[Huxley]

You can't look at the price when thinking about the FXD80.
 
It punches far above it's price point, you would be a fool to think it's impossible for what is a reasonably cheap iem.
 
Many folk did the same with the EPH-100 and just discounted it as a fotm iem.

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

You try throwing those over your ears? IT eliminates all microphonics and is comfortable that way. They also stay put for me better too worn over the ears.

 
Funny, but the first IEM that I can't wear over my ears (that is, within IEMs that can easily be worn both ways). lt just feels awkward to my ears. I prefer wearing it straight down. And with significant burn-in the original tips are much more agreeable with the sound now, although I still dig the Auvios.

 

[dweaver]

OK tried my Ts500 tips (the round sphere model) upside down and they definitely worked better. They still cut the treble a smidge but only just (and just in the right spot) and otherwise left all the detail of the IEM intact. These are still to bassy for my tastes but I have to admit that this configuration is quite fun to listen to. Having said that I tried the same flipped Comply tips on the N-ergy and like them a bit more as they increased the bass of that IEM without affecting it's midrange and treble. I am just a mid/treble head at the end of the day, no sense in fighting it 

.

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

OK tried my Ts500 tips (the round sphere model) upside down and they definitely worked better. They still cut the treble a smidge but only just (and just in the right spot) and otherwise left all the detail of the IEM intact. These are still to bassy for my tastes but I have to admit that this configuration is quite fun to listen to. Having said that I tried the same flipped Comply tips on the N-ergy and like them a bit more as they increased the bass of that IEM without affecting it's midrange and treble. I am just a mid/treble head at the end of the day, no sense in fighting it 

.

 
 
Yeah, you won't like any of the Aurisonics products then. Better get that RE262.

 

[dweaver]

The RE262 is definitely on my list...

 

[gnarlsagan]

A/B-ing the 80's with the FXT90's now using trimmed comply on both and through the ODAC + O2 combo.
 
The 80 needs more volume to match the 90. Maybe 3-4 decibels. So the 90's are more efficient. This probably helps to explain why I prefer the 90's out of my Galaxy Nexus.
 
The 80 accentuates high hats more than the 90. Small jingles and cymbals are more clearly heard, especially when they are faint in the recording. There are some small high percussion hits like tambourines and triangles that are almost lost with certain tracks on the 90. In all, the 80 offers clearer treble with more natural timbre and decay. I mention this first because it's always the first thing I notice.
 
The 90 clearly has a lot more mid-bass. Drums sound fuller and play a more prominent role in the recording. They encroach on the vocals a bit compared to the 80. The 90's mid-bass bump warms up the vocals though and overall they sound more forward. The 80 on the other hand keeps the bass much further away from the vocal range, resulting in a colder and slightly more recessed sound comparatively. Females vocals aren't as deep on the 80, but they sound more natural to me. It's hard to say with male vocals, but I think thinner sound of the 80 is more natural.
 
Upper-mids take a front seat on the 80, and second row on the 90. While clearly bumped up in both iems, the upper-mids are given an extra couple decibels on the 80 to my ears. To me this is actually the biggest weakness of the 80, that this particular range is a bit too accentuated. Certain guitars and pianos sound just a tad cold to me, but this may also change with time as it did with the 90, and it seems to be a bigger problem on weak sources.
 
The sound stage of the 80 is more intimate. This intimacy coupled with the lack of mid-bass bloat and clearer, more natural treble make pretty much every single detail of a recording easier to perceive than on the 90. For the same combination of reasons instrument separation is quite superior on the 80. Listening to Damien Rice, for example, with it's myriad violins, pianos, guitars and somewhat sparse arrangements offers a much more sonically rich and detailed experience on the 80.
 
Overall I prefer the 80, I just wish it sounded as good on my phone.  

