roy_jones
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Posts
- 962
- Likes
- 55
Quote:
As good as the O2 + BHSE is (I've heard it multiple times and used to own O2+KGSS), there is definitely room for improvement. To me the system always sounded a little enclosed with not the best soundstage. Imaging and seperation of instruments is top notch, but i'm always left a little wanting after hearing the system. That is why a lot of us as the most recent SoCal meet preferred the Omega + BHSE over the O2 on n3rdling's rig (but bass was pretty week on Omega). My point is that no system is perfect and there's a lot of room for improvement, even on a high en electrostatic rig.
In theory, the system that Jerry is inventing has the posibility of being truly amazing in terms of speed, detail retreival, soundstage, with phase accurate adjustable bass (with 4 bass drivers for overhead). Since half of what makes a system sound good is the synergy between source, amp, and headphone, the JH3a has the potential to be great since all of those are developed together.
I'm very curious about the maximum potential for soundstage reproduction in an IEM. My skepticism has more to do purely with the limitations inherent to the respective designs, and the advantages that go with having drivers placed physically further away from the ear.
I guess the big question I would have would be whether the best possible soundstage implementation in an IEM could exceed the capabilities of a traditional headphone for which soundstage isn't one of it's primary strengths. I can envision some people "preferring" an IEM soundstage, but I don't know about whether an IEM soundstage can compete on a more objective basis.