Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Unique Melody Platform Pure 6 (PP6) - review (1st post), discussion, appreciation, & tour thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unique Melody Platform Pure 6 (PP6) - review (1st post), discussion, appreciation, & tour thread - Page 8

post #106 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindskog View Post

I don't think Jerry spent any energy to negotiate with UE about the patent, because he new active crossovers did not give any benefits on his setup. As his own words he doesn’t thing that he had to give anything up because of the UE patent, he just did it in an other way. So many people here seams to think that he lies about this and I can't understand why since the great thing with an active system is ALL the possibilities the DSP gives. I think he used the "patent argument" to get away of his own selling argument that active crossover was the "thing" after he realised it wasn't so. It might have been easier for him to say to the pre orders that he where not aloud to go with active crossovers then that he was wrong about the great benefits. I don't think he implemented the active crossovers in the first version wrong since that is actually the easy part, it could be done with any oscilloscope. Still those who have heard both the system thinks that the passive crossovers system sound best even though Jerry did not have any problem with the active crossover on the first version put with amplification and hiss.

 

If you are the creator of a product.  And something falls through and you intentionally or unintentionally led people who pre-ordered your product to believe a certain type of technology would be implemented when you didn't.  Would you claim that, "Oh well, I know it's not AS good."  That would lead to a fiasco, and obviously he would claim a certain statement that benefits him.  Whether or not it is better or not, I cannot say for certain, but from what I have read active crossover in terms of transparency and other issues with passive crossovers offers a clear advantage.

post #107 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassadian View Post

 

If you are the creator of a product.  And something falls through and you intentionally or unintentionally led people who pre-ordered your product to believe a certain type of technology would be implemented when you didn't.  Would you claim that, "Oh well, I know it's not AS good."  That would lead to a fiasco, and obviously he would claim a certain statement that benefits him.  Whether or not it is better or not, I cannot say for certain, but from what I have read active crossover in terms of transparency and other issues with passive crossovers offers a clear advantage.

 

Yes you're right, Jerry should probably have negotiate with UE to be able to use active crossover, even though it did not sound better on his system, so he did not aggravate the pre orders.

 

But I am talking about sound benefits not of marketing tactics.

 

The first version of 3A was the first ever active crossover system for  BAs (low power speakers). There is no information to be read elsewhere!

 

How active crossover benefits high power system like speakars is an whole other thing.

The whole idea with active crossover on speakers is that you don’t put power through passive components (ristiors’ and spools) witch will create distortions and smoothen out the signal.


Edited by Lindskog - 6/25/12 at 6:13am
post #108 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindskog View Post



Since the phase/time correction has to be done digital you will get as many different digital signals as you have spitted BAs (3 in JH16) so you will still need 3 DACs and diffrent signals to each BA group = 8 pin connector minimum.

The greatest benefit with a active crossover (when power losses isn't an issue and the distortion that can occur when putting much power through passive crossovers) is that the "crossover points" can be adjusted and be modified for different taste and tracks/music (Jerry wanted to make a software for the 3A that could control this but that would have taken very much effort and time so we all know why that did not happened, I still do believe that the main reason that Jerry did not use active crossover besides this was that he really did not thing that it sounded better witch is the same testimony that other people here that have heard both system have.) and off course the "cuts" could be made ultimate steep with active crossovers.

No kidding... I would *really* think that you could still do the phase/time correction in a single dac's output. I mean if you're going to split the signal LATER in the chain (in the earphones in the case of the late JH-3A) then why can't the phase be corrected on the way out a *single* DAC? We're only talking about offsetting the waveforms belonging to each of the 3 registers... I don't see a reason that they have to be actually separate. (Of course the crossover points in the DSP doing the phase correction and the passive crossovers in the earpieces would have to be identical...)
post #109 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by thread View Post


No kidding... I would *really* think that you could still do the phase/time correction in a single dac's output. I mean if you're going to split the signal LATER in the chain (in the earphones in the case of the late JH-3A) then why can't the phase be corrected on the way out a *single* DAC? We're only talking about offsetting the waveforms belonging to each of the 3 registers... I don't see a reason that they have to be actually separate. (Of course the crossover points in the DSP doing the phase correction and the passive crossovers in the earpieces would have to be identical...)

 

No the crossovers has nothing to do with phase correction.

 

The phase correction is similar to optics where you have to correct for that blue light (short wave length = treble) bends different than red light (long wave length = bass) so red and blue light will not get to the same focus point if not corrected.

 

In a sound system this has to be compensate for separately in the DSP for each BA group = 3 different signal groups for a 3 way system

 

The crossover (passive or active) only cuts away the frequencies that the particular BA group is not made for (the treble group cant play bass and vice versa).


