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 30

post #436 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spamateur View Post
 

Got my Roxanne Universals today. I was a little surprised at how dark sounding they are in comparison to my Shure SE846 (w/white "bright" filter). They almost remind of how dark my Westone 4r is, although everything is superior to the Westones, of course. Wondering if it's a fitment issue? I've tried several of the included tips and I found the treble to be a little harsh with the silicone tips. The foam tips aren't bad, but I might need to give these some significant burn-in considering the reports I'm seeing of burn-in affecting the "dark" qualities of this IEM. So far, I much prefer the Shures, TBH, but that's probably more of the sound signature I liked to begin with.

I think I heard the same from another post that Roxanne sounding dark.  It's interesting because JH was boasting about how he is pushing for extending treble.  What's up with the 4 high drivers?  Anyway, did you try turning the bass down and see if it changes this?  I get a feeling the Roxanne has a roll off right after 10k like most BA drivers.

post #437 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

I think I heard the same from another post that Roxanne sounding dark.  It's interesting because JH was boasting about how he is pushing for extending treble.  What's up with the 4 high drivers?  Anyway, did you try turning the bass down and see if it changes this?  I get a feeling the Roxanne has a roll off right after 10k like most BA drivers.

Yeah I played with the bass adjustment quite a bit. The manual that comes with the Roxannes actually recommends between 1 and 4 o'clock. I set it all the way off and at 9 o'clock for awhile as well. It helps a little, but the overall tonality is thick, dark and intimate. I really miss the tiny bit of grain and the layering that the SE846 achieves, and might even argue they're more transparent.

post #438 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spamateur View Post
 

Yeah I played with the bass adjustment quite a bit. The manual that comes with the Roxannes actually recommends between 1 and 4 o'clock. I set it all the way off and at 9 o'clock for awhile as well. It helps a little, but the overall tonality is thick, dark and intimate. I really miss the tiny bit of grain and the layering that the SE846 achieves, and might even argue they're more transparent.

This explains it.  ;)  I personally am not a fan of the Shure grains.  I think it sound forward and has thick textures so it probably provide the perception of details.  Audition some top orthos and you can hear how details really sound like, they don't sound grainy.

 

But, not the fine details, and those grains you are hears is probably the peaks at around 10k, and after it drops off according to the graph.  SE846 rolls off pretty good around that point like most BA iems.  There are some that extend more like the UERM.


Edited by SilverEars - 5/5/14 at 8:40pm
post #439 of 595
I think each of us has a different reference point for comparison. For me after hearing an LCD-2, that is my reference of a dark SQ. My JH16 now bright and Roxanne sitting on the middle.
post #440 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

I think each of us has a different reference point for comparison. For me after hearing an LCD-2, that is my reference of a dark SQ. My JH16 now bright and Roxanne sitting on the middle.

I looked at the graphs of LCD-2 and it dips alittle around the treble area.  People think it's neutral phones based on the graph because it's almost all flat, but I think true neutral is where the treble area peak a bit, and starts to drop off on the mids and stays flat to the low end.  I think based on such a graph, it is then compensated to show the perceived neural graph.

 

So yeah, I agree that graphs even shows it would sound lack a bit of the highs.

post #441 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spamateur View Post

Yeah I played with the bass adjustment quite a bit. The manual that comes with the Roxannes actually recommends between 1 and 4 o'clock. I set it all the way off and at 9 o'clock for awhile as well. It helps a little, but the overall tonality is thick, dark and intimate. I really miss the tiny bit of grain and the layering that the SE846 achieves, and might even argue they're more transparent.

I was one of those who commented on feeling the roxanne dark sounding. I think a more accurate description would be it is THICK sounding. The treble extension is (most likely) there but just that it is so full it doesn't give the airy spacious crisp sparkling feeling of our usual treble and thus giving a darker feeling. At least that's how it seems to me. Similarly, the Tralucent Ref1's treble is more extended and according to Gavin better than 1p2's. However due to it being much more refined than that of 1p2 with zero sibilance, it somehow feel "darker" also (but less "dark" than roxanne imo).
Edited by kkcc - 5/5/14 at 10:17pm
post #442 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

I looked at the graphs of LCD-2 and it dips alittle around the treble area.  People think it's neutral phones based on the graph because it's almost all flat, but I think true neutral is where the treble area peak a bit, and starts to drop off on the mids and stays flat to the low end.  I think based on such a graph, it is then compensated to show the perceived neural graph.

