[Dsnuts]

Quote:

Why have I just bought £300 IEM's if these, at £10 or £20 will be so good?

Well if your happy with your nice iems that is great but for me personally I have different uses for iems .My more expensive stuff is stationary and my cheaper stuff I am not so worried about taking it out and about but it has to sound good too. I go to the gym with my lesser stuff but again why not use stuff that sounds good.
 
It is fun to find a real good cheaper one that sounds much more expensive. Which is easier said than done but that is for the most part what this thread is about. We on this thread are all about sound quality for the money. What is exactly the best sounding stuff for the cash.. Expensive stuff you have to expect they will sound good. But you dont expect cheap stuff to sound good but I am sure the guys on this thread at least know there is such a thing as great sounding cheap stuff. They are rare but they are certainly out there. Plus who dont like spending little money to get a nice sounding iem.?

 

[Mackem]

Hmm, upgrading my FX101s, what to go for?:
 
CKS77, FX3X, XB90EX or CKM500?

 

[chevy454]

I read on another forum that the cks77's have build quality issues

 

[jant71]

Nobody saw this yet. Come on you can do better

...
 

PREMIUM COMPACT  audio-technica / Earbuds / ATH-CKN70 SV (Silver)

High-quality sound reproduction with minimal drivers and aluminum casing cutting precision. Adopted the "NLS" new structure to prevent sound leakage in an excellent fit.
Magnet with strong magnetic force φ5.7mm precise driver. From deep in the ear, because the sound is close to the eardrum, you can enjoy rich bass reproduction than it looks. The carbon nanotube material that combines lightweight stiffness and durability, I play to the delicate sound of powerful expression. Evolutionary mechanism "(loop support) LOOP SUPPORT" our own. Adopted a new ring-shaped circle, I realized the design that may fit a certain originality and coupled with ultra-compact body. U type code adopted code be turned to the back of the neck. When not using the headphones, such as over the neck definitive, it can be used conveniently.

Product Features

● material carbon nanotube to express to sound delicate ● playing mid-high range and crisp casing aluminum cutting high rigidity to suppress unwanted vibration ● Equipped with compact screwdriver φ5.7mm to achieve playing bass range of depth, while the body ultra-compact Includes holder winding useful code earpiece / 4 size to choose ● Use the type code 1.2mU ● The code fit stable "NLS (. NEXT loop support structure)" new structure ● adopted by the diaphragm does not get in the way


■ Technical data

Φ5.7mm: Dynamic type Driver Model:
104dB/mW: Output sound pressure level
10 ~ 26000Hz: Play frequency band
200mW: maximum input
Impedance: 16Ω
Mass (excluding code) 4.5g about
Plug: Gold plated stereo mini plug Fri φ3.5mm (type L)
Cord length: 1.2 m to the right code ※ (※ type U) is longer.
Accessories: earpiece (XS / S / M / L), holder winding code

 
 
 
 
Looks like, to me if that translation is true, the carbon nanotube is from an OEM and JVC would not let AT use it if they helped create/owned exclusive rights it. Not that we really thought that JVC did any more than just get to the inventor and make use of it first. Mind you the info is translated from Rakuten and could be faulty regarding CNT. When the AT page comes online we will see if the product description mentions carbon nanotubes at all. Better for us if it is open tech for multiple brands to use.

 

[Dsnuts]

Good looking out Jant. Looks like AT is already nipping at the heels of JVC. Interesting. Will try one out when it is out for certain.

 

[sfwalcer]

^ Damn it more space station ath iems, this one looks kinda sexy.

NO SF DON"T FALL FOR THESE ATHs!!! Must resist!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
but damn it DAT CNT gimmick.

 

[daveyostrow]

Quote:

Hmm, upgrading my FX101s, what to go for?:
 
CKS77, FX3X, XB90EX or CKM500?

a quick and affordable upgrade is the fx3x. 

 

[DexterMorgan]

Quote:

Hmm, upgrading my FX101s, what to go for?:
 
CKS77, FX3X, XB90EX or CKM500?

 
 
How do the XB60EX sound? They are available for $50

 

[lilboozy]

@jant71 which iem is that?

 

[mugen3]

Guys I'm selling my CKN50s. They're great but I don't prefer them over my XBA-30s for any music. Please buy my pair and give em a new home.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/646779/audio-technica-ckn50-black

 

[Ghostfit]

Quote:

Oh yea if these cans don't make you a believer of burn in I don't know what will. They open up so much it is amazing. They sound so compressed on open box. But that is how my A900X sounded on open box as well so I knew it was gonna take some burn in to bring out the sounds on em.
 
Played a few rounds of BF3 today using the AD900X. Sound positioning is the best I have ever heard and realistic too. Love the fact that these have bass.

 
On hearing them for the first time I was like "Darn!, ....Dsnuts has really lost it this time, they sounded like $10 headphones, not really certain burning would be able to achieve what he has described"
 
Now, 100+hrs burning later, I am speechless on how SQ have changed.   ...Ya the man, Dsnuts !

 
Speaking of gaming, last nite I fired up an old PC and was reminiscing thru all the old games installed there, the Cel animation FPS "XIII" sounded so atmospheric, my hair stood on end and goosepimples all over !  ....almost had a heartattack playing multiplayer on "The Hunted" mode !

