FX66 Port Mod, Easiest mod you will ever need to do!

[Audelic Norm]

As a new member, I have not listened to every headphone out there, so I can’t say this sounds better than this or that. However, being new is an advantage sometimes. I can honestly listen to something and just say I like it a little better or worse or detect no change. I can do this even if I don’t know why it sounds better to me. The following mod to the JVC FX66 is like that. I just think it sounds better, even if I can’t sit here and describe all the sonic qualities with the lingo used in these forums. Still, I am willing to try, so please don't flame me too bad if I don't say things in the way you are use to.

I purchased the FX66’s from Circuit City a week ago for $36, but they can be found online for $30. After burning them in and using them stock for a few days, they seemed to be missing something in bass region. I guess this is what is called tight punchy bass, but it felt too thin. It also seemed like I could not get a good seal in my ear no matter what kind of tip I used. After reading the instructions I read this curious statement.

"Even though your headphones are of the open air type designed to let you hear outside sounds, don’t turn the volume so high you can’t hear what’s around you.”

Now this did not make sense. These were supposed to be sound isolating inner earphones, right? Well, when no music was playing it was easy to hear people talking around me. While riding the bus the loud roar of the engine came through and interfered with the music. To compensate, I did just what the instruction advised not to do…I turned up the volume.

Later at home I took a close look at the earphones. It was then that I found a very small oval port in the body. It is easy to overlook since the black hole is in the black body of the unit. Inspired by reading all the previous mods I read about in these forums, I decided to try to cover the port and see what would happen (i.e. Kramer “buy low mod high”). I cut off a small piece of clear office tape and pressed it over the port. I popped the earphones back in and BOOM, the bass that came out was really strong, thick.

The FX66 now had much greater isolation, but the bass was now so strong it masked over parts the music and some detail was lost, not as crisp. Again getting inspiration, I took a needle and popped a tiny pin hole in the middle of the tape covering the port hole. I put them back in my ears and wow, I got my cake and could eat it too. The bass was no longer thin, but still good and punchy, and the detail came back. The isolation was still really good, but I could also easily hear someone talk to me and not yell back at them because I could still hear how loud I was talking. It was a great feeling, finding out this simple mod that made such a good inprovement in the sound.

Here is a short video I made to show you how to make the mod. It is a head-fi exclusive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbuSYk4FNXE

After trying a few things here is what I found. Completely covering the small oval port holes with tiny piece of clear office tape turns the FX66 into super bass mode. It feels like there is a subwoofer in my ear. There is only really room to put one or two needle holes in the tape as the oval port hole is so small. With a very sharp needle you can size the first hole very small or bigger. With space for two needle holes the FX66 effectivelly has 8 settings for the amount of bass you want to have with them.

Closed, 1S, 1M, 1L, 2S, 2M, 2L, Open (S M L being the size of the needle hole)

This mod is so easy you can change the FX66 to a different bass level in as little as 60 seconds. It helps to use scissors to cut small pieces of clear office tape to cover the holes. At work I used a thumb tack to make small holes in the tape. A safety pin works even better and is easier to carry. The mod is even easier to undo as you only have to scrape off the tape with your fingernail to return them to stock.

Thanks for all the inspiration, and for those who have the FX66, try the mod and tell us what you think!

 

[Sweet Spot]

hmm... I honestly can't imagine the FX66's needing more bass than they already have. IMO, the bass as it is tends to be a muddy mess in the mid range of it... If anything, it still needs way LESS bass, and smoother treble. Thank god I just got the iM616's for $40 since they ARE the answer.

FX66= Biggest waste I've spent on head gear. 33's are better.

 

[Audelic Norm]

Thanks for the comparison. Yeah, the iM616 is a $99.95 MSRP earphone based on Etymotic Research technology. I would certainly expect the iM616 to sound better. Getting it for that price is a really good deal too. At amazon.com the iM616 retails for $78.07 and the FX66 is now $19.56. Like I said in the beginning, I have not listened to all the earphones everyone else around here has, so I do not have the ability to compare. Previously, I used the FX33 marshmallows for several months now. I find the FX66 to be a significant improvement over the sound of the Marshmallows, especially port modded. They are much more comfortable too. I don't know, I spent $127 eating out for dinner with my family tonight. Over the next 24 hours that $127 worth of food will all go to waste and flushed down the drain. When you spend your money on something that is your passion in life, even if it goes to waste, it does not mean it was not for some honorable purpose.

