[ericp10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the FX700 competes with the top tier IEMs, but, while sometimes close, the FX500 is not on the same level. From what I have read, the Panny is also a step down. So, if you want two IEMs that probably will fall somewhere between the IE8 and Rain, go for the Panny and FX500. If you want something that may give the MD and Copper a run for their money, get the FX700. I haven't had much ear time with the FX yet, but I agree with all James said about them (great assesment). Their transparency is nowhere near the GR8 or e-Q7, but they are very fun! I need to let them burn in before really making any assesments, though.

Joe, you know I was about to pm you, but you beat me to it!! lol. Thanks for your first impressions. So, so far (early impressions) you think the FX700 sounds better than the Copper as Chris believes? Thanks again buddy...

 

[Napilopez]

You know, one thing I'm consistently impressed with about head-fi is how accurate sound descriptions seem to be, especially in the IEM forum where amps and whatnot come less into play. I mean though there are certainly a number of outliers, so far everything I've bought thanks to head-fi suggestions have been how I expected it to sound, overall. Reading reviews and stuff from most other websites barely ever give me that kind of precision for something so subjective. I really appreciate this community =]

 

[m-p]

Finally my first post in head-fi, been a long time faithful observer for more than a year..

@average_joe & cn11

From your initial impressions, would you mind giving some thoughts on how would you compare the sound quality (bass, mid, treble & soundstage) of the FX700 with Copper Turbines and IE8, as currently I have the IE8 & FX500 and considering either the FX700 as a replacement upgrade for my FX500, or the copper turbines. Thanks in advance.

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericp10 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Joe, you know I was about to pm you, but you beat me to it!! lol. Thanks for your first impressions. So, so far (early impressions) you think the FX700 sounds better than the Copper as Chris believes? Thanks again buddy...

OK, this is not a long comparison, or a thorough one. And the FX700 may change dramatically during burn in, and I have yet to try all my ear tips, but you have to know now

, so here it goes...

I won't say one is better than the other at this time (and I know the Copper benefited from burn in). The Copper is more neutral, transparent and smoother. The FX700 is more sensitive, warmer, more dynamic (exciting), and sounds a little more organic (natural).

So, I am listening to the FX700 while writing this and the treble on a song that sounds OK on the Copper (the mastering leaves something to be desired, but it is not bad; I have much worse) sounds pretty harsh on the FX700.

Both are detailed, but the FX700 is either more detailed in the treble, or it is easier to hear the details. The presentation is close, but the Copper is a little more laid back. The soundstage of the FX700 does seem to be more 3D and place things better front to back than the Copper. Width, I haven't come across a track that has a large difference, but the better 3D of the FX presentation gives it better space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by m-p /img/forum/go_quote.gif Finally my first post in head-fi, been a long time faithful observer for more than a year.. @average_joe & cn11 From your initial impressions, would you mind giving some thoughts on how would you compare the sound quality (bass, mid, treble & soundstage) of the FX700 with Copper Turbines and IE8, as currently I have the IE8 & FX500 and considering either the FX700 as a replacement upgrade for my FX500, or the copper turbines. Thanks in advance.

My Copper comparisons are above. I don't currently have my IE8, but from memory (and knowing how the IE8 and Copper compare), these are my thoughts. Soundstage still isn't at IE8 levels, but burn in can open up dynamic IEMs. One of the two things I think the IE8 does better than the Copper is making instruments sound more natural. Well, the FX700 (and FX500) can also sound more natural than the Copper. So, I really don't know how the IE8 and FX700 compare in that regard, but would guess they are close. The IE8 also had extra instrument "textures" to borrow a word. So does the FX700. But I am not a fan of the mid-bass/deep bass of the IE8, and I think the FX700 has a better balance of mid/deep bass. So, to me, and from memory, the only advantage the IE8 has on the FX700 is the soundstage, and there is a good chance it will improve on the FX700.

 

[javajive]

Quote:

Originally Posted by m-p /img/forum/go_quote.gif Finally my first post in head-fi, been a long time faithful observer for more than a year.. @average_joe & cn11 From your initial impressions, would you mind giving some thoughts on how would you compare the sound quality (bass, mid, treble & soundstage) of the FX700 with Copper Turbines and IE8, as currently I have the IE8 & FX500 and considering either the FX700 as a replacement upgrade for my FX500, or the copper turbines. Thanks in advance.

While I am not cn11 or james444 and haven`t heard the coppers, I did directly compare the IE8 and FX700. the only advantage the IE8 has over the FX700 IMO is soundstage.

The FX700 is more balanced and has better clarity throughout. The treble is noticably more extended and detailed in my opinion.

As for FX500 there is no comparisan and they are in a completely different league except perhaps in terms of timbre. But then again, the FX700 is better in my view.

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe /img/forum/go_quote.gif OK, this is not a long comparison, or a thorough one. And the FX700 may change dramatically during burn in, and I have yet to try all my ear tips, but you have to know now , so here it goes... I won't say one is better than the other at this time (and I know the Copper benefited from burn in). The Copper is more neutral, transparent and smoother. The FX700 is more sensitive, warmer, more dynamic (exciting), and sounds a little more organic (natural). So, I am listening to the FX700 while writing this and the treble on a song that sounds OK on the Copper (the mastering leaves something to be desired, but it is not bad; I have much worse) sounds pretty harsh on the FX700. Both are detailed, but the FX700 is either more detailed in the treble, or it is easier to hear the details. The presentation is close, but the Copper is a little more laid back. The soundstage of the FX700 does seem to be more 3D and place things better front to back than the Copper. Width, I haven't come across a track that has a large difference, but the better 3D of the FX presentation gives it better space. My Copper comparisons are above. I don't currently have my IE8, but from memory (and knowing how the IE8 and Copper compare), these are my thoughts. Soundstage still isn't at IE8 levels, but burn in can open up dynamic IEMs. One of the two things I think the IE8 does better than the Copper is making instruments sound more natural. Well, the FX700 (and FX500) can also sound more natural than the Copper. So, I really don't know how the IE8 and FX700 compare in that regard, but would guess they are close. The IE8 also had extra instrument "textures" to borrow a word. So does the FX700. But I am not a fan of the mid-bass/deep bass of the IE8, and I think the FX700 has a better balance of mid/deep bass. So, to me, and from memory, the only advantage the IE8 has on the FX700 is the soundstage, and there is a good chance it will improve on the FX700.

Thank you @ Joe....That helped out quite a bit!!

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by javajive /img/forum/go_quote.gif While I am not cn11 or james444 and haven`t heard the coppers, I did directly compare the IE8 and FX700. the only advantage the IE8 has over the FX700 IMO is soundstage. The FX700 is more balanced and has better clarity throughout. The treble is noticably more extended and detailed in my opinion. As for FX500 there is no comparisan and they are in a completely different league except perhaps in terms of timbre. But then again, the FX700 is better in my view.

Thank you @ javajive; your impressions were valuable too. I appreciate it...

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by javajive /img/forum/go_quote.gif The FX700 is more balanced and has better clarity throughout. The treble is noticably more extended and detailed in my opinion.

First, thanks for your initial impressions way back when, I think you were the first to hear the FX700. And my IE8 extends to an audible 19K test tone for my ears (not sure if I can hear higher), so I am not sure what is going on with the IE8 you heard. But we came to the same conclusion...the IE8 bests the FX700 in one thing only...soundstage.

 

[javajive]

thanks eric! as a noob to high end IEMs, I really appreciate that, mate!


also a bit relieved that average_joes comments were kinda on par with mine...whew...

 

[javajive]

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe /img/forum/go_quote.gif First, thanks for your initial impressions way back when, I think you were the first to hear the FX700. And my IE8 extends to an audible 19K test tone for my ears (not sure if I can hear higher), so I am not sure what is going on with the IE8 you heard. But we came to the same conclusion...the IE8 bests the FX700 in one thing only...soundstage.

perhaps extended was the wrong term on my part....for me the treble is more prominent on the FX700 than the IE8 but perhaps that comes from them being more balanced.


anyways, as I said I am still a noob in termonolgy and trying to articulate in words what I hear.

Having said that, I would take the FX700 in a heart beat over the IE8 just as I would choose the IE8 over the FX500 any day.

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by javajive /img/forum/go_quote.gif perhaps extended was the wrong term on my part....for me the treble is more prominent on the FX700 than the IE8 but perhaps that comes from them being more balanced. anyways, as I said I am still a noob in termonolgy and trying to articulate in words what I hear. Having said that, I would take the FX700 in a heart beat over the IE8 just as I would choose the IE8 over the FX500 any day.

Glad you are on this board sharing your experiences and thoughts. Terminology changes from person to persona and I think you are doing a fantastic job!

And more prominent treble for the FX700 makes sense. And I didn't want to say it, but I agree and would take the IE8 over the FX500, and take the FX700 over the IE8!

 

[javajive]

thanks average_joe! as I think I said before you are one of the handful of people I really look to for their views.

I always figure it takes a year or so to become relatively proficient in something so give me another 7 or 8 months and hopefully I will have things kinda worked out here.

In the meantime, it would be wise for anyone to take what I say with a fair amount of salt!

 

[average_joe]

Thank you javajive, I appreciate that.

And in 7-8 months you will be the master!

 

[m-p]

@average joe & javajive

many thanks to both of you for the insights!

I am fully aware of the mid to upper bass emphasize on the IE8 although I can live with it and in fact I love my IE8 in overall (I auditioned W3, SE530 & normal Turbines and personally still prefer the IE8), but also for that reason I still keep looking for another pair that can complement or even replace my IE8: something that emphasize and extend the lower bass (or more balanced but still strong bass overall), has stronger mid, more clarity, and detailed treble, but still offering the strong bass, warmth and naturalness of the IE8

. I was not sure if any of the FX700 or the Copper has all those qualities in a package but your insights truly helped

 

[koonhua90]

Thanks for those who gave their impression on the FX-700. With my IE8, I can sense the airiness in the music due to soundstage. Does that airiness exist with the FX-700 too, since Average Joe said that it the FX-700 has a 3D presentation? How does amping improve the FX-700?

Personally, I think IE8 has quite good treble quality, but its mids is slightly laid back due to the big soundstage, and the hump at around 100-200Hz really overshadows everything (on my ipod nano it's even worse, as I feel that it also has a midbass hump as compared to my old and trusty samsung yp-z5)

Does anyone concur with me? It's fine most of the time, but at times it can be really annoying.

Well, today I got the Sony hybrid, and finally able to do the modding suggested by Decay . Link here:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f103/w...ssions-430955/

It really bring the vocals upfront, and improved on the clarity quite a lot. I wonder if this works on IE8, it might work on the FX-700 (hopefully in good ways), since both are dynamic drivers with nozzle that is bigger than usual BA iems. I'd love to get this FX-700, but at the same time, my plan is to get the JH in the summer...