[analogsurviver]

Well, In finally received mine. So - sound out of the box - Veni, vidi, vici ?
 
Not under any stretch of imagination. This is report from zero to about 90 minutes into operation.
 
I listened to Telarc Classical Sampler 2 SACD I am very familiar with and I usually use to test any new gear first with. You can listen to few MP3s here: http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/6362193/a/Telarc+Classical+Sacd+Sampler+2.htm
however the difference between SACD and CD layers are such that lowly MP3 is really  FYI only. I suggest getting it even if you are not fan of classics, it is a great SQ demo disc with few really good performances in between.
 
@ dsnuts: your observation regarding isolation and stage recreation are correct. I developed urgent velouritis after about five minutes. Thank you for all the input so far !
 
@ cute. Velour pads that you  posted first have been reported shipped. Thanx !
 
@ anybody that responded to my posts - THANKS !
 
@ Everbody: Out of the box, this is the most dissapointing headphone I have ever had the privilege to audition. It is 30+ years I bought new headphone in shop ( AKG K 240 ), no such thing as online back then. If those AKG cans would be sounding anything like JVC HA-S out of the box, I would still have that money. Others were bought used/burnt in, also known before purchase - with the exception of my recent IEMs.
 
So, here it goes : bass is bloated, and there definitely is a resonance that is very audible, everything sounds like "one note samba" bass. Soundstage is extremely cramped, mids are recessed and together with treble quite subdued relative to overpoweing bass. Below that bass resonance there is a steep rollof resulting in near zero low bass response. Those in possesion of the mentioned SACD know the toughest track is the Prokofiev track - the beginning is so majestically well recorded percussion with one of perhaps best recorded timpany - it is extremely loud, and very few audio systems will do it justice. Out of the box HA-S500 is - pathetically ridicolous. All the majesty and sheer display of power this piece should suggest is totally destroyed by that bass resonance - I could easily hear energy buiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllldddddiiiiiing up, lingering for quite a while, and then slowly decaying - it was still decaying when another whack on the tympany caused this not so merry go round again....and again...and again...
 
There is also a veil over everything, like few have reported.
 
As it is, I would not have paid a dime for such sound.
 
HOWEVER - after said 90 minutes things did start improving a bit. I intentionally stopped listening or burn in, as I want to check a few things before I proceed. As everyone is saying, these need well above average burn in to settle to anything like final SQ. I have never heard a loudspeasker or headphone to start its audio life at such low and false key, and yet impressions from users with longest experience suggest there is a prospect of getting a beautiful swan from this out of box ugly duckling.
 
I will write down the exact parameters I am interested in and after that start burn in for 48 hours - no listening within this period. I have burning in of phono cartridges and listening to changes under my belt for two or more lifetimes already , no desire to start that all over again. I heard quite a few things that could mean the light on the other end of the tunnel, so please do not take this beggining of a review as purely negative. What I do mean to convey is that you should not  under any circumstances judge JVC HA-S500 right from the start - not only they are not special, there is perhaps a ton of other phones sounding much more mature out of the box. Carbon Nanotubes are so new material in audio nobody has yet any long term relationship with their practical properties.
 
I will report within next 48 hours. Over and out.

 

[bjaardker]

I don't have time to catch up on the thread here, but I needed to drop in and say, I opened the box about 15 minutes ago, put them on my ears, and I've been in heaven since. 

Unreal.
 
I can't wait until I can give these drivers a good burn. It's all of the sound of the FX40s that I loved without the harshness those had on box opening. I'm sure that some decent burn will get rid of the congestion I'm hearing between 200 and 2000hz. 
 
What an amazing find. I would have gladly paid $100 for these. 
 
Fit note: I have larger ears and these are definitely supra-aural. If they made a circumaural version of these I might never need to buy another headphone again.

 

[Achmedisdead]

They are supra-aural for me as well, but quite comfortable. No crushing clamp like my WS55 had at the start, they're light, and the headband is padded, unlike my Grados....lol.

 

[bjaardker]

The clamp force is relatively gentle. But anything resting on my ears like that eventually begins to hurt. I find myself adjusting these every 15 minutes or so. I think velour pads might be in my future. 

 

[Dsnuts]

Hey glad you guys finally got them. I look forward to your continued observations as they cook. Happy listening fellas.

 

[bjaardker]

Another quick observation. The versatility of these headphones is pretty awesome. I was listening to some pretty hardcore EDM since I unboxed. I thought I'd give some Steely Dan a listen since they're one of my favorite headphone test drivers.

Unbelievable. The instrument separation is wonderful and at a level I've only heard on headphones 3 times the cost. Although there isn't a much width to the soundstage, the imaging is EXCELLENT. I'm getting all 3 dimensions up, down, left, right, in front AND behind (which is often tough to get)

 

[panteraMetal]

[size=10pt]Does any of you have JVC  HA-S650?[/size][size=10pt][/size]

[size=10pt]From many impressions in this thread it seems that S500 sounds very similar to S650, which is a good thing.[/size][size=10pt][/size]

 

[sfwalcer]

Quote:

@ Everbody: Out of the box, this is the most dissapointing headphone I have ever had the privilege to audition. It is 30+ years I bought new headphone in shop ( AKG K 240 ), no such thing as online back then. If those AKG cans would be sounding anything like JVC HA-S out of the box, I would still have that money. Others were bought used/burnt in, also known before purchase - with the exception of my recent IEMs.
 
