Latest Thread Images

DSC_2382.jpg
DSC_2388.jpg
DSC_2387.jpg
145763.jpg
Photoon10-3-11at2.52PM.jpg
Photoon10-3-11at2.53PM3.jpg
LL.jpg 265487_10150225150784041_132292234040_7178643_999182_o.jpg DSC_2323.jpg DSC_2318.jpg DSC_2329.jpg 35-4CON-RA.jpg photo.jpg IMG_0510.jpg IMG_0511.jpg photo2.JPG.jpg dsjh3A1.jpg
See full thread gallery...
NEW information on JH-3a
Oct 10, 2011 at 9:49 PM Post #2,041 of 2,176


Quote:
563 said:
@inthecity -  it's obvious you really have it in for JHA - why do you insist on pounding them with just about every post on this thread - have you even ordered the JH-3A?  this is long past constructive criticism - you really seem to be hoping they'll crash and burn.  hey, i'm no fan of JHA myself; i think the company has major pr problems, and acts rather smugly - but it's time you cut them slack, please!
Click to expand...

No, absolutely not.
 
You seem to not understand what has happened here.
 
 
 
Oct 10, 2011 at 10:00 PM Post #2,042 of 2,176
Thanks for sharing.  I wish a they gave some of this info. in the update.  It would have helped. 
 
Quote:
thread said:
I've been trying to get some answers on all this. Here's the dialog I've had with Jerry today. I'm having a tough time imagining this isn't a step backwards (if only a small one), but Jerry sure seems to think it's not.
My summary is that all 3 amps output full range signal, which is then narrowed for the specific bands in the passive crossover. This means that we no longer get the benefit of each amp driving a narrow band of the audio spectrum, but we do get the time/phase correctness.
I hope sharing this exchange helps our understanding of the state of things.
Jerry,
Can you clear up this point for me?
Your email states, "The 3A still has 3 internal amps (low, mid and high) driving the passive crossover components in the earpiece."
If you have a passive crossover before the drivers, doesn't that mean the driver clusters are no longer being driver discretely, directly from their individual amps?
Am I correct in surmising that this means a bit of a downgrade in design from what we've been expecting? I think this point deserves a bit of clarification.
Thanks so much for your time!
Adam
The passive low components have one amp driving them, the passive mid has one amp driving it and the passive high has one amp driving it. The crossover points and shapes are the same just that the process is inverted. The individual amps allow me to eq and time align each passive component. The result is exactly the same the xover is just post amp not pre amp.
The components are still driven discretely with their own amp.
> Am I correct in surmising that this means a bit of a downgrade in design from what we've been expecting? I think this point deserves a bit of clarification.
The audio signature and performance is the same with the benefit of being able to use the IEM with an adaptor that basically connects the low/mid and high passive components to complete the circuit.
I still have the control to tune the earpiece to any response and control the crossover point time and phase.
> Thanks so much for your time!
> Adam
Thanks so much for the quick and thoughtful reply. Just a couple things:
1. Isn't this technically no longer an active crossover design? As I understand it, having an "active crossover" implies that the crossover is happening *before* the amping step. This is only semantics, but I am still curious.
2. A passive crossover takes an input and splits it. It sounds like you are combining the 3 signals as you enter the passive crossover, then allowing it to split the signal again 3 ways. Is this right? There must be a small performance hit, right? ..Just small enough that it shouldn't bother anyone?
3. Will we be able to charge the unit via USB while feeding it a coax signal?
Thanks again, Jerry.
--
Adam
> Thanks so much for the quick and thoughtful reply. Just a couple things:
> 1. Isn't this technically no longer an active crossover design? As I understand it, having an "active crossover" implies that the crossover is happening *before* the amping step. This is only semantics, but I am still curious.
True technically this is not a active crossover. We got the same results maybe even better.
> 2. A passive crossover takes an input and splits it. It sounds like you are combining the 3 signals as you enter the passive crossover, then allowing it to split the signal again 3 ways. Is this right? There must be a small performance hit, right? ..Just small enough that it shouldn't bother anyone?
No the actual wiring has the amp driving the passive crossover for each component. The signals never combine. The amps are each full range until the hit the passive component. These amps have EQ and time but no high pass or low pass. The high pass and the low pass are in the earpiece.
I can't hear a performance hit.
> 3. Will we be able to charge the unit via USB while feeding it a coax signal?
I'm sorry, no on this one.
Click to expand...



 
 
Oct 10, 2011 at 10:02 PM Post #2,043 of 2,176


Quote:
563 said:
@inthecity -  it's obvious you really have it in for JHA - why do you insist on pounding them with just about every post on this thread - have you even ordered the JH-3A?  this is long past constructive criticism - you really seem to be hoping they'll crash and burn.  hey, i'm no fan of JHA myself; i think the company has major pr problems, and acts rather smugly - but it's time you cut them slack, please!
Click to expand...


@563,,, which JH-3a would you like me to order??
 
 
Oct 10, 2011 at 10:10 PM Post #2,045 of 2,176
well for what its worth getting a refund was very painless as someone who paid about a year ago but was not one who had recieved a unit yet.
I expected to get a little friction, as i just cancellled about a week ago and they had stated in an earlier update that "all the earpieces are already made", but surprisingly the conversation basically went like this- i am calling to cancel my JH3A order - ok we should have it processed in a few days - thanks - bye...
 
i would be very surprised if the people who already own one were not offered the chance to get a refund if only for the fact that i would imagine getting their units serviced, or adjusted in anyway may no longer be an option.. of course i am speculating.
 
i can only imagine that there are going to be a slew of cancellations over the next few days, not to mention a severe hit in what has certainly already been a diminishing demand for this product.
 
through all the angst around how this has gone, i have to say i feel sorry for Jerry right now.. he's faced countless dissapointments and setbacks with the release of this product.. Every single time he trys to move forward he gets nailed with another low blow, and most of these have been pretty big.  not to mention having to deal with all of the disgruntled customers he and his employees are creating in the process. I certainly would not wish any of this on anyone.
 
