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 38

post #556 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post

Not a lot you can do to get treble out of the Roxanne's. It's just how Jerry designed the Roxanne's. Have you considered the JH13s? 
I have plenty of CIEMs...besides there is little chance I am giving more money to JH. Anyways I need to listen with different sources and a good fit.
post #557 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post
 

Not a lot you can do to get treble out of the Roxanne's. It's just how Jerry designed the Roxanne's. Have you considered the JH13s? 

I know there are people look into treble for resolution and wondering if this is the case here.  I personally do not prefer bright phones as I heard plenty details with the 334, which known to be colored probably because of it's bass.  Most likely because I'm into vocals.  Looking at the graph it's rolled off like typicall BA drivers around 10k.  

 

I'm not sure about this, but the treble roll off could be a dip in the treble regions that really matter around 6-10k, where the cymbal like sounds are at.  This could be what the Roxanne is doing and could actually be extending well beyond it, but further down those treble is very subtle in it's tonality and insignificant to the age bracket here.  :D

 

I've had bright phones, and I drop somewhere around 6-10k where if it's peaked, it sound very aggressive and fatiguing.  Why not EQ?

 

I hope somebody measures the Roxanne so we can get a jest of what it's outputting.


Edited by SilverEars - 7/5/14 at 3:04pm
post #558 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post

Not a lot you can do to get treble out of the Roxanne's. It's just how Jerry designed the Roxanne's. Have you considered the JH13s? 
I have plenty of CIEMs...besides there is little chance I am giving more money to JH. Anyways I need to listen with different sources and a good fit.

I've heard really good things about the DX90 which I'm leaning towards myself and AK240 (which is more than I want to spend), so hopefully others will chime in as well. I don't recommend an imod which already has a darker sound.
post #559 of 569
Here are some pics of the case... You'd think you would get something clean and double-checked before it being shipped after several months!


The inside tray too
post #560 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobeau View Post

I listenened to the 13/16 demos against my CIEM Roxannes at the SoCal meet, in addition I own TG!334s.  I would say they all give me an impression of being more sparkly than the Roxannes - that said, I'm not so sure that means there is actually more treble content/detail.  For instance, the Roxannes clearly have more extension than 334s beyond 10k.  

Tupac and I differ on this point, but my take is the Roxannes were tuned with an emphasis on reducing any stridency in the highs, and coupled with a robust upper bass/lower mids (rather than a bit of a dip), give them a sound that trends toward thick/smooth sound.  Doing volume sweeps I hear them extending strongly to 15k, but there are some interesting peaks/valleys around the 7-8k and 10-11k areas.  Some people will find this to be somewhat dull or veiled.  Others will find this to approach a more headphone-like or organic experience.

From what you say here I'd say these probably wouldn't be for you - at the very least, you would not like them much out of the box.  

Thanks alot, I guess I will looked into jh 16pro instead.. really luv the look of roxanne... too bad, I wish jerry would include a tuner for the treble in future.
post #561 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobeau View Post
 

 

I did get to listen to this at the SoCal meet: http://iconosquare.com/p/682784221883136125_225341405

 

Unfortunately can't say much about it as I only spent 5 minutes w/ it.  Not really into the value prop of cables much either, but at times I do believe they can create a different presentation, better or for worse (sorta like the difference between tuning UIEMs w/ different ear tips).  The price they're shooting for is ~$400, probably a bit more than I'd like to spend on something like this.  

 

World 1st :blink::p . But yeah, it sound better with silver cable. Not sure about copper & hybrid, hopefully i could get them 1 day to compare.


Edited by stvc - 7/5/14 at 7:58pm
post #562 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by stvc View Post
 

 

World 1st :blink::p . But yeah, it sound better with silver cable. Not sure about copper & hybrid, hopefully i could get them 1 day to compare.

 

Wait - so you're saying you're using an alternate cable?  Is it home made?

post #563 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobeau View Post
 

 

Wait - so you're saying you're using an alternate cable?  Is it home made?

1 off make by Toxic cable for testing purposes. Don't pair well with SR-71B but pair with AK240 balance & i love it.

 

post #564 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

I hope somebody measures the Roxanne so we can get a jest of what it's outputting.

So do I. Let's just say I highly disagree with some of the comments made in the last few pages minus treble extension which I agree is definitely rolled off. evil_smiley.gif
post #565 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor View Post


So do I. Let's just say I highly disagree with some of the comments made in the last few pages minus treble extension which I agree is definitely rolled off. evil_smiley.gif

Well, nice thing about graph is if you don't agree with the sound, you look for the graph you like.  If you don't like the graph, you say it doesn't sound like the graph.  :gs1000smile:  Either way, it makes us much happier.

 

If you play around with EQ, you can get a sense of how far of a treble you need. Vocals, instruments, and etc.. extend so far. Many people think of treble extension as they must have up tot 20k, but the treble that people hear as being bright is from 6-10k.  I think people tend to mix treble extension with treble peak.  If they hear the peak at 6-10k, they may think it's extended, which not the case.  So technically, Roxannes can be quite extended.


Edited by SilverEars - 7/7/14 at 7:40pm
post #566 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

Well, nice thing about graph is if you don't agree with the sound, you look for the graph you like.  If you don't like the graph, you say it doesn't sound like the graph.  gs1000.gif   Either way, it makes us much happier.

