[Jujoe]

One of the companies must have measured wrong, or they weren't using my ears.

Well you do test Headphone's from 2222

 

[Brooko]

@touzeen

Actually listening again to the FH7 vs the DK4001 the DK4001 has a more "polite" signature the FH7 has more bass and upper treble to my ears, its got a more fun overall balance. The DK4001 strength is in the way it presents the mids.

The FH7 is more sensitive so I have tried to level match the two to the best of my ability.

FH7 has better sound-stage too for an IEM, the DK4001 is a little more closed in.

I like them both but I would buy the FH7 to be honest, the best thing about the DK4001 is the superb cable.

It sounds odd I know but I actually bought the DK4001 for the cable. The cable will be available later this year to buy separately, it is not the Hulk cable it is a lighter cable compared to the Hulk and will be called Noble when its released.

Edit: I just checked the specs for these two, on paper the DK-4001 is quoted as being more sensitive so its odd that the FH7 sounds louder for the same volume. One of the companies must have measured wrong, or they weren't using my ears.

Another Edit: The impedance of the FH7 is half that of the DK4001 16 vs 32 ohms so that explains the difference in perceived volume levels at the same input voltage.

Some interesting observations

Lets talk about impedance and sensitivity first.

• The FH7 is 16 ohm and 111 db/mW sensitivity. So power requirements to get to 100 dB is 0.04 Vrms voltage, 2.5 mA current and 0.1 mW overall power
• The DK-4001 is 32 ohm and 112 db/mw sensitivity. So power requirements to get to 100 dB is 0.04 Vrms voltage, 1.25 mA current and 0.05 mW overall power. The DK4001 actually requires less power to get to the same volume.
• In real terms - test tones + spl meter (using same cable, same tips, same source, same tone), the DK4001 is approx 1.5 dB louder at same source volume. On the FiiO M11, that translates to 3 clicks. With 600 Hz test tone (you'll see why I used this frequency when you look at the graph), M11 at 50/120 vol = 81.7 dB for DK4001. M11 at 53/120 vol = 81.7 dB for FH7.

Now lets talk frequency response and perception

My rig is calibrated as close as I can get to IEC711. Above about 8 kHz it tends to be quite inaccurate - as most hobbyiest rigs mics and measuring environments are not up to scratch. My rig has shown over time to be very consistent through rest of spectrum, and two of the manufacturers I work with have advised that my measurements are very close to their own - so I'm pretty confident with what I'm doing.

Comparatively, both are pretty well balanced, but the DK4001 has slightly more colouration - especially in upper mids and lower treble. This colouration sometimes masks the perceived bass difference. To me the DK4001 does have stronger bass and a bigger peak in the lower treble at 7 kHz.

The FH7 is slightly more forward (early bump) in the lower mids.

As far as perceived stage goes - "it depends" is the best I can say. First you have to volume match, and second listen to the same track. With male or deeper vocals, I'd say the FH7 is marginally more forward. With female or higher pitched vocals, the DK4001 is more intimate (less perceived difference). That will also depend on things like tips used and insertion depth (which can change the resonant peak of your ear canals)

Both are superb examples of extremely well tuned IEMs.

If I could change one thing on either one, with the DK-4001 I'd bring the upper mid and lower treble back a few dB. The curve shape is perfect - I'd just like a little flatter overall presentation. With the FH7 I'd like 2-3 dB more mid to sub bass and start the mid-range bump post 1 kHz.

Again though - either to me deserves to be top tier.

 

[435279]

@Brooko thank you for taking the time to provide a very nice comparison between the FH7 and DK-4001.

They are certainly both very good at what they do and we are lucky to have so much choice at this mid level price bracket and not have to spend > $1000 to get great quality IEM's.

 

[gLer]

Some interesting observations

Lets talk about impedance and sensitivity first.

• The FH7 is 16 ohm and 111 db/mW sensitivity. So power requirements to get to 100 dB is 0.04 Vrms voltage, 2.5 mA current and 0.1 mW overall power
• The DK-4001 is 32 ohm and 112 db/mw sensitivity. So power requirements to get to 100 dB is 0.04 Vrms voltage, 1.25 mA current and 0.05 mW overall power. The DK4001 actually requires less power to get to the same volume.
• In real terms - test tones + spl meter (using same cable, same tips, same source, same tone), the DK4001 is approx 1.5 dB louder at same source volume. On the FiiO M11, that translates to 3 clicks. With 600 Hz test tone (you'll see why I used this frequency when you look at the graph), M11 at 50/120 vol = 81.7 dB for DK4001. M11 at 53/120 vol = 81.7 dB for FH7.

