[james444]

Quote:

James, sorry to bother you again but can you please try to equalize them if you have some time to spare?
 
The impression I get from reading your impressions (

) is that they are technically capable but somewhat limited by their sound signature, mainly the elevated bass and highs.
Taming the bass with a low shelf filter should be easy. Dealing with the treble could be harder but I think you will find a solution

.

 
You bet, they are technically capable and a clear step up from the IE8/80! And don't forget, they've already made it to my #1 phones for on the go, and their sound signature is excellent for that. Plus there are no occlusion effects, no footfall noise, etc..  but I'm digressing...
 
Anyway, I did another round with the same test tracks, trying to EQ the IE800 to what I consider balanced (for home use). The lowest shelf on my Cowon i9 is 80Hz and I'd say -4db or -5db @80Hz is about the ideal amount. That cleans up bass detail nicely and gets completely rid of the slightly warmish hue on vocals, leaving a beautifully natural midrange that is among the very best I've heard.
 
However (as you suspected), treble is an entirely different beast. Unlike the bass, it doesn't sound unduly elevated to my ears, at least not more so than the FAD's treble. I think I'll just drop my usual disclaimer here, to take my assessment of highs with a grain of salt, since I don't hear much above 16kHz... Like I said before, the IE800 are flirting with sibilance every now and then (as are the FI-BA-SS), but the issue I was referring to in my recent comparison is more about detail and timbre than elevation and taming. The FADs just seem to render that characteristic metallic "shimmer" of cymbals more realistically, especially during decay. Am I making sense? (I fear not, lol). Anyway, the IE800 just happen to sound less "shimmery" and realistic in my book, and make it less obvious that it's indeed metal being brushed or struck.
 
I haven't found a way to compensate for this with equalizing, and tbo, wouldn't be surprised if other fellow members hear it differently, as ever so often treble seems to be the hardest part of the frequency range to reach a consensus on. But since I have a track record of complaining about too metallic treble (particularly with TWFKs like the CK10 and B2), I think it's still worth mentioning that I hear the IE800 quite to the opposite.

 

[Mini0510]

Quote:

Sennheiser IE800 vs. Final Audio FI-BA-SS
 
Planned to do a head to head comparison between these two, with a variety of sample tracks I'm very familiar with, and ended up listening to a one minute loop from this track for almost a full hour:
 
The loop I listened to is from 1:35 to 2:35, basically the end of the chorus and the subsequent instrumental part. It shows the differences between these two IEMs more than anything else I've thrown at them.
 
Bass: The FI-BA-SS render the bass accompaniment almost perfectly, their bass is dry, fast and delicately textured, with just the right quantity and fine detail. The IE800's bass is thicker, exaggerated and less delicate and detailed in comparison. I wouldn't say it spoils the song, but it's definitely out of balance and leaves all other instruments less room to breathe. Clear preference towards the FI-BA-SS.
 
Mids: Surprisingly similar, slightly forward on both (the FI-BA-SS maybe a tad more so), but not too much in your face, extremely clear and detailed. The IE800 have a slight warmish hue from their bass excess, but no smear. Their dynamic drivers sound ever so slightly smoother and more natural than the FAD's armatures, but the difference isn't very pronounced in my book. Slight preference towards the IE800, even though the FI-BA-SS may be a tad less colored.

Highs: The FI-BA-SS' highs are vibrant with energy and airiness, cymbals are rendered in great detail, with nice shimmer and sparkle. At first listen, the IE800's highs appeared to be equally detailed and even a tad thinner and more delicate, though less airy and sparkly. But something kept bothering me about the Senn's highs, and with repeated A/B listening I came to realize, that the FADs retain noticeably better detail and realism during the decay of cymbals, whereas the IE800's decay sounds somewhat rushed and simplistic in comparison. Clear preference towards the FI-BA-SS.
 
I didn't prolong the listening session to compare soundstage, etc., because listening to a one minute loop for almost an hour left me pretty exhausted, lol. Sorry, I'll eventually hand that in at a later date...
 
Bottom line, the outcome of this A/B comparison is unexpectedly clear, as I prefer the FI-BA-SS over the IE800 by quite some margin. Only in the midrange can the Senns hold their own against the FADs and sound even a tad more natural. But both bass and highs are ultimately not quite at eye level with the latter, to my ears. Thanks for reading.

 
Overall, sound signature aside, which IEM has a better sound quality?

 

[james444]

Quote:

Overall, sound signature aside, which IEM has a better sound quality?

 
At this level of sound quality, sound signature is the main difference, and there's no "better" or "worse" in my book.

