StivVid
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Posts
- 135
- Likes
- 188
Not trying to start a fight here. I literally just wanted to know what you thought was contradictory in this review and why you think scientific evidence was needed to support a subjective review. You think this reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about and I wanted to know why. Thanks for clarifying.what bite? Read carefully and critically and you'll discover confuse statements like:
- the opposite of the opposite "bla bla ...I just felt like at 350Ω, the FT3 would perform much better with less power than it requires. You might think this is a negative, but I consider it a positive. It essentially is me saying the FT3 scales massively in a good way." and "These headphones do not change with warm-sounding amplifiers and DACs, it is very stubborn. I cannot easily change the tonality offerings of this model, which are sterile and monitor-like in tonality. Warm amps don’t alter the sterile sound signature" What??
- and "The FT3 has a studio-monitor headphone sterility to it, ...However, it is not snappy, impactful, icy, or annoyingly thin feeling (when properly powered)"
- "Imagine if the HD800 (if you have heard it before) were thick feeling and had a great low-end rumble and heft to it, as well as the treble reduced in quantity but improved in overall weight factor." trad: imagine a 5 time costing hp and change everything... What? who needs this comparison?
- "I am rocking upward of a +10dB and the headphones are almost mystically staying in excellent control. FiiO, those drivers are crazy responsive to alterations, in the best way possible" whyyyyyy?
- and the surprise "Weight factor and heft once again alter with more voltage" ... but never mind: you can eq... everybody here is saying that bass is well above neutrality... but the guy adds power and 10 db, devouring all the spectrum in a wormhole of bass...
- MIDS: "1- The FT3 is not overly forward, it certainly looms a step or two pushed back and is quite relaxing in placement. 2 - But this is odd, in a good way. 3 - (comparisons with +1000 costing hp) and (LOL) "This FT3 isn’t quite “relaxed” though, it is right between forward and middle ground, so I am not sure if I could call it still as overly forward" and "The Vocals are moderately weighty, but (!) the tone of the FT3 is sterile and clinical"
-HIGHS: "The FT3 treble can get a little tizzy at times and struggles with fast-paced music tracks." and "the top side sheen is lovely and enjoyable. Gently bright, my favorite type of treble" please decide, man...
then he continues with a comparison against an electrostatic system and a discontinued horrible pair of headphone (X2) not worth the 90 $ it costs, a comparison with the hd6xx (but the timbre is not mentioned), and the worst Hifiman planar of all times. A comparison with the real benchmark (the Sundara)? No way. with the R70X? no way. It was too useful... instead we have a bunch of nonsense statements and a malicious mind could ask why... but I'm ingenuous like a child and and I wanna leave the speculation to others...
C'mon bite. the Headphone Show and their no-nonsense reviews will remain my benchmark.
Oh, excuse me. A good subjective review would not need any scientific evidence, but this...
I think he was trying to describe some nuances in the FT3's behavior and to express that this headphone surprised him--in mostly a good way.
As far as the bite thing goes... It's a fishing analogy. It seemed like you might have been fishing for someone to challenge your assertions. None of the other fish around here were biting, so I said I would. Lost in translation, I guess. It was just an expression.
Judging by the way you unloaded on me, I think you're glad I bit.
Anyway... We all hear things differently.