Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › New JH Audio flagship! "Siren Series Roxanne"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New JH Audio flagship! "Siren Series Roxanne" - Page 117

post #1741 of 7245

oh my! people complaining about JHA missing shipping dates. sigh... you guys really have no idea. just be patient nothing will be as bad as the JH3A. but its good to remember that JHA is still a very small operation with fairly decent volume, and a history of preferring their higher end clientèle.

 

also, if you dont want to listen to advice fine, its your prerogative. but remember UIEM v CIEM (the same model) will not sound the same. shape and materials prevent this...

 

MANY HeadFiers can attest to the fact that their CIEMs probably sounded better or worse after a refit (audio preference is subjective afterall) but they sounded different. the point is until the CIEMs get 'reviewed'  chill out... most of this right now is noise (which is its own irony)

 

like a good sports car, youll need a Nuremberg of equipment to get the most out of your pair... most of us will not get the most out of these anyway. no one is sitting with DSD256 files waiting for the JHA Rx


Edited by SHADYMILKMAN - 12/18/13 at 5:33pm
post #1742 of 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHADYMILKMAN View Post

 

 

like a good sports car, youll need a Nuremberg of equipment to get the most out of your pair... most of us will not get the most out of these anyway. no one is sitting with DSD256 files waiting for the JHA Rx

 

... And you really need a DSD256 file to maximize anything?

post #1743 of 7245
Really wish the final product is slimmer than the demo units.
post #1744 of 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 

 

... And you really need a DSD256 file to maximize anything?

 

Yes, I lolled when I read that. 16 bit 44.1Khz is more than enough.

post #1745 of 7245

I'm not sure if this is relevant but I ordered the JH16s and inquired about a possible shipping date. Angie replied saying that my order will ship on or before 12/23 (merry x-mass) for me if it's true. She mentioned to be on the look out for a Fed Ex tracking #.  If this is true, something else is holding up the Roxannes. Maybe a manufacturing issue. I placed my order on 11/29 and got conformation that my impressions were received on 12/10.

post #1746 of 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACONE View Post

I'm not sure if this is relevant but I ordered the JH16s and inquired about a possible shipping date. Angie replied saying that my order will ship on or before 12/23 (merry x-mass) for me if it's true. She mentioned to be on the look out for a Fed Ex tracking #.  If this is true, something else is holding up the Roxannes. Maybe a manufacturing issue. I placed my order on 11/29 and got conformation that my impressions were received on 12/10.


 



Issues...what issues??? LOL

I think we all realised that by now.
post #1747 of 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACONE View Post

I'm not sure if this is relevant but I ordered the JH16s and inquired about a possible shipping date. Angie replied saying that my order will ship on or before 12/23 (merry x-mass) for me if it's true. She mentioned to be on the look out for a Fed Ex tracking #.  If this is true, something else is holding up the Roxannes. Maybe a manufacturing issue. I placed my order on 11/29 and got conformation that my impressions were received on 12/10.

That would be a quick turnaround barely 2 weeks after they received your impressions. Your christmas will definitely merrier. Mine took 3 weeks for JH16. I'm not expecting the same turnaround time for my acrylic Roxanne but I'm hoping they ship it in 6 weeks after they received my impressions.
post #1748 of 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

We should probably write an article on this or something; I realized that lots of people don't have the right idea when it comes to BA drivers and impedance, and while it's talked about a lot, it seems as though most people only understand part of the picture.

 

There are already two good articles on impedance that I know, the GoldenEars one I linked earlier and a second one that I'm not allowed to link here.

 

Here's the GoldenEars link again: http://en.goldenears.net/1389

And for the second one, do a Google search for "Headphone Impedance Explained"

 

I personally go by these simple rules of thumb that serve well in most cases:

- Dynamic driver based IEMs usually have a linear impedance curve, hence no problem with output impedance.

- Balanced armature based IEMs (with or without crossovers) usually have a non-linear impedance curve, hence output impedance may alter the sound.

- Look up an impedance graph to see how the sound will change. With higher output impedance, peaks will be boosted, dips will be attenuated.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG87 View Post
 

Forget the conflicting reports, honestly people, you should give zero importance to impressions from universals. The main reason CIEMs sound better than universals is because they fit properly and are correctly aligned (past the first bend) with your ear drum. If you look at your customs, the high frequency drivers are actually placed between the first bend and the second bend and fire almost directly past the second bend. Try that with a universal. Any variation in fit changes both the bass and treble perception significantly. A universal can only give a rough indication but it's absolutely not how your CIEM will sound. I believe the only person who has custom fitted Roxannes besides Jerry is Jude, and he said it's one of the best headphone's he's ever heard, period. So that should tell you something.