 

[Mini0510]

Quote:

 
At this level of sound quality, sound signature is the main difference, and there's no "better" or "worse" in my book.

 
Understood. In fact, I was just trying to guess the sound quality rating out of 10 according to joker's reviews lol. He rated FI-BA-SS and FX700 both at 9.3. The AKG K3003 was rated at 9.6. I think the IE 800 is probably 9.4 or 9.5 based on what I've read.
 
But then again, IE 800 is about triple the price of FX700. Since, I'm already 90% satisfied with FX700's sound signature, I'm not dishing out triple the price of FX700 just for sound signature. Of course, I expect a slightly better sound quality/presentation as well.
 
and James, when you mentioned that AKGs impressed you right out of the box, and for IE 800, they didn't. Is the fit issues, the sibilance, etc that made the IE 800 not very impressive? Or it's the sound quality as well?
You didn't really criticize about the sound quality of IE 800.
 
Still waiting for your review!  

 

[3nenbgumi]

Quote:

 
Understood. In fact, I was just trying to guess the sound quality rating out of 10 according to joker's reviews lol. He rated FI-BA-SS and FX700 both at 9.3. The AKG K3003 was rated at 9.6. I think the IE 800 is probably 9.4 or 9.5 based on what I've read.
 
But then again, IE 800 is aobut triple the price of FX700. Since, I'm already 90% satisfied with FX700's sound signature, I'm not dishing out triple the price of FX700 just for sound signature. Of course, I expect a slightly better sound quality/presentation as well.
 
Still waiting for your review!  

Hang on there mate. Those points were given in a tier-based manner which in turn is based on prices. So goes without saying the 9.3 for the FI-BA-SS should be in a higher league than that of the FX700.

 

[Mini0510]

Quote:

Hang on there mate. Those points were given in a tier-based manner which in turn is based on prices. So goes without saying the 9.3 for the FI-BA-SS should be in a higher league than that of the FX700.

those point are for sound quality only. Joker gave other points for value, comfort, and etc

 

[3nenbgumi]

Quote:

those point are for sound quality only. Joker gave other points for value, comfort, and etc

Yeah obviously. What I'm trying to say is that if you read his reviews again, IEMs are categorised into different tiers based on price (if I'm not wrong the FI-BA-SS belongs to the 1A tier, running from $600-$1500 while the FX700 is in a much lower tier). So apparently the "10" in the 1-A will pretty much outstrip other 10's of the lower tiers. So on and so forth.

 

[jant71]

Quote:

Yeah obviously. What I'm trying to say is that if you read his reviews again, IEMs are categorised into different tiers based on price (if I'm not wrong the FI-BA-SS belongs to the 1A tier, running from $600-$1500 while the FX700 is in a much lower tier). So apparently the "10" in the 1-A will pretty much outstrip other 10's of the lower tiers. So on and so forth.

Joker's scores are based on...
"Sound: Possibly the most subjective of the categories, the sound rating is an evaluation of the relative merits of the sound signature, scaled to the best earphone I have heard."
 
So both are 9.3 vs. the best he's heard which defines the scale( the 10) regardless of price. Both fall short of the best by 0.7 in their own unique ways.

 

[Mini0510]

I see. Ok. Thanks for clarifying

 

[JohannLiebert]

I dont care for Joker's SQ score at all.

 

[Mini0510]

Quote:

I dont care for Joker's SQ score at all.

ok...

 

[Ultrazino]

Quote:

I dont care for Joker's SQ score at all.

 
+1
I really like the FX700 and it's one of my personal favorites. But seriously, 9.3 cannot be an objective score! Resolution is very poor.
I will also disagree with his review of the UE900 if I try to be objective.
 
Anyway, I think it's sad people value rating scores so highly. I think ratings are crap.

 

[Mini0510]

Quote:

 
+1
I really like the FX700 and it's one of my personal favorites. But seriously, 9.3 cannot be an objective score! Resolution is very poor.
I will also disagree with his review of the UE900 if I try to be objective.
 
Anyway, I think it's sad people value rating scores so highly. I think ratings are crap.

hows is the resolution poor...
I assume you are stating that the resolution is poor is because it's very bassy, so the bass covers up the rest of the spectrum.
Reduce the bass will greatly reduce the transparency and resolution if you wish.

 

[Ultrazino]

No it's poor as in I can hear twice as many details with the UE900. Of course the V-shape drowns some details, but even with EQ, making the FX700 almost flat (bass -10, treble -8dB) obviously shows that the FX700 has a much poorer resolution.

 

[lee730]

Really because I thought they were very detailed IEMs? Just the treble and bass were too much IMO.