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 323

post #4831 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by spook76 View Post

JH Audio is probably funded by the preorder money from customers, I do not see the private equity investors lining up to invest in such a small company and market. Venture capitalist only invest with a clear exit strategy. JH Audio will never be big enough to go public so they would have no exit. It is like a kickstarter program.

I believe you are correct...

Let's not forget that Logitech purchased UE for 34 million though...
post #4832 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickson View Post

I believe you are correct...

Let's not forget that Logitech purchased UE for 34 million though...

Of which I believe his exwife and other investors received the majority of the money.
post #4833 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by GL1TCH3D View Post


I enjoyed the mids of the se535 but the treble was definitely not the strong point for me.
Lack of life is definitely one of the reasons I no longer own the HD800
I would also agree that the newer 007 is darker sounding but the mk1 is brighter than the newer version.
It could very well be that my ears just don't accommodate the roxannes well and this leads to poor sound delivery? I'll be trying lots of new tips tomorrow.
Also my friend is supposed to receive his custom version (he's posted in this thread before, dleblanc) so he can compare both of them with his own ears and hopefully describe the differences.
Maybe I'm confusing roll-off with another term but here's how I hear it:
If I'm listening to a nice piano / violin duet, the high notes for both instruments sound dull and weak.

So far out of the following setups: the most enjoyable was the Sony HAP-S1:
Straight from nexus 5
Nexus 5 to Sony PHA2
Ipod digital out to sony pha2
HAP-S1
Woo Wa7
and some others here and there.
When listening to the HAP-S1 I didn't feel that the treble was lacking at all. So I've switched my focus to getting the sony zx1 (or since they're rumored to be releasing a new one, whatever comes after)

 

I think you and I have the same taste. Hopefully other tips will make the difference for you. 

 

I'm also interested in the Sony ZX1 or new release. I hear nothing but good things about it.. 

post #4834 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by GL1TCH3D View Post

I enjoyed the mids of the se535 but the treble was definitely not the strong point for me.

Lack of life is definitely one of the reasons I no longer own the HD800

I would also agree that the newer 007 is darker sounding but the mk1 is brighter than the newer version.

It could very well be that my ears just don't accommodate the roxannes well and this leads to poor sound delivery? I'll be trying lots of new tips tomorrow.

Also my friend is supposed to receive his custom version (he's posted in this thread before, dleblanc) so he can compare both of them with his own ears and hopefully describe the differences.

Maybe I'm confusing roll-off with another term but here's how I hear it:

If I'm listening to a nice piano / violin duet, the high notes for both instruments sound dull and weak.


So far out of the following setups: the most enjoyable was the Sony HAP-S1:

Straight from nexus 5

Nexus 5 to Sony PHA2

Ipod digital out to sony pha2

HAP-S1

Woo Wa7

and some others here and there.

When listening to the HAP-S1 I didn't feel that the treble was lacking at all. So I've switched my focus to getting the sony zx1 (or since they're rumored to be releasing a new one, whatever comes after)

I think you and I have the same taste. Hopefully other tips will make the difference for you. 

I'm also interested in the Sony ZX1 or new release. I hear nothing but good things about it.. 

I'm supposed to meet with dleblanc tomorrow to try some of his various sampler tips that he's accumulated.
I would pull the trigger on a ZX1 but if a new, more improved model comes out I'd no doubt lose a lot on the resale
I think with the right DAP and tips I could seriously enjoy these but right now comfort for my right ear is non existent (I guess my right and left ears are a bit different. My right ears is a bit larger and doesn't seem to even seal with a lot of the tips I try.)
post #4835 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by GL1TCH3D View Post

It's unfortunate because while I enjoy a nice punchy bass, have dark / rolled off treble is a definite turn off for me.
Anyway I'll play around with different DAPs and amps if I end up keeping them.
I know returning earbuds is always a big fuss so I'm not expecting to get a full refund for this mishap.

Here's the smudge: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
51lpurc.jpg

I believe you can return it, but refund i'm not so sure.
It's just a cosmetic issue and its not hurting the performance.
You should have asked for a replacement when you first got them.
post #4836 of 7335

When I first tried the universal Roxanne, I had the bass level setting half way between each extreme on the inline controller. The sound was smeared and boomy, and honestly I was somewhat disappointed. Turning the bass to the lowest setting, the sound has really opened up for me, and I'm hearing details a lot more clearly. However I'm still detecting a bit of fuzzy imaging now and then, and instrument placement seems a little iffy at times, either very closed-in or very spacious like there's nothing in between. Putting in my DITA Answer (a single full-range dynamic) the difference is immediate: suddenly everything is filled in between.

 

Still, the Roxanne is growing on me. Details very apparent without being distracting. It has a more natural overall tone and character than the JH-3A which had a somewhat artificial sheen to it (to my ears). Personally I still prefer the Shure SE846, universal FitEars, and even my DITAs. Perhaps that will change in a weeks time. By comparison however the Shures and DITAs immediately grabbed me, whereas the Roxanne is kind of a slow burner. However I much prefer the universal Roxannes to the UM Mentor-u and EarSonic S-EM6, that's for sure.


