[james444]

^ I don't think this would be favorable with the FADs. Like I said, they sound best (though bass light) without isolation and congested when sealed. A very low density foam would probably do best in enhancing bass and still allowing some air flow.

 

[Anouk]

Hi there,
I am not sure what low density foam is. Are the comply tips considered low density foam?
Greetings, Anouk,

 

[shigzeo]

Comply are high density: they have small pours but many of them. A low density foam is the yellow type. For the FAD, I cut it short so that it left the metal nozzle sticking out from the foam a bit. The foams just kept the earpieces in place and expand the bass a bit. The FAD has a lot of bass to output, but it needs coaxing. Other foams caused too much smear.

 

[james444]

Short update, I haven't had much opportunity to listen to the FADs, because much of my listening is on the move and there's no way I can see myself wearing these on a commute. Anyway I left them on burn-in (>100 hours) and today I spent some intense listening time with them.

First I tried the coax-the-bass-with-foam-thing with different kinds and colors of foamies (including yellow ones), but I'm still unconvinced. First of all the bass increase is mostly in mid/upper-bass and second, it introduces some smear of detail even with the lightest foam. As an alternative I also tried EQing with the Cowon i9 and rockboxed Fuze and IMO this works better with these phones, especially if you want to coax some deep bass out of them.

Then I did some A/B comparison with my IE8 and e-Q7, but it didn't last as long as planned, because the result was just too obvious. Let's begin with the mids, 'cause they are the FADs strongest asset and they can keep up with the other two. Both male and female vocals sound very good, with natural timbre, but I won't say they surpass the IE8 and e-Q7. Concentrating on treble tips the scale clearly towards the two contenders, the FADs just don't have comparable extension and also a tad less detail. I've already been mentioning bass, with a flat source the FADs fall obviously short, but with EQ you can coax some awe-inspiring bass out of the 16mm drivers. Nevertheless they're not that impressive when it comes to bass definition - the e-Q7 walk all over the other two in this regard. But it's worth mentioning that the FADs have nice PRAT for drivers of this size.

Soundstage is somewhat difficult to judge with the FADs, because with metal tips they rest quite loosely in the ears and the angle beween nozzle and ear canal can vary. At best I'd rate the soundstage as generous, but not spectacular like the IE8. Transparency is once again a point where the FADs fall a bit short, I do not think they can really keep up with the IE8 and e-Q7 in this area.

Overall it took me less than an hour to consolidate my (still intermediate) impression, that the FADs are not quite up there with my best IEMs. Maybe I'm just not qualified in hearing some of the subtlest nuances, but in all cases where a difference was obvious to my ears, it was the FADs that fell short.

Anyway, I will give them and myself still more time before posting final conclusions.

 

[iponderous]

Hi james444 and thank you for your update. I understand that this is your intermediate impression but I've seen enough to rule this phone out of consideration. Though I'll continue to watch this thread with interest.

 

[rebski]

@james444
Thanks for the post. I am sorry that the FADs are not living up to expectations.

Being dynamic drivers perhaps they will benefit from even more burn in?

Either way I look forward to further impressions.

 

[shigzeo]

I have no idea about burn in at all with these. I do rest behind my observation that strings and vocals are extraordinary. The sound stage I am not getting though. I agree with the smear, but the stage is (unless the IE8 I heard were completely 'off') far beyond the IE8.

If you are talking about instrument separation, I agree that the Ortofon is ahead. But layers, ie.: tangible sound channels is far beyond any earphone I have heard. Again though, this, like their speakers is the earphone for the audiophile who buys.

And, I haven't heard the SB model. From what I heard of the SC VS SS models, though, there is difference, so maybe the SB model is similar. I cannot imagine it as badly as it seems from James' impressions though.

James, I hope that you can find something to love, otherwise that is a shame.

 

[james444]

@rebski and shigzeo, thanks for your condolences. My quest for getting the best out of these little beauties continues, and I'm happy to report that my perseverance is finally starting to pay off!

For clarification, my first impression that "this isn't going to blow any of my IEMs out of the water" was right out of the box with the solid silicon tips - a natural first choice because I use most of my IEMs with silicon tips. I wasn't then prepared for the smeared and congested sound that came out of the FADs. Later on and cycling through the tip choices I found out that they just don't get along well with isolation and started using the metal ones. From this point I no longer thought of them as bad phones. But Final Audio's choice to include tips that make their product inevitably sound inferiour still puzzles me.

Now the metal tips have one drawback, they rest very loosely in my wide ears - sometimes strangely angled against the ear canal, affecting soundstage and imaging. That's why I reported problems with a consistent rating of soundstage. Anyway, here's my personal major breakthrough with the FADs: I started using some small generic silicon tips over the metal ones. This gives me better placement and improved stabilty while still allowing free air flow for best sound quality. I know this sounds somewhat funny, but it's pretty much like sticking a rubber pad beneath a table leg to keep it from slipping.

