[rhythmdevils]

The FR and decay patterns look so similar, it makes me think they just took a DT990 driver and thew a bigger magnet on the back.  And the driver can't handle the increase in Tesla whatever the **** so it's breaking up.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

The FR and decay patterns look so similar, it makes me think they just took a DT990 driver and thew a bigger magnet on the back.  And the driver can't handle the increase in Tesla whatever the **** so it's breaking up.

 
Don't forget the untreated housings.  Gotta keep the costs down on those $1,000 dollar headphones you know.  

 

[rhythmdevils]

Yeah that's a good point, especially considering the incredible cost of rare, exotic materials like wool, fiberglass and foam.   

 
They'd have to raise the price to 1000 dollars and 4 cents, and you know the market wouldn't bare it. 

 

[TMRaven]

Which two decay graphs are you guys comparing?  The open DT990 to the closed back T70p?

 

[rhythmdevils]

yeppers.  closed back =/= more resonances.  The T50rp (with a well designed cup ie modded) is one of the cleanest headphones ever, and it's got the ortho backwave to deal with which I think must be more challenging than designing an acoustically ideal cup for an electrodynamic.  In other words, orthos are more sensitive to what is behind them than electrodynamics. 

 

[TMRaven]

Haha.  Right.  I was surprised at just how much my he-400's sound changed when putting my hands over their cups. 

 

[xnor]

The particular highlight of Tesla technology is the design as a full metal system. It prevents any uncontrolled resonation by parts of the casing leading to distortion of the sound. Apart from that, the metal shields the construction from electrical disturbance fields. In a Tesla headphone, the only thing that causes the membrane to emit sound is the musical signal itself.

 

[TMRaven]

Looks like they're no hd800 in that regard.

 

[purrin]

AudioCats was generous enough to send me his HE Audio Jades for measurement, so I figure I would post CSD plots. Per my usual practice, I will begin with subjective impressions (on my own rig).
 
 
BTW, just in case you didn't know, these are electrostatic headphones.
 
I've heard these before at an earlier meet and liked them somewhat. These remind me of the HD800s, especially in the treble. The HD800s have always been hard to describe for me. HD800s have kind of have a split personality. Sometimes the HD800s can sound lush or laid back, but other times they can sound brittle and bright. The bass on the HE Audio Jades extends down slightly lower than the HD800s. Impact wise, the Jades hit as hard HD800s properly powered. By no means is the Jade bass lite, unless you are a basshead.
 
The HE Audio Jades have less of the HD800's split personality. The Jades are more consistent sounding across different recordings. The FR sounds flatter, but with the same upward tip and brittle hardness of the HD800 (can you say 6k peak?) Like the HD800s, they have a bit of energy from 6k onward. Although it doesn't sound like there any serious ringing issues, it does seem hot around 8k, or 7k or 9k? Maybe some mods can correct this? I have some ideas already and will experiment (will discussed be in an upcoming post.)
 
BTW, these headphones look extremely DIY. And we are not talking about good quality DIY, but more like "I sorta don't give a crap because I'm not an anally retentive person and probably shouldn't be doing DIY in the first place."
 
Finally, the Jades do extract low level information extremely well. Better than the 007mk2.5 I have on hand. YMMV.
 
These are CSD graphs. Please note ranges.
 

 

 
CSDs show some moderately broad ridge structure between 5 and 9kHz. Somewhat similar to the HD800 CSD. Maybe that's why these remind me of the HD800s so much. It turns out that those notches are really small resonances in disguise. It's definitely hot around 12-13k too, which contributes to the treble graininess - again similar to the HD800.
 
I like what the Jades do, but I have am having a hard time with the brightness in the lower treble. To be continued...

 

[kiteki]

The FR and decay patterns look so similar, it makes me think they just took a DT990 driver and thew a bigger magnet on the back.  And the driver can't handle the increase in Tesla whatever the **** so it's breaking up.

 
The FR and decay patterns look so similar on the JVC FX500 and FX700 too, do you think they use the exact same driver and there is little reason to invest in the FX700?
 

Spoiler: JVC%20data

[size=x-small]Victor HA-FX700　簡単俺感想。

【外観写真】左：HP-FX500、　右：HA-FX700

自分が想像していたよりもサイズは大きくなっておらず一安心。
イヤチップも互換性あり。


木のハウジングの響きをのせるようにしている印象で、それっぽい音（どんなだ）と感じました。
全体の傾向はHP-FX500と類似点多し。


【グラフ１】周波数特性：HA-FX700 vs. HP-FX500 (stimuli=LogChirp 64kLength)

それなりにFX500と似ており、ドンシャリ傾向。
低音はむしろFX500の方が重低音寄りで、FX700はFs周波数が少し高く100Hz超で中低域が少し厚い感じ。少しぼやけた低音という印象あり。
高域はFX700の方が僅かにピーキーな様子あり。歯擦音などは若干キツさがある印象。すみません歯擦音のキツさはさほどでもなくフツー程度でした。[/size]



【グラフ2】CSD：HA-FX700 vs HP-FX500

HA-FX700　（上：2.5ｍｓレンジ、下24.6msレンジ）

HP-FX500　（上：2.5ｍｓレンジ、下24.6msレンジ）

 

 
 
 

The particular highlight of Tesla technology is the design as a full metal system. It prevents any uncontrolled resonation by parts of the casing leading to distortion of the sound. Apart from that, the metal shields the construction from electrical disturbance fields. In a Tesla headphone, the only thing that causes the membrane to emit sound is the musical signal itself.

 
That's interesting, I heard the Tesla T70p yesterday and to be honest it's the most accurate headphone to the recording, voice and instruments I've heard under $500.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

The FR and decay patterns look so similar on the JVC FX500 and FX700 too, do you think they use the exact same driver and there is little reason to invest in the FX700?

 
They both look painful to me.

 

[3rdear]

As much as I enjoyed the FX700 when I had them, it had some serious flaws, but I gave it allowances due to their IEM structure.

 

[kiteki]

As much as I enjoyed the FX700 when I had them, it had some serious flaws, but I gave it allowances due to their IEM structure.

 
It looks identical to the FX500 though I'm pretty sure the only differences are the shape and marketing right?

 

[ZeNmAc]

That's interesting theres a CSD that goes to 25ms in order to see midbass decay.  Is that feasible to measure?
 

 

[3rdear]

Quote:

 
It looks identical to the FX500 though I'm pretty sure the only differences are the shape and marketing right?

It's hard for me to say without actually hearing the FX500, but there should be some improvement in the FX700.  The mids in the 700s were brought up better but were still problematic and slightly recessed sounding in relation to the bass/mids.  Plus vocals were off.  But yeah, they pretty much share near identical tonality; I bet the 700 is a more refined 500, and thus more similar than different.