[dweaver]

My one post on labels.

I used to be a basshead. Which in my mind meant I wanted big full quality bass preferably along with good mids and treble. But if one of those other areas suffered a bit it was OK. But I kept switching gear because i was never satisfied. I then started to realize it was because the gear I owned did suffer in the mids and treble. So I became a mid/treble head. Which is my mind means I want lush full detailed mids and shimmering detailed treble preferably with good bass, but I would sacrifice bass in favor of the mids and treble. But guess what happens...

I start to miss the bass!!! So I hearby proclaim a new label! I AM A TOTALHEAD! Yah that's right you heard me! I'm a totalhead I want it ALL, bass, midrange, treble, clarity, sound stage, instrument separation, timbre, etc..

I am hoping the FXZ100 will allow me to reach my goal but I will keep my favorite mid/treblehead cans around just in case the FXZ100 doesn't hit the mark.

LONG LIVE THE TOTALHEADS!!!

 

[Dsnuts]

That is actually what you get on the FXZ100 a total experience so I have a feeling your gonna love these earphones. Totalhead it is.

 

[miow]

"totalhead" here too ; )

 

[7S Cameron]

My one post on labels.
I used to be a basshead. Which in my mind meant I wanted big full quality bass preferably along with good mids and treble. But if one of those other areas suffered a bit it was OK. But I kept switching gear because i was never satisfied. I then started to realize it was because the gear I owned did suffer in the mids and treble. So I became a mid/treble head. Which is my mind means I want lush full detailed mids and shimmering detailed treble preferably with good bass, but I would sacrifice bass in favor of the mids and treble. But guess what happens...
I start to miss the bass!!! So I hearby proclaim a new label! I AM A TOTALHEAD! Yah that's right you heard me! I'm a totalhead I want it ALL, bass, midrange, treble, clarity, sound stage, instrument separation, timbre, etc..
I am hoping the FXZ100 will allow me to reach my goal but I will keep my favorite mid/treblehead cans around just in case the FXZ100 doesn't hit the mark.
LONG LIVE THE TOTALHEADS!!!

I'm the exact same way. I went through that in the same order too xD Why should we have to compromise? We should just have the best of everything.

 

[miow]

Thanks DSnuts, thats all I was needing to know. Totally clarified ; )

 

[Painful Chafe]

The posts above and Night Crawlers message to Dsnuts is what I was saying in my previous post with the Salon 2's.

Most if not all full range IEM's sacrifice to some extent the mids and treble when trying to produce full bass. It makes us have to choose what sacrifice we are willing to make. A full range IEM and sacrifice in other areas to get the bass we love or a bass light IEM with decent mid bass, but great mids and highs.

JVC seams to have gotten the bass right and adds to the mids and highs and gives them a more enveloping feeling. It not only doesn't interfere with the rest of the sound spectrum, it adds to them. I have yet to hear that kind of sound in an IEM.

Like I said in my other post, I am hoping they actually achieved this and it isn't just hype. But from what I have read from people whose ears I trust, they may have nailed it. I am waiting patiently to see.

I am very excited to get these.

 

[Insidious Meme]

I don't really care about labels. Labels can be very generalizing, and people like to do it just to make things simpler in their minds. Me included. Also, I can't control what people think of me, especially on the internet. But then again it sort of reminds me of name calling.

Not a huge amount in it, ryan will be happy as i suggested the 200's to replace his triple fi's

How do they compare sound wise?

Yeah how do the JVC's and the triple.fi's compare sound wise?

Both are very different. The FXZ200s are multi dynamic drivers and the Triple Fi's are multi balanced armitures. The Triples are easier to drive than the 200s. The 200s are darker sounding, while the Triples are more treble based. The 200s bass extension goes lower than the Triples as expected with a dynamic woofer. Things sound heavier on the 200s, and for me, cleaner. The 200s handle busy passages better than the Triples. Soundstage is about the same. This is with the 200s with maybe 30 hours of use/burn in. For me, the 200s already leave the Triples behind, but the Triples are still very capable. It is worth it for me already to upgrade.

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

My one post on labels.
I used to be a basshead. Which in my mind meant I wanted big full quality bass preferably along with good mids and treble. But if one of those other areas suffered a bit it was OK. But I kept switching gear because i was never satisfied. I then started to realize it was because the gear I owned did suffer in the mids and treble. So I became a mid/treble head. Which is my mind means I want lush full detailed mids and shimmering detailed treble preferably with good bass, but I would sacrifice bass in favor of the mids and treble. But guess what happens...
I start to miss the bass!!! So I hearby proclaim a new label! I AM A TOTALHEAD! Yah that's right you heard me! I'm a totalhead

I want it ALL, bass, midrange, treble, clarity, sound stage, instrument separation, timbre, etc..
I am hoping the FXZ100 will allow me to reach my goal but I will keep my favorite mid/treblehead cans around just in case the FXZ100 doesn't hit the mark.
LONG LIVE THE TOTALHEADS!!!

