Final Audio Design Impressions and Discussion Thread
Jul 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM Post #106 of 10,662

Swimsonny

Aka: thegardener & ScooterBilly
Undeclared Member of the Trade: Inearspace
writing positive reviews of products he was reselling.
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Posts
4,110
Likes
105
Not even kidding but if you have or can pick up a cheap iPod Nano and pair it with a hippo cricri it is bliss and super portable, use it way more than my Cowon J3 now. The iPod i use is a Nano 4G. Oh and isn't the soundstage great on these FADs :wink:
 
Jul 26, 2012 at 11:37 AM Post #107 of 10,662

piccolochimico

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Posts
20
Likes
11
Quote:
Try emailing Musica Acoustics or Jaben, both might have it in stock.

Just bought the Heaven C from Musica Acoustics.
 
I'm looking forward receiving my new toy 
ksc75smile.gif

 
Jul 27, 2012 at 1:39 AM Post #110 of 10,662

tomscy2000

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Posts
5,905
Likes
2,222
Location
On Hiatus
For all the FAD owners with the stainless steel, rose copper, brass, etc. models --- I'm considering getting some high quality carnauba wax and putting on a few layers of it to hide scuffs and to protect it it the future. I'm only concerned that doing so will affect the resonant properties of the shell. What do y'all think?
 
Jul 28, 2012 at 2:15 AM Post #112 of 10,662

piccolochimico

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Posts
20
Likes
11
Quote:
For all the FAD owners with the stainless steel, rose copper, brass, etc. models --- I'm considering getting some high quality carnauba wax and putting on a few layers of it to hide scuffs and to protect it it the future. I'm only concerned that doing so will affect the resonant properties of the shell. What do y'all think?

 
I think the wax is not the best choice because it can melt and for a vented shell might be a trouble: try to wonder if the wax gets inside!
I don't think the wax's layer (which is outside the shell) may affect the sound because it does not change the structure of the metal used.
 
Of course your thought is right, so may i suggest the use of the parafilm?
There's no need of glue, it can be removed easily and it does not leave any trace
 
Jul 28, 2012 at 5:28 AM Post #113 of 10,662

firoze

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Posts
213
Likes
11
Hello,
 
I've come back to this Forum after many months (been very busy with work) and was pleasantly surprised to see this thread!
 
Some of you, like James444, will know of my passion for FAD. For those who are not familiar, I have owned the 1601SB for two years, and the BA-SS for the past one year. I enjoy them both immensely, especially the BA-SS - for me it's the perfect IEM, so satisfying that I have not been tempted to even think of any other.
 
Having read thru this entire thread, just one point I'd like to make is that I agree with James - I did not find that much difference between the 1601SB and SS - the SS was slightly more refined, the SB, in my opinion at least, had better bass. I listened the 1601SC too - that one was highly refined but for my taste, slightly light weight in the bass. That's just my opinion, others would perceive the differences differently I guess...
 
James, I look forward to your impressions of the 1602!
 
Jul 28, 2012 at 6:54 AM Post #114 of 10,662

tomscy2000

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Posts
5,905
Likes
2,222
Location
On Hiatus
Quote:
 
I think the wax is not the best choice because it can melt and for a vented shell might be a trouble: try to wonder if the wax gets inside!
I don't think the wax's layer (which is outside the shell) may affect the sound because it does not change the structure of the metal used.
 
Of course your thought is right, so may i suggest the use of the parafilm?
There's no need of glue, it can be removed easily and it does not leave any trace

 
This is car wax, though. It doesn't melt all over cars... I'm gonna make sure it doesn't get throgh the vents.... just the body.
 
Jul 28, 2012 at 9:14 AM Post #115 of 10,662

cooperpwc

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Posts
6,805
Likes
537
Quote:
This is car wax, though. It doesn't melt all over cars... I'm gonna make sure it doesn't get throgh the vents.... just the body.

 
In all sincerity, I think that this is a bad idea. It won't prevent scratches. It might clog those tiny vents. My advice is don't go there.
 
I could be wrong. Good luck if you decide to do it. Please keep us informed.
 