So, here it goes : bass is bloated, and there definitely is a resonance that is very audible, everything sounds like "one note samba" bass. Soundstage is extremely cramped, mids are recessed and together with treble quite subdued relative to overpoweing bass. Below that bass resonance there is a steep rollof resulting in near zero low bass response. Those in possesion of the mentioned SACD know the toughest track is the Prokofiev track - the beginning is so majestically well recorded percussion with one of perhaps best recorded timpany - it is extremely loud, and very few audio systems will do it justice. Out of the box HA-S500 is - pathetically ridicolous. All the majesty and sheer display of power this piece should suggest is totally destroyed by that bass resonance - I could easily hear energy buiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllldddddiiiiiing up, lingering for quite a while, and then slowly decaying - it was still decaying when another whack on the tympany caused this not so merry go round again....and again...and again...
 
There is also a veil over everything, like few have reported.
 
As it is, I would not have paid a dime for such sound.
 
HOWEVER - after said 90 minutes things did start improving a bit. I intentionally stopped listening or burn in, as I want to check a few things before I proceed. As everyone is saying, these need well above average burn in to settle to anything like final SQ. I have never heard a loudspeasker or headphone to start its audio life at such low and false key, and yet impressions from users with longest experience suggest there is a prospect of getting a beautiful swan from this out of box ugly duckling.
 

haha sucka WE got you.

 
All kidding aside, your description above is pretty accurate from my 1st impressions of these S500s as well.  And kiteki was right that these are not impressive on open box at all.  There is definitely a veil effect which makes the sound kinda hollow/ underwater, the bass is flappy and the overall sound is kinda slow/ mellow compared to the other nanotube IEMs. Since I have had a decent amount of experience with nanotube drivers I know these needs to be cooked, but I just chose continue to listen to them to see how fast they would tighten up.    
 
After a couple of hours of flipping through my music library to check for harsh highs/ sibilance with certain tracks, which these S500s has none whatsoever I can hear the potential abilities of the nanotube driver lurking in the background.  The veil was still there but the familiar characteristics of nanotube drivers (amazing instrument separation, imagery, speed, lush bass) were slowly coming through.  The genius of JVC's nanotube drivers are literally creeping forward the more you listen to them.  It's asking for a good beat down to set it free. LoL
 
I just got my FDX70s on the same day as these S500s, so I was able to compare 1st impressions of both.  The FXD70's were quick to achieve the amazing characteristics of these nanotube drivers (basically on open box they sounded like my FX40s, except less bass), while these S500s sounded like what analogsurvivor stated above, so it was disappointing initially ha.  BUT since I know whats the dealeo with these nanotube drivers, I didn't panic and chose to just enjoy their open box sound and try to get a good impression of them.  And I am glad I did cuz from the 1st 30 minutes of listening to hours later, their sound started to freak me out due to how much it has improved. They still got a longgg way to go in order to sound like my well burned FX40s, but the S500s will sound much better due to their overall bigger and better sound of everything FX40s has to offer.
 
Oh and these are the most comfortable headphones I have owned (headband wise cuz it's light as a feather), but since it's on ears, it gets sore after a little while.  I can see why so many want to transplant these and has reservations in getting them cuz its not over ears.  It's my 1st pair of on ears and it's a lot better than I thought it would be, but these does hurt like a mofo when you wear glasses with them. ha 
 
Happy listening and burning you'll!!!

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

 
Oh and these are the most comfortable headphones I have owned (headband wise cuz it's light as a feather), but since it's on ears, it gets sore after a little while.  I can see why so many want to transplant these and has reservations in getting them cuz its not over ears.  It's my 1st pair of on ears and it's a lot better than I thought it would be, but these does hurt like a mofo when you wear glasses with them. ha 
 
 

Take your glasses off, put the headphones on,  and then put your glasses back on. It makes a world of difference!

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

 
Why would the S500 beat the FXD80? They should be extremely close, right? I was under the impression that the FX80 was basically the IEM version of the S500's.

 
Well this could all come down to preference, but the FXDs have a more scooped signature and the bass while having similar control seems to lack a bit of texture, relatively speaking.  They just seem have a more even handed and coherent sound.
 
All this said the S500s probably have more burn-in time, so that's as it stands.  Everything else equal I would choose a more neutral sig vs. a more sparkly one.

 

[cute]

Quote:

 
Well this could all come down to preference, but the FXDs have a more scooped signature and the bass while having similar control seems to lack a bit of texture, relatively speaking.  They just seem have a more even handed and coherent sound.
 
All this said the S500s probably have more burn-in time, so that's as it stands.  Everything else equal I would choose a more neutral sig vs. a more sparkly one.