Even if no one finds my mod worthwhile, or for that matter thinks the earphones I have are crap, they still sound great to me compared to what I have listened to before. As I move up the audio chain to better and better headphones, I certainly hope to get to experience that feeling you get when you first listen to that audio thingy that takes sound to the next higher level. In a way I am lucky I am so new into this. For those that have already moved up the audio chain it becomes harder and harder (more expensive) to ever get that feeling again. For now I have that feeling, even if it is with a earphone that a more experienced headphone user considered the biggest waste of their money. For the feeling I got it was worth every penny.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweet Spot /img/forum/go_quote.gif hmm... I honestly can't imagine the FX66's needing more bass than they already have. IMO, the bass as it is tends to be a muddy mess in the mid range of it... If anything, it still needs way LESS bass, and smoother treble. Thank god I just got the iM616's for $40 since they ARE the answer. FX66= Biggest waste I've spent on head gear. 33's are better.

I think you have defective FX66 or defective ears. I didn't feel like running out to my car for my Livewires or Denon AH-C700, and the FX66 were handy, so I popped them in an hour ago.

With EQ set for piano (fills the midrange suckout) and listening with a jazz album (Arild Andersen, The Triangle) they sound nice and NOTHING like you just described. It makes no sense to me what you are hearing.

I picked this tonight over my ER6i in my jacket pocket...

 

[Sweet Spot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you have defective FX66 or defective ears. I didn't feel like running out to my car for my Livewires or Denon AH-C700, and the FX66 were handy, so I popped them in an hour ago. With EQ set for piano (fills the midrange suckout) and listening with a jazz album (Arild Andersen, The Triangle) they sound nice and NOTHING like you just described. It makes no sense to me what you are hearing. I picked this tonight over my ER6i in my jacket pocket...

You just said that you were using eq set for piano, so how could what I said I'm hearing, make no sense if you consider that I was listening to them flat ? That's how I test all of my cans right off the bat. I figure that if they're not too bad flat, and only need minimal eq'ing then it's all the better. However, the 66's flat are chalk full of mid bass mush. Especially compared to the 616's. To me, the Marshmallows even sound slightly better (*modded).

And no. My ears are not defective, nor are the 66's. They just DO sound EXACTLY as I described. If you A/B with the 616's, you'd hear that. Do it flat. And what source are you using that gives you 'piano' eq ? I'm using my iRiver H120. The only thing I had to do with the 616's was bump the bass up a few notches, and it's still crystal clear with no mud or mush, unlike the 66's. They're dreadful in comparison. And considering I paid the same amount for both, guess which one is the huge loser ? Hell, if I knew that the 66's were going to sound the way they do, I wouldn't have bothered, believe me.

I would have been smitten using my Marshmallows for back-ups when needed.

@Norm, I can relate to what you're saying. To be honest though, I think you'd have been just as happy with the original Marshmallows. To me, they're a better deal. And anyway, you're right... there's no such thing as a total waste of money. It's for something we love. Even if something doesn't suit our taste's, we at least get to learn more about what it is that make our tastes up in the first place. Live and learn.

 

[kloan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweet Spot /img/forum/go_quote.gif And what source are you using that gives you 'piano' eq ?

iPod... worst EQ ever. Or, at least worst underpowered amp that can't properly play EQ'd music without distorting.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kloan /img/forum/go_quote.gif iPod... worst EQ ever. Or, at least worst underpowered amp that can't properly play EQ'd music without distorting.

Ah ok, so HPA was using his iPod. Perhaps the iRiver is more discerning. I see you have both 120 and 140 in your repertoire. Please try using one (flat) and give me impressions again HPA.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweet Spot /img/forum/go_quote.gif You just said that you were using eq set for piano, so how could what I said I'm hearing, make no sense if you consider that I was listening to them flat ? That's how I test all of my cans right off the bat. I figure that if they're not too bad flat, and only need minimal eq'ing then it's all the better. However, the 66's flat are chalk full of mid bass mush. Especially compared to the 616's. To me, the Marshmallows even sound slightly better (*modded). And no. My ears are not defective, nor are the 66's. They just DO sound EXACTLY as I described. If you A/B with the 616's, you'd hear that. Do it flat. And what source are you using that gives you 'piano' eq ? I'm using my iRiver H120. The only thing I had to do with the 616's was bump the bass up a few notches, and it's still crystal clear with no mud or mush, unlike the 66's. They're dreadful in comparison. And considering I paid the same amount for both, guess which one is the huge loser ? Hell, if I knew that the 66's were going to sound the way they do, I wouldn't have bothered, believe me. I would have been smitten using my Marshmallows for back-ups when needed. @Norm, I can relate to what you're saying. To be honest though, I think you'd have been just as happy with the original Marshmallows. To me, they're a better deal. And anyway, you're right... there's no such thing as a total waste of money. It's for something we love. Even if something doesn't suit our taste's, we at least get to learn more about what it is that make our tastes up in the first place. Live and learn.

The issues I have are your comparison of FX66 vs the FX33 marshmallow, but your comments are also towards comparing them more to the 616's (a very detailed balanced armature earphone). I don't know which to address first.

