[customNuts]

Quick question guys with the Bass boost.
 
So the jh-3a has 0 to +12db bass boost
And the JH16 has around +8db bass boost,
So does that means the JH16 bass can be increased from +8db up to +12db and all the way down to 0db?
 
So there is a +4db bass boost over stock JH16??

 

[Trogdor]

I didn't think that was it at all.  I thought you were getting tuned JH16s but they are stock with respect to the transducers (+3-4db bass boost over the JH13's).  From there you can adjust with the JH-3A (technically you can knock it down 3-4db and from what I read, Jerry said the sound should be equivalent).
 
That's why I don't see why you would get 13's and JH-3A unless you owned them already.

 

[customNuts]

Thanks for your reply Trogdor,
Can you clarify?? If its 0 -12 db boost, where does the jh16 sit stock. So how many db over stock will the max boost be? (12db or 12db + stock?)

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

I didn't think that was it at all.  I thought you were getting tuned JH16s but they are stock with respect to the transducers (+3-4db bass boost over the JH13's).  From there you can adjust with the JH-3A (technically you can knock it down 3-4db and from what I read, Jerry said the sound should be equivalent).
 
That's why I don't see why you would get 13's and JH-3A unless you owned them already.

Didn't someone said that at CJ Jerry told them that to get the JH13's level you have to dim the bass by -10 db? I'm confused. This whole time I was thinking that 0 db = stock, but -10 db sounds like a huge difference between JH13 and J16... then Trogdor said it's only a 3-4 db difference. ?????????

 

[SoupRKnowva]

Quote:

Didn't someone said that at CJ Jerry told them that to get the JH13's level you have to dim the bass by -10 db? I'm confused. This whole time I was thinking that 0 db = stock, but -10 db sounds like a huge difference between JH13 and J16... then Trogdor said it's only a 3-4 db difference. ?????????

in order to get bass similar in level to the 13 at CJ you had to put the slider at about -10dB, but that really doesnt mean anything, its an arbitrary scale, putting the bass 0db did not equate to jh16 bass, 

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

in order to get bass similar in level to the 13 at CJ you had to put the slider at about -10dB, but that really doesnt mean anything, its an arbitrary scale, putting the bass 0db did not equate to jh16 bass, 

By my listening, 0 dB was way too much bass, and quite a bit more than the JH16.  My preferred listening position, and also a position that sounded similar to the JH16 from a few minutes earlier, was -6 dB.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

in order to get bass similar in level to the 13 at CJ you had to put the slider at about -10dB, but that really doesnt mean anything, its an arbitrary scale, putting the bass 0db did not equate to jh16 bass, 

I can't recall anyone asking this question already: Was -10dB the lowest it could go?

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

I can't recall anyone asking this question already: Was -10dB the lowest it could go?

 
No, it was lower than that.  If I remember correctly it was -16dB.

 

[jude]

If I recall correctly, the way the JH-3A was set at CanJam Chicago was that -10 was flat, period.  That is, if you went below that, you were below flat on the low driver, and if you went above that you were above flat.  So, to try to emulate the passive JH13 Pro's bass, you'd have to be somewhere above the -10 setting, as the JH-13 Pro's bass is north of flat (again, as it was set for CanJam--these numbers may be different in production, I don't know).
 
(If I'm wrong about this, someone from JH Audio can correct me.)

 

[Trogdor]

Bottom line, if you get the JH-3A+JH16P you can get the JH13 sound with some tuning (Jerry said it at Canjam from what I understand).

 

[thehadi]

need advise:
 
great for jazz & classical?
 
jh-3a + jh16 or
jh-3a + jh13?

 

[semisight]

Quote:

The [amplitude samples] -> [frequencies+amplitudes] transform has finite precision. First reason for that - the signal component sine waves do not last indefinitely and do not have precisely constant amplitudes - necessary conditions for obtaining perfect readings of their exact frequencies and amplitudes.
 
Furthermore, the transform is done via a finite window, usually in the range of 512 to 2048 samples depending on algorithm, which may further reduce the precision. Making the window wider doesn't usually make much sense because the characteristics of the audio signal are bound to change over that duration.
 
So, even a perfect non-decaying sine wave (which are very rare in "non-boring" music) in general case could only be captured as a distribution over the frequencies that the finite-window transform, figuratively speaking, is trained to recognize. The real-world abruptly starting and slowly decaying sine waves are even more difficult to recognize precisely.
 
For example, instead of returning correctly one reading of a wave with 100% of energy at 7500 Hz, a transform may return something like 10% at 7200 Hz, 40% at 7400 Hz, 40% at 7600 Hz, and 10% at 7800 Hz.
 
In the example above, if the crossover frequency happens to be 7500 Hz, the transform will end up yielding four pretty close frequencies which, when being reproduced by two transducers, will be canceling and amplifying each other depending on the phase shift and time.   
 
So, a good digital crossover must be smarter than just an analog filter brought into digital domain. It needs to take into account neuro-physiology of human hearing. Just like MP3 and AAC encoders do.
 
For instance, in the example above, a good digital crossover would "figure out" what's going on and maybe shift the apparent frequencies a little bit so that they all could be first aggregated and then reproduced by just one of the transducers.
 
Still, no matter how smart the digital crossover is, it will never be technically ideal. Yet given enough precision and sample rate of the digitization, as well as enough RAM and processing power, I believe it can be made transparent enough so that the fusion of the several transducers will appear perfect to most human ears.

Do you need to perform a fourier transform to do filter work? To have a phase coherent crossover you need to implement a 4-pole butterworth filter. I think you could at least implement the low pass side without the aid of an FFT. The sample restriction still applies, but I think the DSPs now have the power to make that completely irrelevant.
 
For what it's worth all the filter work could have been done with analog hardware. Jerry is not going to skimp out on a masterpiece like this; if he didn't think the digital route would have offered enough precision he would not have chosen it.

 

[raikoken]

question: why cant the DAP feed digital signal to JH-3A wirelessly via bluetooth? The JH-3A will then be much more portable cos it wont need to be attached to the player all the time (can be put in your bag). THAT will seal the deal for me

 

[slntdth93]

Quote:

question: why cant the DAP feed digital signal to JH-3A wirelessly via bluetooth? The JH-3A will then be much more portable cos it wont need to be attached to the player all the time (can be put in your bag). THAT will seal the deal for me

Bluetooth doesnt have as good of a sound quality (according to many people on head-fi). sounds compressed and what not.
 

 

[thread]

Yeah, the A2DP protocol that Bluetooth uses to feed stereo audio is compressed -- not bit perfect.
 
Someday we'll have lossless wireless audio streaming. Is Kleer this way? In any case, it would need to be widely supported... and given how unpopular high end audio really is, you could be waiting a while.
 
Nice try though.