As far as the design goes, I'm sure you can just talk to the JH guys about what you want, and they'll be able to make it happen. But, I do get what you're saying from the perspective of, "Will it still count as a free design if I ask for this to be changed? Or, that to be changed?" That's probably a question I'd suggest you e-mail them for.
And, for the DDs, I don't think that's exactly how they work. The push-pull, dual-DD config you're talking about is probably the one Ocharaku popularised, where one DD almost acts opposite to the other to absorb its excess vibrations. JH's DOME technology, as I understand it, has both drivers pump the same signal to a tube that sits perpendicularly between them. As a result, you'll effectively have the cumulative surface area of both drivers, and the distance between the drivers naturally creates a high-cut filter, which then allows the BA tweeters to come in with no overlap. Jerry himself talks about that idea briefly here:
That begs the question, though, because it depends on what you mean by transparent or resolving. When people talk about finding artefacts in music or hearing tinny, thinned-out EQ choices, I find that usually correlates to a tonality that pushes those qualities at the same time; a raised treble and a relaxed lower-midrange, for example. You'd hear more details in a more clinically-separated manner that way. But, again, they'll also exacerbate those artefacts, those tinny EQ choices, etc. Their tuning inherently pushes them further to the forefront. Whereas, transparency to me means the IEM gets out of the way and lets the music speak for itself. When you look at those IEMs that way - ones that push "flaws" more than they normally would or should - are they then truly transparent?
If I use camera lenses as an analogy, a 100mm macro lens will blow details up and make dust and fingerprints appear much larger than they normally would. Does that then make them more transparent than, say, a 50mm lens that's more like the human eye? In the realm of studio monitors, you also have the legendary Yamaha NS-10: A thin, papery-sounding speaker responsible for the saying, "If it sounds good on NS-10's, it'll sound good on anything." But, again, that goes back to tonality, rather than technical performance or resolution.
I've personally heard IEMs that are transparent and resolving (i.e. they change with music and resolve tons of details with ease) that still do what one may consider poorly-recorded tracks a certain amount of justice. I'd cite the A18s and Layla as two examples. They simply present those tracks as another shade of grey. I think this is the healthy in-between that can exist between transparency and frankness; a more natural, humane form of transparency, if you will. As a recording and mixing engineer, those are the kinds on in-ears I personally gravitate to. But, again, it's all up to how you define those terms. 'Just my two cents.
EDIT: It just occurred to me that you could apply to this to dynamic and spatial transparency as well. IEMs that are tuned for clarity typically have brighter, more forwardly-positioned, harder-edged transients, and those make dynamics more difficult to distinguish. If the leading edges are always forwardly-placed and the warmer - some may may veil-inducing - harmonics are always further back, then it's more difficult to tell when they each ebb-and-flow, isn't it? These IEMs are also typically tuned for larger stages too. But, if everything is given an airy, vast stage, how can you tell if a track sounds congested, or if there'll be enough space between instruments on a warmer monitor, etc.? Again, it's just how I tend to view reference monitors, and it's why my definitions of reference or neutral tend to be warmer than most.
Yeah, JH typically split their BAs into 4-driver arrays in parallel, which allows them to push for extension without effort or distortion. It's something Jerry talked about in that 2012 Google Talk I mentioned earlier.
I did look at it too!
)
)
