music_4321
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Posts
- 5,120
- Likes
- 340
Piano Forte IX (aka 1602SS) vs 1601SS (photos posted below)
Having found a sort of music soulmate in the form of the Piano Forte IX (aka 1602SS) --I've never heard a phone that, in my view, taps into Music the way the IX does-- I decided to get the 1601SS, an IEM I obviously wanted to hear ever since I got the IXs.
Got the 1601SS over two weeks ago, but they were missing the all-important thick metal tips, which I believe are the tips FAD sees as the true sonic statement for the 1601XX series. Got the missing tips a few days ago, so I'm now able to comment on both phones.
Please note this is NOT a review -- I have serious issues with so-called reviews because I find very, VERY few of them to be genuinely so. There's a lot I could say on the subject but that's not the intention of this post.
General comments:
--- The IX is a little more sensitive than the 1601SS, ie at same volume levels the IX gets a bit louder on my 4G iPod Touch. None of these IEMs need an amp, at least as far as needing some juice to drive them.
--- Cables both above and below the Y-split on the 1601 are thicker. The 1601's cable is 1.2m long whereas the IX's cable is 20cm longer (1.4m). The 1601 strain relief at the jack is stronger and of better quality than that on the IX. I prefer the L-angled plug on the IX than the straight one on the 1601. Originally (the first few days), I thought overall I preferred the 1601 cable, but after about a week I realised I didn't -- I personally prefer the longer IX cable which also offers more flexibility. The IX cable has kept its shape 100% from day one, whereas the 1601 cable hasn't, but it's nothing serious, really. HOWEVER, the lack of strain reliefs at the housings on the IX may be a little worrisome -- I never pull at the cables to take the IEMs out of my ears, I always grab the earpieces instead; the strain reliefs at the housings on the 1601 are not perfect, but certainly inspire more confidence.
--- I can wear the IX both with the cable down or over the ear (I prefer the cable-down fit, though sonically I notice no SQ differences). With the 1601s I can only wear them over the ears, which makes the already shorter cable even shorter, but still adequate (I'm 6' 2" tall [1.88 m]). On the whole, I find the IX slightly more comfortable.
--- The opening (diameter) of the bores on the IX is larger. One nice thing about the screw-on tips on the 1601s is that, should earwax accumulate in or around the inside of the tips, it's much easier to clean, just unscrew and carefully remove earwax. With the IX's permanent tips, a wax removal tool (not provided by FAD) is necessary, and removing earwax has to be done carefully so that the IX filters are not damaged.
The ever so tricky subject of SQ, particularly when it comes to describing the sonic qualities of the 160Xs:
The PF IX is one IEM I've had plenty of difficulty trying to describe, and I did describe them to some extent elsewhere -- though rather poorly, I might add. Some of those impressions, at the end of the day, seemed fairly subjective & personal, and my guess is they wouldn't / didn't really help anybody get a closer sense of the IXs. So, I'll keep it brief-ish because these impressions will also be, er…rather poor:
If the 1601 is decidedly mid-centric, the IX is even more so. If FAD were unapologetic about the 1601SS, they are even more so with the IX. Not only do they not provide different tips to tailor the sound --the 1601 tips really offer different flavours-- the IX (or PF Series) refuses to 'to be nice', or 'accommodate' different SQ preferences; you can EQ them, yes, but if not, it's a statement along the lines of "This is it: love it or hate it, no in-betweens". The IXs have a slightly more dense (to use FAD's own words) sound to them, a type of sound I'm sure more HF'ers would not fully appreciate or enjoy. In that sense the 1601 is a little less idiosyncratic or 'drastic', and I suppose it can be said that it is more 'correct' (or less 'flawed' even). I think the IX is even more of an acquired taste than the 1601 already is, and SQ-wise I'd recommend the (now discontinued) 1601 over the PF IX --- I personally prefer the PF IX by a small margin, possibly because I am someone who craves a solid, well-defined mid-range, if one could put it like that.
