Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer  Well there are a lot of factors at work. For instance, two drivers might have an identical frequency response given a constant signal. But music, or any recorded sound is not a constant signal. Therefore the speed at which the driver can react to the changing signal is crucial to accurate reproduction. The JH13 has one of the fastest reactions I have ever heard, and thus it is extremely detailed and accurate sounding.
A slow sounding headphone often has bass that would be described as "woolly" or "soft", which is the result of bass waveforms blending together, rather than coming across as unique, separate sounds. Hence, with better speakers and headphones, it is easier to follow the rythmic bass timing of many types of music, resulting in a more involving, life-like listening experience.
This is just one example of an aspect of sound reproduction beyond frequency response that is important to great, life-like sound. Trust me, if sound playback were determined only by FR, audiophiles and different listening products would cease to exist. There would be one generic design for speakers and headphones that would completely dominate the market, and likely cost very little.
Anyway, the JH13 is not a bad choice for on the go listening. It still sounds WAY better out of my Clip than my Shure 530's do. What I've been saying is that because the JH13 is so precise, it allows you to hear the changes in downstream gear more easily. They scale better with better equipment.
To go back to the analogy I made earlier, an F1 car on rain tires will still go much faster down the track than any other type of car, but with slick tires it could go even faster. The JH13, even from a portable player, sounds better than nearly every headphone/earphone, but from a better system, it can sound even better.
Or to put it another way, let's say the JH13 is a 95% efficient music delivery device, and a Shure SE530 is 75% efficient. Likewise, let's say a Pico DAC/Amp playing FLAC is 90% efficient, and Clip playing FLAC is 70% efficient.
JH13/Clip = .95 * .7 = .665
JH13/Pico = .95 * .9 = .855 (net gain = .190)
SE530/Clip = .75 * .7 = .525
SE530/Pico = .75 * .9 = .675 (net gain = .150)
Granted, this is an oversimplified way of viewing things, and the numbers are essentially arbitrary, only present to make the demonstration, and not a precise rating of the devices in question. As you can see, having a more efficient device in the JH13 allows you to better realize the gains made when the other item in the chain is improved.
|
I think that's a pretty good analogy Iron_Dreamer. And an interesting calculation.
FR is only part of the equation, along with constant signals versus transients, or sine wave reproduction vs. real music. Lots of transducers produce flat FR, but sound like heck when playing music. I don't know if this is a valid analogy, but the
speed of a musical transducer ("rise time" to use an amplifier term), helps determine its overall "resolution." The effect on our hearing is improved detail, smooth, silky highs, and highly individuated instrumentation. Hence, increased "real" resolution vs. hyped FR through equalization giving the impression of resolution. Complex passages are more nuanced, and you can follow an individual performer playing or singing (for example in an orchestra or chorus) more easily without hearing strain.
(As an aside, isn't it interesting that the better the "big rig" music system, the fewer adjustments, and no tone controls? Only the music and the balance the musicians and engineers intended!)
The speed of the transducer also determines how well it recovers so as not to "ring" or overhang after the signal stops. Loudspeaker manufactures go to extreme lengths to decrease the overall mass of the driver to minimize these effects (or make BIG motors and huge amplifiers to control its electromotive mass e.g. subwoofers).
By the way, the speed of a given transducer also correlates to its overall distortion characteristic and spectrum (fundamental and resulting harmonic progression). So, we're probably hearing the effects of reduced overall distortion to boot! Lower distortion = increased resolution? Just guessing on that, but it makes sense.
This makes these new IEMs (JH13-Pro and the ES3X) seem like magnifying glasses into the performance, as well as emphasize differences in amplification and source material.
They are surprisingly just as comfortable as my ES3X with the heat tips. So far, they do sound quite different than the ES3X. I personally like them both 
- my first doubt about the JH13... It would be ok for me as long as the JH13 is like the O2 but without the highs rolling off, without the O2 laid back sound (I'll say it a bit boring), and without that e-stat sound which seems too light weight and too simulated sounding. (BTW, these are just my tastes I think the O2s are great but not for me)