LOL I hope they do you well. Be careful, from these reviews, the FXZ100 is perfect but the FXZ200 is more perfect!

 I'm seriously considering the 100 as well but will wait until more easily available in the US.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

LOL I hope they do you well. Be careful, from these reviews, the FXZ100 is perfect but the FXZ200 is more perfect!

 
And here-in lie my point - everyone who's reported back who owns both phones has said they prefer the 200.  
 
It's not 'more perfect' because it has 'more bass', they just think it's the better phone.
 
Yet it seems there are quite a few people saying, hmm... I'll just get the 100 because it's more neutral.  The frequency spectrum is just one metric what it means to be accurate.

 

[goodvibes]

The cable and bass tune appears to be slightly different among them. The brighter cable likely offsets the extra bass nicely or it's more than that since the woofer arrangement must be different. The 200 is considered a step up in the line so perhaps the bass driver or bandpass is more low centric. I suspect that the fullrange drivers are the same. If they have extra bass or not is not an asset or detriment. It just is and what most like. I guess you didn't see the link to the review section that called them VG but ultimately too weighty....for him. http://www.head-fi.org/products/jvc-ha-fxz200/reviews

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

I guess you didn't see the link to the review section that called them VG but ultimately too weighty....for him. http://www.head-fi.org/products/jvc-ha-fxz200/reviews

 
Why do I need to be reading a review for something that's been in my ears for over 50 hours now... lol.  
 
I already came out saying I disagreed with that assessment awhile back.  I respect his opinions (and we chatted about this offline) but that's what this is, one person's opinions.

 

[vlenbo]

Quote:

 
And here-in lie my point - everyone who's reported back who owns both phones has said they prefer the 200.  
 
It's not 'more perfect' because it has 'more bass', they just think it's the better phone.
 
Yet it seems there are quite a few people saying, hmm... I'll just get the 100 because it's more neutral.  The frequency spectrum is just one metric what it means to be accurate.

Indeed, I agree with bobeau. People prefer the fxz200s, but that does not mean the fxz100s are slouchers as they can keep up with the fxz200's except for the spacious soundstage, full spectrum, and present bass. 
 
People who get the fxz100s, do not hesitate to get the fxz200s in the future. People who have the fxz200s, the same goes for you as they are not exactly the same SQ. They have similar characteristics, sure, but from what I read there is less thickness on the fxz100s than the fxz200s, less bass, spacious but slightly smaller soundstage, and similar mids and highs if the weight of the spectrum is unaccounted. That is why I know when I get the fxz200s in february, I will not hesitate to use the fxz100s.

 

[edvardd]

Things get skewed when lots of people comment on the sound of these phones without having heard them, which in turn brings the hype to another level.  Sure there's some impressions confirming that FXZ100/200 have certain traits, but anyway this is what makes you grow tired of yet another hype-train. But yea, these certainly seems promising might be getting the 100 soon.

 

[zenpunk]

Thanks Dsnuts and all.
200 it is. Now where is this bloody credit card? 

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

 
Why do I need to be reading a review for something that's been in my ears for over 50 hours now... lol.  
 
I already came out saying I disagreed with that assessment awhile back.  I respect his opinions (and we chatted about this offline) but that's what this is, one person's opinions.

Yes and he's allowed his which is what seems to be a big issue here. By the way, he quite enjoys them as well. I am not saying there is anything wrong with these and am looking forward to a listen. I especially liked a mods favorable early impressions about their perspective.
 
Trouble is, I've bought a lot of IEMs from threads like this and discovered that I didn't find them as perfect as some others. B2, GR07 are a couple. Maybe this one will be

 but I do know there is no best or perfect when it comes to IEMs. They can be both basshead and good as well, LOL.
 
They also are not gong to sound like Revel Salons in the bass just because they both go low and nobody has heard 25 hz bass before, whatever that means. The thread has moved from info to poetic waxing which is OK but that doesn't mean that trying to get an idea of how bass enhanced they are is an unacceptable pursuit just because the suggestion of having perhaps more than real in balance offends those that want them to have exactly the correct amount. It's a quantitative question whose qualitative aspect will be quite personal.