New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JH 16 VS JH 13 HELP~~ - Page 8

post #106 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by clouden View Post
 

I am also having a bit of trouble deciding between the JH16 and JH13.

How would you describe the sounds of both IEMs relative to other headphones?

 

Headphones I listened to include the Beyerdynamic DT 880, Sennheiser HD380, Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi IEM, and the Audio-Technica ATH-IM04 IEM.

You like  bass heavy music?  If you don't mind a bit of bass boost, then go with the 16.  But, please keep in mind that bass boost usually lowers the clarity in the sound, if you like to monitor sounds.

post #107 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

You like  bass heavy music?  If you don't mind a bit of bass boost, then go with the 16.  But, please keep in mind that bass boost usually lowers the clarity in the sound, if you like to monitor sounds.

I like all kinds of music including bass-heavy music. (I listen to Rock, Classical, Jazz, Electronic, Hip-Hop, etc.)

The reason I would prefer a description relating the JH-13 and JH-16 to other headphones is that many people have different bass preferences.

For example, some people think the Beyerdynamic DT880s are a tad lacking in bass while others may think it has adequate bass. Said description would also give me a better idea of how those IEMs would compare to others I have heard.

I guess, ideally, I would like something that combines the clarity of a DT880 with the defined, ample lows and shiny yet controlled highs of a Triple.Fi (if that description makes any sense).


Edited by clouden - 6/7/14 at 6:44am
post #108 of 121

I'm not sure why V3 is limited in the bass quality department. I'm guessing since it's only 3 drivers, and they must have boosted it beyond it's tolerance for distortion, and that's why the bass is not of quality.  I think it would have fared better if they left it unboosted and neutral, it would have been perfect, but I think they did it on purpose since they think we want bass boosted fun sound or warm sounds.  

 

With additional bass drivers, you could probably have boosed bass without as much distortion.  I would think the higher numbered models probably does that.  I'm curious about the V6 because of this.  

 

I like every genre as well.  I'm looking for something to match my HE-6 setup and I don't think I will ever find it.  

 

880 does not lack in bass.  It's treble is sharp compared to my 650 I had.  So, I would consider it bright.  I don't find TF10 controlled.  You'll see that V3's high way much more controlled if you think TF10 high is controlled.  


Edited by SilverEars - 6/7/14 at 6:55am
post #109 of 121
For me the 13fp is balanced. The 16fp is bass centric. Similar in a way to how I felt about the HD600 vs 650. Bass centric meaning that is where the focus is. Phenomenal detail and depth. Great if you are a bass guitarist and want to hear everything in that region.
post #110 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by krismusic View Post

For me the 13fp is balanced. The 16fp is bass centric. Similar in a way to how I felt about the HD600 vs 650. Bass centric meaning that is where the focus is. Phenomenal detail and depth. Great if you are a bass guitarist and want to hear everything in that region.

I've been reading more often about the imaging of the 13 and 16.  This part I'm curious about as I've noticed that customs provide some imaging(of course not the speakers kind).  Also, with some recording, instrumental dynamics are done better than others.  I was listening to Daft Punk RAM, and noticed the dynamics.  This was of course more noticeable with a better source.  I believe imaging happens in iems in regards to phase or timing of the sound in the recording.

 

650 has punchy mid bass, like the 600 it's open and it's subbass will lack.  Possibly it's thicker sounding mids, and doesn't have the sharp highs that the 600 has, but I thought it sounded fantastic, I got rid of the 880 and the 701 as both have sharp highs I'm not keen on.  Dark doesn't mean, it lacks detail retrival as I thought 650 was detailed at the time as your brain will adjust over time of it's signature.  Of course I moved on to bigger better setups like the HE-6.  


Edited by SilverEars - 6/7/14 at 10:19am
post #111 of 121

After listening to the 13s, 16s, and Roxannes at the SoCal meet back in March, I personally ended up going with the 16s. The Roxannes, while excellent, were out of my price range, and that narrowed it down to the 13s vs 16s. As krismusic mentioned, it somewhat is like the 600s vs 650s, though I felt like it was a bit more than that. The 650 is more than just a 'warmer' 600, whereas I felt like the 16s were just a 'warmer' 13, and having the 600s as my main full-size cans, I felt the bass heavier 16s would be a nice compliment.

 

Sound wise, they were very very similar, the 13s and 16s that is, I don't feel the 16s bass is too much, though I've read that the old 13/16 pre-freqphase was a bit more notable of a difference. The 13s may have had a tiny bit better detail retrieval, but I felt the (to my ears) better performing low end and soundstage of the 16s worth the extra $50

post #112 of 121

I have been loving my V6 stages but was looking to step my game, so to speak. So I have been reading all of the reviews and impressions between the 13 and 16 and it really seems like a tough decision. I looked at the Roxannes but they are just not my type of product. 

 

I am leaning, just barely, toward the 16s for two reasons, bass detail, and I assume easier to drive at 18 ohms. I really like the bass response I am getting on the V6s but I have no idea if they are bloated or anemic compared to either of the two JH models. 