 

 

[Dsnuts]

So tell me Ghost. I know you sampled them higher end AT cans. How would you rate them AD900X in comparison. I read the AD1000X is closer to the sound of the AD900X. But the AD2000X is the flagship for a reason. But is it really that much better? I am sure they sound great but how much great are we talking about here. Lol.

 

[Ghostfit]

Quote:

So tell me Ghost. I know you sampled them higher end AT cans. How would you rate them AD900X in comparison. I read the AD1000X is closer to the sound of the AD900X. But the AD2000X is the flagship for a reason. But is it really that much better? I am sure they sound great but how much great are we talking about here. Lol.

 
LOL !   ...I don't think it's would make any sense doing a comparision now that I know how much they change in SQ after burn in, and I'm 100% sure those I've heard were NOT burned in at all as my AD900X now sounds more cohesive than that AD2000X in the store.
 
But assuming that all three I heard were out of box new, the AD900X sounded like a pair of $10 headphones, 3mins on my head and they were off. The AD1000X were similar but the bass seems more prominent, the AD2000X was actually quite listenable and impressed me the most at the time. I have no doubts that the AD2000X is the best of the lot here and is the flagship of the range for a reason. That smooth mids and crispy trebles can only get better with proper burn in.
 
My plan was to get the AD900X, burn to reasonable levels so that I can get a peek at their sound signature and if I like it, return to store and get the AD2000X.
But plans do go wrong, I am liking the AD900X more and more by the hour and less and less inclined to return to the store to plonk down the $800+ for the higher end model.
 
Those who think the JVC HA-S500 SQ changes alot after burn in will be shocked by these ATH, I would say they sound absolutely, totally different from out of box to decent burn in.  
 
PS: the saleman thought I was mad and there was something wrong with my hearing when I told him I wanted the AD900X instead of the AD2000X.

  

 

[Zelda]

...

 

[sfwalcer]

Ok, back to business. I know that these JVC FX40/ 101s are no longer as relevant now as before due to the new kid on the block, that super refined bang for the buck Sony MH1Cs and maybe the TDK MT-300s as well (shout out and love to all my Canadian bros for this major discovery!). But since I still have a lot of love for these cheapo JVCs, despite I was going to sell them off due to their harsh highs I was willing to give them a last chance.
 
I wanted to do a little experiment that involved our beloved hype-man himself, Dsnuts. Since we seem to all hear different, I have always wondered if our fearless leader's hearing abilities was really that amazing or was he just somewhat hearing impaired/ has crazy tolerance for harsh highs since he claims he detected zero harshness in his FX40/ 101s. Also like others, I was somewhat skeptical about his so called "burn-in" claims that can tame the wildest of these beasts, the FX40s with it's crazy harsh treble/ sibilance. 
 
Basically I just wanted to hear his set of FX40/ 101s and compare it to mine, since he stated numerous times that he do not hear any harshness or sibilance due to his supposed flawless burn-in method. I was like "yeah right Ds" zero harshness my @ss cuz there is no way he can not hear any harshness in these JVCs when I still hear it despite tons of burn-in on my part.
 
Long story short, Ds was kind enough to trade me his most beat up/ burned in set of FX40s/ 101s for my newer sets that had little personal use but has had a good amount of burn-in on the burn station. Well here is what he thought of my sets:
 
"My FX40 is more broken in than yours. I can tell the difference right away. I will send you my pair..I will just burn in your FX40 and send you my pair.
 
The highs are sharper on your pair and bass not as tight as my pair.
 
The FX101 is not bad but I can also tell these are not as broken in as my pair by a hair. But on the FX40 I can clearly tell. Will pack em up and send em to you.The FX101 does have a upper mid spike but will mellow more so with more burn in."
 
Well, I got to give it to the nutman, he does indeed have a great set of ears and that his flawless burn-in method is the real deal to a certain extent. His impressions of my sets were spot on despite not knowing which sets I was sending him. When I A/B my "burned to hell" set of FX40s to his, there was noticeably less peakiness in his FX40s. The highs on his were extended just like mine but it was a bit more mellowed out, hence sibilance and harshness was not as apparent.
 
The FX101s is somewhat of a different story, though. My well burned in sets sounds about the same as Dsnuts', and that harshness/ sibilance resulting in a peaky treble can be detected more easily compared to the FX40s.
 
In conclusion, this little experiment showed that burn-in, specifically Dsnuts burn-in method works and was more effective than mine on the FX40s because his FX40s were more tamed/ mellowed out. This was probably due to his use of better/ more powerful sources such as dacs/ amps for burn-in as compared to my cheapo lappy soundcard and mp3 players. Nonetheless, I would still consider these FX40s, especially the FX101s as somewhat "bright" iems even with burn-in.  Burn-in works to an extent and these FX40s seems to be more receptive to it, yielding much better results than the FX101s, most likely due to its Carbon Nano Tube properties.  Also this little experiment proves that Dsnuts' tolerance for harshness/ sibilance/ peaky highs is a lot higher than mine. So next time take his hype, i mean "impressions" with a grain of salt when it comes to treble.

 
The moral of the story: BURN THE HELL OUTTA YOUR FX40s, it will eventually tame it. Pheeeew, now where are my meds???
 
edit: Oh man, Ds' set of FX40s sounds too good right now, they are keepers for sure. Been re-listening to these FX40s lately and have fallen in love with them again. I might be trippin' but damn it the bass on his FX40s sound bigger than deeper than my set as well.  Nutman's Burn-in station is no joke!!!