But don't do it.  :wink:
 
Jul 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM Post #116 of 10,662

piccolochimico

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Posts
20
Likes
11
Can someone explain me why some IEM's manufacturers use a metal's body?
If i think to the hi-fi or studio monitors the case is in wood, so why this choice?
The metal is definitely more reflective than wood and it does not absorb the sound....  
popcorn.gif

 
Jul 28, 2012 at 12:55 PM Post #117 of 10,662

MuppetFace

A Special Snowflake
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Posts
8,092
Likes
1,198
Quote:
Can someone explain me why some IEM's manufacturers use a metal's body?
If i think to the hi-fi or studio monitors the case is in wood, so why this choice?
The metal is definitely more reflective than wood and it does not absorb the sound....  
popcorn.gif

 
 
I'm sure others could explain it better, but in the most basic sense it comes down to the fact that certain materials resonate and reflect sound waves differently than others. When designing headphones or earphones, ideally you'd want to minimize these resonances and reflections as much as possible so that you're just hearing the drivers rather than the chambers that house them. To that end, some types of metal---though not all---and plastics are more inert than wood. If you think about musical instruments that are designed to resonate, they are made with very specific materials like woods and certain metals because those materials impart the desired timbrel qualities to the sound.
 
So why would some manufacturers use woods and less inert metals? Similar to their use in instruments, some people like the coloration they give headphones and earphones, so in that sense the "interference" of the wooden or metal chambers is desired because it flavors the sound, imparting a specific quality to it.
 
Jul 29, 2012 at 3:47 AM Post #119 of 10,662

james444

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Posts
7,062
Likes
2,263
Quote:
Hello,
 
I've come back to this Forum after many months (been very busy with work) and was pleasantly surprised to see this thread!
 
Some of you, like James444, will know of my passion for FAD. For those who are not familiar, I have owned the 1601SB for two years, and the BA-SS for the past one year. I enjoy them both immensely, especially the BA-SS - for me it's the perfect IEM, so satisfying that I have not been tempted to even think of any other.
 
Having read thru this entire thread, just one point I'd like to make is that I agree with James - I did not find that much difference between the 1601SB and SS - the SS was slightly more refined, the SB, in my opinion at least, had better bass. I listened the 1601SC too - that one was highly refined but for my taste, slightly light weight in the bass. That's just my opinion, others would perceive the differences differently I guess...
 
James, I look forward to your impressions of the 1602!

 
Hello and welcome back firoze!
smile_phones.gif

 
So I've been going back and forth between the 1601s and 1602s for some time and find myself constantly struggling for words to describe their differences adequately and at the same time do these very special phones justice. Yes, I could be talking about how FAD not only brazenly ignored to address the 1601s' weaknesses and went ahead to make the 1602s sound even more off-beat. I could rant about how the 1601s at least had a massive soundstage to accompany their shamelessly mid-centric presentation and how the 1602s even deprive you of this and at times make you feel like Nipper, poking your snout into one of those old horn-speaker's openings. I could go on about strange echoes and resonances from their metal housings and how I could EQ the 1601s to a pretty decent "normal" sound signature, but would fail miserably at doing the same with the 1602s, 'cause they just seem to throw an all-enveloping veil of nostalgia over everything I listen to. I could... but that would mean to completely miss the point.
 
The truth is, much like MuppetFace and music_4321 have said, that you have to accept these Final Audios for what they are, not fight them. If you don't feel comfortable with spending that much money for something so idiosyncratic, then please do yourself a favor and stay away from their 160x models.
 
So, since I'm obviously at a loss for words, why not let pictures do the talking?
 
Here's how a real street scene might look like - and any accurate, true-to-the-source type of phone would render it just like that:
 

 
Here's how the 1601 would render the same scene, the very highs and lows shifted towards a colorful, glowing midrange:
 

 
And finally, the 1602s: that strange midrange glow's still there and probably even more intense, but everything's tinted in sepia, like an old movie or photograph:
 


Disclaimer: of course, none of this is to be taken literally and in reality the 1601s and 1602s sound much closer to each other than the pictures would suggest.
In fact, this is not so much an attempt to visualize sound signatures as an illustration of how I'd envision these pictures while listening to said phones.
 
Am I still making sense to you? I fear not. But then again, take a closer look at the pics...
wink.gif

 
Jul 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM Post #120 of 10,662

music_4321

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Posts
5,120
Likes
339
^  I think I'll have three glasses of pink champagne & orange juice for breakfast and re-read you post again.  :wink:

A very interesting & creative post. And an admirable attempt at conveying some of the sonic characteristics of the 160Xs
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top