Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › JH Audio Sirens Series Roxanne Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JH Audio Sirens Series Roxanne Impressions Thread - Page 19

post #271 of 894

Okay, Well what are your thoughts of the JH-Roxiannes vs the JH-13. Do you think one is more analytical then the other. Do you think the JH-13's give you more resolution in the mid and High range then the JH- Roxiannes or are they pretty much the same. Remember, I listen to classical music and would like to hear the nuances of the singers along with the orchestra. Example, i would like to hear if someone dropped a bow in the orchestra or if one of the violinist missed their entrance or tell if the conductor conveyed himself to the chorus well.

post #272 of 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalorgans View Post

Okay, Well what are your thoughts of the JH-Roxiannes vs the JH-13. Do you think one is more analytical then the other. Do you think the JH-13's give you more resolution in the mid and High range then the JH- Roxiannes or are they pretty much the same. Remember, I listen to classical music and would like to hear the nuances of the singers along with the orchestra. Example, i would like to hear if someone dropped a bow in the orchestra or if one of the violinist missed their entrance or tell if the conductor conveyed himself to the chorus well.

I've auditioned the Roxs but for a short time only because the cable nuts are broken. I'd say go straight to the JH Roxanne they sound much better with classical than 13 as they have laid back highs that extends very very well and obviously bigger soundstage.. I will listen to them again but for now these are my impressions
post #273 of 894
I don't like the idea of a laid back treble when it comes to classical. I like to hear the violins bite up top.
post #274 of 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post

I don't like the idea of a laid back treble when it comes to classical. I like to hear the violins bite up top.

 

I kinda disagree with the "laid-back" treble as I think the Roxanne is actually quite bright on top for me. Maybe he's talking relatively to some other headphones?

post #275 of 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by soullinker20 View Post



I've auditioned the Roxs but for a short time only because the cable nuts are broken. I'd say go straight to the JH Roxanne they sound much better with classical than 13 as they have laid back highs that extends very very well and obviously bigger soundstage.. I will listen to them again but for now these are my impressions

 



Treble may not be bright but I don't think "laid-back" is what you describe the treble in Roxanne. I think the added drivers works well together to convey the smallest detail with very good distinction and separation with the other details. I think this also helps to make the illusion that the Roxanne has a wider soundstage.

Even on casual listening, the micro details is much more notceable than JH16. For me it lifts the listening experience higher.
Edited by headwhacker - 2/19/14 at 8:37pm
post #276 of 894

But how do they compare to the mids and highs of the JH-13 Freakphrase. Example. If you are listening to voices of a tenor or soprano. Is one more detail, Anayltical, and have more bit then the other. Is is true that the JH-13 have more mids room then the Roxiannes. If so, can one be safe to say the the feeling on the JH-13 maybe better then that of the Roxiannes.

post #277 of 894

Well, since I already received my Roxannes and posted a brief comparison to the JH13s (non-freqphase) in my old review thread, I thought I'd post it here as well:

 

"In my opinion they don't share much in common. Summing up, the JH13 has more of a professional monitor kind of sound, very dependent on source – usually the sound is punchy and energetic, but it can take on a mellower personality if the recording calls for it. The Roxannes, on the other hand, sound much more "audiophile", if that makes sense. They have a much thicker midrange and the highs are more linear and laid back, but considerably more extended and cleaner. The sound is overall a lot mellower and less analytical than that of the 13s, but the biggest difference – and the thing that sets it apart from all other IEMs I've heard – is how big they sound. The JH13s can already sound pretty big, but the Roxys take this to a whole new level.

 

Also, they seem to lack something that I hear in every single BA earphone I've heard: a slightly plasticky character in the mids. This, along with the big sound and the "audiophile" personality as opposed to a monitor-like kind of sound, make them sound more like headphones. I read this quite a few times about different IEMs and never found it to be the case, but with the Roxannes the comparison sort of makes sense. They're still different, as they obviously can't project an expansive image, but they have a sound is a lot closer to full-sizes than any other in-ear I've heard before.

 

The bass control doesn't actually work as I expected. The sound is very thick, and initially this gives an impression of excessive bass. Even when this impression fades away (which is quickly), the bass knob doesn't seem to do all that much until you reach like 11 o'clock. I don't know, but with the bass at minimum I expected a thinner sound that just got bigger and thicker the more I turned up the knob, but that's not what happens. It just seems to fill up a space. The sound is pretty balanced and cohesive up to 12 o'clock (just have some different "filling up" degrees in the sub-bass region), but after that it's way too much for me. At max it's almost a joke. Sounds just like two subwoofers in your ears!"

post #278 of 894
^ nice impressions, thanks.
post #279 of 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post

^ nice impressions, thanks.

 

:)

post #280 of 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post

^ nice impressions, thanks.

 

+2  

 

Thanks Leonardo, I actually feel like I have a deeper insight to the sound than before.  

 

Coming from the TG!334 I have a slight concern that the sound might be too analytical, now I feel like I can put that concern to rest.

post #281 of 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 

I just got over 50 hours burning in Roxanne and I can already notice that it's much better than JH16. The bass in Roxanne set to 2 o'clock is the best setting across different types of music for me thus far.

Can you elaborate a little bit on what you like about the Roxanne more than the 16s?

 

Edit: Just saw that a few pages back you've already said you think the R is better than the 16s in basically every regard - detail, treble, mids, etc.


Edited by audioops - 2/21/14 at 2:02pm
post #282 of 894

A few days ago, I was contemplating on ordering the K10. But now I've decided to save the cash and get the AK240 instead. I think the flaws in customer service and cable quality has affected the subjectivity of quite a few on this forum - even including me.

 

Having been listening to the Roxanne 10+ hours per day for the past week, I feel that the brain burn-in is complete. Overall, Roxanne sounds extremely smooth and musical - immense amount of details are all there, but not intrusive at all. Instruments on Roxanne sounds sooo realistic, which is probably the result of the Freqphase technology. Soundstage is wide and tall, separation fantastic. Highs are neutral, non-fatiguing and extends really well. Mid is sweet and lush. I love listing to male vocals on these IEMs because they sound so full and dense; one small downside for me is female vocals seems younger than their actual age. For the bass - well - you all probably already know how amazing the bass is by now. To me, Roxanne is perfection (for now) :D.


Edited by z3r0day - 2/21/14 at 2:34pm
post #283 of 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by z3r0day View Post
 

A few days ago, I was contemplating on ordering the K10. But now I've decided to save the cash and get the AK240 instead. I think the flaws in customer service and cable quality has affected the subjectivity of quite a few on this forum - even including me.

 

Having been listening to the Roxanne 10+ hours per day for the past week, I feel that the brain burn-in is complete. Overall, Roxanne sounds extremely smooth and musical - immense amount of details are all there, but not intrusive at all. Instruments on Roxanne sounds sooo realistic, which is probably the result of the Freqphase technology. Soundstage is wide and tall, separation fantastic. Highs are neutral, non-fatiguing and extends really well. Mid is sweet and lush. I love listing to male vocals on these IEMs because they sound so full and dense; one small downside for me is female vocals seems younger than their actual age. For the bass - well - you all probably already know how amazing the bass is by now. To me, Roxanne is perfection (for now) :D.

Good move..I think the AK240 will be a very good match for the R. AK240 is a very neutral sounding player with the slight warm of the R is should sound quite amazing.

post #284 of 894

I have the JH16 3A does anybody have a good comparison 

post #285 of 894
Null
Edited by ikilledversace - 11/14/14 at 4:02pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › JH Audio Sirens Series Roxanne Impressions Thread