[Charles Martell]

I just ordered a pair of these from JVC's online store (which has what looks like a nice offer for a special case). Price was a shade under 7,000 yen including postage (to Tokyo)
I already have a pair of FXT-90s, which I really like, but which do seem a little fragile. I'm hoping the FXD-90s have a similar sound profile, but will prove more robust. A good case should help.

 

 

[kiteki]

I just ordered a pair of these from JVC's online store (which has what looks like a nice offer for a special case). Price was a shade under 7,000 yen including postage (to Tokyo)
I already have a pair of FXT-90s, which I really like, but which do seem a little fragile. I'm hoping the FXD-90s have a similar sound profile, but will prove more robust. A good case should help.

 
Congratulations.  Let us know what you think of the case, and the FXD80 versus FXT90.

 

[kiteki]

there are many things at play. Oversimplified marketing is just that, it's just to bring up hype. You can't just simply get a 16mm carbon nano-tube driver, angle it and expect good results. 

 
There are many things at play but "implementation is everything" is a void statement which dismisses the trees for the forest.
 
FR is one aspect at play, then there is square-wave response at 50Hz, 300Hz, 1kHz and so on, then there is the size, distance and geometry of the driver in respect to the ear, which we can't measure, then there is phase shift, resonance versus transparency, and unique voicings.

 

[takoyaki7]

Had a brief audition today with the FXD80 and 70, as well as a comparison with the FXT90 as well.

First of all, 90 sounds quite a bit different from the other two, mids comparatively recessed, better soundstage, more laid back sound.

FXD80 sounded bright to me, not so appealing. Treble sounded a bit hot and while the sound was relatively balanced, nothing really stood out.

The FXD70, to me, was much more impressive, hard hittting bass and a smoother signature, but morein your face than the fxt90.

Of the 3, the 70 actually impressed me the most! It made the 80 sound too hot, and the 90 too laid back in the mids.

And btw i have owned fxt90 twice in the past. Excellent iems for the price, but something unsatisfying about them made me sell them 2x. I may do another audition soon but the 70 so far to me sounds like a real winner.

 

[kiteki]

 
Lol don't write an essay. I'm not even sure what the point of contention is,

 
It was something about glue, and then engineering marvel, like Skullcandy =PhD.
 
The FX500 really is pure wood in the center.  The design of the FXD80 driver is speculation, you can send an email to JVC if you like.
 
 

If you want to lead the JVC cheer squad with carbon nanotube pompoms then by all means go ahead lol. My inclination is just to be skeptical about things - I mean, I think we both know one company that likes to put out a lot of marketing about their materials and engineering and yet in the end you were not at all impressed by the result? *cough* XBA *cough*

 
Not sure if the XBA series is a good example for your point.  Clearly Sony's expertise in portable audio since 1979 and top engineers from Waseda university came to the conclusion humans don't like crossovers.  Maybe I'm just sensitive to that flaw... I honestly suspect I'll enjoy FXD80 more than XBA-3 -4, I shall continue with my pom poms now!

 

[kiteki]

Takowasabi7 that's interesting, what was your source?

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

Had a brief audition today with the FXD80 and 70, as well as a comparison with the FXT90 as well.
First of all, 90 sounds quite a bit different from the other two, mids comparatively recessed, better soundstage, more laid back sound.
FXD80 sounded bright to me, not so appealing. Treble sounded a bit hot and while the sound was relatively balanced, nothing really stood out.
The FXD70, to me, was much more impressive, hard hittting bass and a smoother signature, but morein your face than the fxt90.
Of the 3, the 70 actually impressed me the most! It made the 80 sound too hot, and the 90 too laid back in the mids.
And btw i have owned fxt90 twice in the past. Excellent iems for the price, but something unsatisfying about them made me sell them 2x. I may do another audition soon but the 70 so far to me sounds like a real winner.

 
Interesting that you're the second person who has preferred the the FXD70 to the FXD80... shouldn't the added brass ring dampen things better and the venting allow for better movement on the drivers? There should be a reason why JVC re-did the entire housing and revised the internal components of the FXD80

 

[takoyaki7]

My source was an ipod touch 4g

I can add that bq was fairly similar between the 70 and 80, though the vented design on the 80 is cooler looking. Fit and insertion depth were quite good. They are not particularly sensitive, so i am also curious how the would respond being amped.

And they also come a very small plastic box, much cheaper looking than fxt90...


The 80 definitely more airiness than the 70, but lacking weight, the fxt90 did sound comparatively muffled, so clarity is very good on the 80.


But first impression with the 80 was definitely disappopointing, but i may pick up the 70 after another audition...

 

[kiteki]

FXT90 improved quite a bit at least 10% with the GoVibe VestAmp compared to my Teclast T51 HO, IME.  Just my theory a stiff driver could ask for more current/voltage.

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

My source was an ipod touch 4g
I can add that bq was fairly similar between the 70 and 80, though the vented design on the 80 is cooler looking. Fit and insertion depth were quite good. They are not particularly sensitive, so i am also curious how the would respond being amped.
And they also come a very small plastic box, much cheaper looking than fxt90...
The 80 definitely more airiness than the 70, but lacking weight, the fxt90 did sound comparatively muffled, so clarity is very good on the 80.
But first impression with the 80 was definitely disappopointing, but i may pick up the 70 after another audition...

 
What about detail levels? And what do you mean by the treble being too hot; IIRC, you're one of the more treble permissive people I know.

 

[JCJiffy]

The comparison between 70 and 80 matches with my assessment also. I had another audition yesterday, and my impressions didn't change much from the 1st brief audition. Between 70 and 80, I might choose 70 for slightly better treble clarity. To my ears, both are very airy...maybe even almost too airy. Not sure how to best describe it, but maybe...aloof? disconnected?
 
You can tell the treble on both has edginess to it, similar to the FX40 but more refined. Something overall about the 80 didn't quite sit right with me. It did not sound "grounded" to me. I'm an amateur so please take my words with a grain of salt. 70 were better for me, but overall presentation was still distant for me. I have not purchased a pair of either at the moment. Sorry that's the best I can describe them right now.

 

[kiteki]

Sounds exciting. =)  Disconnected, alooof!

 

[Dsnuts]

I am wondering just how much these guys break in their demos before they let the general public sample them. The difference in all the carbon based drivers from open box to break in is so vast. I can't imagine what people would say if they heard the older FXC51 from open box before break in. Same with the FX40. I will get my FXD80 soon and find out.

 

[Cya|\|]

I must stay away from this forum. I must resist the tentation. Don't delve too deep into it. Don't give in.

 

[Inks]

There are many things at play but "implementation is everything" is a void statement which dismisses the trees for the forest.
 
FR is one aspect at play, then there is square-wave response at 50Hz, 300Hz, 1kHz and so on, then there is the size, distance and geometry of the driver in respect to the ear, which we can't measure, then there is phase shift, resonance versus transparency, and unique voicings.

Why? You used rhetoric but failed to back up your point. As I showed, having the same drivers does mean that it will follow the trend of that driver, but there is still room in which performance can be maximized. Implementation is a big factor. 
 
You are going off topic...but..Square-wave responses are basically a fancy way of looking at the FR, check this out, I can derive any square-wave response based on the FR graph. Why would we want to measure that, FR are the result of what the driver is bringing in, in decibels. Those are all tuning aspects which will change FR response, two different things, looks like you're just trying to confuse the two together.