[mwhals]

Hey folks! I just published my review of the Performance Series Lola on TheHeadphoneList.com. I hope you enjoy!

JH Audio Lola: The Performance Series - My Cherie Amour

​

Nicely done!

 

[lemontoo]

wow what a perfect review of the Lolas! Couldn't have explained the sound any better!

 

[Edric Li]

Hey folks! I just published my review of the Performance Series Lola on TheHeadphoneList.com. I hope you enjoy!

JH Audio Lola: The Performance Series - My Cherie Amour

​

I've been looking forward to this ever since I saw your appreciation of JH's tuning in the IEM shootout thread. Nicely done.

On the side note: I have no idea what you mean by "headroom". According to J Gordon Halt's Audio Glossary, pp. 64, headroom means: the output level, beyond its rated steady-state maximum, to which a device can be briefly driven before overload occurs. I don't think that's what you mean, but I really don't know. Maybe you are targeting at a more casual audience.

Also I'd say it's more fair to compare Lola to the two universal versions of Layla. Customs have tremendous advantage in soundstage and bass, as you may be well aware of.

 

[Deezel177]

Nicely done!

wow what a perfect review of the Lolas! Couldn't have explained the sound any better!

Thanks so much, guys! Very much appreciated!

I've been looking forward to this ever since I saw your appreciation of JH's tuning in the IEM shootout thread. Nicely done.

On the side note: I have no idea what you mean by "headroom". According to J Gordon Halt's Audio Glossary, pp. 64, headroom means: the output level, beyond its rated steady-state maximum, to which a device can be briefly driven before overload occurs. I don't think that's what you mean, but I really don't know. Maybe you are targeting at a more casual audience.

Also I'd say it's more fair to compare Lola to the two universal versions of Layla. Customs have tremendous advantage in soundstage and bass, as you may be well aware of.

Thank you! I'm not familiar with the definition you cited. Being trained in pro audio, my studio recording definition of headroom is essentially the difference in dB between the signal a device produces and the device's clipping point. So, if a signal measured 100dB is driven through an audio interface with a dynamic range of 127dB, then it has 27dB of headroom left to play with. That's my set-in-stone definition of headroom, below is how I've translated it to subjective sonic impressions.

I use the term headroom two different ways in the article. The first is when I explain what SoundrIVe does, and that's taken directly from JH Audio's explanation of it. I can't remember whether it was on an Instagram post or some kind of Explained article, but JH described the advantage of having 12 drivers as having more headroom to drive the IEMs louder without distortion. I've seen other manufacturers like Piotr from Custom Art describe it this way as well. I think that's very much in line with the pro audio definition. If you replace the audio interface in my analogy with a balanced-armature driver, it still checks out. If you were to use two drivers instead of one to produce the 100dB signal, each driver would only have to put out 50dB. If each driver's dynamic range was indeed 127dB, then it now has 77dB of headroom, compared to the initial 27dB. Of course, that's all theoretical if we're talking drivers. I don't know if that analogy translates 100%.

The second way I use the word is in the subjective sound impressions. Funnily enough, I derived this from Jerry Harvey as well, but I've been using it for long before this review. The way I'd describe headroom in an audible sense is the effortlessness with which the IEM or headphone renders data. When you hear lots of detail produced and it feels like the IEM or headphone isn't breaking a sweat to do so, then it has lots of headroom. In fact, it's similar to the first meaning, but you replace volume with detail. Headroom is the range of volume/detail an IEM or headphone can push before it sounds distorted. How I discern this can be broken down into several aspects. The main one - circling all the way back to the pro audio definition - is dynamic range. If I play a track with lots of dynamic range and the IEM is able to build and crescendo as the track throws new elements at it, then it has great headroom. If headroom is low, the IEM's image would only get more and more crowded and less transparent as more things are thrown its way.

