[a_recording]

Quote:

The SA-5000 and T5p both sound totally completely different in presentation than conventional IEM's, custom IEM's and the JVC FXC51 design respectively IME = in my experience.  Not theorising.

 
Oh no, I'm sure they all have very different soundstages.
 
What I'm saying is that the idea of custom IEMs / these micro dynamic drivers is that there is a benefit to eliminating as much interaction between the sound waves and the ear canal, either by replacing the material between the ear drum and the driver with some other material besides flesh (the canal tip of custom IEM's) or by bringing the driver closer to the eardrum (JVC's approach). I'd imagine that bringing the driver closer to the ear allows for a smaller volume of air sealed inside the ear canal, allowing for previously unattainable damping factors - perhaps the reason why sub-bass is a signature of JVC's micro drivers and my own experience with the CC51.
 
Meanwhile the large angled driver full size headphones take the opposite approach - embracing the flesh and relying on the surface of the ear to shape the sound in a way that we are familiar with.
 
I suspect both approaches work better for different types of recording (studio vs live vs binaural). I've found for instance that the SA5000 works much more naturally for binaural recordings than anything else I've tried.
 
Edit: Ah, just saw your edit. Well, I dunno. I think every headphone I've tried with angled drivers have a more natural, more 'in-front-of-your-face' soundstage than headphone with drivers parallel to the head. The SA5000 vs the AD2000, or the Z1000 vs the Pro700 as far as my inventory goes.

 

[kiteki]

I think floorstanding speakers are the most natural and IEM's are the most intimate, surreal, and portable.
 
 
The presentation differences in Audio Technica headphones versus Ultrasone headphones seem very slight, that's just me.

 

[a_recording]

Quote:

I think floorstanding speakers are the most natural and IEM's are the most intimate, surreal, and portable.
 
The presentation differences in Audio Technica headphones versus Ultrasone headphones seem very slight, that's just me.

 
I like floorstanders, but now you are adding ear flesh + room flesh! I cannot tell you how annoying it is when something in the windosill rattles from the bass in our setup at home. (No, I'm not turning the bass up too high, there is just something in the windowsill. :[ )
 
Again this kind of discussion always makes me think of the PFR-V1. But anyway, a bit OT.

 

[kiteki]

Hehe the PFR-V1.
 
Let's just realise the FXD80 is not intending to interact with outer-ear skin and present you with a linear FR for live recording volume precision...
 

---

 
It has!
 
- The precision and resonance of a stainless steel sashimi knife
 
 

 
 
- The high definition and deep insertion of a custom IEM
 

 
 
- The carbon nanotubes of a space elevator
 

 
 
and it's going to blow your mind with angel dust!
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/hype

 

[FlySweep]

Just got an email from Amazon.co.jp (where I pre-ordered the FXD80 from) stating my order has shipped (to my Tenso address).
 
\w00t

 

[a_recording]

Quote:

Just got an email from Amazon.co.jp (where I pre-ordered the FXD80 from) stating my order has shipped (to my Tenso address).
 
\w00t

Samesame!

 

[tomscy2000]

How much does it cost for Tenso? I don't know whether to go with them or make it easier on myself and go for one of the numerous local buying agents (Taiwan is very Japanophilic)

 

[FlySweep]

How much does it cost for Tenso? I don't know whether to go with them or make it easier on myself and go for one of the numerous local buying agents (Taiwan is very Japanophilic)

 
Shipping the FXD80 from Amazon to Tenso is free.  Tenso's shipping/forwarding (via EMS to the US) + handling fee for the FXD80 (shipping weight = 454g, per Amazon) is approx. USD$25.
 
Since you're in Taiwan (Asia), Tom.. it appears to be a little cheaper (1590 yen = ~USD$20).

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

  Shipping the FXD80 from Amazon to Tenso is free.  Tenso's shipping/forwarding (via EMS to the US) + handling fee for the FXD80 (shipping weight = 454g, per Amazon) is approx. USD$25. Since you're in Taiwan (Asia), Tom.. it appears to be a little cheaper (1590 yen = ~USD$20).

 
Seems about the same... I was quoted about $100 flat by a local buying agent. So the question now is, do I bolster the local grey market economy, or the Japanese grey market?

 

[FlySweep]

  Shipping the FXD80 from Amazon to Tenso is free.  Tenso's shipping/forwarding (via EMS to the US) + handling fee for the FXD80 (shipping weight = 454g, per Amazon) is approx. USD$25. Since you're in Taiwan (Asia), Tom.. it appears to be a little cheaper (1590 yen = ~USD$20).