Now lets talk frequency response and perception

My rig is calibrated as close as I can get to IEC711. Above about 8 kHz it tends to be quite inaccurate - as most hobbyiest rigs mics and measuring environments are not up to scratch. My rig has shown over time to be very consistent through rest of spectrum, and two of the manufacturers I work with have advised that my measurements are very close to their own - so I'm pretty confident with what I'm doing.



Comparatively, both are pretty well balanced, but the DK4001 has slightly more colouration - especially in upper mids and lower treble. This colouration sometimes masks the perceived bass difference. To me the DK4001 does have stronger bass and a bigger peak in the lower treble at 7 kHz.

The FH7 is slightly more forward (early bump) in the lower mids.

As far as perceived stage goes - "it depends" is the best I can say. First you have to volume match, and second listen to the same track. With male or deeper vocals, I'd say the FH7 is marginally more forward. With female or higher pitched vocals, the DK4001 is more intimate (less perceived difference). That will also depend on things like tips used and insertion depth (which can change the resonant peak of your ear canals)

Both are superb examples of extremely well tuned IEMs.

If I could change one thing on either one, with the DK-4001 I'd bring the upper mid and lower treble back a few dB. The curve shape is perfect - I'd just like a little flatter overall presentation. With the FH7 I'd like 2-3 dB more mid to sub bass and start the mid-range bump post 1 kHz.

Again though - either to me deserves to be top tier.

Outstanding work. Does that mean you’re still planning to review the FH7?

 

[gLer]

@Brooko thank you for taking the time to provide a very nice comparison between the FH7 and DK-4001.

They are certainly both very good at what they do and we are lucky to have so much choice at this mid level price bracket and not have to spend > $1000 to get great quality IEM's.

My interest in IEMs is recent, and really spurred on by exactly this. I’m pleasantly surprised by how good IEMs have become so quickly, and affordably. I wish the same could be said for mid-priced headphones, but alas.

 

[Jujoe]

Some interesting observations

Lets talk about impedance and sensitivity first.

• The FH7 is 16 ohm and 111 db/mW sensitivity. So power requirements to get to 100 dB is 0.04 Vrms voltage, 2.5 mA current and 0.1 mW overall power
• The DK-4001 is 32 ohm and 112 db/mw sensitivity. So power requirements to get to 100 dB is 0.04 Vrms voltage, 1.25 mA current and 0.05 mW overall power. The DK4001 actually requires less power to get to the same volume.
• In real terms - test tones + spl meter (using same cable, same tips, same source, same tone), the DK4001 is approx 1.5 dB louder at same source volume. On the FiiO M11, that translates to 3 clicks. With 600 Hz test tone (you'll see why I used this frequency when you look at the graph), M11 at 50/120 vol = 81.7 dB for DK4001. M11 at 53/120 vol = 81.7 dB for FH7.

Now lets talk frequency response and perception

My rig is calibrated as close as I can get to IEC711. Above about 8 kHz it tends to be quite inaccurate - as most hobbyiest rigs mics and measuring environments are not up to scratch. My rig has shown over time to be very consistent through rest of spectrum, and two of the manufacturers I work with have advised that my measurements are very close to their own - so I'm pretty confident with what I'm doing.



Comparatively, both are pretty well balanced, but the DK4001 has slightly more colouration - especially in upper mids and lower treble. This colouration sometimes masks the perceived bass difference. To me the DK4001 does have stronger bass and a bigger peak in the lower treble at 7 kHz.

The FH7 is slightly more forward (early bump) in the lower mids.

As far as perceived stage goes - "it depends" is the best I can say. First you have to volume match, and second listen to the same track. With male or deeper vocals, I'd say the FH7 is marginally more forward. With female or higher pitched vocals, the DK4001 is more intimate (less perceived difference). That will also depend on things like tips used and insertion depth (which can change the resonant peak of your ear canals)

Both are superb examples of extremely well tuned IEMs.