All the definitions I mentioned have been widely used on Nic's shoot-out thread and among manufacturers. I even introduced it to Jack Vang from Empire Ears recently. Now, he no longer has the inability to describe that pressurised, lack-of-effortlessness feeling, and simply call it, "a lack of headroom." But hey, I guess we're all casual audiences, huh?

Of course, in a perfect world, I'd be able to compare the Lola to the universal Layla. But, all it simply comes down to is circumstance. I don't have the universal Layla, therefore I can't compare the two in identical form factors. What you're saying about soundstage and bass may be true, but it's highly dependent on which custom, which universal and which tips you're talking about. I've heard universals with a larger soundstage and a more present top-end than the custom (UE LIVE and the EE Phantom, to some extent), as well as universals that have a more present low-end than customs depending on tip selection. It's the reason why I've selected the Final Audio tips. They have an excellent track record of translating a custom's sound to the universal. But at the end of the day, since we're talking about a JH Audio product, I chose to treat the situation as Jerry Harvey would. At a custom IEMs panel at CanJam Singapore 2016, Jerry Harvey stated that well-sealing tips will get you 90% of the way to a custom in-ear monitor. So, deriving from what he said then, since the man seems to have no problem comparing a universal and custom in-ear's performances, I shouldn't have one either.

 

[Edric Li]

Thanks so much, guys! Very much appreciated!



Thank you! I'm not familiar with the definition you cited. Being trained in pro audio, my studio recording definition of headroom is essentially the difference in dB between the signal a device produces and the device's clipping point. So, if a signal measured 100dB is driven through an audio interface with a dynamic range of 127dB, then it has 27dB of headroom left to play with. That's my set-in-stone definition of headroom, below is how I've translated it to subjective sonic impressions.

I use the term headroom two different ways in the article. The first is when I explain what SoundrIVe does, and that's taken directly from JH Audio's explanation of it. I can't remember whether it was on an Instagram post or some kind of Explained article, but JH described the advantage of having 12 drivers as having more headroom to drive the IEMs louder without distortion. I've seen other manufacturers like Piotr from Custom Art describe it this way as well. I think that's very much in line with the pro audio definition. If you replace the audio interface in my analogy with a balanced-armature driver, it still checks out. If you were to use two drivers instead of one to produce the 100dB signal, each driver would only have to put out 50dB. If each driver's dynamic range was indeed 127dB, then it now has 77dB of headroom, compared to the initial 27dB. Of course, that's all theoretical if we're talking drivers. I don't know if that analogy translates 100%.

The second way I use the word is in the subjective sound impressions. Funnily enough, I derived this from Jerry Harvey as well, but I've been using it for long before this review. The way I'd describe headroom in an audible sense is the effortlessness with which the IEM or headphone renders data. When you hear lots of detail produced and it feels like the IEM or headphone isn't breaking a sweat to do so, then it has lots of headroom. In fact, it's similar to the first meaning, but you replace volume with detail. Headroom is the range of volume/detail an IEM or headphone can push before it sounds distorted. How I discern this can be broken down into several aspects. The main one - circling all the way back to the pro audio definition - is dynamic range. If I play a track with lots of dynamic range and the IEM is able to build and crescendo as the track throws new elements at it, then it has great headroom. If headroom is low, the IEM's image would only get more and more crowded and less transparent as more things are thrown its way.

All the definitions I mentioned have been widely used on Nic's shoot-out thread and among manufacturers. I even introduced it to Jack Vang from Empire Ears recently. Now, he no longer has the inability to describe that pressurised, lack-of-effortlessness feeling, and simply call it, "a lack of headroom." But hey, I guess we're all casual audiences, huh?

