[immortalsoul]

We all hear things differently, plus I am going from memory. It has been over a year since I auditioned Roxanne. It was a tough decision, but Lola fit me better as a complementary IEM to go with my others. Once broken in, it opens up. Synergy with the dap can also be a factor as well as the type of music being played.

You are correct, synergy is everything. I hope you enjoy your Lola. Happy listening

 

[D3adRock]

You are correct, synergy is everything. I hope you enjoy your Lola. Happy listening

I cant audition the roxanne because ive already got the samples in. It might be strange to ask for even more. I guess the main thing im worried about is a lack of detail. Even now i cant quite tell if the lola or jh16v2 has more detail.

 

[GrandNagus50]

I owned the 16 Pro original version for years, then some of the drivers went out. I have the option now of upgrading to the 16 Pro v2, Lola, or Roxanne. JH Audio kindly sent me demos of Lola and Roxanne, which I have now and will need to return very soon. Roxanne is "thicker" and heavier-sounding than I anticipated; there is no shimmer at all in the treble, even with the bass level turned way down. I gather it is a "louder" IEM, but certainly at my age I do not need "loud." I like Lola much more, and now I need to decide between Lola and 16 Pro.v2, which is several hundred dollars less expensive. Has anyone done a critical comparison of these two? In my mind, the 16 Pro has a bit more lightness and upper end detail, but I know that memory can be unreliable.

 

[D3adRock]

I owned the 16 Pro original version for years, then some of the drivers went out. I have the option now of upgrading to the 16 Pro v2, Lola, or Roxanne. JH Audio kindly sent me demos of Lola and Roxanne, which I have now and will need to return very soon. Roxanne is "thicker" and heavier-sounding than I anticipated; there is no shimmer at all in the treble, even with the bass level turned way down. I gather it is a "louder" IEM, but certainly at my age I do not need "loud." I like Lola much more, and now I need to decide between Lola and 16 Pro.v2, which is several hundred dollars less expensive. Has anyone done a critical comparison of these two? In my mind, the 16 Pro has a bit more lightness and upper end detail, but I know that memory can be unreliable.

Thats exactly what i'm looking for. Im extremely indecicive but as i'm currently listenening to both I can offer my thoughts.

The Lola has a feeling of air and impact around each instrument in the midrange which imo provides a sense of tactile realness which makes each instrument feel more like actual instruments are being played around you. However, this comes at the cost of neutrality and detail.

I'll start with detail. The 16v2's give a better "view" of all the instruments. It feels like somone put you in the mixing room of a studio. Every instrument is clear and distinct, although they all feel like theyre coming from the same source. Like a set of profecional monitors, which in a sense is exactly what they are. However since every instrument feels equal, none of them have an individual feel to them and all feel like theyre being produced by one speaker source (which they are)

The Lola by contrast feel like you are in the recording room, shoulder to shoulder with the musicians. The "air" around each instrument which i attribute to the dynamic drivers creates a sense of realness to the instruments at the cost of being slightly less clear.

The drawback is that instruments can occasionally feel slightly more crowded and very slightly less clear with the lola, but more "live" .

The trebble can sometimes sound a little bit shrill, like a horn player playing too close to your ear. But such is the real life feeling of playing next to real musicians (i say as a musiciann who is used to playing in live settings with other musicians). Thus the lola recreates the drawbacks of real instruments complete with occasional lack of clarity due to some instruments overpowering others, and the slight shrillness that sometimes comes with that aswell.

In terms of soundstage theyre both equally excellent, but very different. The 16v2's sound wider than deep, the lola feel more "3d" with more "depth. So the 16v2's are more like every musician is on a flat stage standing shoulder to shoulder, all playing equally loud. Meanwhile, the lola are more like being surrounded by the band, with musicians all arround you. You can hear who's closer and farther, and some instruments sound bigger than others.

In terms of feel the lola are much more tactile. Particularly noticeable in the hihats and drums. You can feel the air displacement. The sound " touches you" in a way. The 16v2's by contrast feel more visible in that the individual sounds give the sensation of more separation in the sense that it is easier to see more sounds separate from others

To summarize, the lola is in the recording booth with the players, while the jh16 is the mixing booth.