 
 
 
Oct 10, 2011 at 10:14 PM Post #2,046 of 2,176
What the hell man? This is ridiclous. This makes me want to keep my "ACTIVE" JH3A. I wish Warp or the other forum moderators would comment on this as well as I would love to hear their thoughts on this. I should just get a refund as I don't like the high pitched WHINE I hear on my active JH3A but I also did not want a passive design. Big deal putting 3 separate amps in. This has now become a passive device. The DSP was supposed to be SO POWERFUL to do all of these wonderful things per my conversation with Matt Macbeth when he was with this project. Now is there even a DSP? Is it only for the time align now? This is such a let down.
 
Oct 10, 2011 at 10:37 PM Post #2,047 of 2,176
From what I understand, the time/correctness is a much larger contributor to the sound quality of the device vs the amps only needing to drive a band of the spectrum. While it's true we're giving one up, I think it's vastly the less important of the two. Having the frequencies from the driver clusters aligned as they exit the stem was always the #1 feature of this device.

I don't feel this change breaks the device, but I wouldn't blame someone for feeling like it's the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. It's one disappointment among many disappointments.
 
Oct 10, 2011 at 10:57 PM Post #2,048 of 2,176
@Kunlun - I do understand what's going on here, but what I don't understand is the apparent consistent glee of some posters (as per their posts over the last several months) at seeing this project get derailed.   I'll leave it at that, as I don't want to hijack this thread.
 
Oct 10, 2011 at 11:24 PM Post #2,049 of 2,176
Glee? Please. It's incredulousness & frustration bordering on anger at such ill-treatment to customers.
 
Ask yourself:
 
Can a customer survive without JHA?  Sure they can, there are many other IEMs to be found elsewhere.
Can JHA survive without customers??? .... Exactly! ... Then why do they treat customers the way they do...???
 
As I've mentioned elsewhere, if you're unhappy with the negativity, blame the source, not the unfortunates on the receiving end of this mess.
 
Oct 10, 2011 at 11:29 PM Post #2,050 of 2,176


Quote:
tf1216 said:
Due to a 6 year-pending patent application that was filed during Jerry's ownership of Ultimate Ears and finally granted this past January, we have changed the format of the 3A Amplifier.  This has cost the project an intense amount of time and for that we apologize.  
Click to expand...

 
ok ya'll help me figure this out...
 
so are they saying that 10 months ago they found out that this project was going to a major overhaul in order to comply with this patent? 
They say ..."and finally granted this past january" - so what has been happening for the last 10 months? did they just push forward hoping that UE would just stand by and let this happen?
something just does not ad up here at all? 
 
"This has cost the project an intense amount of time..."?  so again they imply that they knew all this time that this patent was a major issue?  why would they string us along like that knowing the whole project was subject to massive upheavel and was being caused massive upheavel without ever telling us?
 
 
i mean.. if what i am getting out of this is correct - about ten months ago they should have said something like - hi guys - we just found out that the basis of this project is now infringing on a patent so there is a good chance that it may not see the light of day in this form.   Please be advised that whatever comes out of this could take a long time to work through..
 
instead what we got was.... what? i dont know.. lies and excuses, biding of time while they tried to dodge patent infringement and push through an illegal product?  strung along for nearly a year under false pretense?
 
geez, i cancelled and this is still boiling my blood..
 
please by all means someone correct me if i'm out of place here.. really, because i dont know how else to interpret this..
 
Oct 10, 2011 at 11:38 PM Post #2,051 of 2,176
Well, a great many people who have been basically told to shut up about anomalies about this product from MOD's who represent the owner of this forum are now being proven right! This is something that I wish was not proven to be the case. I would have loved this product to be what we were told it would be but it is not and now, out of JH's own mouth they have told us they have misled people for at least 10 months about this product.

This I feel is one of the most shameful things to have happened on this forum and personally I do not feel safe anymore listening to any of the MOD's or owner of this forum regarding products from sponsors or MOT's

 
Oct 10, 2011 at 11:38 PM Post #2,052 of 2,176


 
Quote:
br777 said:
 
ok ya'll help me figure this out...
 
so are they saying that 10 months ago they found out that this project was going to a major overhaul in order to comply with this patent? 
They say ..."and finally granted this past january" - so what has been happening for the last 10 months? did they just push forward hoping that UE would just stand by and let this happen?
something just does not ad up here at all? 
 
"This has cost the project an intense amount of time..."?  so again they imply that they knew all this time that this patent was a major issue?  why would they string us along like that knowing the whole project was subject to massive upheavel and was being caused massive upheavel without ever telling us?
 
 
i mean.. if what i am getting out of this is correct - about ten months ago they should have said something like - hi guys - we just found out that the basis of this project is now infringing on a patent so there is a good chance that it may not see the light of day in this form.   Please be advised that whatever comes out of this could take a long time to work through..
 
instead what we got was.... what? i dont know.. lies and excuses, biding of time while they tried to dodge patent infringement and push through an illegal product?  strung along for nearly a year under false pretense?
 
geez, i cancelled and this is still boiling my blood..
 
please by all means someone correct me if i'm out of place here.. really, because i dont know how else to interpret this..
Click to expand...


I think you are right. Now, I would love if the first version turned out perfect (without the hiss) that way I would have an ACTIVE unit with all the bells and whistles and would not even think of returning it.
 
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top