Of course, in a perfect world, I'd be able to compare the Lola to the universal Layla. But, all it simply comes down to is circumstance. I don't have the universal Layla, therefore I can't compare the two in identical form factors. What you're saying about soundstage and bass may be true, but it's highly dependent on which custom, which universal and which tips you're talking about. I've heard universals with a larger soundstage and a more present top-end than the custom (UE LIVE and the EE Phantom, to some extent), as well as universals that have a more present low-end than customs depending on tip selection. It's the reason why I've selected the Final Audio tips. They have an excellent track record of translating a custom's sound to the universal. But at the end of the day, since we're talking about a JH Audio product, I chose to treat the situation as Jerry Harvey would. At a custom IEMs panel at CanJam Singapore 2016, Jerry Harvey stated that well-sealing tips will get you 90% of the way to a custom in-ear monitor. So, deriving from what he said then, since the man seems to have no problem comparing a universal and custom in-ear's performances, I shouldn't have one either.

That clarify things a lot. You do mean the same thing as Mr. Halt by "headroom". I just couldn't be 100% sure in the context of that specific review.

 

[mwhals]

I wonder if the Lola complements the Angie or if they are too similar meaning the Roxanne might be a better complement.

 

[JamesPTao]

I wonder if the Lola complements the Angie or if they are too similar meaning the Roxanne might be a better complement.

I would think the roxanne. But Angie was designed specifically as a monitor for singers not for listening enjoyment.

 

[mwhals]

I would think the roxanne. But Angie was designed specifically as a monitor for singers not for listening enjoyment.

Angie is still great for listening too.

 

[mwhals]

I wonder if the Lola complements the Angie or if they are too similar meaning the Roxanne might be a better complement.

I think I like Lola better than Roxanne, but need to hear more music that I like through both of them while I have them on loan from JH Audio. Based on the sound of Lola, it is head scratching why more are not sold.

 

[mwhals]

I am having a hard time picking Roxanne or Lola. I keep going back and forth listening to them. JH13v2 and JH16v2 were eliminated quickly.

 

[stevenswall]

I am having a hard time picking Roxanne or Lola. I keep going back and forth listening to them. JH13v2 and JH16v2 were eliminated quickly.

The nice transition from bass to midbass and midrange in Tron Legacy, Solar Sailor sealed the deal for me with the Lola. That and "Down to the River to Pray" having just the right vocal quality. It reminded me of the Etymotic Mc5 vs HF5, and I liked the cheaper, dynamic driver one specifically because of the extra hint of "realness" they seemed to bring out.

Listen more, and good luck! (If it sways you, some of the people at JH Audio use the Lola for personal listening over the Layla or Roxanne.) I wish they had frequency response graphs to compare, as I'll bet they are very similar, but could shed some light on the differences people hear.

 

[mwhals]

The nice transition from bass to midbass and midrange in Tron Legacy, Solar Sailor sealed the deal for me with the Lola. That and "Down to the River to Pray" having just the right vocal quality. It reminded me of the Etymotic Mc5 vs HF5, and I liked the cheaper, dynamic driver one specifically because of the extra hint of "realness" they seemed to bring out.

Listen more, and good luck! (If it sways you, some of the people at JH Audio use the Lola for personal listening over the Layla or Roxanne.) I wish they had frequency response graphs to compare, as I'll bet they are very similar, but could shed some light on the differences people hear.

I switched to trying Billie Jean by Michael Jackson and it was awesome on both of them. I did find I think drums were better on the Lola to me. I bet Lola wins and then goes against the Empire Ears Legend X and Phantom. They would have to be much better than Lola to sway me, because they are significantly more money after the JH Crew discount.

 

[MaxwellDot]

I have several of JH IEMs (16Pro V1 since 2012, Roxanne V1 since 2015, TriFi Limited 10th Anniversary Edition HK since March 2019), and lately the Lola (since April 2019).Perhaps I can share my impressions:

- The 16Pros, which were amongst the top notch IEMs of the day many years ago, now sound sterile, boring and lifeless compared to the other three "newer" JH IEMs above. Its a sign of the times and how much better IEMs have advanced that something so brilliant few years ago is now so unimpressive

- The Roxanne's are fantastic IEMs - especially, if like me, you like the JH Audio house sig (the sound leans to warm, slightly thick, solid mids, and the high end is tamed and hence not shrill, harsh or sibilant). They excel in the bass and sub-bass like perhaps no other IEM.