Edited by Lindskog - 6/25/12 at 6:25am
post #110 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindskog View Post

 

Yes you're right, Jerry should probably have negotiate with UE to be able to use active crossover, even though it did not sound better on his system, so he did not aggravate the pre orders.

 

But I am talking about sound benefits not of marketing tactics.

 

The first version of 3A was the first ever active crossover system for  BAs (low power speakers). There is no information to be read elsewhere!

 

How active crossover benefits high power system like speakars is an whole other thing.

The whole idea with active crossover on speakers is that you don’t put power through passive components (ristiors’ and spools) witch will create distortions and smoothen out the signal.

 

But that's the thing.  That was what I was getting at.  The reason there was so much hype around the JH3A was because it was the new and latest thing made by someone who had an established reputation.  The fact that he misled everyone, well... you can have your opinion.  But his support for passive over active in my opinion is only due to the fact that he couldn't do an active crossover system due to the patent.

post #111 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassadian View Post

 

But that's the thing.  That was what I was getting at.  The reason there was so much hype around the JH3A was because it was the new and latest thing made by someone who had an established reputation.  The fact that he misled everyone, well... you can have your opinion.  But his support for passive over active in my opinion is only due to the fact that he couldn't do an active crossover system due to the patent.

That may be true but we don't know if he even tried to negotiate with UE.

 

And if it is true what Jerry and others here says that they hears, that the passive crossovers is just as good as the active crossover on his system, the only reason to negotiate with UE would be to not have to admit that active crossover wasn't as big benefit as he had promised. But he got almost half the way there by saying he where not aloud to use them.

 

 

But just because the active crossover thing isn't as revolutionary as we thought it was  it doesn’t mean that the other things that the DSP can do, like the phase correction, is very good!

 

And I am sure this pure sixy thing will use DSP as well :-)

 

Competition has always benefit us costumers!


Edited by Lindskog - 6/25/12 at 6:59am
post #112 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindskog View Post

That may be true but we don't know if he even tried to negotiate with UE.

 

And if it is true that the passive crossovers is just as good as the active crossover on his system, the only reason to negotiate with UE would be to not have to admit that active crossover wasn't as big benefit as he had promised. But he got almost half the way there by saying he where not aloud to use them.

 

If I were Logitech/UE, I wouldn't enter negotiations with any chance of letting JH Audio or any company have access to the patent.  Why?  Like Apple, patents give power and influence and it would lead to the benefit of JH Audio while hindering UE's business.  There was no chance of Jerry Harvey gaining access to bypass the patent in any way in my opinion.

post #113 of 478

Everything has it's price. It just a question of money...

 

UE has the patent for separate bore holes as well...

 

And I still don't understand way UE has not complained about this pure 6 thing?!

 

Or will it not be for sell in US and Europe?


Edited by Lindskog - 6/25/12 at 7:16am
post #114 of 478

There is a lot of talk about phase/time correction regarding the 3A and and the upcoming Pure 6.  Can someone please tell me why the phase/time correction matters in these units?  There is a lot of emphasis put on this capability when I don't see its benefit.  This is coming from a huge fan of the JH3A by the way.  I don't think the time/phase correction is a factor in what makes the 3A so good..

 

If the crossover is located in the CIEM, after the amplifier, there should be no phase incoherencies. What would cause the phase of each signal path to vary if not the crossover?.  However, I will acknowledge that BA's are not concentric so there could be a need for time correction.  But with the BA's only millimeters apart the time correction would need to be in the nano-second range to ensure the sound from all of the drivers hear your ear at the same time.  Can our brains process that time delay?  

 

I think what makes the 3A so good, and what will make the Pure 6 attractive, is the equalization and the multiple amplifiers.  If you look at the impedance chart of BA's you will see that it is not flat.  I don't believe CIEM manufacturers use zobel networks to flatten the impedance of the CIEM so having a single amplifier handle the impedance of only one set of BA's is a huge benefit.  On top of that, the equalization done within the 3A is quite remarkable.  

 

The active crossover would have been neat, especially if the user could have made adjustments, but don't think I see the real benefit.  I remember in my car audio days having a 3-way active crossover adjustable at the head unit.  I was fortunate enough to play with the Pioneer P9 combo for a few years.  Steep crossovers can be a pain to get right.  I always found that subtle slopes gave me the best sound.  There is something to be said about active crossovers in the home and car audio world but I am not so sure it will provide much for us CIEM people.

post #115 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindskog View Post

No the crossovers has nothing to do with phase correction.

