shotgunshane’s IEM (custom and universal) recommendations, favorites and classics

Starting with the FX1100, JVC opted for a smoother and more restrained treble tuning than on their older woodies.
And the new FW01 are even more polite in treble than the FX1100.

FX850: lots of bass - somewhat recessed mids - forward and sparkly treble
FX1100: leaner / tighter bass (upper bass less clear than FX850's though) - better mids presence - smoother / less forward treble
FW01: leanest / tightest bass (still north of neutral though) - best mids presence - smoothest / most polite treble

 

Wow...thanks @james444 for the enlightmen...so in conclusion, FW01 is the true better / best version of JVC woodies series according to you?

For the FW01, you said that its the most polite treble, does it means that FW01 have a downsloping FR? Or is it "relatively" the most polite from all JVC woodies series, but still have some nice pronounced treble sparkle?

 

From a technical point of view, the FW01 are certainly better (tighter bass, more controlled resonance, smoother response).

But subjectively, I think it depends on your listening habits. The FX850 are great IEMs for low volume / nighttime listening. Due to their v-shaped response, they retain tactile bass and treble sparkle even at very quiet listening levels. However, this kind of sound signature can quickly become obtrusive, as you crank up the volume.

The FW01, on the other hand, handle louder listening levels better and with more control than the FX850, but they do lack a little excitement at very low volume. Treble sparkle is there, but noticeably less pronounced than on the FX850, so the FW01 need a bit more oomph to really shine.

Blame it all on Fletcher and Munson lol...

 

James, which have better timbre and are overall better with acoustic music - the FW01s or the Sony EX1000s?

 

I haven't heard any JVC since the FX700, but I very briefly (emphasis on VERY) heard the FW01, and I thought it was quite enjoyable.

 

You can't go wrong with any of these, both are great with acoustic music. The EX1000's low range is a little more accurate, while the FW01s are noticeably warmer. In the high range it's pretty much the other way round, the FW01s are a little more refined, while the EX1000s are a tad too forward and uneven. Mids are excellent on both, imo.

From a modding pov, it's easier to "correct" the JVC's warmth than the Sony's treble happIness. Just add silicone strips underneath the tips (as per the mod that Shane linked earlier) and you end up with an almost reference-like sound signature on the FW01s. On the EX1000s, you can add more damping to the nozzle filters to reduce overall treble presence, but they'll still retain their slight unevenness on top.

Speaking of which, let's not dismiss the modded Fostex TE-02n that Shane mentioned, just because they're $30 cheapos. Imo they can go eye to eye with both the FW01s and EX1000s (particularly with acoustic music), with a sound signature that's leaner than the JVCs and smoother than the Sonys.

 

If it was you, which would you buy for mostly jazz, classical and world music listening considering current prices (~250, 350, 450 USD respectively)?

 

As a budget choice, just to ease your way into timbre-fi, why not pick up an re-00? It's cheap, midcentric, cheap, decently detailed and nice for the small price. And cheap. It really scratches the dynamic driver itch and you can enjoy it while you figure out what you want.

I'm all about the classical and world music (have you checked out the Indian classical thread here, btw?). My advice would be to pass on the fx850, I love bass, but there's something off on the 850, thuds in a fatiguing way where bigger basses and punchier basses can go for hours and the treble is a slightly odd plateau. I get why people mod it. I haven't heard the fw01, but it seems like JVC was listening to feedback when they moved away from the 850's tuning, so the fw01 is one I'd like to hear. The new gr07x is another DD iem I'm looking forward to hearing.




On the topic of timbre, I have a very mildly different take than a lot of folks when it comes to timbre and tone. Yes, it's great to have a balanced tone, but what I've found is that an earphone can be darker sounding and still have great timbre. Not that it wouldn't be better to have a balanced tone, but that a bit of darkness isn't an insurmountable obstacle. I'll use an example from someone else. The guy who handled the audio for the country music awards a few years back is facebook friends with Future Sonics. So, like a creep, I looked him up and emailed him politely. I asked about his take on ciems. He felt that the old, old Future Sonics MG4+, which is dark sounding, was "a true reference". It made me think of some darker earphones and they can have great timbre, even if, as others note, the tone is dark and you have to be cool with that. I haven't found it to be as true with bright earphones. I wonder if it's a little like with vision. If you have some rich colors painted and use a dimmer switch on the lights to go from quite bright down a few steps toward romantic lighting, the color starts to look much richer at a certain point (try it sometime!). One frequency can mask the tones above it to our ears, maybe the right dynamic transducer with a smartly tuned slightly darker sound done right avoids this effect and gives us the sense of really hearing the subtle resonances that give us great timbre. Just an idea. Of course, Iike I said, a balanced tone is nice, too.

 

I've always had a preference for dark over bright. I associate dark with analog and solidity i.e. realness and bright with digital i.e. enough said. Not sure if that's fair.