Edited by MuppetFace - 4/1/14 at 5:10pm
post #4837 of 7335

There must be a difference between customs and the universal version. I don't think rolled off treble is something I would expect from Roxanne. It must be bad isolation or bad tip muffing the sound.

 

The Roxanne definitely have smoother treble but I don't think it's rolled off. To my ear's it presents the same treble with better detail/clarity than my JH16.

post #4838 of 7335

I don't think it is rolled off either, unless it is something to do with the tips. It is VERY smooth though, probably due to using multiple drivers in parallel. Without that bite you get in the treble with many IEMs, I guess it can give the impression of being rolled off.

post #4839 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post
 

When I first tried the universal Roxanne, I had the bass level setting half way between each extreme on the inline controller. The sound was smeared and boomy, and honestly I was somewhat disappointed. Turning the bass to the lowest setting, the sound has really opened up for me, and I'm hearing details a lot more clearly. However I'm still detecting a bit of fuzzy imaging now and then, and instrument placement seems a little iffy at times, either very closed-in or very spacious like there's nothing in between. Putting in my DITA Answer (a single full-range dynamic) the difference is immediate: suddenly everything is filled in between.

 

Still, the Roxanne is growing on me. Details very apparent without being distracting. It has a more natural overall tone and character than the JH-3A which had a somewhat artificial sheen to it (to my ears). Personally I still prefer the Shure SE846, universal FitEars, and even my DITAs. Perhaps that will change in a weeks time. By comparison however the Shures and DITAs immediately grabbed me, whereas the Roxanne is kind of a slow burner. However I much prefer the universal Roxannes to the UM Mentor-u and EarSonic S-EM6, that's for sure.

 

what are your thoughts on the roxanne vs mentor? sorry just curious :popcorn:

post #4840 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post
 

When I first tried the universal Roxanne, I had the bass level setting half way between each extreme on the inline controller. The sound was smeared and boomy, and honestly I was somewhat disappointed. Turning the bass to the lowest setting, the sound has really opened up for me, and I'm hearing details a lot more clearly. However I'm still detecting a bit of fuzzy imaging now and then, and instrument placement seems a little iffy at times, either very closed-in or very spacious like there's nothing in between. Putting in my DITA Answer (a single full-range dynamic) the difference is immediate: suddenly everything is filled in between.

 

Still, the Roxanne is growing on me. Details very apparent without being distracting. It has a more natural overall tone and character than the JH-3A which had a somewhat artificial sheen to it (to my ears). Personally I still prefer the Shure SE846, universal FitEars, and even my DITAs. Perhaps that will change in a weeks time. By comparison however the Shures and DITAs immediately grabbed me, whereas the Roxanne is kind of a slow burner. However I much prefer the universal Roxannes to the UM Mentor-u and EarSonic S-EM6, that's for sure.

 

It might have to do with the recording. Bad recordings are kind of exposed with the Roxanne's. The imaging is spot on. I did some test tones that move around the soundstage from particular points, and they were extremely accurate in that respect. Creepy accurate. 


Edited by robm321 - 4/1/14 at 5:53pm
post #4841 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotnijoe View Post
 

 

what are your thoughts on the roxanne vs mentor? sorry just curious :popcorn:

 

The Roxannes sound much more coherent and even to me. If I had to choose between the two, no question would I pick the Roxannes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post
 

 

It might have to do with the recording. Bad recordings are kind of exposed with the Roxanne's. The imaging is spot on. I did some test tones that move around the soundstage from particular points, and they were extremely accurate in that respect. Creepy accurate. 

 

 

The Roxanne can usually pinpoint singular things in space quite well, but when it comes to recreating a sense of recorded space holistically (as in, the studio space), I'm finding the Roxanne is too delineated between close / far and left channel / center / right channel. Some people call this the blob effect. Perhaps it is recording dependent, but my impressions are always culled from living with something for a while and listening on a variety of sources, with a variety of different material. I'm also using other top tier IEMs are reference points, and for instance the Shure SE846 and DITA---both of which I'm assuming could also recreate test tones quite well---just seem to render space in a more convincing way (caveat: to my ears, as always).

 

To elaborate further on the effect, I'm finding some sounds are extremely "out of head" while others are very internalized, sounding very much in-between my ears whereas on the DITA these sounds are all coming from beyond the earphones subjectively.

post #4842 of 7335

That's interesting. I believe the effect you are talking about was a characteristic of the Sennheiser HD600 as well which I owned for years. The reason I haven't noticed it may be due to the fact that one ear isn't getting a seal while the other is, so I am already having channel balance issues. I'll have to listen for that when I get mine back. 

post #4843 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotnijoe View Post
 

 

what are your thoughts on the roxanne vs mentor? sorry just curious :popcorn:

 

The Roxannes sound much more coherent and even to me. If I had to choose between the two, no question would I pick the Roxannes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post
 

 

It might have to do with the recording. Bad recordings are kind of exposed with the Roxanne's. The imaging is spot on. I did some test tones that move around the soundstage from particular points, and they were extremely accurate in that respect. Creepy accurate. 

