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 20

post #286 of 733

I have Roxanne for 1 full week now and after 100+ of burn in time I think it's time to do some serious comparison. The first day I listened to Roxanne I had to settle at 2 o'clock bass position. Each day I notice the bass gets a little stronger than the previous day (perhaps my brain is adjusting) so I had to adjust it until I fixed it at 9 o'clock. I guess this is the flat (0 dB) bass level. Even at this setting the bass is still very much present and blends in well with the mids and highs.

 

I listen mostly with Rock and Pop songs and a few classical. I love natural, clean, detailed and punchy bass without overpowering the mids and highs and for me the 0dB bass level of Roxanne is just what I'm looking for. At least for most of the songs I heard with Roxanne so far.

 

Compared to JH16 the earpiece is huge to account for the additional drivers. But in my experience this is a good thing when putting the earpieces on. With JH16, I have to stretch my ear after I insert them to get the proper isolation. With Roxanne, I just have to insert it into my ears with a twisting motion and always get perfect isolation.  The cable is noticeably thick. Maybe 3 times the diameter compared to JH16 cable. So far the nuts are intact. :)

 

 

For SQ comparison with JH16, I used DX50 as my source paired with Leckerton UHA-6SMKII (ADA4627-1A). I also threw my full size headphone in (T1) and see how Roxanne compares.

 

True to my initial impression with Roxanne, everything is bigger, wider and thicker compared to JH16. Starting with the bass, Roxanne projects a wider and deeper bass and yet very tight and detailed. There are a few songs where JH16 tends to get boomy, Roxanne still maintains control The difference in the mids is very subtle. Though, a few micro details stands out more in Roxanne like that nasal sounding voice sounds more natural in Roxanne than in JH16. The highs is where I think Roxanne creates a huge distance against JH16. Where JH16 sometimes sounds too bright or a bit harsh, the Roxanne still manage to keep the sound clear and easy to the ears. Roxanne is non-fatiguing compared to JH16.

 

Other areas where Roxanne has a huge advantage over JH16 is the projection of Soundstage and depth. Separation is also excellent on Roxanne.

 

In fact, these atttributes are what made me compare Roxanne with a full size headphone, the Beyerdynamic T1. The soundstage, separation and overall presentation of Roxanne is much more closer to a headphone than an IEM. Yes, I dare say that. When I compared Roxanne to T1, I see many similarities than difference. Of course, you can't get rid of the feeling when an iem is inserted in your ear compared to a headphone covering your full ear.

 

T1's bass now seem lacking compared to Roxanne. T1's bass sounds tiny. Perhaps it's due to the amp. But what I am getting at is Roxanne is the iem that gives the experience as close to a full size headphone.

 

If you are considering JH16, I believe it makes more sense to shoot for the Roxanne instead. The variable bass control alone is worth the difference.

 

 


Edited by headwhacker - 2/22/14 at 7:31am
post #287 of 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

I have Roxanne for 1 full week now and after 100+ of burn in time I think it's time to do some serious comparison. The first day I listened to Roxanne I had to settle at 2 o'clock bass position. Each day I notice the bass gets a little stronger than the previous day (perhaps my brain is adjusting) so I had to adjust it until I fixed it at 9 o'clock. I guess this is the flat (0 dB) bass level. Even at this setting the bass is still very much present and blends in well with the mids and highs.

I listen mostly with Rock and Pop songs and a few classical. I love natural, clean, detailed and punchy bass without overpowering the mids and highs and for me the 0dB bass level of Roxanne is just what I'm looking for. At least for most of the songs I heard with Roxanne so far.

Compared to JH16 the earpiece is huge to account for the additional drivers. But in my experience this is a good thing when putting the earpieces on. With JH16, I have to stretch my ear after I insert them to get the proper isolation. With Roxanne, I just have to insert it into my ears with a twisting motion and always get perfect isolation.  The cable is noticeably thick. Maybe 3 times the diameter compared to JH16 cable. So far the nuts are intact. smily_headphones1.gif




For SQ comparison with JH16, I used DX50 as my source paired with Leckerton UHA-6SMKII (ADA4627-1A). I also threw my full size headphone in (T1) and see how Roxanne compares.

True to my initial impression with Roxanne, everything is bigger, wider and thicker compared to JH16. Starting with the bass, Roxanne projects a wider and deeper bass and yet very tight and detailed. There are a few songs where JH16 tends to get boomy, Roxanne still maintains control The difference in the mids is very subtle. Though, a few micro details stands out more in Roxanne like that nasal sounding voice sounds more natural in Roxanne than in JH16. The highs is where I think Roxanne creates a huge distance against JH16. Where JH16 sometimes sounds too bright or a bit harsh, the Roxanne still manage to keep the sound clear and easy to the ears. Roxanne is non-fatiguing compared to JH16.

Other areas where Roxanne has a huge advantage over JH16 is the projection of Soundstage and depth. Separation is also excellent on Roxanne.