If I could change one thing on either one, with the DK-4001 I'd bring the upper mid and lower treble back a few dB. The curve shape is perfect - I'd just like a little flatter overall presentation. With the FH7 I'd like 2-3 dB more mid to sub bass and start the mid-range bump post 1 kHz.

Again though - either to me deserves to be top tier.

Nice thanks and for all info and the hard work, Would you say that the Dunu are much more expensive due the fancy cable? (yes its super sexy but not 250 notes sexy)

They are certainly both very good at what they do and we are lucky to have so much choice at this mid level price bracket and not have to spend > $1000 to get great quality IEM's.

I say we now live in the golden age of the IEM! and its almost pointless spending crazy money (but I still want a set of campfire andos )

My interest in IEMs is recent, and really spurred on by exactly this. I’m pleasantly surprised by how good IEMs have become so quickly, and affordably. I wish the same could be said for mid-priced headphones, but alas.

I am also new to this game and you are right the choice is outstanding, I remember in the 90's it was a choice of sony or................. sony

This last week I have been forced to stop using full size cans including my bloved LCD2 closed as I need a operationon my face and the clamp is to much, so for the next 8 weeks the FH7 are the greatest IEM's on the planet

 

[gLer]

This last week I have been forced to stop using full size cans including my bloved LCD2 closed as I need a operationon my face and the clamp is to much, so for the next 8 weeks the FH7 are the greatest IEM's on the planet

Sorry to hear that, wish you a speedy recovery!

 

[Jujoe]

Sorry to hear that, wish you a speedy recovery!

Thanks buddy, gotta say as an alt to my LCD2 the FH7 do an realy solid job and considering I can use them in the hospital pure winner

 

[gLer]

Hey guys, has anyone here used Final E tips with the FH7? Impressions? Also, any comparisons with Spiral Dots (my current go-to)?

 

[mkygod]

Hey guys, has anyone here used Final E tips with the FH7? Impressions? Also, any comparisons with Spiral Dots (my current go-to)?

I haven't tried them, but the size of the opening looks very restrictive and will likely exacerbate the sibilance like with the Fiio vocal tips (which it bares a striking resemblance to). Therefore, I wouldn't count on these sounding as good as the Spiral dots.

I think as far as pure silicone tips go, it's hard to beat the Spiral dots due to its huge opening which aides in balancing the tone of the FH7.

 

[gLer]

I haven't tried them, but the size of the opening looks very restrictive and will likely exacerbate the sibilance like with the Fiio vocal tips (which it bares a striking resemblance to). Therefore, I wouldn't count on these sounding as good as the Spiral dots.

I think as far as pure silicone tips go, it's hard to beat the Spiral dots due to its huge opening which aides in balancing the tone of the FH7.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm always confused about the relationship between opening size and bass/treble. Some say the wider the opening the brighter the sound (hence why Spiral Dots have the reputation of being 'bright' with some IEMs), while others say the smaller the opening the bigger the bass. I may just pick up some E tips and give them a try anyway, and report my findings here.

 

[Jujoe]

hence why Spiral Dots have the reputation of being 'bright' with some IEMs

Hope this is not the case with the FH7 as my spiral dots and beastly copper cable have just shipped I cant wait

 

[gLer]

Hope this is not the case with the FH7 as my spiral dots and beastly copper cable have just shipped I cant wait

Definitely not, Spiral Dots are my favourite tips with the FH7! Just curious about the E tips, that's all.

 

[Jujoe]

Definitely not, Spiral Dots are my favourite tips with the FH7! Just curious about the E tips, that's all.

 

[mkygod]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm always confused about the relationship between opening size and bass/treble. Some say the wider the opening the brighter the sound (hence why Spiral Dots have the reputation of being 'bright' with some IEMs), while others say the smaller the opening the bigger the bass. I may just pick up some E tips and give them a try anyway, and report my findings here.

You can experiment by just trying out the tips that Fiio included. I find the vocal tips and spinfits the worst sounding ones in the bunch as they make the FH7 sound too bright. They also happen to have the smallest openings. The bass tips sound best out of the silicone tips and they have the widest opening. I'm sure there's more too it than he size of the opening, but these are my impressions that helped form my conclusion. I should also note that the Spiral dots also has an extremely shallow opening in addition to having a very wide opening which im sure plays a part in why they sound so good relative to other silicone tips.