[REVIEW] Heir Audio 8.A: 8-Driver, 4-Way Crossover Custom Fit In-Ear Monitors - Page 9

 

To answer your question about the JH13 Pro versus the UEPRM: In terms of tonal balance, I prefer the UEPRM--I tuned it for me. The whole image is better centered on it for me than any of my other headphones, because I tuned it with the differences in my left-right hearing in mind. In my opinion, though, the JH13 Pro has unquestionably better detail retrieval, and better individual instrument placement. Again, the new JH13 Pro is among the most detailed of all the headphones I have here, regardless of form factor.

 

To answer another of your questions: The JH3A also benefits from the implementation of the new earpiece designs.

 

Even though a visual inspection doesn't explain it all, you'd see upon physical inspection that there are things about the freqphase earpieces you haven't seen before (unless you've already seen freqphase earpieces). You keep claiming that it's the same thing everyone else is doing, but it's not. There are no doubt IEM manufacturers share some common goals, but how different manufacturers go about getting to those goals can differ--there's definitely something different going on here.

 

Kunlun, you're quick to offer not just an opinion--but an impassioned slam--of a product you haven't even heard. That's something I won't do, and you should consider that, too. You really have a sensationalist bent, not to mention an obvious issue with JH that reads to me as a very personal thing--you carry it into a lot of posts, in a lot of threads. If I was to have a spat with a manufacturer, I would recuse myself from discussions of their products (which I have in the past chosen to do), and you should consider that, too.

 

I'll let this thread get back on topic.

I've done my fair share of making negative comments about the original JH13 - I liked it, but didn't love it, and didn't find it to be as revolutionary as everyone else seemed to think. So I'm somewhat surprised that I actually enjoy the new version so much. Christopher, you know how much I dig the Heir 6.A LE so for the JH13 to play on the same level is quite an accomplishment. And no, it doesn't necessarily mean Heir already does the same thing in terms of phase correction - there are a lot of factors that go into my enjoyment of each model, and they both do some things that the other can't.

Look, I think we can all agree on a few things. First, I do think JH has some creative marketing that can rub some people the wrong way. No denying that. I would much prefer if they went into more detail regarding the FreqPhase design rather than continuing the vagueness that we've heard up to this point. And I might be able to help make that happen in the coming months. That said, I think Jude has a good point - anyone looking at a FreqPhase model with translucent shell will see something different. None of my other 20+ CIEMs have this type of design. Is that the key to the great results? I don't know for sure, but it would seem likely. Ultimately the market (HeadFi peeps making up a large chunk of it) will decide if the improvement is real or merely hype.

 

ROFL. I get ya. 

 

Phase and time alignment for multiple transducers have been around since the beginning of multi-driver speakers. Time alignment is never going to be an issue with IEMs. It's an issue with speakers where tweeters and woofers are inches apart (that's why we see sloped designs on the cabinets.) or subwoofers which are several feet away. Phase alignment comes down the crossover design. Thiel (speakers) calls it "Coherence Source".

 

Personally I would have preferred "New and Improved" rather than "FreqPhase".

 

Is there any measurement data out on this to actually confirm differences? Time and phase alignment is actually very easily seen via a simple step response measurement. Sound waves come from three transducers (bass, mid, treble) and are summed at the ear. There's a certain way the step responses will appear when all three sources are well aligned (time and phase). Just look at JA's Stereophile measurements for any Thiel speaker and compare to other speakers without time or phase alignment.

 

The effects are certainly not BS. There's a reason why there are so many proponents of the ER-4S (which inherently by its single driver design has zero time/phase issues) saying they have a purity of tone and unmatched cohesiveness.

 

 

To clarify, I was very impressed with one thing, not so impressed by two other things, and annoyed by two usability issues. Oh well. I guess I wasn't so impressed.

Edited by purrin - 12/20/12 at 1:26am

How big of a problem do you consider phase cohesiveness to be? Is it terribly noticeable during comparison to the ER4S or Freqphase iems? Is it really a problem that companies need to start addressing because current technology is clearly lacking in comparison?

The UERM struck me as having some sort of phase issue within 10 seconds of listening, but that's the only 2+ driver iem I've heard.

 

Really a couple of separate issues:

 

1. Time alignment: You don't want your tweeter or subwoofer lagging behind the other drivers by 30 seconds. It's going to sound wierd. 30 seconds of course is an exaggeration. This will never be an issue with IEMs at audio frequencies. 0.0001 meters is not going to make a difference.
2. Phase alignment: Once you have your drivers time aligned, you want the drivers to be in phase with each other.
3. It's never that easy. Sometimes you have to trade phase inaccuracies with frequency response inaccuracies and vice versa. It's a balancing act and a design philosophy. Most designers place more emphasis on frequency response. It's possible to do both with a little hard work, especially with transducers with first order crossover networks.

 

BTW, the Monster Turbine Pro coppers have very very good phase response. The ER-4S actually not so much. Personally I don't know if there much correlation between phase response and audible "goodness".

Edited by purrin - 12/20/12 at 11:25am