Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › JH Audio JH-3a VS. UM Platform Pure (PP6)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JH Audio JH-3a VS. UM Platform Pure (PP6)

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
Here is something I've been wondering about recently, especially because there doesn't seem to be many owners of either out there, who are willing to give their impressions: How do these two seemingly similar products compare? On one hand people say that the PP6 with its active crossover is what the JH-3a should have been, but then others say the JH-3a is the pinnacle of the evolution in IEMs. The Active Crossover is all dandy on the paper, and is good for large misbehaving speaker units, but how much difference does it really make compared to a passive crossover when it comes to tiny armature-drivers which provide next to no feedback? And another question entirely is, how do their signatures compare? So far all I've found on this subject for either of them has seemed misleading - for instance the same article saying that the JH-3a has a flat response, but late saying an Audeze LCD-2 is brighter in its presentation, even though the LCD-2 has a dark signature compared to most phones that are considered neutral. So please share your thoughts! As for me personally, I'm looking for what could be called an in ear Sennheiser HD800: Unforgivingly detailed and neutral
post #2 of 6

No one can give impressions as the PP6 JUST went on PRE-ORDER!

 

That means no one has them in there hands (Save for the UM person). So what you ask is impossible at this time. Perhaps in 4-6 weeks or whatever the UM lead time is that might change.

post #3 of 6

Bump for post-canjam comparo/impressions

post #4 of 6

Though I am a noob, I spent some time at canjam@RMAF specificially to get some CIEM so I thought I would share the following perspective.  Obviously take it with a grain of salt and YMMV.  I had a preference for the UM PP6, but I didn't feel that I had a chance to fully audition the PP6.  For context, I compared IEM by

 

  1. Listening for 10-20min/ phone
  2. Listening to a wide range of identical/ similar music on each headphone: rock, pop, classical, organ, rap, jazz, vocals, etc. to assess any acoustic coloration in different frequency ranges, transients, e.g. cymbals, bass, e.g. tight/ muddy/ boomy, width of sound stage and position of instruments, sound floor for the amp...

 

The challenge with the PP6 was a limited music selection skewed toward Chinese music that didn't have good comparisons to my personal collection or the setups with the other IEM vendors.  If you are familiar with the UM Miracle (which I A/B's a few times), the sonic signature is similar but the PP6 is more detailed with a quieter sound floor.  Both the PP6 and the JH-3a boosted the bass, though if you like rock I would say that in IMHO the JH-3a probably has a sound I would prefer of the PP6.

 

Some other things to consider:

  1. This is one of the first PP6 units.  My experience with early tech is that there are often tweaks and changes.  You may want to wait for reviews from people with production units in their hands.
  2. PP6 requires the associated amp until the crossover adapter is available.  I was not able to test how these IEMs sound using the passive crossover adapter.  This could be a big deal if the sound is different and you plan to use the IEMs without the amp regularly
  3. How will you use the unit?  In loud environment like a subway commute?  I listened at low levels so I really didn't test how well the amps for either IEM do at higher volumes.  
  4. This test was with a universal fit version of both IEM in a relatively noise environment so I didn't have the same level of isolation that the CIEM versions provide and might well have missed some important nuances
  5. I picked the UERM for myself, as I like as little coloration in the music as possible, listen at low volume (so less efficient IEM is better), often listen in quieter environments so don't need boosted bass to cover subway rumble  or cravings for big bass...

 

Bottom line: If you are an early adopter and like the UM Miracle sonic signature, and are a bit price insensitive you should consider the PP6.  That said if you like the flexibility of traveling with/without your amp and like the JH more "fun" sound signature the JH-3a combo is great.

post #5 of 6

I think JH redid the sound curve of the JH-3a because here are my findings.

 

With the JH-3a turned on, Getting fed via USB from a computer. THe bass is about -3db less when the bass switch is turned off. WHen the bass switch is tuned on, the bass is bossted the said -3db. Coincidentally the JH16 sounds the same when using the passive crossover to feed it from say a phone or music player to when the JH-16 is being fed by the JH-3a with the Bass Management switch turned on.

 

As a matter of fact I would call the JH-3a system that I recieved fairly flat when the bass managent switch is turned off.

 

Now with that said,

 

aparrently people complained about volume levels so JH decided to crank to volume UP. The volume pot is an on/off switch. I can not feed it 100% signal from the computer media player as it is loud as your turn the volume pot. :/ I don't know how loud or not loud it was before but now it is to the point of loud to deafning loud.

post #6 of 6

My experience at canjam was the both PP6 and JH-3a had cranked up volume levels.  At one point listening to the PP6 I complained about some static I was hearing.  The problem was that I had volume so low (for comfort) that IEMs were intermittently cutting out.  Turning up the volume fixed it.  For both PP6 and JH-3a I did most of my listening near the minimum amp volume settings, and wished there was a way to lower the volume a bit more.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › JH Audio JH-3a VS. UM Platform Pure (PP6)