The 1601 seems to have a more correct / faithful rendering of higher freqs, though I'd personally take the higher mids / lower treble of the IXs which make the midrange, to these ears, more appealing even.
There may be ever so slightly better bass definition (not extension) on the 1601, but I find a little more authority in the IX's bass, and I find the way all freqs blend on the IXs a tad more musical, just a little more wholesome perhaps --what I consider truly musical / wholesome, of course --, this is rather subtle and obviously a matter of preference.
There seems to be a slightly wider sense of space in the 1601 presentation, but I find the IXs to have a kind of binaural presentation quality to them, more what I tend to describe as excellent mono when, in fact, most music I throw at the IXs is in stereo (this is also related to what I have described elsewhere as "open-closeness or close-openness" -- this really is hard for me to describe).
As a side note, the FI-BA-SS is an entirely different beast, and one that is definitely more correct from a FR graph standpoint than the 160Xs, yet the FI-BA-SS, as revealing and sometimes unashamedly raw as it is, remains a wonderfully musical phone with a surprisingly excellent sense of space for a BA phone, and a single BA at that.
I liken the FI-BA-SS to a small child: pure, innocent, with the right instincts, very true, and even wonderfully naive. I liken 1601 --and specially the PF IX-- to a cheeky yet brilliant young adult who happens to be a kind of genius, if still somewhat immature; a young genius who's not afraid to speak up and be daring, bold. BUT, unlike ordinary young adults, this one can prove that what he / she comes up with can actually be taken seriously --very seriously even-- at least by those who will be able to go past the young adult's outward behaviour and attitude, and those who won't feel threatened by what he / she has to say.
----------------------------------
1601SS
1602SS / PF IX
Left: 1601SS; Right: 1602SS / PF IX
Top: 1601SS; Bottom: 1602SS / PF IX
Top: 1602SS / PF IX; Bottom: 1601SS
1601SS Ear-tips
Below: 1602SS / PF IX Carrying case (** see post #16 for a photo of the 1601SS case**)
Having found a sort of music soulmate in the form of the Piano Forte IX (aka 1602SS) --I've never heard a phone that, in my view, taps into Music the way the IX does-- I decided to get the 1601SS, an IEM I obviously wanted to hear ever since I got the IXs.
Got the 1601SS over two weeks ago, but they were missing the all-important thick metal tips, which I believe are the tips FAD sees as the true sonic statement for the 1601XX series. Got the missing tips a few days ago, so I'm now able to comment on both phones.
Please note this is NOT a review -- I have serious issues with so-called reviews because I find very, VERY few of them to be genuinely so. There's a lot I could say on the subject but that's not the intention of this post.
General comments:
--- The IX is a little more sensitive than the 1601SS, ie at same volume levels the IX gets a bit louder on my 4G iPod Touch. None of these IEMs need an amp, at least as far as needing some juice to drive them.
--- Cables both above and below the Y-split on the 1601 are thicker. The 1601's cable is 1.2m long whereas the IX's cable is 20cm longer (1.4m). The 1601 strain relief at the jack is stronger and of better quality than that on the IX. I prefer the L-angled plug on the IX than the straight one on the 1601. Originally (the first few days), I thought overall I preferred the 1601 cable, but after about a week I realised I didn't -- I personally prefer the longer IX cable which also offers more flexibility. The IX cable has kept its shape 100% from day one, whereas the 1601 cable hasn't, but it's nothing serious, really. HOWEVER, the lack of strain reliefs at the housings on the IX may be a little worrisome -- I never pull at the cables to take the IEMs out of my ears, I always grab the earpieces instead; the strain reliefs at the housings on the 1601 are not perfect, but certainly inspire more confidence.
--- I can wear the IX both with the cable down or over the ear (I prefer the cable-down fit, though sonically I notice no SQ differences). With the 1601s I can only wear them over the ears, which makes the already shorter cable even shorter, but still adequate (I'm 6' 2" tall [1.88 m]). On the whole, I find the IX slightly more comfortable.