 

So yeah, I agree that graphs even shows it would sound lack a bit of the highs.

 



I think the treble region for LCD-2 has a nice curve what makes it dark is the 2 - 3 dB boost from 500Hz to the 20Hz region and the upward slope from 1K to 500Hz. I think that is why Audeze has the LCD-X, to be the reference for neutral
post #443 of 595

They seem to have the same issue that I have with Audeze cans on occasion: The mid-bass around 200 Hz is too strong. AKG now reckon the ideal frequency response has a dip around that region, which gels with this IMO.

 

With some music it bothers me with the Roxannes and some it doesn't. At the moment I'm using them with the AK240 which strikes a good balance.

post #444 of 595

Just to interrupt anybody wanna sell their Universal Roxanne? I am from singapore anyway and would be interested in one 

post #445 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13sarooster View Post
 

Just to interrupt anybody wanna sell their Universal Roxanne? I am from singapore anyway and would be interested in one 

Search in the For sale/trade forum.

post #446 of 595

For those with universal version of roxannes any good tips to recommend i live in Singapore btw

post #447 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13sarooster View Post
 

For those with universal version of roxannes any good tips to recommend i live in Singapore btw

Ortofon. These are my goto tips for large bore soundtubes.


Edited by BRCMRGN - 5/9/14 at 8:09am
post #448 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

I think I heard the same from another post that Roxanne sounding dark.  It's interesting because JH was boasting about how he is pushing for extending treble.  What's up with the 4 high drivers?  Anyway, did you try turning the bass down and see if it changes this?  I get a feeling the Roxanne has a roll off right after 10k like most BA drivers.

I demoed the universal 11, 16 non fq and roxanne today and I had a similar experience.

I've also demoed the 13 non fq before and I remember loving the sound signature instantly.

I found the roxannes dark and veiled. Almost distant sounding and this translated into a less detailed sound to my ears. I instantly hated them compared to the 11s and 16s which both sounded more up-front and clear to me. I also noticed that the volume was much softer with the roxannes plugged in. Not sure if it had anything to do with the fact that I couldn't fit the whole thing in my ear due to the size.

Is it possible that this was just a lack of burn in? The store did say they'd only just got the demo in. From other people's reviews it doesn't seem like they hated the sound initially though so it's making me question my preferences.
post #449 of 595

While much of it may be pure preference, I do like a more forward, detailed, articulate type of presentation, I feel that the Roxannes are very veiled and dark. While mine have not had nearly sufficient time to have burned in (I read somewhere that someone thought they opened up after 200 hours), and they might improve, I still doubt that they will be able to ever provide a detailed articulate presentation. The level of detail that I am used to from my UE 10 Pro, Sennheiser HD 650 and even my main audio system is just not there.

 

Overall I am fairly disappointed in these and sadly I feel I will have to search for alternatives and these will sit in their case.


Edited by tyeck - 5/10/14 at 2:28pm
post #450 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyeck View Post

While much of it may be pure preference, I do like a more forward, detailed, articulate type of presentation, I feel that the Roxannes are very veiled and dark. While mine have not had nearly sufficient time to have burned in (I read somewhere that someone thought they opened up after 200 hours), and they might improve, I still doubt that they will be able to ever provide a detailed articulate presentation. The level of detail that I am used to from my UE 10 Pro, Sennheiser HD 650 and even my main audio system is just not there.

Overall I am fairly disappointed in these and sadly I feel I will have to search for alternatives and these will sit in their case.

I'm one of who had them burned in for 200 hrs and for me there is a huge difference. I'd say they are very detailed ime and I've compared them to Abyss, hd800 but of course not close to the Orpheus. I hope you'll enjoy yours in time
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