I have the Andros and while everything sounds just right frequency and separation wise, the sound itself doesn't sound like it's emanating from actual real instruments. It doesn't move enough air to sound like a real classical guitar pluck - the sound doesn't impact the eardrum with the same force and the dynamic range isn't the same. Instead it just kind of squirts the right frequency in high concentration out pf tiny holes like an inkjet printer. This is obviously horribly imprecise and subjective language, but its how I'm hearing it.

Unfortunately it doesn't sound like any DD is going to give me the balance of the Andros. All of them seem to have their problems. I guess that's the advantage of being able to have multiple tiny BAs each assigned to a narrow frequency range.

edit: I've had the RE400s. I liked them enough but like the Aurisonic Rockets, they didn't really seem to have enough extension in either direction. A little too midcentric and smooth and... dull.

 

I'm a bad role model in that regard, since I tend not to base my buying decisions on value. I'd simply consider which ones I like best (in that case: the FW01), and provided I can afford them, I'd buy them.

It's not ;-) Have you ever heard cymbal crashes in a live concert? They're ear-splittingly bright! So much for realness... on most records I know, they've been deliberately tuned down in the mix (thankfully).

On a more serious note, while I can relate to a preference for dark over bright (less fatiguing, etc..), the most versatile sound signature is definitely balanced / neutral in my book. Album mixes are usually all over the place, and only balanced IEMs will cope equally good with bright and dark mixes. Just listen to a track like Matthew Sweet's "Girlfriend" with bright phones, or tracks like Calexico's "Frontera/Trigger" and Natalie Merchant's "Giving Up Everything" with dark phones, and you'll likely see what I mean. I learned this the hard way, while trying to mod my Fostex TE-02n to sound good with all my test tracks, instead of just a few.

I have somewhat similar reservations about BAs. They seem to sound extremely precise, but somehow artificially so. I can get used to their characteristics, if I listen exclusively to BAs. But whenever I switch from DDs to BAs, after a long listening session with the former, the latter sound artificial to me. Surprisingly enough, DDs, in turn, don't sound off to me after a long BA listening session.

The FW01 with front vent mod are pretty similar in overall balance. However, being DDs, they sound smoother and less analytical.

 

To me the hardest to deal with when switching from Bas to DDs is the change in sound staging. Still waiting for the FutureSonics MG8pro release if any, hopefully more balanced (the only complain I have is that the treble could be a bit brighter).

 

Can you please elaborate on the change you perceive?

 

Generally speaking, most BA's tend to have a very small ovoid of sound (or sound staging, but I don't feel completely correct using it. Depth and width is influenced by the source, and the shape is what I'd call the 'starting' line from which the sound itself is reproduced nearer or further, or more to the left or to the right), like a squished sphere, in the head.

I'd say it ranges from (diameter, value is very approximate since I can't measure that) ~6cm (some FitEar, believe it's monet) to about ~13cm (CA Andromeda). The MG6pros start at about ~25cm with the smallest vents. This is purely my experience and my ears, of course. It's not a perfect representation but the best way I can think about describing it succinctly.

 

There are ways to "fake" an open soundstage, but I think generally a vented shell is a part of a more open sound.
So, that would help describe some of the differences between closed-shell BA iems and vented dynamics.

 

Yeah it's possible to fake soundstage (the AKG K702 comes to mind with odd soundstaging) but for vented DD's that's a design decision, but it makes it hard for me to get to grips with stuff in meets or shops without hogging it for exorbitant amounts of time since I spend a lot of time getting used to the smaller sound stage rather than really listening. Hopefully the Andromeda make it easier.

 

Thanks for your explanation In general, I can relate to that. Though I might add that's not necessarily a question of BA vs. DD technology itself. I think that venting and bass decay both play an important role in soundstaging with IEMs. And most DDs have longer decay and are vented, whereas most BAs are fast and sealed. So the former have an inherent advantage in that regard.

However, there are exceptions to the rule, like FInal's BAM mechanism, or delayed BA woofers that simulate a more DD-like decay. And on the other hand, some extremely damped DDs that sound quite in-the-head and claustrophobic.


Edit: QFT, you beat me to it!

 

True. I think there are a lot of correlated characteristics that we confuse when describing audio. I am probably conflating "bright" and "thin" and "digital". I want to here all the frequencies in realistic proportion - but I want things to sound solid and dense, not thin and digital.

 

Tends to be a very general noticeable trend. Both types have exceptions, but that means they have general characteristics.

 

I have several iems but the ones I own reputed the most neutral are the Prophile-8, and nonetheless I find them to make a lot of recordings sound not so good, whereas some of my slightly warmer iems (S-EM9) are easier on the ears.

You have heard them I think no?

 

Currently have the re-400s. Looking to upgrade and was thinking about the Noble X if they drop it again, however the recently announced quad drive IEM by 1more looks interesting. The 1More is $200 whereas the Noble is $250.

The triple driver by 1More is pretty well received so curious what they do with 4. Hope some SBAF guys get a listen when it comes out.