(1) MUDDY MUSHY whatever: To most of us, "muddy" or mushy means poor detail and control of the bass or mid-bass - are you defining it as something else? Is muddy to you "bass overshadows the mids" or something in that direction? Listening to the FX66 flat (or with EQ to boost mids) still does not make mine sound like you describe. I don't know where your mushy bass is coming from - these play a string bass deep and sharp, drums are quick, etc. I don't see how you could call this muddymushy whatever.

(2) EQ: I've "been there done that flat", and don't EQ before I get to know a headphone flat. All the FX66 needed was a bump in the midrange. All my ER6i needed was a bump in the bass. Piano EQ just bumps the mids to restore what is missing, it cannot un-muddy and earphone. Once EQ'd to similar frequency response, I never said they are as finely detailed and accurate as my ER6i, which need a bass boost amp if listening with an iPod (ipod bass boost is poo). But, the FX66 are not as fatiguing as the ER6i due to some mild remaining grainyness or harshness in the ER6i upper mids.

(3) VS FX33: If I recall correctly, I was the first to post my experience with the FX66 in the original marshmallow v2 thread. This thread is an offshoot of that thread which is located at:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=259458 - Someone posted asking how they sound, so I grabbed a set right away. I posted a few observations as I listened to them, and my final big complaint with them was some sucked out mids, but my FX66 always sounded clear and smooth. And, I only EQ'd them after I was done listening flat. The difference in midrange presence with piano EQ is now they are more forward than the original recessed sound, and still no mush anywhere. In comparison, the Senn CX300 were mushy to me, NO MATTER WHAT THE EQ settings. EQ settings don't change mush, just the frequency balance.

SUMMARY: I do like the original marshmallow that I have, I even like them better than the CX300 which I GAVE AWAY. But, my Air Cushion added some clarity to the veiled mids and highs of the FX33, while keeping a tight punchy bass. HENCE MY CONFUSION about what you are hearing that is so different from what I hear. Most people somewhat or mostly agree with something that I reviewed as fitting or matching their experience with the same item, but your experiences with these sound 180 degrees apart from your description. Regardless of EQ or not, which was more of a distraction from the main question - is there something wrong with your FX66, or did JVC put an upgraded earphone in my FX66 box by accident?

Listening to them with my H140 doesn't make them sound worse either.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Guess I'll have to get a lot more detailed about this, but I can't now as I have to get to work soon. (yeah, over night shift) But I'll be off tomorrow and will get on it right quick. I'm going to say one thing though regarding the bass. IMO there's still way too much of it, (and that can NOT be taken away either) and I don't find it to be as tight as you're asserting it is. I find it a bit sloppy.

And I don't think that adding a bit of mid range boost is going ot balance it out for me, but I'll see. I was comparing them with the ear canals which came with my Sony Ericsson W810i, and found the sound to be similar, but gave the Sony's the edge for being less muddled. Not that much less though...

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Maybe some of this is due to the program material we are listening to. I enjoy clean tight jazz trio, jazz vocal, jazz fusion, classical and new age recordings, with some alternative rock here and there. Nothing hot and heavy with blazing guitars and instruments fighting for attention.

I have a list of some of the playlist items that I listen to for testing here: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showpo...postcount=1665

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

...and I don't find it to be as tight as you're asserting it is...

I'm asserting that it's "tight enough". I'm not putting it on the level of any Shure above the E2c, or the Etymotics, but I don't expect it to be there at this price point. The ER6i and Altec 616 used to be in the $100+ price point, but now $40-67 brings a lot of value with these two phones for buyers savy enough to be buying online.

Now, if the FX66 were $100-$150 phones I'd be complaining about the shallow mids and over-emphasized bass, but there aren't that many phones in this lower price range (under $30-40) that are better, and only a few under $100 that are better. The ER6i and the Altec 616 apparently are among the few.

I like my PX100 and iGrado, but posting that they sound good doesn't mean they sound as good as my HD25-1 or HD600 that I like too

Someday I am going to have to try some d-JAYS and Mylarone X3, because they seem to be some of the competiton that the FX66 will be up against, but again those are in the $50-99 price point with good reviews.

The point of trying these FX66 were to try the low-end price range searching for gems. I think the FX66 stand out above many others in the budget category and they do a decent job in the bass, and with proper EQ in the mids they will allow me (and others) to enjoy the music without the sound getting in the way.

So, maybe you aren't saying they as bad as I think you were saying, and I'm not saying they are as good as you think I am saying. But at least we both agree they beat the E2c.

I think the majority of picky audiophiles like a wide variety of sound signatures, and we will have a favorite earphone or headphone for disappearing into the music - but the rest of the time is for deciding if they we tired of lobster and want steak, sushi or pizza instead.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Oh Snap!!

What volume level are you listening to these at? I cranked them up to test something, and even with a good amp they don't sound so great when great played fairly loud. I don't typically play my music loud, but when I cranked them up the bass does get muddy, but at levels I don't usually subject my ears to.