Ultimately please take everything I say with a whole fistfull of salt. Seeing as my favorite headphones so far ar the beyerdynamic dt770's followed by the koss portapros i'd be dubious of my opininions.

Please let me know what y'all think as well as i'm still very undecided as to which i actually prefer.

 

[immortalsoul]

I owned the 16 Pro original version for years, then some of the drivers went out. I have the option now of upgrading to the 16 Pro v2, Lola, or Roxanne. JH Audio kindly sent me demos of Lola and Roxanne, which I have now and will need to return very soon. Roxanne is "thicker" and heavier-sounding than I anticipated; there is no shimmer at all in the treble, even with the bass level turned way down. I gather it is a "louder" IEM, but certainly at my age I do not need "loud." I like Lola much more, and now I need to decide between Lola and 16 Pro.v2, which is several hundred dollars less expensive. Has anyone done a critical comparison of these two? In my mind, the 16 Pro has a bit more lightness and upper end detail, but I know that memory can be unreliable.

What are you pairing the headphones with? On my Calyx m the sound of the Roxanne is exactly how you describe it but on Acoustic research ar-m2 sound like a speaker with a humongous soundstage and great shimmering high frequency

 

[D3adRock]

What are you pairing the headphones with? On my Calyx m the sound of the Roxanne is exactly how you describe it but on Acoustic research ar-m2 sound like a speaker with a humongous soundstage and great shimmering high frequency

I'm paring with the sony wm1a. However it should be said that i dont really believe in dap's making a noticeable difference. Take that as you will.

 

[immortalsoul]

I had Lola, Angie and I have the Roxanne and Layla and with the Acoustic research ar-m2 is my absolute favorite headphones

 

[immortalsoul]

I had the Sony wm1a and the Roxanne didn't pair that great with the Sony. You should have a chance and try the combination of Acoustic research ar-m2 with Roxanne and you will change your mind about the source. It is very important the synergy between the devices

 

[D3adRock]

I had Lola, Angie and I have the Roxanne and Layla and with the Acoustic research ar-m2 is my absolute favorite headphones

I'm sorry, it wasnt quite clear which was your favorite with the ar-m2?

 

[immortalsoul]

To my ears the Lola sound muffled compared with the Roxanne and the separation of instruments was not great, yes it has nice timbre but that's it

 

[epiccheng]

I also preferred the lola over roxanne and 16v2, because of the realness and sweetness in the mid range and vocals that lola offers.

 

[D3adRock]

To my ears the Lola sound muffled compared with the Roxanne and the separation of instruments was not great, yes it has nice timbre but that's it

I havent heard the roxanne but i have heard the layla. Ultimately while i think that the layla was clearer and less muffled. The layla to my ears sounded muddier because of who dense the sound was. Everything was equally strong and detailed which made it more difficult to hear everthing unless you focussed on the sound.

While i can see how the layla would be ideal for mixers (what it was intended for) ultimately it was too fatiguing for me

 

[immortalsoul]

The Roxanne with the Acoustic research ar-m2 is my favorite

 

[D3adRock]

The layla to my ears was too much like eagles song "life in the fast lane" it was "everything all the time" and while i can see that while it technically had more detail than anything else my feeble brain couldnt process all that detail unless i went looking for a specific detail in which case i always found it. So while the layla was the most detailed, the lola felt the most detailed.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Thats exactly what i'm looking for. Im extremely indecicive but as i'm currently listenening to both I can offer my thoughts.

....

To summarize, the lola is in the recording booth with the players, while the jh16 is the mixing booth.

Ultimately please take everything I say with a whole fistfull of salt. Seeing as my favorite headphones so far ar the beyerdynamic dt770's followed by the koss portapros i'd be dubious of my opininions.

Please let me know what y'all think as well as i'm still very undecided as to which i actually prefer.

It sounds like you are leaning towards the Lola. If I shared the mental imagery you describe, that's what I would choose.
I don't perceive any shrillness in Lola at all. I almost wish there were some. The signature is JH Audio dark, just not as much so as Roxanne.
I will listen some more to the Lola, with your comments in mind. I am very susceptible to suggestion .