[Skylab]

I just ordered a pair of 900's. I want to see if they have any measure of the sound of the JVC DX1000's that I love so much.

 

[musicman59]

Skylab,
You will find the RX900 sound compressed compared to the DX1000 due to the lack of extension at both ends of the spectrum. You will also find the soundstage two dimensional (X and Y axel) with no much depth (Z axel).

For $58 are a good set but they are not even close to the DX1000 at all.
This coming weekend I will compare the RX900 against the Denon D1000 and report back.

 

[i_don't_know]

Quote:

Originally Posted by micmacmo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's what's different. The housing of the rx900 is vented The drivers are different (rx900 is 64 ohm and rx700 is 48 ohm) "Acoustic lenses" (rx900 has them) Cable? (JVC catalog makes a deal about the rx900 having pure copper wires, not so the rx700) So, the housing's different, the driver's different and the cabling may be different. But they have the same size driver, so they must be pretty darn close

The 700's have pure copper wires as well.

 

[jaudio]

Got my rx900 today. Going the run 5Hz to 25 kHz sweeps for 8 hours give them a listen then run for 72 hours

 

[spacemanspliff]

Yeah the X900 is a great budget can. Nothing more. Best bang for the buck I have ever had but it's not Stax lol.

 

[TopPop]

I will hold off my final impressions until the burn-in process is complete... and my cold is gone...

But for now, I'll say that the RX900s are mighty fine headphones, and are strong contenders in this price range. I don't believe that anybody would regret their lost money for these guys.

 

[TopPop]

Oh, and it's been mentioned that these may benefit somewhat from an amp.

I disagree.

They benefit GREATLY from an amp. And it seems they may be amp-dependent. My Leckerton UHA-3 portable amp can drive my DT-880 decently, and they even sound pretty good... not as good as on my LD MKII, but pretty good. The difference between running the RX900 on the Leckerton and the Little Dot, however, is huge.

 

[i_don't_know]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, and it's been mentioned that these may benefit somewhat from an amp. I disagree. They benefit GREATLY from an amp. And it seems they may be amp-dependent. My Leckerton UHA-3 portable amp can drive my DT-880 decently, and they even sound pretty good... not as good as on my LD MKII, but pretty good. The difference between running the RX900 on the Leckerton and the Little Dot, however, is huge.

I find this hard to believe for some reason. They just sound SO GOOD un-amped, I couldn't imagine such a cheap pair of cans sounding any better.

Then again, I might have just lucked out with a portable CD player that has good output. Are Optimus known to have good output on their portable players?

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_don't_know /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find this hard to believe for some reason. They just sound SO GOOD un-amped, I couldn't imagine such a cheap pair of cans sounding any better. Then again, I might have just lucked out with a portable CD player that has good output. Are Olympus known to have good output on their portable players?

Well, it could just be my ears playing tricks on me, but I don't think so. I know my DT-880s pretty well, and can readily pick out the pros/cons of synergy with upstream components, and the sound from those cans didn't sound as compressed as the RX900s when "downstepping" to the Leckerton. I just spent some time enjoying some familiar music on the RX900 with my main setup, and they sound much more open, with a more coherent midrange then they did on the Leckerton.

Of course, this could also mean that they simply respond better to the DAC upgrade (i.e. internal Leckerton --> Keces 151) than the DT-880s. Either way, they respond well to upscale in the upstream components.

I'll have to compare again when they're burned in, though, of course.

500.

 

[TopPop]

By the way, this isn't to say that they sound as good, or nearly as good, as my DT-880s when played on better components. I'm not claiming that they're giant killers (nor am I claiming that the DT-880s are giants... just sayin').

I'm saying that they seem to benefit more from upstream component upgrade than the DT-880, from my short comparison. Who knows: maybe I'll find something different when I make a more in-depth comparison after full burn-in.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

I canceled my order for the HA-RX700 and HA-RX900. So many mixed reviews and such greaty hyped headphones.

 

[i_don't_know]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT /img/forum/go_quote.gif I canceled my order for the HA-RX700 and HA-RX900. So many mixed reviews and such greaty hyped headphones.

You should have at least tried them...

 

[DJGeorgeT]

not really, it saves me the hassle or getting rid of them............

 

[jaudio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by micmacmo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not sure about venting being the only difference. From the JVC catalog: "Acoustic lenses (located in front of diaphragm) tune direct and indirect sound by subtly offsetting holes in each lens" The lenses could be marketing puffery. Or they could provide a real acoustic benefit.

Looking at the back of the 900s packaging, I’m not sure if I should be a little pissed. A piece of plastic ("acoustic lenses") with holes in the front and a small half dome in the rear of driver, all for an extra $20+. I hope there is no felt ring between the "acoustic lenses" and the baffle

The 700s might be the best bang for the buck!

 

[spacemanspliff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaudio /img/forum/go_quote.gif Looking at the back of the 900s packaging, I’m not sure if I should be a little pissed. A piece of plastic ("acoustic lenses") with holes in the front and a small half dome in the rear of driver, all for an extra $20+. I hope there is no felt ring between the "acoustic lenses" and the baffle The 700s might be the best bang for the buck!

The 900s have a bigger driver too. Sound is larger overall.