sfwalcer
Master Troll
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2012
- Posts
- 6,786
- Likes
- 314
C.ed & P.ed from Dsnuts' Discovery thread: On the JVC FX40/ 101s.
I know that these JVC FX40/ 101s are no longer as relevant now as before due to the new kid on the block, that super refined bang for the buck Sony MH1Cs and maybe the TDK MT-300s as well (shout out and love to all my Canadian bros for this major discovery!). But since I still have a lot of love for these cheapo JVCs, despite I was going to sell them off due to their harsh highs I was willing to give them a last chance.
I wanted to do a little experiment that involved our beloved hype-man himself, Dsnuts. Since we seem to all hear different, I have always wondered if our fearless leader's hearing abilities was really that amazing or was he just somewhat hearing impaired/ has crazy tolerance for harsh highs since he claims he detected zero harshness in his FX40/ 101s. Also like others, I was somewhat skeptical about his so called "burn-in" claims that can tame the wildest of these beasts, the FX40s with it's crazy harsh treble/ sibilance.
Basically I just wanted to hear his set of FX40/ 101s and compare it to mine, since he stated numerous times that he do not hear any harshness or sibilance due to his supposed flawless burn-in method. I was like "yeah right Ds" zero harshness my @ss cuz there is no way he can not hear any harshness in these JVCs when I still hear it despite tons of burn-in on my part.
Long story short, Ds was kind enough to trade me his most beat up/ burned in set of FX40s/ 101s for my newer sets that had little personal use but has had a good amount of burn-in on the burn station. Well here is what he thought of my sets:
"My FX40 is more broken in than yours. I can tell the difference right away. I will send you my pair..I will just burn in your FX40 and send you my pair.
The highs are sharper on your pair and bass not as tight as my pair.
The FX101 is not bad but I can also tell these are not as broken in as my pair by a hair. But on the FX40 I can clearly tell. Will pack em up and send em to you.The FX101 does have a upper mid spike but will mellow more so with more burn in."
Well, I got to give it to the nutman, he does indeed have a great set of ears and that his flawless burn-in method is the real deal to a certain extent. His impressions of my sets were spot on despite not knowing which sets I was sending him. When I A/B my "burned to hell" set of FX40s to his, there was noticeably less peakiness in his FX40s. The highs on his were extended just like mine but it was a bit more mellowed out, hence sibilance and harshness was not as apparent.
The FX101s is somewhat of a different story, though. My well burned in sets sounds about the same as Dsnuts', and that harshness/ sibilance resulting in a peaky treble can be detected more easily compared to the FX40s.
In conclusion, this little experiment showed that burn-in, specifically Dsnuts burn-in method works and was more effective than mine on the FX40s because his FX40s were more tamed/ mellowed out. This was probably due to his use of better/ more powerful sources such as dacs/ amps for burn-in as compared to my cheapo lappy soundcard and mp3 players. Nonetheless, I would still consider these FX40s, especially the FX101s as somewhat "bright" iems even with burn-in. Burn-in works to an extent and these FX40s seems to be more receptive to it, yielding much better results than the FX101s, most likely due to its Carbon Nano Tube properties. Also this little experiment proves that Dsnuts' tolerance for harshness/ sibilance/ peaky highs is a lot higher than mine. So next time take his hype, i mean "impressions" with a grain of salt when it comes to treble.
The moral of the story: BURN THE HELL OUTTA YOUR FX40s, it will eventually tame it.
edit: Oh man, Ds' set of FX40s sounds too good right now, they are keepers for sure. Been re-listening to these FX40s lately and have fallen in love with them again. I might be trippin' but damn it the bass on his FX40s sound bigger than deeper than my set as well. Nutman's Burn-in station is no joke!!!
Enjoy!
I know that these JVC FX40/ 101s are no longer as relevant now as before due to the new kid on the block, that super refined bang for the buck Sony MH1Cs and maybe the TDK MT-300s as well (shout out and love to all my Canadian bros for this major discovery!). But since I still have a lot of love for these cheapo JVCs, despite I was going to sell them off due to their harsh highs I was willing to give them a last chance.
I wanted to do a little experiment that involved our beloved hype-man himself, Dsnuts. Since we seem to all hear different, I have always wondered if our fearless leader's hearing abilities was really that amazing or was he just somewhat hearing impaired/ has crazy tolerance for harsh highs since he claims he detected zero harshness in his FX40/ 101s. Also like others, I was somewhat skeptical about his so called "burn-in" claims that can tame the wildest of these beasts, the FX40s with it's crazy harsh treble/ sibilance.
Basically I just wanted to hear his set of FX40/ 101s and compare it to mine, since he stated numerous times that he do not hear any harshness or sibilance due to his supposed flawless burn-in method. I was like "yeah right Ds" zero harshness my @ss cuz there is no way he can not hear any harshness in these JVCs when I still hear it despite tons of burn-in on my part.
Long story short, Ds was kind enough to trade me his most beat up/ burned in set of FX40s/ 101s for my newer sets that had little personal use but has had a good amount of burn-in on the burn station. Well here is what he thought of my sets:
"My FX40 is more broken in than yours. I can tell the difference right away. I will send you my pair..I will just burn in your FX40 and send you my pair.
The highs are sharper on your pair and bass not as tight as my pair.
The FX101 is not bad but I can also tell these are not as broken in as my pair by a hair. But on the FX40 I can clearly tell. Will pack em up and send em to you.The FX101 does have a upper mid spike but will mellow more so with more burn in."
Well, I got to give it to the nutman, he does indeed have a great set of ears and that his flawless burn-in method is the real deal to a certain extent. His impressions of my sets were spot on despite not knowing which sets I was sending him. When I A/B my "burned to hell" set of FX40s to his, there was noticeably less peakiness in his FX40s. The highs on his were extended just like mine but it was a bit more mellowed out, hence sibilance and harshness was not as apparent.
The FX101s is somewhat of a different story, though. My well burned in sets sounds about the same as Dsnuts', and that harshness/ sibilance resulting in a peaky treble can be detected more easily compared to the FX40s.
In conclusion, this little experiment showed that burn-in, specifically Dsnuts burn-in method works and was more effective than mine on the FX40s because his FX40s were more tamed/ mellowed out. This was probably due to his use of better/ more powerful sources such as dacs/ amps for burn-in as compared to my cheapo lappy soundcard and mp3 players. Nonetheless, I would still consider these FX40s, especially the FX101s as somewhat "bright" iems even with burn-in. Burn-in works to an extent and these FX40s seems to be more receptive to it, yielding much better results than the FX101s, most likely due to its Carbon Nano Tube properties. Also this little experiment proves that Dsnuts' tolerance for harshness/ sibilance/ peaky highs is a lot higher than mine. So next time take his hype, i mean "impressions" with a grain of salt when it comes to treble.
The moral of the story: BURN THE HELL OUTTA YOUR FX40s, it will eventually tame it.
edit: Oh man, Ds' set of FX40s sounds too good right now, they are keepers for sure. Been re-listening to these FX40s lately and have fallen in love with them again. I might be trippin' but damn it the bass on his FX40s sound bigger than deeper than my set as well. Nutman's Burn-in station is no joke!!!
Enjoy!