 

[FlySweep]

Good review.. only thing I disagree with is the 80 sounding more intimate than the 90.  The 80 enjoys a noticeably wider, deeper, and airier soundstage than the 90.. with better imaging and separation.  It leads to a much more immersive and live presentation than the 90's ever did, IMO.  The 80s mids aren't as forward as the 90's mids.. so there's more space between the listener & the stage with the 80s.  In general.. The 90 simply sounds unrefined compared to the 80 elegance and balance.
 
I also didn't have any issue with the upper mids.. but that seems to be tied quite closely to tip choice & insertion depth/angle.  I use the red Auveo tips which allow me to insert the 80 as deep as my canals allow (and still remain very comfortable).  Positioning the phones that deep allows me to angle the shells along the shape of my inner ear canal so in ear resonance is mitigated.  Inserting deeply, I get a very balanced sound that consists of a very tight midbass boost, a well positioned very slightly scooped midrange that isn't recessed (or warmed up by the bass boost an shallow fit seems to create), and an even treble response that's crisp, airy, and smooth all at the same time.  The upper mid accentuation works in the 80's favor, IMO.. it adds some air to vocals and improves (perceived) treble detail (much like how it functions in the GR07).

 

[FlySweep]

The RE262 is definitely on my list...

 
I think the RE272 might be more your cup of tea.  I have both and if you're a mid-treble head, the RE272 will drop. your. jaw.  I've professed my adulation for it in a couple of the longer running RE272 threads (mark2410 & ClieOS' review threads).. the midrange and treble clarity, resolution, & liquidity is has an ortho like quality to it (provided you've got a very neutral, low distortion amp to feed it).
 
The RE262 is a wonderful too.. there's a reason why I have both.. I would best describe them as "kindred spirits."  The RE262 provides better texturing and warmth through the midrange to lower midrange & bass.. I personally have no issues with the treble (especially when paired with the ODAC & O2/Arrow).. but some find it to not possess enough treble quantity.  I think the RE272 resolves a little better than the RE262 also.  While the RE272 plays it closer to the neutral side of things.. the RE262 is unabashedly colored in one of the most elegant ways I've ever heard.  The airy, warm, liquidity is very difficult to find in a phone, regardless of price point.
 
They're both desert island IEMs for me, though.. beautifully tuned with a degree of sophistication not found at their respective price points (as well as a couple of notches above).
 
Sorry for the hijack.. back to the FXDs..

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

Good review.. only thing I disagree with is the 80 sounding more intimate than the 90.  The 80 enjoys a noticeably wider, deeper, and airier soundstage than the 90.. with better imaging and separation.  It leads to a much more immersive and live presentation than the 90's ever did, IMO.  The 80s mids aren't as forward as the 90's mids.. so there's more space between the listener & the stage with the 80s.  In general.. The 90 simply sounds unrefined compared to the 80 elegance and balance.
 
I also didn't have any issue with the upper mids.. but that seems to be tied quite closely to tip choice & insertion depth/angle.  I use the red Auveo tips which allow me to insert the 80 as deep as my canals allow (and still remain very comfortable).  Positioning the phones that deep allows me to angle the shells along the shape of my inner ear canal so in ear resonance is mitigated.  Inserting deeply, I get a very balanced sound that consists of a very tight midbass boost, a well positioned very slightly scooped midrange that isn't recessed (or warmed up by the bass boost an shallow fit seems to create), and an even treble response that's crisp, airy, and smooth all at the same time.  The upper mid accentuation works in the 80's favor, IMO.. it adds some air to vocals and improves (perceived) treble detail (much like how it functions in the GR07).

 
 
Quote:

A/B-ing the 80's with the FXT90's now using trimmed comply on both and through the ODAC + O2 combo.
 
The 80 needs more volume to match the 90. Maybe 3-4 decibels. So the 90's are more efficient. This probably helps to explain why I prefer the 90's out of my Galaxy Nexus.
 
The 80 accentuates high hats more than the 90. Small jingles and cymbals are more clearly heard, especially when they are faint in the recording. There are some small high percussion hits like tambourines and triangles that are almost lost with certain tracks on the 90. In all, the 80 offers clearer treble with more natural timbre and decay. I mention this first because it's always the first thing I notice.
 
