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 7

post #91 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post


I've been putting off making the leap to CIEM's for awhile now. Your details could be the deciding factor on me finally getting my first ever custom

 

Wow talk about going from microscopic to macroscopic.  

post #92 of 486

Subscribed. Interested if it is really better sounding than the miracles... The miracles are already supremely balanced IMO.

post #93 of 486

Subscribed

 

Dis gun b gud

post #94 of 486

So correct me if I'm wrong, this is going to have both analog and digital inputs. The digital inputs are a given considering its a DAC, but I just want to check on analog (Line In) ports. If it has them awesome; otherwise it seems a little bulky for normal (trans)portable use. That the housing for the 'box' is relatively small is awesome news. 

post #95 of 486
Thread Starter 

All we know at this point is there are 4 inputs, 2 seem to be digital (coax and optical), USB, and AUX.  If the AUX is a line level, the device would either use a passive crossover for the analog input (likely) or convert from analog to digital then back to analog.

post #96 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

All we know at this point is there are 4 inputs, 2 seem to be digital (coax and optical), USB, and AUX.  If the AUX is a line level, the device would either use a passive crossover for the analog input (likely) or convert from analog to digital then back to analog.


??????

So there's a possibility you can't hook up a DAP to this thing??????

post #97 of 486
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post


??????

So there's a possibility you can't hook up a DAP to this thing??????

 

I didn't say that.  It appears there is an analog input, but I am not sure how it will be configured.

post #98 of 486

Ah, was going for the 3A, now staying put for this and see what happens first.

 

Why can't they just add an SD card slot and a screen to this, and tout this as the first active crossover DAP :D

post #99 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by charpi View Post

Ah, was going for the 3A, now staying put for this and see what happens first.

 

Why can't they just add an SD card slot and a screen to this, and tout this as the first active crossover DAP :D

 Oh god, keep the screen noise in the iBasso thread.  tongue.gif  Along w/ the Wifi, bluetooth, accelerometers, and cappuccino maker.

 

There's enough going on in there already, I'm already worried enough about the complexity as is.


Edited by Anaxilus - 6/22/12 at 12:16am
post #100 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by charpi View Post

Ah, was going for the 3A, now staying put for this and see what happens first.

 

Why can't they just add an SD card slot and a screen to this, and tout this as the first active crossover DAP :D

 

When the JH-3A everyone was just impressed that this thing was going to exist. Now that Unique Melody is producing more in a smaller box, we expect a DAP throw in as well? rolleyes.gif

post #101 of 486

They should release special cables for this one. 

post #102 of 486

Nah, that was just a tongue in cheek comment. Guess that doesn't convey well through the internet.

 

Seriously though, can't wait to try these out and decide between these and the 3A.

post #103 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by thread View Post

By my understanding, the JH3A dac/dsp splits the signal into 3 parts which are phase/time corrected for the mated ear pieces. The compromise that Jerry had to make was in not actually outputting the signals discretely through the 3 separate dacs. Instead, he's outputting the full range of sound through each of the 3 dacs, which are then amplified separately. It is a passive crossover because the hi/mid/low freqs are split AFTER amplification (in the earpieces, in this case), however the phase/time is still correct since the outputted waveform from the DSP includes the corrections. I agree that this should result in a much larger gain in "SQ" vs simply amping the 3 sections discretely as an active crossover would. (I agree with the comments that this would probably make more difference in larger speakers that demand more power.)
The technological part that really turns me off on all this is that the JH3A now has all these extra components that don't seem necessary: If you aren't going to actually have an active crossover, it seems to me that the 3A should be able to get away with a single DAC output, a single amp, and the same passive crossover separating the frequencies again in the earpieces. Shoot- at that point, he could even eschew the funky headphone plug and use a regular 1/8" one... and add a switch to turn off the phase/time correction so any ol' headphone could be used with the amp! ... and the headphones could be used with any amp (of course without the phase correction).
What he's ended up with is a unit with redundant electronics... it uses more battery juice than it should.
In spite of all this though, I really feel like I could have gone forward with the JH3A if JH wasn't so tricky. It seemed their otherwise reasonable customer service took a serious turn when dealing with that unit.
Disclaimer: This stuff all seems correct to me, but I don't consider myself an expert, and I could be Wrong somewhere.

 

 

 

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.


Edited by Lindskog - 6/24/12 at 4:59pm
post #104 of 486
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.

 

That he would pick passive crossover versus active crossover and lead people pre-ordering to believe that had nothing to do with him thinking passive crossovers sound as good or better.  Because active crossover will, if implemented properly, offer better fidelity and he only states that passive crossover are as good or better because you aalways haveto standy by ur producvt otherwise you're a terrible salesman, marketer.  He couldn't use active crossover in the end because he was blocked by the UE patent.

post #105 of 486

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 of 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. Jerry did not have any problem with the active crossover on the first version but with amplification and hiss. Still those who have heard both the system think that the passive crossovers system sounds best or as good.


Edited by Lindskog - 6/25/12 at 4:53am
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