Hawaiiancerveza
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Posts
- 1,610
- Likes
- 29
I think I'm more of totalhead. I like bass but I can get sick of it.
@SWF no.. i didnt banned my self, i just have fun reading for the moment. These 200's are what i want.
@Wayne. 98 pages, more hype????
Are you sure these are what you want, or is what Ds/ ericp tells you you want??? hoho think about that.
Can someone describe the technological differences between the 100 and 200? Like the cable that I know is different, 100 copper and the 200 spc! Are the drivers different, materials? What is it that explains the difference? And the cost difference? Size? Like to hear from those that have both......other than the sound, we know is similar, but with differences in the low end!
I think it's discussed earlier in the thread, but from what I recall the only differences are the cable and the housing materials (I think 100 = aluminum, 200 = brass?)
I believe the main difference between the two are the OFC cable covered with silver and the brass housing which is in the high mid driver housing and the sub housing on the FXZ200.
I suppose makes the sounds more rich more deep, more full for the FXZ200. I think the FXZ100 probably uses aluminum or maybe even plastic for the housing as you can tell by just the weight difference between the two earphones.
The wire for the cable would only make a difference of a few dollars......so if the drivers are the same, that is a big price jump for the use of brass vs aluminum!
The are the same size cute. You pay for the sound. But JVC has never presented the 200 as sounding better than the 100 (well, more technically capable, but not necessarily sounding better). I think sometimes it comes across in here that if you heard the 200 you could never really like the 100 on its own merits. I think that is inaccurate (just like the FXD70 offers something equally exciting but different than the FXD80).