And afterward we get to the glaring issue at hand (and for me this is a genuine “gigantic”). They’ve chosen to put a “purchaser” tonality to the bass – and IMHO they have gone for amount over quality (unfortunately). The bass is enormous, it is raised, and it veils a ton of the detail in the practically impeccable mid-go. I could live with raised sub-bass – however their architects have brought this through the mid-bass and even the lower mids (there is a great deal of drain/veiling). For me it is tragic, in light of the fact that I imagined this was to be their achievement … .. an audiophile quad BA. Unfortunately its not to be.

This has been a thrill ride. From the start, the FA7 are remarkable. Incredible extra bundle, excellent structure, eminent fit and by and large solace. Couple that with the nature of the manufacture, the nature of the link, the easily overlooked details like the neoprene convey case, and the new link clean and its previously resembling an incredible bundle.

The DN-2000 is outstanding amongst other tuned triple half and half IEMs ever discharged and is amazingly all around adjusted from start to finish (with a slight warm tilt to the sub-bass). It is perfect and clear, very non-exhausting, and ought to be a referral point to anybody needing to create a reference tuned mixture. The FA7 is nearly warm and thick and fairly dim sounding. The DN2K can even now be found in the $200-250 territory and if the fit is great, they are fantastic screens (tragically I discover them awkward after some time). Without EQ, my inclination is the DN2K, however with EQ I’d go with the FA7 only for comfort/fit.

The Primacy is the significantly more adjusted of the two (its not close), however has a marginally forward mid-go and a lower treble pinnacle which might be exhausting for a few. It has great by and large offset however with some sensible low effect from the dynamic driver, and a spotless and clear generally signature. The FA7 has significantly progressively mid-bass and lower mid-go making it a lot hotter and thicker. I don’t need to EQ the Primacy. I would need to EQ the FA7. They are equivalently valued. With EQ, I favor the FA7’s better generally bundle. Without EQ I lean toward the Primacy’s default signature.

The FH5 has the more adjusted start to finish recurrence reaction of the two, yet has a forward mid-extend which now and again can be exhausting. It has great by and large offset however with some great low effect from the dynamic driver. The lower treble is very non-exhausting and somewhat on the quelled side. The FA7 has significantly increasingly mid-bass and lower mid-run causing it to seem hotter and thicker. Both react well to EQ. There is just a $40 distinction between the two ear-telephones so it truly comes down to inclination. I incline toward the FA7 mid-extend, so as long as I would eq be able to down the bass, my inclination is the FA7.

Again both have comparative marks from 1 kHz up. The ES3 has marginally more colouration in the upper-mids. The enormous distinction is in mid-bass and lower mid-extend. The ES3 is very level, and raised distinctly at the sub-bass. This makes a spotless and clear screen with some sub-bass warmth/sway – yet by and large a dryer and cooler tonality. The FA7 is exceptionally warm in examination. The ES3 is practically twofold the value, which makes the FA7 a greatly improved offer – subject to eagerness to EQ. In the event that I needed to utilize the default signature, I’d lean toward the ES3. This is another situation where the both have insufficiencies in a similar territory. The ES3 could utilize somewhat more lower mid-extend. The FA7 needs a cut in bass and lower mid-go.

Again both have comparative marks from 1 kHz up, and a portion of the 7kHz pinnacle of the Q-Jays is countered by a more profound inclusion (lightening the thunderous pinnacle). The Q-Jays bass is an ideal counterpart for the remainder of it’s mark, and it is anything but difficult to EQ progressively bass whenever required. The Q-Jays have a pleasantly coordinated spotless and clear mark which is very much adjusted, and maybe marginally on the splendid side of impartial. The FA7 are very warm and significantly more on the clouded side of nonpartisan. Both are a similar cost and at the default signature, my inclination is with the Q-Jays. I do anticipate a balanced tuning of the FA7 however as it can possibly be a superior by and large advertising.

The two IEMs have a comparable mark with one glaring contrast. The FA7 has considerably more bass contrasted with the Curve. The FA7 is warm and dim, while the Curve is somewhat excessively brilliant (coming up short on some bass). Both are effectively remedied through an EQ change in accordance with bass (with the FA7 it is bass and lower mids). The Curve needs 3-4 dB included (+4 on the E17K is perfect), and the FA7 needs a comparing sum evacuated. After alteration, both are a lot nearer to reference. Given the $50 less expensive worth and the somewhat simpler EQ – my inclination stays with the Alclair Curve.

Both have a very decent mid-extend, and are on the warm side of impartial – yet for various reasons. With the FA7, this is for the most part because of the overstated sub and mid-bass, which stretches out into the lower mid-go. With the B400 this is because of the mid-bass and lower mid-go (contrasted with upper mid-extend) and the relaxed lower treble from 4-9 kHz. Both are warm IEMS – yet the FA7 is the darker of the two. Under EQ both can be redressed to a more reference signature. The B400 is 2/3 the cost of the FA7 – yet I incline toward FA7’s general form quality. Without the capacity to EQ, I lean toward B400’s default signature.

This is quite emotional, yet the charts do show relativity against other reference focuses.

In the event that this had been the default signature, I do think FiiO would have been more like an increasingly worthy generally speaking tonality (for my preferences at any rate). Luckily its a simple change to present. Curiously enough – this little change begins to put the recurrence reaction (by and large) near that of the CA Andromeda.

With my iPhone SE around 25-35% volume is all that anyone could need with most tracks, and the FiiOs are by and large at around 30-40/120 single finished. I additionally attempted the FA7 with the Q1ii, E17K and XRK-NHB, however saw no genuine contrasts in elements on any aside from the XRK-NHB. The second request sounds with the XRK-NHB were excessively and tended to add more body and warmth to the general introduction which the FA7 certainly needn’t bother with.

The FiiO FA7 needn’t bother with intensification for generally speaking volume – and on the grounds that its impedance isn’t excessively low, any source with a yield impedance of under 2-3 ohms (to meet damping necessities) should combine OK.

At this point you definitely know where I believe the FA7’s single shortcoming to be – the sub-bass, mid-bass and change to bring down mid-extend is essentially over-done (a lot of amount). Luckily this is a simple fix with the E17K. Essentially utilizing the tone controls to drop the bass by – 4 or – 6 was sufficient to diminish the bass strength while holding both generally speaking recurrence balance, and furthermore safeguarding the vocal execution.

These examinations were altogether finished with the X7ii, (no EQ) – and volume coordinated utilizing an aligned SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. For this arrangement of tests I’ve attempted to adhere to multi-drivers (half and halves or BAs) with a value extend near the FA7 ($200-$600 territory). For BA’s I’ve contrasted with the Brainwavz B400, Alclair Curve, Jays q-Jays, and Earsonics ES3. For the half and halves, I’ve utilized FiiO’s very own FH5, the Orivetti Primacy, and Dunu’s DN-2000.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here