The phase correction is similar to optics where you have to correct for that blue light (short wave length = treble) bends different than red light (long wave length = bass) so red and blue light will not get to the same focus point if not corrected.

In a sound system this has to be compensate for separately in the DSP for each BA group = 3 different signal groups for a 3 way system

The crossover (passive or active) only cuts away the frequencies that the particular BA group is not made for (the treble group cant play bass and vice versa).

Having 3 DAC outputs and 3 amps is what allows you to do the active crossover. Having an active crossover simply means that the frequencies are split before they are amped. Having 3 separate signal chains is critical for this.

In my post, I was suggesting that now that the JH-3A doesn't have an active crossover, having 3 discrete audio chains is redundant; they are all carrying the SAME, full-spectrum signal now. I'm suggesting that, given my limited knowledge, Jerry could have accomplished the same phase/time correction with a simple DAC -> amp -> xover -> drivers chain. In the digital domain, the input signal would be split into 3, the appropriate phase correction would be applied to each section, and the output would be the sum of all 3 signals. It would then be amped, and finally the crossover in the earpieces would split the signal into the same 3 parts (at exactly the same crossover points used in the DSP). I really feel like this would accomplish about the same thing, but at a fraction of the power/cost/complexity.

I could be dead wrong somewhere, but I hope this clarifies what I was saying.

@tf1216, Because every earpiece shell is shaped a little different and because the drivers will be mounted within it slightly different.... Imagine the input waveform comes in, gets split, and each set of drivers makes their sound at the same time. Well, if the high frequency drivers are mounted at the front, in the stem, then their waveform will hit your eardrum a tiny bit quicker than the lower frequencies where the drivers are further back in the earpiece. This is exactly what happens in your average custom IEM, and we still think it sounds fantastic. If, however, you compensate by, in the digital domain, delaying the high frequency sound, then you can set it up so the waveform that exits the end of the stem toward your eardrum is perfectly "phase and time correct". That means that the waveform is exactly as the recording had it, without the tiny bit of fuzziness not being phase/time correct gives you. It turns out that this is a bigger deal than you might expect. At least to me it is, when I heard the JH-3A prototype at CanJam 2010. The imaging was ridiculous -- from bottom to top, it was just clear as a whistle. It's my belief that my awe was due much more to the phase/time correct part than it was the active crossover part. And I think the fact that the 3A is shipping, sounding about as good, with a passive crossover confirms that suspicion.
Edited by thread - 6/25/12 at 1:52pm
post #116 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindskog View Post

So many people here seams to think that he lies about this and I can't understand why 

 

Right....

post #117 of 478
Thread Starter 

Passive crossovers have phase shifts, depending on the order of the crossover.  It is difficult to get anything other than a 2nd order crossover in a CIEM shell, so like with high end speakers, you can get higher order crossovers in a box that you can't in a shell.  Plus, the slow slope can result in frequency peaks and dips with passive crossovers that are hard to correct.  Active crossovers have other issues, but you can shift those issue above the audible frequency spectrum while not affecting phase.  You can do a lot in the digital domain, but there are still some tradeoffs.  

 

The advancements should result in an improvement to the overall sound quality, and we will have to wait for samples to compare with existing products.  Plus, if the JH-3A and PP6 have different sound signatures, and you prefer one over the other, technical performance shouldn't be the deciding factor, sound signature should be IMO.

post #118 of 478

let's forget about passive and active crossover for a bit.  Just wonder, from the current owner of both companies ciem.  which company do you think has better 1. build quality and 2. customer service?  let say in the end everything is equal then I would choose better experience company and better customer service team.

post #119 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by danpong View Post

let's forget about passive and active crossover for a bit.  Just wonder, from the current owner of both companies ciem.  which company do you think has better 1. build quality and 2. customer service?  let say in the end everything is equal then I would choose better experience company and better customer service team.

 

Boy that's going to get mixed views on service.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/558629/jha-consumer-experience-thread-positive-yes-negative-no

 

UM definitely for build quality.


Edited by Anaxilus - 6/25/12 at 11:51pm
post #120 of 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

 

Boy that's going to get mixed views on service.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/558629/jha-consumer-experience-thread-positive-yes-negative-no

 

UM definitely for build quality.


As of late.  Unique Melody has also had terrible customer service to say the least.  When your order gets mixed up and you have to deal with customs and international shipping...  

But that's not saying it's all bad.  As we all know, it's the negative impressions that make the most impact and the majority of people who have good service don't both posting.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Unique Melody Platform Pure 6 (PP6) - review (1st post), discussion, appreciation, & tour thread