 
Seems about the same... I was quoted about $100 flat by a local buying agent. So the question now is, do I bolster the local grey market economy, or the Japanese grey market?

 
How does warranty service work from your local buying options?  Seems that might be the deciding factor if total costs are about the same between all vendors (for the most part).

 

[a_recording]

Quote:

Seems about the same... I was quoted about $100 flat by a local buying agent. So the question now is, do I bolster the local grey market economy, or the Japanese grey market?

 
I guess it would be easier to chase after the local buying agent if anything goes wrong?

 

[kiteki]

I suggest you buy from JVC directly and bolster them.  You'll probably get emails to join their fan club and vouchers and stuff like that.

 

[kiteki]

By the way A_rec, looking at posts #102 and #111 again, I didn't imply that nanotube drivers and Intel chips are in any way remotely related, the implication was that the material itself is high tech, which I showed with the stiffness to weight ratio chart.
 
Also I didn't imply that pure drivers are always better than coated, just that there is an obvious difference, it's like a Titanium motorbike versus a Titanium coated lead one, which one moves faster?  It's not armchair engineering and glossy marketing, I've looked at every single graph at http://angry.sonove.jp and I find that driver selection and architecture is a better indication of how a product will sound IME.
 
I used to say "That IEM is a TWFK" a lot, and people would answer "So what, implementation is everything, TWFK means nothing lol @ u" and now I'm meeting the exact same responses in DIY electronics, it's annoying as hell.
 
/rant

 

[a_recording]

Quote:

By the way A_rec, looking at posts #102 and #111 again, I didn't imply that nanotube drivers and Intel chips are in any way remotely related, the implication was that the material itself is high tech, which I showed with the stiffness to weight ratio chart.
 
Also I didn't imply that pure drivers are always better than coated, just that there is an obvious difference, it's like a Titanium motorbike versus a Titanium coated lead one, which one moves faster?  It's not armchair engineering and glossy marketing, I've looked at every single graph at http://angry.sonove.jp and I find that driver selection and architecture is a better indication of how a product will sound IME.
 
I used to say "That IEM is a TWFK" a lot, and people would answer "So what, implementation is everything, TWFK means nothing lol @ u" and now I'm meeting the exact same responses in DIY electronics, it's annoying as hell.
 
/rant

 
It *is* armchair engineering lol. Sonove is an armchair engineer, we're all armchair engineers. Material properties really are misleading, implementation is the deciding factor. As I quoted earlier from that book, its not necessarily desirable for the chosen material to be as stiff as possible or have numbers that are off the charts. Here are some example passages:
 

While some degree of internal damping is desirable in a material or construction, if the loss is too high compared with the E value or stiffness factor the diaphragm might present a smooth frequency characteristic but show increased distortion. An additional effect with high-loss materials, hard to quantify, is a hysteresis phenomenon which subjectively appears to mask fine musical detail

 
 
Comparison of the implementation of a Yamaha high frequency beryllium tweeter and the implementation of a Seasonic copper tweeter - note the compromises in both designs.

Yamaha produced a deposited beryllium foil [High Frequency] unit of 30mm nominal diameter, whose first break-up mode is beyond 30kHz, ensuring virtual positon operation over the entire 2-18khz usable band. The diaphragm thickness is 30 um with a mass of 30mg which compares with a soft dome counterpart of 100mg and similar thickness. The rigidity of beryllium is too high to employ an integral suspension and instead a separate, tangentially pleated cloth surround is used, with a damping coating composed of two resins to help dissapate energy at the rim. In this latter design, the surround forms a significant part of the radiating area, perturbing the upper band output. In the case of a more recent 37mm metal dome driver (Celestion) care was taken to minimize the surround contribution. In this unit the diaphragm was electroformed in pure copper and the structure continued from the same section to provide an integral motor-coil former. This one piece construction has the advantage of allowing the whole dome to act as a heat dissipator, a short-term rating of 50w has been quoted. The unit exhibits a rather low sensitivity, of typically 82db/W, mainly due to circulating eddy currents. Even with a material as unfavourable as copper (chosen mainly for its good electroforming properties) the final break-up mode is held to just above 20khz. 