--- The opening (diameter) of the bores on the IX is larger. One nice thing about the screw-on tips on the 1601s is that, should earwax accumulate in or around the inside of the tips, it's much easier to clean, just unscrew and carefully remove earwax. With the IX's permanent tips, a wax removal tool (not provided by FAD) is necessary, and removing earwax has to be done carefully so that the IX filters are not damaged.
The ever so tricky subject of SQ, particularly when it comes to describing the sonic qualities of the 160Xs:
The PF IX is one IEM I've had plenty of difficulty trying to describe, and I did describe them to some extent elsewhere -- though rather poorly, I might add. Some of those impressions, at the end of the day, seemed fairly subjective & personal, and my guess is they wouldn't / didn't really help anybody get a closer sense of the IXs. So, I'll keep it brief-ish because these impressions will also be, er…rather poor:
If the 1601 is decidedly mid-centric, the IX is even more so. If FAD were unapologetic about the 1601SS, they are even more so with the IX. Not only do they not provide different tips to tailor the sound --the 1601 tips really offer different flavours-- the IX (or PF Series) refuses to 'to be nice', or 'accommodate' different SQ preferences; you can EQ them, yes, but if not, it's a statement along the lines of "This is it: love it or hate it, no in-betweens". The IXs have a slightly more dense (to use FAD's own words) sound to them, a type of sound I'm sure more HF'ers would not fully appreciate or enjoy. In that sense the 1601 is a little less idiosyncratic or 'drastic', and I suppose it can be said that it is more 'correct' (or less 'flawed' even). I think the IX is even more of an acquired taste than the 1601 already is, and SQ-wise I'd recommend the (now discontinued) 1601 over the PF IX --- I personally prefer the PF IX by a small margin, possibly because I am someone who craves a solid, well-defined mid-range, if one could put it like that.
The 1601 seems to have a more correct / faithful rendering of higher freqs, though I'd personally take the higher mids / lower treble of the IXs which make the midrange, to these ears, more appealing even.
There may be ever so slightly better bass definition (not extension) on the 1601, but I find a little more authority in the IX's bass, and I find the way all freqs blend on the IXs a tad more musical, just a little more wholesome perhaps --what I consider truly musical / wholesome, of course --, this is rather subtle and obviously a matter of preference.
There seems to be a slightly wider sense of space in the 1601 presentation, but I find the IXs to have a kind of binaural presentation quality to them, more what I tend to describe as excellent mono when, in fact, most music I throw at the IXs is in stereo (this is also related to what I have described elsewhere as "open-closeness or close-openness" -- this really is hard for me to describe).
As a side note, the FI-BA-SS is an entirely different beast, and one that is definitely more correct from a FR graph standpoint than the 160Xs, yet the FI-BA-SS, as revealing and sometimes unashamedly raw as it is, remains a wonderfully musical phone with a surprisingly excellent sense of space for a BA phone, and a single BA at that.
I liken the FI-BA-SS to a small child: pure, innocent, with the right instincts, very true, and even wonderfully naive. I liken 1601 --and specially the PF IX-- to a cheeky yet brilliant young adult who happens to be a kind of genius, if still somewhat immature; a young genius who's not afraid to speak up and be daring, bold. BUT, unlike ordinary young adults, this one can prove that what he / she comes up with can actually be taken seriously --very seriously even-- at least by those who will be able to go past the young adult's outward behaviour and attitude, and those who won't feel threatened by what he / she has to say.
----------------------------------
1601SS
1602SS / PF IX
Left: 1601SS; Right: 1602SS / PF IX
Top: 1601SS; Bottom: 1602SS / PF IX
Top: 1602SS / PF IX; Bottom: 1601SS
1601SS Ear-tips
Below: 1602SS / PF IX Carrying case (** see post #16 for a photo of the 1601SS case**)