 
Are you using velour pads on the S500?

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

haha sucka WE got you.

 
All kidding aside, your description above is pretty accurate from my 1st impressions of these S500s as well.  And kiteki was right that these are not impressive on open box at all.  There is definitely a veil effect which makes the sound kinda hollow/ underwater, the bass is flappy and the overall sound is kinda slow/ mellow compared to the other nanotube IEMs. Since I have had a decent amount of experience with nanotube drivers I know these needs to be cooked, but I just chose continue to listen to them to see how fast they would tighten up.    
 
After a couple of hours of flipping through my music library to check for harsh highs/ sibilance with certain tracks, which these S500s has none whatsoever I can hear the potential abilities of the nanotube driver lurking in the background.  The veil was still there but the familiar characteristics of nanotube drivers (amazing instrument separation, imagery, speed, lush bass) were slowly coming through.  The genius of JVC's nanotube drivers are literally creeping forward the more you listen to them.  It's asking for a good beat down to set it free. LoL
 
I just got my FDX70s on the same day as these S500s, so I was able to compare 1st impressions of both.  The FXD70's were quick to achieve the amazing characteristics of these nanotube drivers (basically on open box they sounded like my FX40s, except less bass), while these S500s sounded like what analogsurvivor stated above, so it was disappointing initially ha.  BUT since I know whats the dealeo with these nanotube drivers, I didn't panic and chose to just enjoy their open box sound and try to get a good impression of them.  And I am glad I did cuz from the 1st 30 minutes of listening to hours later, their sound started to freak me out due to how much it has improved. They still got a longgg way to go in order to sound like my well burned FX40s, but the S500s will sound much better due to their overall bigger and better sound of everything FX40s has to offer.
 
Oh and these are the most comfortable headphones I have owned (headband wise cuz it's light as a feather), but since it's on ears, it gets sore after a little while.  I can see why so many want to transplant these and has reservations in getting them cuz its not over ears.  It's my 1st pair of on ears and it's a lot better than I thought it would be, but these does hurt like a mofo when you wear glasses with them. ha 
 
Happy listening and burning you'll!!!

Thank you for the  reply. I could not resist and did a bit of listening. I can confirm all your statements. It is still a Slleping Beauty with God only knows how many prince's kisses will be reqiured for her to utter her first sleepy yawn. I have noticed a rather strange, but this time positive attribute - I can hear 15 kHz clearly, something I was not able to do with any of the IEMs I tried, and yes, it does not seem to have any treble disorder whatsoever. It is still veiled, slow, dormant uninvolved presentation of music that is kindly put boring, Can make you sleepy with the hottest live recording ever produced.
 
Every now and then there is a moment stunning precision does get through that veil(s). I look forward to the moment it sets itself free and display that uncanny precision 99%, not 1 % of time as it is now.
 
Here a clarification of my ID name is in order. It is analogsurvivEr and not.  as it would be correct in English, analogsurvivOr. Basically I have been involved with sound and music since my teens and my eternal wish was and still is to make recording of a musical event of high enough quality that would allow the listener(s) the following:
 
1.) To those who were present at the live event, a very good near facsimile they can play whenever they choose.
2.) To those who were not there not only to hear the music, but be able to get as accurate as possible sundstage presentation of the venue in which      the music took          place.
 
Basically I am an analog fan, with gut reaction for, want a better word, continousness of analog vs digital sound. I still have not heard anything surpassing direct to disc vinyl. Yet sooner or later today you have to produce a digital copy, for CD, MP3, whatever. There is also no denying digital is dirt cheap compared to analog and it is in majority of cases the only economically viable option. I am using DSD to record now and yes, it is damn close to the best analog and is extremely versatile, as you can downsample from DSD into any imaginable PCM down to MP3, with the exception of DXD that is even higher resolution, but PCM which is in my opinion flawed until its rise time does not equal that of DSD - with today's technology and storage capabilities, sample rates that would allow for this matching of DSD are not achievable yet.
 
So, what does it all the above have to do with my name? There is a saying if there is very stormy weather or gale the tree that chooses to  stand upright gets unrooted and consequently dies. The one that bends to the forces of nature lives to see another day once weather calms down. I could have chosen to call myself analogDieHard, never touch anything digital with a stick - and would of course be "dead" by now. I have learned to squeeze maximum possible from the severely limited format of CD - you can say whatever you please, fact remains it is the medium most people would be able to actually use it and listen to music recorded. Although by now convienced really good digital could one day in fact surpass anything analog, I still wait and bend in this digital storm to be able, hopefully not in too distant future, pack nothing but analog gear to a certain location and make  statement recording of my dream. 
 
That is what capital E in 
 
analogsurvivEr
 
REALLY stands for.

 

[rickdohc]

Analogdude. That was a poem. You rule

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Are you using velour pads on the S500?

 
Nope, stock, but driven by the DragonFly as a source.

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

Analogdude. That was a poem. You rule

Thank you. You welcome!
 
As always, enjoy your music .