Long story short, now for the first time I experience consistency with the FADs, taking them out and putting them in again they sound exactly the same.

@shigzeo: Just a few notes regarding your last reply. Yes, I was talking about soundstage, not instrument separation. Like I said, it was a bit difficult to judge but now I can give a more precise report. I stick to my observation that the soundstage (as in virtual width, depth, and height between instruments) is generous but even larger on the IE8. But there's another ingredient on the FADs that adds to the illusion of space: reverb. You already mentioned it in your review, their metal body is a formidable echo chamber. This does work great with some genres and not so good with others, but when it works it certainly makes the FADs sound larger than life. Just like a cottage piano will sound like a grand piano if you play it in an empty room. But strictly refering to virtual stage size and distance between instruments the reverb does not increase soundstage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif James, I hope that you can find something to love, otherwise that is a shame.

These phones turn out to be an unexpected challenge for me. As a person who likes challenges, so far I'm not disappointed.

 

[iponderous]

^ Glad to see that you're making some progress with them. But your experience is not my idea of a challenge. It would be an unequivocal disappointment, particularly at that price.

 

[shigzeo]

Well, I don't think FAD designed the series with price/performance by budget audiophiles (headfiers) in mind. They sell speakers for half a mill and have customers for them. Their balanced armatures which will come out in June or July or something (from all reports) will probably better hit the non-signature sound and maybe price/performance to other cheaper earphones.

The 1601 series is probably an exercise to get the sound of their top speakers into your ear while not trying to make it sound like every other manufacturer's idea of great. For music which sounds great with the FAD, I've not heard a better. But I don't recommend it for a lot of contemporary poppy music. Anything with female vocals -providing you can find the right fit- the 1601 is beyond amazing and when instruments remain cleanly delineated in the recording, they are the most headphone sounding earphones I have heard.

BUT AGAIN - they are not aimed at the same market that headfi fills and that is why I didn't want to write a review originally, but merely an article about them. I ended up writing on and giving a rating which I don't feel fits this product because it isn't in any way related to other products I have reviewed, nor a sound that is like any other.

Like the raging bull, the FAD are hard to tame, but as worthy as a Lambourghini when tamed.

 

[iponderous]

^ I appreciate your qualifications regarding the niche market that these unique phones occupy shigzeo, but I don't accept them. Yes, they are a hybrid design. They are neither an IEM, an earbud, or a full-sized headphone, but in the end I have to ask so what of it? These phones are manufactured by a boutique hi-fi manufacturer. I assume that the purpose of these phones is to be more than aesthetically appealing from a visual perspective alone. I would hope that they are designed to reproduce music exceptionally well and at their asking price, I think that this expectation is entirely reasonable. However, based on james444's posts they're not doing a very convincing job of it either in their own right, or when compared to other top-tier earphones that cost considerably less.

The esoteric and luxury heritage of these phones does not exempt them from critical assessment from an audio perspective. I know little about luxury cars but the Lambourghini analogy doesn't hold up for me. It is a high-performance luxury car that I have no doubt would perform from the moment the driver starts the ignition. The FADs appear to require some extensive tuning and modifications before they can even begin to approach their potential. And I very much doubt that a Lambourghini comes with velour seat covers. Yet the FAD appears equipped with a cable of a quality befitting a much lower priced earphone.

I read your article shigzeo and regarded it as a favourable review of this earphone. If it is not intended to be a review, then perhaps you should consider withdrawing it from publication or adding a prominent caveat explaining its intended purpose. I'm sorry, but my impression of the FAD is of beguiling audio folly aimed at those who think nothing of paying a premium price for it. Again, the story of the emperor's new clothes comes to mind.

 

[shigzeo]

Indeed, I 'see where you are coming from', but then I also see where I am coming from and am familiar now with the product. The Lambourghini (true Lambourghini) doesn't have power steering, so if you want to drive it, you have to learn how to drive it and adapt your muscles to controlling a heavy, fast car.

At first, I wondered who would buy the FAD, but after hearing countless 'sounds the same' earphones, I think I understand. Most phones sound mostly the same: emphasis on bass or mid bass, and a mix of somewhat sunk mids or highs. The FAD isn't that typical phone. Its highs aren't crystal clear, its bass isn't (without foam) as full. Its sound is focussed on the midrange with ESPECIAL attention paid to echo which is amazing.

The market for 500 000 $ speakers isn't audiophile, it is probably OCD more than anything else. But within that market which has tricked down to headphones, the segment who really love echo will love these phones. They do sound best with vocals, strings, and to a lesser extent pianos. Anything with metal that isn't jarring is amazing.

I know you are one to dislike non-traditional sounding earphones, so I won't argue with your POV. And my review reads like a review because it became a review. I fully agree with everything I said and if I didn't elucidate on the phone's caveats, I will take another look, but I think I pretty well said that it has (these strengths), is probably targeted towards this music style, and works for this situation.

 

[iponderous]

^ No shigzeo, it's not about me having a dislike of non-traditional headphones. The FADS do not have a traditional appearance, and that is precisely what attracted me to them in the first place. I don't think that I have a preconception of what a traditional, as opposed to a modern headphone should look or sound like. No two headphones have ever sounded the same to me (unless they are the same two models) and it would be a very boring aural proposition if they did.

However, we're not discussing art here but headphones. These serve a functional purpose as I have said. As much as I admire the appearance of the FADS, I think I would like them to reproduce music as a whole, rather than as an abstraction of it. And there is so much more to music than prominent mids, and an excellent echo in a sound chamber. So yes, I can't help but regard these phones as an expensive triumph of style over substance, and a luxury that I'm happy to do without.

 

[sxr71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bemopti123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whatever choice of materials and design that they make is more than just aesthetics, in the case of the casing materials for the headphones, they might indeed look high crafted, extravagant but there is a purpose behind it all. Resonance and enclosure materials are key to any sort of loudspeaker design and in the case of earphones, why would they be any different. Until recently, most of the IEMs were made out of plastic or silicone while their dynamics units had advanced in terms of complexity or execution. If you see the very best dynamic loudspeakers out there regardless of cost, some of the very most successful and well rated designs make sure that their cabs are inert and one company that comes to my mind makes sure that their cabs are made out of solid chunks of metal, aluminum.

Are you serious? Yes it makes a huge difference what material the cabinet is made of in a LOUDspeaker. The magnitude of energy released by a modern loudspeaker that must fill 3000-5000 cubic feet with acoustic energy is a whole other universe from what is coming from a 16mm driver that is acoustically coupled to your eardrum.

To even imagine that the properties of bronze, stainless steel or chromium copper that is PLATED WITH ROSE GOLD, are so different with respect to the acoustic energy levels present in an IEM is ludicrous. Yes, there are differences in plastics that vary considerably and from plastic to metal but the idea the difference between metals themselves in the larger scheme of things so as to warrant a $1200 premium is preposterous.

I have no doubt Final Audio Design is a great manufacturer with excellent designs and a great history and many of their philosophies agree with mine such as minimalism and battery power supply which I take to be the "holy grail" for audio power supply. However over the years it seems the marketing got out of hand in the whole industry and even the good manufacturers needed to keep up. Everybody is cashing in on the portable music boom with IEMs now. I mean Grado, Sennheiser, Final Audio making IEMs? Sounds funny but also very profitable.

 

[sxr71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ I appreciate your qualifications regarding the niche market that these unique phones occupy shigzeo, but I don't accept them. Yes, they are a hybrid design. They are neither an IEM, an earbud, or a full-sized headphone, but in the end I have to ask so what of it? These phones are manufactured by a boutique hi-fi manufacturer. I assume that the purpose of these phones is to be more than aesthetically appealing from a visual perspective alone. I would hope that they are designed to reproduce music exceptionally well and at their asking price, I think that this expectation is entirely reasonable. However, based on james444's posts they're not doing a very convincing job of it either in their own right, or when compared to other top-tier earphones that cost considerably less. The esoteric and luxury heritage of these phones does not exempt them from critical assessment from an audio perspective. I know little about luxury cars but the Lambourghini analogy doesn't hold up for me. It is a high-performance luxury car that I have no doubt would perform from the moment the driver starts the ignition. The FADs appear to require some extensive tuning and modifications before they can even begin to approach their potential. And I very much doubt that a Lambourghini comes with velour seat covers. Yet the FAD appears equipped with a cable of a quality befitting a much lower priced earphone. I read your article shigzeo and regarded it as a favourable review of this earphone. If it is not intended to be a review, then perhaps you should consider withdrawing it from publication or adding a prominent caveat explaining its intended purpose. I'm sorry, but my impression of the FAD is of beguiling audio folly aimed at those who think nothing of paying a premium price for it. Again, the story of the emperor's new clothes comes to mind.

I would happily buy the 1601SB bronze version and sleep well at night knowing that sound at least 99.5% of the $1200 more 1601SC ROSE GOLD PLATED Chromium Copper.

I bet they do sound good, and I bet they also have an excellent echo chamber that is common to all metal variants. But again I would stick with the 1601SB. Same everything - just not gold plated.