The 90 clearly has a lot more mid-bass. Drums sound fuller and play a more prominent role in the recording. They encroach on the vocals a bit compared to the 80. The 90's mid-bass bump warms up the vocals though and overall they sound more forward. The 80 on the other hand keeps the bass much further away from the vocal range, resulting in a colder and slightly more recessed sound comparatively. Females vocals aren't as deep on the 80, but they sound more natural to me. It's hard to say with male vocals, but I think thinner sound of the 80 is more natural.
 
Upper-mids take a front seat on the 80, and second row on the 90. While clearly bumped up in both iems, the upper-mids are given an extra couple decibels on the 80 to my ears. To me this is actually the biggest weakness of the 80, that this particular range is a bit too accentuated. Certain guitars and pianos sound just a tad cold to me, but this may also change with time as it did with the 90, and it seems to be a bigger problem on weak sources.
 
The sound stage of the 80 is more intimate. This intimacy coupled with the lack of mid-bass bloat and clearer, more natural treble make pretty much every single detail of a recording easier to perceive than on the 90. For the same combination of reasons instrument separation is quite superior on the 80. Listening to Damien Rice, for example, with it's myriad violins, pianos, guitars and somewhat sparse arrangements offers a much more sonically rich and detailed experience on the 80.
 
Overall I prefer the 80, I just wish it sounded as good on my phone.  

 
 
Great review gnarlsagan. I'm with FlySweep on what he disagrees with you about. Finally have my FXT90 back and just finished A/Bing. I do agree the vocals seem thicker in the FXT90 and some of the guitar notes, but not by that much. But the FXT90 doesn't touch the FXD80 in separation, airyness and CLARITY!!. To me those three elements alone make the The latter a better sounding IEM. The FXT90 holds it own, but sounds sort of muddy to me compared to the FXD80. Oh, yes, wider soundstage in the FXD80 to my ears too. It does not have those huge vents for nothing.

 

[ElephantAudio]

Very good reviews on FXD80, just got mine, although very basic presentation box ( missing foam tips for those who don't like silicone as I do), soundwise, separation, airyness and clariity very present, bass ok to my taste (not boomy), feel sometimes being in front row or backstage, however, if you like listening Live concert on your MP3 like I do, you will be very disapointed on high notes...some cracking sounds makes listening Live concert painfull, specially on left earphone like if sound was unbalanced

 and obsiouly get worst with a portable amp!

 

[ElephantAudio]

Quote:

 
Hey congrats on getting them, I really like these. I agree with most of your impressions, the sound is indeed super clean. Sibilance has been rare for me, though.

Reading all reviews, have you tried listening live concert with those? Just got mine, MP# music is great with my Zune Platinium, but listening live concert is disapointing, sibilance or some cracking in high, particulary on left earphone, as if it was un-balcanced! What are you using to burn it and who, first time for me!

 

[Nildes]

Quote:

 
I think the RE272 might be more your cup of tea.  I have both and if you're a mid-treble head, the RE272 will drop. your. jaw.  I've professed my adulation for it in a couple of the longer running RE272 threads (mark2410 & ClieOS' review threads).. the midrange and treble clarity, resolution, & liquidity is has an ortho like quality to it (provided you've got a very neutral, low distortion amp to feed it).
 
The RE262 is a wonderful too.. there's a reason why I have both.. I would best describe them as "kindred spirits."  The RE262 provides better texturing and warmth through the midrange to lower midrange & bass.. I personally have no issues with the treble (especially when paired with the ODAC & O2/Arrow).. but some find it to not possess enough treble quantity.  I think the RE272 resolves a little better than the RE262 also.  While the RE272 plays it closer to the neutral side of things.. the RE262 is unabashedly colored in one of the most elegant ways I've ever heard.  The airy, warm, liquidity is very difficult to find in a phone, regardless of price point.
 
