Final Audio Design Impressions and Discussion Thread
Jul 22, 2012 at 9:04 PM Post #76 of 11,641
The 1601s are interesting. This is a good comparison shot that I found of the 1601SB and 1602SB.
 
 

 
 
James, it seems that 1601SB has some kind of anodization on the brass? It is quite a different look from the 1602.
 
Jul 23, 2012 at 4:06 AM Post #77 of 11,641
Quote:
I wish I could justify buying in-ears that don't isolate :/  Was there going to be a tour of these at some point?  I'd love to hear a pair, though. 

Well, with the limitation on earbud that everyone is mentioning, FAD embrace the idea further and venture into a range that nobody dare to try it.
It is outrageous to be frank, An earbud that cost more 2000USD which is more expensive then a sophisticated CIEM, or a full size new innovation of HD800 or LCD3.

It is a luxury product, with the design, sound tuning and idea behind, it creates a brand new perception and view over to an old, fade off product type in the market.

How is the sound presentation?
unique + shock is what i can type in here.   
 
Jul 23, 2012 at 4:39 AM Post #78 of 11,641
Quote:
 
 
James, it seems that 1601SB has some kind of anodization on the brass? It is quite a different look from the 1602.

 
I believe the coating over the brass on the 1601SB is rhodium. The coating on the brass of the 1602SB is gold-plating.
 
Jul 23, 2012 at 5:54 AM Post #79 of 11,641
Quote:
I believe the coating over the brass on the 1601SB is rhodium. The coating on the bass of the 1602SB is gold-plating.

 
Thanks on the rhodium. (I had to look it up: a chemical element that is a rare, silvery-white, hard, and chemically inert transition metal and a member of the platinum group.)
 
However, I do not believe that the 1602SB is gold plated. The original plan was for four high-end Piano Forte IEMs, with both an X-CC and a gold plated X-G. (This is the relevant FAD archive page.) By this plan, the SB was also going to be gold plated. It seems that they dropped the gold plating altogether. The X-G was never released and the SB is now just described as having a brass housing.
 
It looks like brass in the pictures.
 
Jul 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM Post #80 of 11,641
Thanks on the rhodium. (I had to look it up: a chemical element that is a rare, silvery-white, hard, and chemically inert transition metal
 and a member of the platinum group
.)


However, I do not believe that the 1602SB is gold plated. The original plan was for four high-end Piano Forte IEMs, with both an X-CC and a gold plated X-G. (This is the relevant FAD archive page.) By this plan, the SB was also going to be gold plated. It seems that they dropped the gold plating altogether. The X-G was never released and the SB is now just described as having a brass housing.

It looks like brass in the pictures.


Okay, I was only going by FAD's old information on the 1602SB. The gold 1602SC however was in fact released, though they've since stopped production. However when I was buying mine, the supplier originally got me the gold version, and I asked to exchange it because I like the ionized copper finish more.
 
Jul 23, 2012 at 6:26 AM Post #81 of 11,641
Interesting on the SC-G as I never encountered a picture of them in the outside world. I am with you completely on your choice. The SC-C is gorgeous. Why would you plate it with gold?
 
Jul 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM Post #84 of 11,641
Quote:
 
I can confirm that the 1602SB are brass without coating.
 
Of course it's a matter of personal taste, but I actually prefer the matte finish on both SB models over the shiny 1601SS.
 
Didn't know about the rhodium either, so thanks @MuppetFace.

 
That may be so, and I'd probably agree with you there, but at least we can safely --and objectively-- say that sonically the 160XSS models wipe the floor with the 160XSB models, that the sonic differences are way beyond night & day.  :wink:
 
Jul 23, 2012 at 9:34 AM Post #85 of 11,641
Quote:
at least we can safely --and objectively-- say that sonically the 160XSS models wipe the floor with the 160XSB models, that the sonic differences are way beyond night & day.  :wink:

 
Of course, music, but only if you insert them to the 2nd bend.
tongue.gif

 
Jul 23, 2012 at 10:01 AM Post #86 of 11,641
^  Hey, now I'm seriously confused -- already someone here called the 160Xs "earbuds", and I take it that's the most 'accurate' description for these phones. How can you have an earbud reach the 2nd bend of the ear?! Some in-ears with certain tips maybe, but earbuds? Buds? Are you saying I've been trashing Apple earbuds all these years on every forum under the sun because I simply never got a 2nd bend fit with them? I'm starting to feel really embarrassed.
 
Jul 23, 2012 at 6:54 PM Post #87 of 11,641
2nd bend fit is not needed much if the transducer is of low acoustic impedance, most dynamic are this way. 
 
Keep it mature. 
 
Jul 24, 2012 at 12:25 AM Post #88 of 11,641
^ I was just joking. There's no way you can fit these giant 160x housings anywhere as deeply. To the contrary, they need a shallow fit and ample airflow, since any kind of seal will make them sound noticeably muffled.
 
Speaking of which, I think that FAD's promo pics for the 1602 must have been photoshopped. I have large ears and wide canals (even by male standards) and the housings still stick out a bit more than from this delicate asian model's ears.
 

 
Jul 24, 2012 at 12:39 AM Post #89 of 11,641
Quote:
Speaking of which, I think that FAD's promo pics for the 1602 must have been photoshopped. I have large ears and wide canals (even by male standards) and the housings still stick out a bit more than from this delicate asian model's ears.
 

 
Hah!
 
I remember thinking the same thing when I saw those pictures. I've stood in front of a mirror trying to get the 1602 to fit the same way, but it just wouldn't happen. 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top