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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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.

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

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.

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

 

Right....

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

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.