They're both desert island IEMs for me, though.. beautifully tuned with a degree of sophistication not found at their respective price points (as well as a couple of notches above).
 
Sorry for the hijack.. back to the FXDs..

Would you say it's too bass-light? This reviewer seems to think so. 

 http://www.amazon.com/review/R5K24P7FNA9CO/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R5K24P7FNA9CO

 

[FieldingMellish]

Would you say it's too bass-light? This reviewer seems to think so.   http://www.amazon.com/review/R5K24P7FNA9CO/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R5K24P7FNA9CO

No.

 

[gnarlsagan]

Quote:

Good review.. only thing I disagree with is the 80 sounding more intimate than the 90.  The 80 enjoys a noticeably wider, deeper, and airier soundstage than the 90.. with better imaging and separation.  It leads to a much more immersive and live presentation than the 90's ever did, IMO.  The 80s mids aren't as forward as the 90's mids.. so there's more space between the listener & the stage with the 80s.  In general.. The 90 simply sounds unrefined compared to the 80 elegance and balance.
 
I also didn't have any issue with the upper mids.. but that seems to be tied quite closely to tip choice & insertion depth/angle.  I use the red Auveo tips which allow me to insert the 80 as deep as my canals allow (and still remain very comfortable).  Positioning the phones that deep allows me to angle the shells along the shape of my inner ear canal so in ear resonance is mitigated.  Inserting deeply, I get a very balanced sound that consists of a very tight midbass boost, a well positioned very slightly scooped midrange that isn't recessed (or warmed up by the bass boost an shallow fit seems to create), and an even treble response that's crisp, airy, and smooth all at the same time.  The upper mid accentuation works in the 80's favor, IMO.. it adds some air to vocals and improves (perceived) treble detail (much like how it functions in the GR07).

 
 
Quote:

Great review gnarlsagan. I'm with FlySweep on what he disagrees with you about. Finally have my FXT90 back and just finished A/Bing. I do agree the vocals seem thicker in the FXT90 and some of the guitar notes, but not by that much. But the FXT90 doesn't touch the FXD80 in separation, airyness and CLARITY!!. To me those three elements alone make the The latter a better sounding IEM. The FXT90 holds it own, but sounds sort of muddy to me compared to the FXD80. Oh, yes, wider soundstage in the FXD80 to my ears too. It does not have those huge vents for nothing.

 
Thanks guys, tbh I'm not too sure about what to look for when describing sound stage. I definitely see the reasoning behind focusing on the mids as a basis for sound stage intimacy or width, but does that hold true for treble and bass too? On the 80 I almost picture the frequency range split into two parts starting right in the mids, with the lower frequencies sounding wider or more distant and the upper frequencies sounding more narrow and intimate. Basically the bass and lower-mids sound further away but the upper-mids and treble sound like they're very close. Does that make sense? 
 
I tend to be a more treble focused listener, and so detailed or forward treble fools me into thinking the 80 has an intimate presentation.  
 
I could be approaching the topic of sound stage in totally the wrong way too. 
 
Also, about the upper-mids spike complaint, it really is a nitpick. I enjoy the extra clarity it gives and I'm fairly confident it will smooth by a decibel or two after some use. That's a good point that it could also be an issue of fit, since we all have different ears. 

 

[ElephantAudio]

Quote:

Reading all reviews, have you tried listening live concert with those? Just got mine, MP# music is great with my Zune Platinium, but listening live concert is disapointing, sibilance or some cracking in high, particulary on left earphone, as if it was un-balcanced! What are you using to burn it and who, first time for me!

Did some other test with Live concert and I think it depends on the video sound. Just listened to U2 Glastonbury 2011 and Pink Floyd HD Live at Earls Court, great sound, Styx ''The Grand Illusion Pieces Of Eight'' Live and Bruce Springsteen Live in Dublin, sibilance at begining of some singer sentences (like if it was to close to mic) or drums!