In fact, these atttributes are what made me compare Roxanne with a full size headphone, the Beyerdynamic T1. The soundstage, separation and overall presentation of Roxanne is much more closer to a headphone than an IEM. Yes, I dare say that. When I compared Roxanne to T1, I see many similarities than difference. Of course, you can't get rid of the feeling when an iem is inserted in your ear compared to a headphone covering your full ear.

T1's bass now seem lacking compared to Roxanne. T1's bass sounds tiny. Perhaps it's due to the amp. But what I am getting at is Roxanne is the iem that gives the experience as close to a full size headphone.

If you are considering JH16, I believe it makes more sense to shoot for the Roxanne instead. The variable bass control alone is worth the difference.






+1

im now exploring the 8 o'clock setting and its really growing on me. But I can imagine the bass at 8 o'clock setting is still a little bit heavy for some ppl. 2 o'clock still the sweet spot for me. 4 o'clock with some edm and dubstep is really heart attack.
Edited by ikilledversace - 2/22/14 at 7:48am
post #288 of 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikilledversace View Post


+1

im now exploring the 8 o'clock setting and its really growing on me. But I can imagine the bass at 8 o'clock setting is a bit too heavy for some ppl. 2 o'clock still the sweet spot for me. 4 o'clock with some edm and dubstep is really heart attack.

 

That's the beauty of Roxanne. You can adjust the bass to your liking. I had the JH16 for barely 2 weeks I learned about Roxanne. The adjustable bass (and the BF discount) is what made me jump right in this ship. Having JH16 gave me a whole new experience compared to UIEMs and there was no coming back. Roxanne on the other hand is at least 2 or 3 levels even above JH16.

 

Too bad my JH16 will be a very expensive backup iem.

post #289 of 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 

I have Roxanne for 1 full week now and after 100+ of burn in time I think it's time to do some serious comparison.

 

Thanks for the great impressions.  It's wonderful to see the fairly big contrast between initial impressions at the shows being a bit of a mixed bag (ie comments about the highs in particular, either being harsh or lacking presence).  Aside from issues with build and delivery speed, it seems like sonics have been unanimously positive.  I'm super eager to get mine now.  

 

Your 16 is in a similar makeup to what I requested for my Roxannes (titanium/trans-black w/ black lettering).


Edited by bobeau - 2/22/14 at 3:27pm
post #290 of 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 

I have Roxanne for 1 full week now and after 100+ of burn in time I think it's time to do some serious comparison. 

 

+1. And from the things you've said not just in this post, it seems we have similar ears.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the Roxanne fixes pretty much all the shortcomings of the 16. Overpowering bass is fixed (and tailorable to your taste), and high frequencies are just a completely different league. Micro detail seems to be perhaps a product of the more accurate quad drivers. But overall, the high frequencies are what shines about this IEM, and what makes it sound more like a headphone than an IEM. All BA monitors I've heard take a huge face plant at very high frequencies, whereas the Roxannes seems to make everything up to the hearing limit, very audible. And I also agree that they sound best anywhere south of 12pm, basically close to neutral or slightly above. At 2pm, there is a very noticeable boost, probably in the range of 5-6 dB, which is somewhat suitable for recordings that seriously lack bass (i.e. older music). Anything over 2pm is just not right. 4pm does actually sound like +15dB.

post #291 of 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobeau View Post
 

 

Thanks for the great impressions.  It's wonderful to see the fairly big contrast between initial impressions at the shows being a bit of a mixed bag (ie comments about the highs in particular, either being harsh or lacking presence).  Aside from issues with build and delivery speed, it seems like sonics have been unanimously positive.  I'm super eager to get mine now.  

 

Your 16 is in a similar makeup to what I requested for my Roxannes (titanium/trans-black w/ black lettering).

The SQ turned out to be what I was hoping for. In fact better than what I remembered from the demo. Still the delay and lack of communication from JH left a bad taste in my mouth.  I like monochromatic color combinations. I looks elegant and doesn't attract too much attention :).  I chose transparent /clear for Roxanne so I can see the drivers in full glory and also easier to tell when to clean my monitors. :bigsmile_face:

 

 

 

Quote:from JH
Originally Posted by JAG87 View Post
 

 

+1. And from the things you've said not just in this post, it seems we have similar ears.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the Roxanne fixes pretty much all the shortcomings of the 16. Overpowering bass is fixed (and tailorable to your taste), and high frequencies are just a completely different league. Micro detail seems to be perhaps a product of the more accurate quad drivers. But overall, the high frequencies are what shines about this IEM, and what makes it sound more like a headphone than an IEM. All BA monitors I've heard take a huge face plant at very high frequencies, whereas the Roxannes seems to make everything up to the hearing limit, very audible. And I also agree that they sound best anywhere south of 12pm, basically close to neutral or slightly above. At 2pm, there is a very noticeable boost, probably in the range of 5-6 dB, which is somewhat suitable for recordings that seriously lack bass (i.e. older music). Anything over 2pm is just not right. 4pm does actually sound like +15dB.

