Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Jays q-JAYS & s-JAYS, Prototype impressions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jays q-JAYS & s-JAYS, Prototype impressions - Page 31

post #451 of 479
I can relate to the duke that he feels somewhat offended by some of the posts in this thread, he is told that he is feeding a hype and are running JAYS buisiness and that is not fair, the first thing that I was told by JAYS was to be honest and I suspect that the Duke was told the same....

Us (the testers) are trying to help people, we are not here to sell products, I recall that the Duke was offering to send the JAYS foamies to help, I myself told to PM me about making selfmade foamies both actions were taken to help Tom Brown, not to create a hype or sell products, just to help and trying to be kind..

Of course Toms post is as relevant as any other post, I am not saying that, but we have tried to help as good as we could..
And are afterwards told that we were only here to hype and sell products...

Just my 2 cents on a subject I really was planning not to be a part of...

p.s. I am still here to help with some foamies if it has any interest, just pm me name and address and I will send you a pair (at my own expence) and a guide to make some yourself, I am doing this because I would like Tom to be able to use his phones and get the full potential out of them. Not to do JAYS a favour but to help a fellow victim of head-fi...
post #452 of 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclejr View Post
Hey, the Shure comply foams do not work. They have a pretty firm inner sleeve that does not stretch well over the wide stem of the q-Jays. However, the 3-flange silicon tips from Etymotic (from my 4's) works great and provides such a better seal.

q-Jays + ety 3-flange is absolutely the way I like em.
This is good information. I tried a set of Shure triple flanges a buddy at work gave me but they are stiff with tiny mounting holes and I didn't want to force them over the q-JAYS stems. They are probably cheap clones off eBay so I won't dump on the Shure triple flanges, with respect to q-JAY use.

I've got a set of Etymotic triple flanges on the way, as well as some Etymotic foam tips. They should be here any day. I will post my results.

If I can get things sorted out, I will look at creating a web page with the tips I've tried, as well as flange fit and success. If someone else has or creates such a page, I will offer my data to them.

I'd like to see some tip cross reference for the Denon AH-C700 too. I might try a pair of those after I spend some time with the SE530s.

Some of this stuff seems pretty generic. It wouldn't be too tough to create a cross reference of stem geometry of the various IEMs versus tip compatibility. Also, a little data on the various tips, IE: softness, size, etc. would be nice.
post #453 of 479
Don't get me wrong here, I wholeheartedly encourage that the q-JAYS could have better fitting tips. And they're working on that.

I apologize for hijacking this thread, and for using or proliferating the use of the word "hype". The product is what it is, and it speaks for itself. I'm sure everyone would appreciate just dropping this right here.
post #454 of 479
Calm down guys Everyone have different ear canals so I'm not surprised some have problems with fit. We do include some of the biggest range of sleeves in q-JAYS ranging from XXS to Large. There will always be someone who can't get a proper fit but from my experience we cover like 98% of the users with the sleeves included in the q-JAYS. And soon the foames will be included too.

Cheers
post #455 of 479
IMO I think some of what is getting people's nerves on edge is throwing around the word "hype" when talking about an issue that is not related to sound, at least directly. It is a pretty valid issue though I can see why Tom is upset.
post #456 of 479
My concern now is deciding if I should pay over $200 for phones that may not even be better than my koss ksc 35's. It sounds to me like there is no way to try these out, no refunds given, and if you don't like them, you're stuck with them. This is the problem with in ears. Who's got money to risk on expensive phones if you're not even sure you'll like them or can get some reviews with comparisons? Seriously, how could these list for $179 and not be better than $35 Koss cans? They should be 5 times better if you look at price ratio. Are you paying for size here? The ability to have it hidden in your ear? As far as I know, in ears should have an easier time being 'audiophile' than over the ear phones like the Ksc 35's.
post #457 of 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by spatzi View Post
My concern now is deciding if I should pay over $200 for phones that may not even be better than my koss ksc 35's. It sounds to me like there is no way to try these out, no refunds given, and if you don't like them, you're stuck with them. This is the problem with in ears. Who's got money to risk on expensive phones if you're not even sure you'll like them or can get some reviews with comparisons? Seriously, how could these list for $179 and not be better than $35 Koss cans? They should be 5 times better if you look at price ratio. Are you paying for size here? The ability to have it hidden in your ear? As far as I know, in ears should have an easier time being 'audiophile' than over the ear phones like the Ksc 35's.
Isn't that Koss model a 40mm mylar speaker? I think we need to compare the same kind of things here
post #458 of 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by spatzi View Post
My concern now is deciding if I should pay over $200 for phones that may not even be better than my koss ksc 35's. It sounds to me like there is no way to try these out, no refunds given, and if you don't like them, you're stuck with them. This is the problem with in ears. Who's got money to risk on expensive phones if you're not even sure you'll like them or can get some reviews with comparisons? Seriously, how could these list for $179 and not be better than $35 Koss cans? They should be 5 times better if you look at price ratio. Are you paying for size here? The ability to have it hidden in your ear? As far as I know, in ears should have an easier time being 'audiophile' than over the ear phones like the Ksc 35's.
the problem with 'audiophile' is that there is no such thing as a definite better or worse, its all dependent on your own personal preference, the price ratio = performance you can forget about right now. There are plenty of us that would prefer the ksc35 over many of the other phones. I have on many occassions used the ksc35 while the hd650 and the ety4 sits there begging to be listened to. If you are looking for a gurantee you are not going to found it here. It's all good, keeps the 2nd hand market thriving. share it with your fellow head-fiers!