 

Apart from the fact that there are also deep fitting universals like Etymotic, what makes you think that closeness to the eardrum automatically translates into better sound? By that logic, full-sized headphones would be inherently inferior to IEMs, no?

 

At the risk of people accusing me to sound like a broken record, my demo UERMs not only sound subjectively, but also measure objectively extremely similar to my UERM customs. Which means that Ultimate Ears are able to produce a demo unit that resembles their full custom to a very high degree. I respect your opinion if you think that JHA may not be up to that task, but I think my UERM example proves that it's wrong to state that as a general rule.

post #1749 of 7245

headwhacker/jag.. i hope my sarcasm didnt offend. no one has a collection of standalone DSD files let alone DSD256 just a bit of hyperbole to bring levity to the subject. however on a more serious note 16x44.1 isnt going to maximize these.. nor is it "more than enough"; this is headfi, so 'notsureifsrs'. these ears can easily resolve resolution higher than red book... thats kind of the starting line dont you think? 24x192 is probably a better goalpost for a product like this..

post #1750 of 7245
I do believe what we as with any headphone is just a really good recording , great detail is there at red book . In fact take one of you favorite sacd,s something that really stands out.

Play it at the red book standard. I am willing to bet you will feel wow what small change going from 24/88.2 to 24/192. The first tun bears are the dynamics that the recording is recoded with. And at 24 bit depth this way more than our hearings can handle . Meaning the lowest sound to the loudest sound would be defening as in you do not hear anymore.

The 192 is the highest resolution you can have based on the sampling rate of 192. Again way beyond our hearing. I own plenty of dsd so I am not saying it is not any good. Just pointing out red book done really well is more than anyone needs to listen to equipment with. Do the sacd test you will be shocked . It is the recording industry who make all the changes and designs in how the music we buy is formatted and sadly it is never in our favor of better sounding it all about bandwith. Dsd is just the latest foopa that we have now.

Al d
post #1751 of 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHADYMILKMAN View Post

headwhacker/jag.. i hope my sarcasm didnt offend. no one has a collection of standalone DSD files let alone DSD256 just a bit of hyperbole to bring levity to the subject. however on a more serious note 16x44.1 isnt going to maximize these.. nor is it "more than enough"; this is headfi, so 'notsureifsrs'. these ears can easily resolve resolution higher than red book... thats kind of the starting line dont you think? 24x192 is probably a better goalpost for a product like this..

lol your post sounded serious enough. Don't worry no offense taken.

In theory 16/44 is more than enough. However, most recordings released in 24-bit are somewhat mastered better than the original 16 bit counterpart.

I don't want to start a bit debate but there are just more factors to consider if you want to maximize a high-end phone than the source file alone. But as a baseline lossless 16-bit and/or above should be fine.
post #1752 of 7245

I honestly don't think I need anything higher than 24/96.

Heck, even the 16/48 is more than enough for me.

I doubt I can even hear the difference in a blind test (or even human hearing itself).

post #1753 of 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainRazer View Post
 

I honestly don't think I need anything higher than 24/96.

Heck, even the 16/48 is more than enough for me.

I doubt I can even hear the difference in a blind test (or even human hearing itself).

I never buy higher than 24/96. If 24/96 & 24/192 are booth available, I will choose 24/96 to save some disk space (& money).  I tried without any success to hear a difference between 24/88, 24/96 and 24/192 !  In fact I am happy as long as it is 24 bits.

post #1754 of 7245
i agree with your choice, but what format do you use. it should be WAV as this has no compression at all.
post #1755 of 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmichels View Post

I never buy higher than 24/96. If 24/96 & 24/192 are booth available, I will choose 24/96 to save some disk space (& money).  I tried without any success to hear a difference between 24/88, 24/96 and 24/192 !  In fact I am happy as long as it is 24 bits.

I'm thinking of encoding down my 24/96-192 files to 24/48 and 24/88-176 to 24/44 to save on disk space with minimum impact in playback fidelity as this is a simple divide operation. I feel going down further to 16 bits will use complicated algorithms that might affect SQ.

Then I'll play them on ipod classic using an ext amp and see how much the difference is to my current setup.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › New JH Audio flagship! "Siren Series Roxanne"