 

I just wonder why JH compares 2PM bass to JH13 and 4PM to JH16. 2PM is too much even for JH16. But yeah, anything from 12PM and  below provides the best balance with very good details across frequency range and very crisp and clear overall presentation. Most of the music I listened to never runs out of bass details so my Roxanne is always stuck at 9PM. Even old recordings like the Beatles sounded perfect and natural at 0dB bass.

post #292 of 733

Posted this on the other thread as well, but it's more appropriate here

 

 

Crappy phone picture in the sun on the dirty hood of my car, but I got them finally after a FedEx fiasco. 

 

They pretty much sound the way everyone has described. "Thick" has been used and its pretty accurate. I'd say "saturated" and "rich". There's a lot going on per square inch in your head. Its anything but thin. And the amount of bass added has nothing to do with that. In fact, I have the bass slightly higher than the lowest setting at this point. 

 

In regards the comments about the "laid back highs", I would rather define them as having smooth leading edges. They are extended, but there is no sharpness, just smooth rounded edges. That pretty much goes for the sound overall. Very refined and polished... and very 3D with great timbre accuracy. The multiple drivers in there definitely create a more speaker like sound than you'd normally expect from an IEM. At least I assume the drivers make for the effortless sound. 

 

The fit isn't bad. I'll have to try them out longer to see if they need to be sent back for a refit. I've always felt that the best speakers, headphones, IEMs never wow you. And that is the case with these. But they make you want to keep listening and are very musical. 

 

Definitely an end game IEM. 

post #293 of 733

Congratulations, Rob!

 

They are growing on me. They still haven't amazed me all that much, which is weird since technically I've never heard an in-ear that gets close, not even the JH13 or the UM Mentor. While these two are not in the same league as the Roxanne, they always made me smile. The Roxannes are a lot better, but I guess I'm still respecting them more than loving them. This is slowly changing, though...

post #294 of 733

Thanks Leonardo. I'm with you regarding the lack of enthusiasm considering how refined and competent they sound. Did you ever send yours in for a refit? 

post #295 of 733

I didn't, actually! I said something at the other place, and I suppose that was bold enough! :p

post #296 of 733

End game iem indeed....soo

 

So long!

post #297 of 733

So just got mine in... initial impressions (literally with 30 minutes listening) coming from the TG!334, overall change in sound is more subtle than I was expecting, but there is definitely more in the upper registers, that sense of air.  The overall sense of body and space is similar, a somewhat intimate, organic, smooth presentation.  Around 2pm seems to be just a tad more amount of bass and that's where I'll leave it to start.

 

The fit is spot on, fairly tricky to get in and out of my ears, but a good seal with my mouth partially open. I have to open my mouth the same degree as the bite block to get the seal to break.  I was very worried about that as this is my first (and hopefully last - at least for a good while) CIEM.  And wow, the isolation.  I'm actually testing this out at moderate volume with construction going on right outside my window.  Can't hear a thing, normally I would have to leave to work at a cafe.

 

post #298 of 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post

Posted this on the other thread as well, but it's more appropriate here




Crappy phone picture in the sun on the dirty hood of my car, but I got them finally after a FedEx fiasco. 

They pretty much sound the way everyone has described. "Thick" has been used and its pretty accurate. I'd say "saturated" and "rich". There's a lot going on per square inch in your head. Its anything but thin. And the amount of bass added has nothing to do with that. In fact, I have the bass slightly higher than the lowest setting at this point. 

In regards the comments about the "laid back highs", I would rather define them as having smooth leading edges. They are extended, but there is no sharpness, just smooth rounded edges. That pretty much goes for the sound overall. Very refined and polished... and very 3D with great timbre accuracy. The multiple drivers in there definitely create a more speaker like sound than you'd normally expect from an IEM. At least I assume the drivers make for the effortless sound. 

The fit isn't bad. I'll have to try them out longer to see if they need to be sent back for a refit. I've always felt that the best speakers, headphones, IEMs never wow you. And that is the case with these. But they make you want to keep listening and are very musical. 

Definitely an end game IEM. 

Seems like JH is silently shipping Roxannes now. Congrats. With Roxanne I am now finding JH16 brighter. Detail retrieval, 3D space, instrument separation and nice timbre is just a big improvement. The thick, powerful but equally detailed bass presentation at low bass setting is more natural than my full size T1.

My JH16 was a mobile exclusive phone and I always reach for my T1 at home. But with Roxanne, I don't need to choose anymore. I can listen to it all day long.
post #299 of 733

^ thanks

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonardo Drummond View Post
 

I didn't, actually! I said something at the other place, and I suppose that was bold enough! :p

 

Gotcha ;)

post #300 of 733

Quick questions - Does the Roxanne has more treble than Shure 846 (white filter)?

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