 
And just for fun, random passages that suggest just how complex all this is:
 
 

While designers may hope that bass drivers operate as pistons, this is rarely the case over the working frequency range. Attempts have been made to reproduce highly rigid structures; Celestion, KEF Electronics, Yamaha and Leak have all employed reinforced polystyrene diaphragms in various forms.. Resonances in such rigid diaphragms are difficult to control, and when such a stiff structure enters break up, the effects may be severe. The more gentle break up of an ordinary diaphragm is generally preferred in applications when the driver must be used in or neat the break up range.
...
So far designers have often tried to combine the surround with the diaphragm when using plastics. However, the figures for polyester (mylar) suggests that it could perform as well as a piston dome if the surround function was separately served by the choice of appropriate material.
...
The choice of surround is vital, and strictly speaking, the surround is best considered mechanically as a continuation of the diaphragm even though it is a separate component generally made from a different material. With vacuum-formed thermoplastic cones, the best results to date have been given by flared, moderately shallow diaphragm profiles. The transition between the neck of the motor-coil former should form a smooth curve, and to inhibit localised bending at the edge, the tangential angle between the cone rim and front plate should not be much less than 25 degrees.
...
Designers must take into account divergent requirements, namely good dissipation of vibrational energy above 150hz or so; a profile which allows reasonably linear excursion up to 8mm peak to peak, and a mechanical structure which inhibits self resonance. In a particular prototype driver, a response dip occurred at about 600hz, whose source was eventually traced to the anti-resonance in the surround. A flat section had been designed between the half-roll and the cone edge, but another was unintentionally present between the outer 'roll' edge and the clamping point on the chassis. The unwanted circuit comprised the 'roll' vibrating with the compliance of the two adjacent flat sections. Readjustment of the roll dimension to eliminate the outer flat portion removed the dip. 'Surround dips' remain a common design problem.

 
This is stuff that the marketers are not going to tell you in the press releases or videos - namely, the sheer amount of trial and error and compromise and headaches that a simple sentence like "carbon nanotubes are a rigid and tough material " might imply. I could scan in another 50 pages about driver design, and this book isn't even an engineering reference, just what appears to be background information. You can't just look at those numbers and say, "well this moves faster, therefore more of it would be better." If that were true it would be so easy to make perfect drivers - everyone single company in the industry would have settled around the best material and the best geometry, and then patted themselves on the back and gone home. Of course different materials make a difference, and new materials sound different from old materials. But at the end its still implementation, and no wonder material is going to change that.
 
So whats my point? Sure, get excited about new materials, processes and technologies - they are going to allow for all sorts of new sounds, allow engineers to make different kinds of compromises, etc etc. I get excited about new stuff, its natural! But don't imagine that you could really intuit from your own ears and some marketing material what the engineers have worked out from experience and years or decades of technical understanding, trial and error, computer simulations, prototype after prototype. The extent of our knowledge is that we can put a piece of foam on the metal ring of a HD800 and say, "hey, this measures a bit better". Even Tyll from innerfidelity would not go so far as to suggest he had enough knowledge to tell engineers what to do, considering that he had the lead engineer from Skullcandy(!) come over and teach him some new things in a matter of a few hours. That engineer holds a PhD that took years to study, and yet Skullcandy isn't even considered a mid-tier company around here.
 
And sit back and admire how gosh darn smart these people are, who can slave away at this kind of stuff so that we can pop some buds in our ears and say "hey this sounds really good!"

 

[JCJiffy]

I had a go with all three, FXD80/70/60, today at BIC Camera. I will withhold any detailed comments regarding sound because I literally had only 5 mins with each one. I will say, however, that I would want to get more audition time between the 80s and 70s to more closely compare the two in sound. I did not immediately buy on the spot. I won't be looking at the 60s any further. There is definite family resemblance, sound-wise, between the FX40 and these. (If you read between the lines, the fact that I did not immediately bring one home may be indicating something. But my preferences may be very different from yours. Currently, IE80s get the most playtime among my IEMs.)
 
I really like the build quality on the FXD80/70. These are some nicely milled pieces of stainless steel. Extremely solid and quality feel. 80 have obvious vents as pictured and actually weigh less than the 70, which don't have visible vents. For my ears with short canals, these are some of the most comfortable IEMs I've tried. They insert deep and isolate well for dynamic driver IEMs because of the smaller diameter (Micro HD in marketing speak). I almost wanted to buy both the 80 and 70 based purely on build quality and comfort.
 
Anyway, these are some really interesting IEMs and I'd like to get more ear time with them.
 
Any other Japan folks get a chance to try them today?