(that said, from the reviews. if you are looking for better details, balance, a more articulate sound than i think a high performing iem like q-jay will fit your bill)
post #459 of 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by spatzi View Post
My concern now is deciding if I should pay over $200 for phones that may not even be better than my koss ksc 35's. It sounds to me like there is no way to try these out, no refunds given, and if you don't like them, you're stuck with them. This is the problem with in ears. Who's got money to risk on expensive phones if you're not even sure you'll like them or can get some reviews with comparisons? Seriously, how could these list for $179 and not be better than $35 Koss cans? They should be 5 times better if you look at price ratio. Are you paying for size here? The ability to have it hidden in your ear? As far as I know, in ears should have an easier time being 'audiophile' than over the ear phones like the Ksc 35's.
Alas, you have discovered the inherent fact that you must pay a lot more for an IEM than for an equally good sounding pair of non-earphone headphones.

FWIW, I have the KSC35, and I used to love them heavily. Ever since I extensively listened to the q-JAYS, my love for the KSC35 has dwindled. This did not happen when I had both the Future Sonics Atrio m5 and the Shure E500PTH (I liked the KSC35 the most, still).

The q-JAYS are just as engaging as the KSC35 (even more so I would say, actually) without sacrificing too much of that "airy" sound that open headphones excel at. The q-JAYS are very much closed with no leakage, and for me the airiness and clarity was quite good for an IEM. I have not heard any Etymotics models, but I suspect they are similar but possibly with less bass (judging from what I'm reading). The q-JAYS are not bass monsters, but really do pack a punch. I found that the q-JAYS sound signature reminded me a lot of the KSC35, except more detailed and a little more forward and punchy.

If I give the q-JAYS a long listen for a few days and go back to the KSC35, I can easily spot what the deficiencies in the KSC35 are. Previously, I couldn't find anything closed and portable that sounded as lively as the KSC35s were without amping (with an amp, the Sennheiser HD 25 surpassed it). The q-JAYS fit the bill almost exactly the way I wanted them to (with a little bit of custom EQ help, however).

This is all about my experience, your mileage may vary.

I've since caught the upgradeitis bug, this time wanting to hear what I've been missing by only subjecting my ears to portable 'phones. I have a pair of recabled Denon AH-D2000 headphones coming and I can't wait to see how much of a difference a full-size can will make in my listening experience. If I find out not much has changed, I may perhaps go back to finding the perfect IEM again. The q-JAYS' sound was almost perfect except for the soundstage. That was the one aspect of the Atrio m5 that I missed. If I can find an IEM with the sound of the q-JAYS (maybe a little more bass and a little more airiness) and the soundstage of the Atrio m5, I will be in unamped IEM Heaven.
post #460 of 479
I'd be using the q-jays with my ipod nano. There will be no equing options. EVerything flat. Will it still sound good without eq? This is what I like about the 35's - they have great bass, but not boomy, so I don't want to lose bass. If q-jays are in ear, they should have more defined bass than the k35's, right?
post #461 of 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by spatzi View Post
I'd be using the q-jays with my ipod nano. There will be no equing options. EVerything flat. Will it still sound good without eq? This is what I like about the 35's - they have great bass, but not boomy, so I don't want to lose bass. If q-jays are in ear, they should have more defined bass than the k35's, right?
Bass is dependent upon the seal with these as with most (if not all) IEMs. The bass is tight, controlled, certainly not boomy, but relatively low in quantity.

I'm not convinced that an IEM can have great bass without screwing with the lower midrange, so this is my way of saying that the bass on these things isn't massive by any stretch of the imagination.
post #462 of 479
Did I make the wrong decision on getting UE SF5P over the q-JAYS?

I was looking for something that has great all around sound with some decent bass. And most of all comfort.

What do you guys think?
post #463 of 479
Just got some soft tooled s-JAYS. These kick some *** Think d-JAYS but with more bass.
post #464 of 479
Cool! I tried the early prototypes of the s-JAYS, what are the technical improvements since those? They've been cooking for quite a while now I guess the new protos look like the final version?
post #465 of 479
what in the world are s-JAYS???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Jays q-JAYS & s-JAYS, Prototype impressions