 

For reference I am using the HP A4 with a variety of lossless content and really enjoy the binaural recordings but want the bass to be there when asked for. 

 

Any thoughts or comparisons?


Edited by chezhed - 8/2/14 at 12:30am
post #113 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezhed View Post

I have been loving my V6 stages but was looking to step my game, so to speak. So I have been reading all of the reviews and impressions between the 13 and 16 and it really seems like a tough decision. I looked at the Roxannes but they are just not my type of product. 

I am leaning, just barely, toward the 16s for two reasons, bass detail, and I assume easier to drive at 18 ohms. I really like the bass response I am getting on the V6s but I have no idea if they are bloated or anemic compared to either of the two JH models. 

For reference I am using the HP A4 with a variety of lossless content and really enjoy the binaural recordings but want the bass to be there when asked for. 

Any thoughts or comparisons?
If at all possible do get a listen to the demo models. They at least give an idea of the sound. The 13's sound "right" to me. Just enough colour to be enjoyable. Having not heard the full CIEM 16 I am left wondering if the rest of the frequencies "come up" to meet the amazing bass detail. In the end you pays your money and takes your choice! Not much help I know.
post #114 of 121
Kind of related. The thing I really enjoy about the JH 13's is that they are not neutral. Presumably it would be fairly easy to
Make a neutral CIEM by measurement. What I am listening to is a signature that was chosen by Jerry Harvey. This is what makes him an artist rather than a technician. IMHO.
post #115 of 121

It's always a bit of both. As a tech Jerry probably considers something like a Etymotic 4S neutral but as a music lover understands that it 'sounds' bass shy or at least overdamped in practice. In natural space, There is a natural crosstalk in low frequency that makes us perceive more low end as frequency drops and this is where he tailors to his ear. If you listen to him talk about flat being boring, he specifically references the bass. His protagonists are keen to misinterpret. If you look at the frequency response of his better IEMs, he has more low bass relative to midbass than his competitors which is how to address this phenomenon.

 

Fortunately, he has different levels of bass tailoring so that one can usually chose one that sounds right to them. This, along with bass masking environmental considerations was the reason for the Roxanne's bass control. Most IEMs flatten out in the low bass or have more bass/midbass than low bass. To my ear, a rising to 20hz bottom sounds right. The questions become where to start the increase and at what steepness. On my JH13s, when I play great material on a really god source, the bass is fab. Charlie Haden's (R.I.P.) bass is very difficult to get right and the 13 can. On other sources it can sound a little fat or oppositely not quite as weighty as expected. I've come to the conclusion that it does have slightly elevated low bass but sound about perfect on the go. The 16 bass is too much for me to acclimate to but others love it. It is a great stage device where that much bass is required to overcome masking from external sound.


Edited by goodvibes - 8/3/14 at 6:33am
post #116 of 121
That's pretty much how I figure it.
post #117 of 121

Thanks you guys I really appreciate the input. 

post #118 of 121

How much does this change with the addition of the 4 pin connector on both JH13 and JH16 and potentially the ability to tune bass on both?


Edited by Dimitris - 8/5/14 at 1:07pm
post #119 of 121

Just to add further confusion to the mix, probably for me more than anyone else... I'm going from Shure SE535's with the 1000 Ohm acoustic filter mod (more base) and have to say that with a flat EQ coming from my iPhone 6 these still sound a little dull, especially in the lows. The mids are great but the highs seem somewhat veiled. 

 

Would going to the JH13 Pro PF's be a noticeable boost in base over the 535's?

 

I'm not a base head by any means but don't want my music to sound boring either. I'm concerned that the 16's would be the equivalent of going from Bose QC25's to  a set of Beats (don't laugh at the example too much) which would mean they're too bassy for my tastes.

 

Would the DragonFly optional cable make any difference to the lows on the 13's? I've read that esp for the 16's the apparently muddy lows open right up with the dragonfly cable, open up the mids a bit more but have no noticeable effect on the highs.

 

Thoughts anyone? Thanks.

post #120 of 121

My 2 cents worth.

 

I have had the original and the FP JH13. The JH13 FP has a slight bass boost over the original. To my ears this makes them more musical, where the original could be quite flat without the proper source.

In comparison to my ears I find the JH16 too bass heavy only in that it softens the resolution and masks the detail somewhat. Despite the extra bass and leaving aside the resolution, they are not "Bass Heavy" as in boomy like the Beats are. The bass is only there if required and reaches down very low without distortion.

 

 

Listening through my DX90.

 

If you consider a track like Radiohead - Lucky and listen to the bass: The JH13 - the bass guitar reaches down very deep and is thick and luscious with the reverberation of the strings very noticeable.

The JH16 - the bass is just as deep but much heavier and more powerful and almost makes your teeth rattle!

The JH13 sounds more realistic of a Bass guitar.

 

With the DX100, the JH13 sound much more powerful - so source does make a difference

 

 

So my personal preference for day to day usage are the JH13, with the JH16 used when out on my motorbike as I am not after Uber resolution then.

 

Re-reading one of the other posts here - there is no Sibilance with the JH13 FP.


Edited by kryten123 - 12/11/14 at 7:03am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: