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 6

post #76 of 982

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bearFNF View Post
 

I would say that the treble I am hearing is pretty accurate to what I would expect, listening the Dire Straits "So Far away", "money for nothing" and "walk of life".  These are the tracks I listened to at CanJam with the demo sets and thought the treble was a little tizzy and unnatural.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

It's funny you should mention that album, though - I have always considered the treble in that album to have a 'digital-sounding' synthetic 'tizz' sound, regardless of whether played through full size hi-fi with smoothly-detailed silk-dome tweeters, or on portable gear, so perhaps those particular tracks would not be a reliable baseline for judging the treble of the Roxannes.

 

Maybe try something acoustic, perhaps? :smile:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nnotis View Post
 

 

Regardless of what I plug them into, or how I monkey with the signal upstream, the Roxannes have intoxicating detail retrieval.  Mython, I don't know what "organic" or "real" means to you, so I couldn't hazard a guess as to whether or not the Roxannes have it.

 

 

What I meant was that, because of my experience with the UM Miracle, I am not looking to repeat the experience of the treble sometimes lacking delicacy in the micro-details around 8-12khz band. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Miracle in many respects and would still enjoy it if I bought it again. But (IMO) (and as just one example) it does not reproduce the subtle shimmer of brushed cymbals entirely convincingly - there's a kind of 'graininess' sometimes which makes me realise I'm listening to cymbals being reproduced through a transducer, rather than being convincingly fooled that I'm listening to actual cymbals. Whether that's the fault of the BA, the tuning, or some other factor, I can't say for sure, but I definitely heard it on many different occasions, with many different pieces of music (and this was being driven by a DX100, which is known for it's delicacy and transparency with treble).

 

So I'd love to find a CIEM (perhaps the Roxanne...) which does most of what the Miracle does so well, but adds greater treble realism to the equation. Hence, my question :happy_face1:

post #77 of 982
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

 

 

Thanks for your input.

 

It's funny you should mention that album, though - I have always considered the treble in that album to have a 'digital-sounding' synthetic 'tizz' sound, regardless of whether played through full size hi-fi with smoothly-detailed silk-dome tweeters, or on portable gear, so perhaps those particular tracks would not be a reliable baseline for judging the treble of the Roxannes.

 

Maybe try something acoustic, perhaps? :smile:

 

 

 

 

What I meant was that, because of my experience with the UM Miracle, I am not looking to repeat the experience of the treble sometimes lacking delicacy in the micro-details around 8-12khz band. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Miracle in many respects and would still enjoy it if I bought it again. But (IMO) (and as just one example) it does not reproduce the subtle shimmer of brushed cymbals entirely convincingly - there's a kind of 'graininess' sometimes which makes me realise I'm listening to cymbals being reproduced through a transducer, rather than being convincingly fooled that I'm listening to actual cymbals. Whether that's the fault of the BA, the tuning, or some other factor, I can't say for sure, but I definitely heard it on many different occasions, with many different pieces of music (and this was being driven by a DX100, which is known for it's delicacy and transparency with treble).

 

So I'd love to find a CIEM (perhaps the Roxanne...) which does most of what the Miracle does so well, but adds greater treble realism to the equation. Hence, my question :happy_face1:

 

Its hard to say how realistic it sounds, but its pretty accurate. My thoughts on realism with it have to wait... I find more warmth in the K10s when it comes to it but I haven't played around with the bass knob that much.

post #78 of 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by perdigao View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinf View Post
 

What? How? And you're just now telling us your impressions? ;-)

Hi,

I just found the Website while looking for more information on the Roxanne.  I was searching to see if there was any talks (anywhere) about upgraded cables. In the future, I would love to have a balanced cable for it.

 

That was my first post ! But now I will be reading and posting more often here !  Awesome website with a lot of information!

 

All the best!

 

They are going to provide kits for companies to make their own cables.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post

So I'd love to find a CIEM (perhaps the Roxanne...) which does most of what the Miracle does so well, but adds greater treble realism to the equation. Hence, my question :happy_face1:

 

Percussion was always where I had a disagreement with most IEMs. I know one of Jerry's targets has been better treble, especially given the limitations IEM drivers have. I've not owned the Miracles, so I'm not sure what best to answer you, other than I know that a flat phase response is critical to percussion sounding its best.  The best IEMs I've owned or borrowed for acoustic music were the 1plus2s and FitEar Parterres (what I use currently). The Roxanne seem to be as good in that regard, except that I find the mid-bass in both my JH-13s and the Roxannes to be too strong and that makes it harder to get good impressions on how the treble is. The Parterres have the best overall balance for me.

 

Edit: My comment before about them sounding Audeze-like is because both aim for a "flat" sound signature (to varying degrees). That brings the upper bass and lower mids more forward than we're used to, resulting in a heavier, less spacious sound.

post #79 of 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Edit: My comment before about them sounding Audeze-like is because both aim for a "flat" sound signature (to varying degrees). That brings the upper bass and lower mids more forward than we're used to, resulting in a heavier, less spacious sound.

Currawong, spot on man, spot-on...

It's one of the reasons why I think the 3A/JH16P and the LCD-3 (I own both) are ideal for rock, metal, electronica, etc. and perhaps less so for symphonic/orchestral classical where a lot of listeners demand a wider headstage. Doesn't shock me either given Jerrys' clientele (that isn't to say Jerry would not want to sell the New York Philharmonic, but as far as I can tell, its not really his sweet spot). biggrin.gif
post #80 of 982
As I read this post. I just cannot agree with the statement of LCD 3. And the JH3A withe the JH16 fp.
I too own both. And the LCD3. Is in a different field of sound. As the jh combo being good for all genre
And more mid to upper mid foward and ext to treble. It does this and gives Air.
Something the l cd 3. Seriously lacks. Sorry but if ok let's agree to disagree
. Keep in mind we all perceive sound different.

Al. D
post #81 of 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALRAINBOW View Post

As I read this post. I just cannot agree with the statement of LCD 3. And the JH3A withe the JH16 fp.
I too own both. And the LCD3. Is in a different field of sound. As the jh combo being good for all genre
And more mid to upper mid foward and ext to treble. It does this and gives Air.
Something the l cd 3. Seriously lacks. Sorry but if ok let's agree to disagree
. Keep in mind we all perceive sound different.

Al. D

 

I was referring to the frequency response as to why the Roxannes reminded me of the Audeze headphones (I have the LCD-Xs here). :smile:

post #82 of 982
It's all good I always repect your reviews as some I respect. I must of misunderstood
Sorry
Happy new year enjoy your self
Al
post #83 of 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

 

 The Roxanne seem to be as good in that regard, except that I find the mid-bass in both my JH-13s and the Roxannes to be too strong and that makes it harder to get good impressions on how the treble is. The Parterres have the best overall balance for me.

 

 

Is that with the stock cables? The 13 has a some extra low bass but not too much midbass to my ear, at least once run in well. They had a bit of that early on. They can also sound that way if your not getting all the highs from a bore not aiming quite right etc. I can easily accept that we just don't hear them the same as well.:bigsmile_face:

Happy New Year!

post #84 of 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALRAINBOW View Post

As I read this post. I just cannot agree with the statement of LCD 3. And the JH3A withe the JH16 fp.
I too own both. And the LCD3. Is in a different field of sound. As the jh combo being good for all genre
And more mid to upper mid foward and ext to treble. It does this and gives Air.
Something the l cd 3. Seriously lacks. Sorry but if ok let's agree to disagree
. Keep in mind we all perceive sound different.

Al. D

Are you talking about airy treble or headstage? If you are talking about treble, than yes the 3A combo is better than the LCD-3 which are sometimes referred to as a slightly dark can (ortho's weakness is their treble extension).

But form a bass->mid frequency sweep, I feel the LCD-3 and JH3A have a lot in common (emphasize on really great bass, forward mids, etc.).

I do not believe the 3A has more headstage than your LCD-3. Open back's are just going to sound bigger and I just find it hard to believe anyone would think IEMs sound bigger than a competently designed open back fullsize can.

But of course, as you said, our ears are shaped differently! biggrin.gif
post #85 of 982
As well hear a little different , I can say currowong. Is someone I really trust and usually agree with his description .

He will have me checking my jh13 and Roxanne when they come in. For now the jh13 are. Very ref flat IEM to my ears. But given I am 56 years old and been around construction all my life . I am willing to bet that even though I test ok with some minor V. Cut in the mids. I am willing to be the is correct. The guy is just on with his conclusions .

I did misspoke in this thread a few pages or so back. After reading it again I am agin in Agreement with him.

Al
post #86 of 982
Yes trogdor. I admit I misread the statement and agree with you post.. I read it too quickly and did not comprehend properly. And of course a headphone has more sound stage at least to my ears.

Al. D
post #87 of 982
VisceriousZERO, or anyone else, how do these Roxannes compare to the Shure 846?
post #88 of 982

I've had a few questions about the 75 ohm adapter I've mentioned a few times.  Here's an Ebay link to a seller that makes them with a nice variety of resistances:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ETYMOTIC-ER4P-TO-ER4S-RESISTOR-ADAPTOR-3-5MM-PLUG-/290372905689

 

I've found I often want something in between the stock signature and that with the 75 ohm resistor.  So I'm probably going to order a 30 from this seller.  I'm not yet totally sure what effect these resistors have on the sound other than an all around amplitude reduction with more coming from treble.

 

I also have no idea if the Roxannes are neutral or peaky with treble.  With vocals, they can sound shrill around 7 or 8 kHz.  With other sounds, I've heard too much in the range of 10 - 12 kHz.  Maybe that's the Roxannes showing any EQ flaw in a mix.  Maybe they have a couple of nasty treble peaks in their frequency curve.  I'd like to believe it's the former, but wIthout measurements, I just don't know.

 

Oh, and so far the bass does sound ortho good to me.

post #89 of 982
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roscoeiii View Post

VisceriousZERO, or anyone else, how do these Roxannes compare to the Shure 846?

Unfortunately I don't have my 846s with me at the moment, theyre stuck with a friend on extended loan tongue.gif
post #90 of 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisceriousZERO View Post


Unfortunately I don't have my 846s with me at the moment, theyre stuck with a friend on extended loan tongue.gif

Thanks. Looking forward to hearing this comparison. Caught my attention that Steve Guttenberg over at CNET preferred the 846 to CIEMs from folks like JH (think he has either the 13 or 16, not sure about Freq Phase or not). 

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