 

 

The Roxanne can usually pinpoint singular things in space quite well, but when it comes to recreating a sense of recorded space holistically (as in, the studio space), I'm finding the Roxanne is too delineated between close / far and left channel / center / right channel. Some people call this the blob effect. Perhaps it is recording dependent, but my impressions are always culled from living with something for a while and listening on a variety of sources, with a variety of different material. I'm also using other top tier IEMs are reference points, and for instance the Shure SE846 and DITA---both of which I'm assuming could also recreate test tones quite well---just seem to render space in a more convincing way (caveat: to my ears, as always).

 

To elaborate further on the effect, I'm finding some sounds are extremely "out of head" while others are very internalized, sounding very much in-between my ears whereas on the DITA these sounds are all coming from beyond the earphones subjectively.

 

(Caution: Dodgy explanation ahead.)

 

I was reading recently something about how our ears interpret different frequencies to assess the distance of objects. Since IEMs can't have a soundstage, as our pinna isn't involved in reflecting the sound, some manufacturers "fake" a soundstage by tweaking some frequencies down to make them sound more distant. So if you look at the FR chart of 1plus2s, it looks all over the place, but that was, say, Gavin requesting adjustment to get a pseudo-speaker like sound from them.

 

The Roxannes are, apart from the bass (depending on adjustment) and IIRC a peak in the treble, essentially flat, like the LCD-2/3/X as I understand things, resulting in them giving you what you hear. The LCD-XC, of course, has a dip in the mid-bass, so they sound more spacious, because our brain gets specific cues about object distance from that frequency range (if I read it right). I'm messing up discussion of headphones and IEMs here, but I hope the gist of what I'm saying makes sense, but I feel the same way about the Roxannes' sound.

 

Also, before I forget, the drivers Jerry is using seem to need some hours on them before they sound right.

post #4844 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

 

(Caution: Dodgy explanation ahead.)

 

I was reading recently something about how our ears interpret different frequencies to assess the distance of objects. Since IEMs can't have a soundstage, as our pinna isn't involved in reflecting the sound, some manufacturers "fake" a soundstage by tweaking some frequencies down to make them sound more distant. So if you look at the FR chart of 1plus2s, it looks all over the place, but that was, say, Gavin requesting adjustment to get a pseudo-speaker like sound from them.

 

The Roxannes are, apart from the bass (depending on adjustment) and IIRC a peak in the treble, essentially flat, like the LCD-2/3/X as I understand things, resulting in them giving you what you hear. The LCD-XC, of course, has a dip in the mid-bass, so they sound more spacious, because our brain gets specific cues about object distance from that frequency range (if I read it right). I'm messing up discussion of headphones and IEMs here, but I hope the gist of what I'm saying makes sense, but I feel the same way about the Roxannes' sound.

 

Also, before I forget, the drivers Jerry is using seem to need some hours on them before they sound right.

 



Just about the same impression I have from my experience. The drivers really need burn-in time (not just brain burn-in) to get them at that level where it will reveal everything it has to offer. The bass for instance is ridiculously boomy past the 2 o'clock position and very thin anywhere below 12 o'clock for the first week I listened to it. So initially I thought the best setting for me was 2 o'clock.

Later on as I played around more the bass below 12 o'clock has gotten it's full body as it is now. Now at 9 o'clock, the bass is still weighty but good enough to let the mids and highs shine. This why I said the prsentation seems similar to an LCD-2. Similar weight and impact on the bass but very smooth and revealing highs and mids. The LCD-2 I listened to sounded a bit recessed in the mids/high compared to Roxanne. It's been a few weeks ago. I might do another comparison just to verify my initial impression.
post #4845 of 7335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

 

(Caution: Dodgy explanation ahead.)

 

I was reading recently something about how our ears interpret different frequencies to assess the distance of objects. Since IEMs can't have a soundstage, as our pinna isn't involved in reflecting the sound, some manufacturers "fake" a soundstage by tweaking some frequencies down to make them sound more distant. So if you look at the FR chart of 1plus2s, it looks all over the place, but that was, say, Gavin requesting adjustment to get a pseudo-speaker like sound from them.

 

The Roxannes are, apart from the bass (depending on adjustment) and IIRC a peak in the treble, essentially flat, like the LCD-2/3/X as I understand things, resulting in them giving you what you hear. The LCD-XC, of course, has a dip in the mid-bass, so they sound more spacious, because our brain gets specific cues about object distance from that frequency range (if I read it right). I'm messing up discussion of headphones and IEMs here, but I hope the gist of what I'm saying makes sense, but I feel the same way about the Roxannes' sound.

 

Also, before I forget, the drivers Jerry is using seem to need some hours on them before they sound right.

 

Well, whether it's a soundstage or a headstage, I do perceive space in some IEMs better than others. The L05QD and UERM for instance sound more linear to me than the Roxanne (the L05QD moreso), and both of them have a more well defined sense of space compared to the Roxanne to my ears. Not necessarily bigger, but more filled out with a more seamless portrayal of instrument placement.

 

I'm wondering if that's not an effect of there being so many drivers?

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"