Skewed more towards midbass; subbass is noticably backgrounded.

Again, these are first impressions. I'm using my TOTL IEMs as comparison, so these may sound quite negative for obvious reasons. I'll be publishing a full review in which I'll be more reasoned with its $100 price tag.

Tentative Grade: C

Looks to me like the F3 is sounding better than the F9 from the graph

 

[Brooko]

Which just goes to show that while you can get a comparative reading from a graph, and it'll give you an idea of how something sounds, you can't take it as gospel. And you also need to take into account the gear its measured on and how its calibrated.

Mine is done as close as I can get to an IEC711 standard - with the help of Campfire Audio (Ken and I measured the same IEMs and he helped me calibrate my rig)

FiiO F3 (warm) vs FiiO F5 upper mid-centric - but sounds really good, and F9 - which is the leanest, but also has really nice balance if you EQ the spike out at 7 kHz. Take into account, build, fit, comfort and isolation + take the 7-8 kHz area down by -6 dB (Comply tips take it down nicely as well) - and you have a great sounding IEM.

I don't find the mids sounding that distant either - which shows how different our hearing is depending on our anatomy.

 

[crinacle]

Here's measurements done on an IEC mic.

I don't find the mids sounding that distant either - which shows how different our hearing is depending on our anatomy.

I can get used to the "recession" pretty fast actually; within 3-4 songs I'd have more or less forgotten about it. But quickly swapping back to my warmer/more neutral IEMs the feeling of distance comes back again.

 

[shotgunshane]

Does the F9 have any relation to the Dunu 2000J? Measurements make me think of a brighter version of it.

 

[Brooko]

Need a baseline for comparison. Another IEM which I also have measurements for would help. Just saying IEC standard doesn't really help. Would be nice if we all operating off same scale too

 

[Brooko]

SGS - I can show my comparative graphs when I get home later (F9 vs 2000J)

 

[Francisk]

FiiO F3 (warm) vs FiiO F5 upper mid-centric - but sounds really good, and F9 - which is the leanest, but also has really nice balance if you EQ the spike out at 7 kHz. Take into account, build, fit, comfort and isolation + take the 7-8 kHz area down by -6 dB (Comply tips take it down nicely as well) - and you have a great sounding IEM.

I don't find the mids sounding that distant either - which shows how different our hearing is depending on our anatomy.

Thanks for the comparison graph Brooko. I'm now looking at either F3 or F5. I'll do a little more research on them.

 

[Brooko]

SGS - here is the F9 vs Dunu 2000J on my rig

 

[csglinux]

Some interesting thoughts on calibration curves from Innerfidelity today: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/new-compensation-curve-innerfidelity-measurements

Some thoughts on those thoughts...
I guess we could all shift to a common compensation curve (whatever that evolves to), with separate corrections for our individual mics, sound cards and couplers. But even if we could all agree and produce perfectly matching results from one measurement rig to another (even averaged over multiple measurements of multiple headphones), I strongly suspect different mics/couplers will have different sensitivities at different frequencies, which really makes future consistent comparisons on different IEMs difficult, because even the deltas might not match. It's interesting to see how the exact same headphone on the exact same Innerfidelity measurement rig gives a different result when the headphone is shifted slightly.

Also, I wanted to reiterate a comment I left there about IEM measurements. IEM measurements typically just list the IEM being measured. In my experience, that's not enough.
Some IEMs (like the IE800) can only be used with a single proprietary set of eartips, but most IEMs these days can use a range of tips and the tips can make a big difference -
in some cases bigger than the effects of tuning filters or EQ. See for example here for the SE846:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/shure-se846-impressions-thread.675219/page-1205#post-13617865

and here for the KSE1500:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/shu...tatic-earphones.785377/page-207#post-13714398

The conclusion being...
When presenting measurement results, one really needs to state the combination of IEM and eartip used.

 

[crinacle]

Some interesting thoughts on calibration curves from Innerfidelity today: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/new-compensation-curve-innerfidelity-measurements

Some thoughts on those thoughts...
I guess we could all shift to a common compensation curve (whatever that evolves to), with separate corrections for our individual mics, sound cards and couplers. But even if we could all agree and produce perfectly matching results from one measurement rig to another (even averaged over multiple measurements of multiple headphones), I strongly suspect different mics/couplers will have different sensitivities at different frequencies, which really makes future consistent comparisons on different IEMs difficult, because even the deltas might not match. It's interesting to see how the exact same headphone on the exact same Innerfidelity measurement rig gives a different result when the headphone is shifted slightly.

Also, I wanted to reiterate a comment I left there about IEM measurements. IEM measurements typically just list the IEM being measured. In my experience, that's not enough.
Some IEMs (like the IE800) can only be used with a single proprietary set of eartips, but most IEMs these days can use a range of tips and the tips can make a big difference -
in some cases bigger than the effects of tuning filters or EQ. See for example here for the SE846:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/shure-se846-impressions-thread.675219/page-1205#post-13617865

and here for the KSE1500:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/shu...tatic-earphones.785377/page-207#post-13714398

The conclusion being...
When presenting measurement results, one really needs to state the combination of IEM and eartip used.

I guess I should've have been more clear, all the measurements on my own list are done with wide bore tips. The reason for this selection is that I believe that exposing the full bore should be representative of the "original" tuning intent, and everything else being alternative signature changes (spiral dots, spinfits, foamies etc. etc.).

The acoustic changes that different tips induce should be rather clear to the seasoned veteran so I wouldn't explain too far in my thread. It should be universal knowledge in the IEM community that stuff like foam would result in less treble, for instance.

 

[csglinux]

I guess I should've have been more clear, all the measurements on my own list are done with wide bore tips.

Wide-bore foam or silicone?

 

[crinacle]

Wide-bore foam or silicone?

Silicone. On that note, do foam tips come in restricted-bore formats?

 

[csglinux]

Silicone. On that note, do foam tips come in restricted-bore formats?

Ok, thanks! And yes, Comply make pretty much every type of bore size imaginable. Usually this would be a function of the nozzle diameter, but if there's any ambiguity (e.g., an IEM that comes with more than one type of silicone tip, or if you've used a non-default, non-OEM tip), it would be helpful to know exactly what was used in the measurement. Not all wide-bore silicone tips sound the same

P.S. Thanks again for sharing your setup and your white noise files. I haven't had time to look into the details of the periodic white noise track, but it's clearly doing something interesting.

 

[SilverEars]

I'm interested foam type with wide bore or olive shaped foam(or comply type material). Any links? On AliExpress they have all kinds, but have to look into bore sizing.