- The TriFi 10th Anniversary Limited Edition is a 3 driver IEM (low, mid, and high), that was released in limited numbers in two editions : one exclusively for the Japan Market, and one exclusively for the Hong Kong market. Originally priced around USD 630 (HK$ 4995), somewhat "reasonably" priced by JH pricing levels, to attract new customers/fans from these super competitive markets. If you google for HK IEM dealers (and with help of website translation tools you can pick one of these new now days for around half the price at USD 320 (HK$ 2500), although not many left around shops/online which are new, which is a fantastic bargain for a JH Audio IEM. They are being discounted in HK as its been almost two years since they were released and its a very competitive market out there. They sound Amazing for the price, everything you expect from JH Audio sound and quality but at bargain basement. Not many people outside of Japan and HK know about these editions.

- I have had the Lola for a month now, and everything thats been said about how sublime and life-like the mids are , is true, so I will not go into that since its been well covered in the reviews (and the glowing reviews of the mids are well deserved). The highs are excellent, without being harsh, fatiguing or sibilant. Apparently the quad highs drivers are the same ones used in the USD 2700 TOTL Layla.

I think what I "struggled" with when I first got the Lola's (as someone coming from the Roxanne) is while the bass/low in the Lola is very clean, realistic, fast and certainly has punch etc, but they are not the full-headphone like lows sound of the Roxanne, with that deep deep sub-bass. I listen to a variety of genres from deep house, to vocal/acoustic, etc. But then I persevered a little with the Lolas, increased to the bass in the bass pod to "3pm", and I began to realize that while the Lola's still faithfully adhere to the JH Audio sound sigs that I described above, they were created to be as realistic sounding IEMs as possible. In fact the Roxanne (love them as I do), are not what can be claimed to be realistic sounding. They are tuned where the bass and sub-bass are strong, which may please ears like mine, but they are not real. They are designed to be warm and thick. So slowly I began to appreciate more and more what the Lola offers.. its sound (as Jerry Harvey said) is meant to be exactly as what the artists and musicians intended. Thats not to say they swing too far to the other end and are "clinically neutral" like what is said about the Layla, but rather they are a happy medium for me between the sound of Layla and the sound of Roxannes.

 

[mwhals]

........I think what I "struggled" with when I first got the Lola's (as someone coming from the Roxanne) is while the bass/low in the Lola is very clean, realistic, fast and certainly has punch etc, but they are not the full-headphone like lows sound of the Roxanne, with that deep deep sub-bass. I listen to a variety of genres from deep house, to vocal/acoustic, etc. But then I persevered a little with the Lolas, increased to the bass in the bass pod to "3pm", and I began to realize that while the Lola's still faithfully adhere to the JH Audio sound sigs that I described above, they were created to be as realistic sounding IEMs as possible. In fact the Roxanne (love them as I do), are not what can be claimed to be realistic sounding. They are tuned where the bass and sub-bass are strong, which may please ears like mine, but they are not real. They are designed to be warm and thick. So slowly I began to appreciate more and more what the Lola offers.. its sound (as Jerry Harvey said) is meant to be exactly as what the artists and musicians intended. Thats not to say they swing too far to the other end and are "clinically neutral" like what is said about the Layla, but rather they are a happy medium for me between the sound of Layla and the sound of Roxannes.

Placing Lola between Roxanne and Layla sounds like you like it enough to put it as the number two JH Audio IEM. I am struggling between selecting Roxanne or Lola right now as they are in front of me as loaners from JH Audio. Either are an upgrade from my JH Angie IIs that I still love and will keep.

 

[JamesPTao]

How does their loaner program work? The closest dealer is an over 6 hour drive from me but really would like to hear them before buying