If you play around with EQ, you can get a sense of how far of a treble you need. Vocals, instruments, and etc.. extend so far. Many people think of treble extension as they must have up tot 20k, but the treble that people hear as being bright is from 6-10k.  I think people tend to mix treble extension with treble peak.  If they hear the peak at 6-10k, they may think it's extended, which not the case.  So technically, Roxannes can be quite extended.

I also think those who go "I need more treble" are really talking more about upper mids than actual honest-to-goodness treble. Unless you listen to a lot of cymbals that is... biggrin.gif


You know what I find the best aspect of the Roxanne's is that they just get out of the way. After spending now countless hours with them, they just seem to disappear after a while where as with the JH13 and even the JH3A system, there are a few tracks where I go...huh, that's definitely a JHA thing...not so with the Roxanne's - they are very consistent across a wealth of different music types and their spacious presence is just absolutely magical.

If you love the LCD-3's, I don't see how you could not dig the Roxanne's.
post #567 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor View Post


I also think those who go "I need more treble" are really talking more about upper mids than actual honest-to-goodness treble. Unless you listen to a lot of cymbals that is... biggrin.gif


You know what I find the best aspect of the Roxanne's is that they just get out of the way. After spending now countless hours with them, they just seem to disappear after a while where as with the JH13 and even the JH3A system, there are a few tracks where I go...huh, that's definitely a JHA thing...not so with the Roxanne's - they are very consistent across a wealth of different music types and their spacious presence is just absolutely magical.

If you love the LCD-3's, I don't see how you could not dig the Roxanne's.

You bring up a thought provoking point.  I posted this in the HD800 thread since LCD3 is the opposite of it.  Why I say opposite?  The 800 spikes around the region that LCD3 dips.  It's not a coincidence that LCD3 dips at that convient spot that causes harshness to people's ears.  I say it's done on purpose for enjoyment.  Some may pefer the the spike and some may not.  I learned I'm not a big fan of treble spike.  My experience with LCD2 has me scratching because the vocals sounded distant for some tracks, but it makes sense if the that area is purposely dropped.  Dunno about the 3 through.  But, as you can see from the graph, the treble is extended very well, but dropped slight at the area where the harshness can be. Could this be a coincidence that it at the area where the treble harshness is? No, I think the designer had this in mind. I have a feeling that Roxannes would map out similarly.  If you like the LCD-3 and like the Roxannes, possibly like both because the FR is similar.

 

Can we confirm previous JH phones were tad on the bright side?  Possibly cause a bit of harshness at times?

 


Edited by SilverEars - 7/7/14 at 8:16pm
post #568 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

 

If you play around with EQ, you can get a sense of how far of a treble you need. Vocals, instruments, and etc.. extend so far. Many people think of treble extension as they must have up tot 20k, but the treble that people hear as being bright is from 6-10k.  I think people tend to mix treble extension with treble peak.  If they hear the peak at 6-10k, they may think it's extended, which not the case.  So technically, Roxannes can be quite extended.

 

I think it's also possibly a case of nomenclature as it has always been difficult to agree on a fix set of vocabulary to describe sound.  To me, I do consider anything from 6k and up treble.  In fact you correctly pointed out the 6-10k is very important to the "characteristic" of the sound and it is the region most likely determine if it is "bright" or not.  

 

I think it's really moot to discuss anything pass 10k as there is not a lot happening there.  I find the below diagram matches closely with my understand of sub-bass, mid-bass, midrange, treble etc:

 

 

 

A bit more detailed info on each of the instruments and frequency range on mouseover in this interactive version of this chart:

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor View Post


I also think those who go "I need more treble" are really talking more about upper mids than actual honest-to-goodness treble. Unless you listen to a lot of cymbals that is... biggrin.gif

 

Well there are plenty of people who refer to anything from 4 or 3 or even 2k up as treble... hard to have a definitive answer to what is honest-to-goodness and what is not imo.... you can note from the above even cymbals goes all the way from 400 to 16k....  :o 


Edited by kkcc - Yesterday at 3:20 am
post #569 of 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor View Post


I also think those who go "I need more treble" are really talking more about upper mids than actual honest-to-goodness treble. Unless you listen to a lot of cymbals that is... biggrin.gif


You know what I find the best aspect of the Roxanne's is that they just get out of the way. After spending now countless hours with them, they just seem to disappear after a while where as with the JH13 and even the JH3A system, there are a few tracks where I go...huh, that's definitely a JHA thing...not so with the Roxanne's - they are very consistent across a wealth of different music types and their spacious presence is just absolutely magical.

If you love the LCD-3's, I don't see how you could not dig the Roxanne's.

 

I agree, if anyone wants to know what the Roxanne's sound like, the LCD-3s are what it always reminds me of. I really like the sound. It definitely grows on you. Even though my usual preference is the opposite, I definitely appreciate the ability to listen to anything without it sounding harsh, whether it be straight from the iPhone or with a DAC/AMP. It has a sweet and rich sounding mid range as well.  

 

I also don't think extending the treble on the Roxanne's works. Trying to EQ more treble just makes it sound off to me. I can see why Jerry decided to roll it off at a certain point to avoid anything unpleasant. 

 

I do seem to hear a mid range bump and the deep bass appears to be attenuated a bit. So, I'd assume the FR would have a bumped up mid bass, slightly rolled off deep bass (but still extended), relatively flat mid range and the upper treble rolled off after maybe a subtle spike or two. It doesn't matter how they measure though. Overall, its a pleasant, grain less, 3D sound that's more about getting out of the way of the music. It's not trying to be a dry studio monitor for mixing purposes.   

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