[Audiowood]

Makes sense... Thanks for clearing that up. I have quite a few universals, so I am on the other side, looking for my first custom to compliment my unis. Just a hard decision to make without knowing if I'd like the sound sig of the custom. Unis, easily I can resell, customs, not as much.

 
If you like SE846, the Roxanne should sound similar. I have done some comparison between in the last few pages. 

 

[headwhacker]

  I wouldn't call the 16s an upgrade to the the 13s.  They're the bass lover's version of the 13s.
 
I'll second the DX90 as a brilliant pair with the Roxannes.  Until I got an iPhone 6 Plus, I was going to get one.  Apple seems to have done something magical with the new iPhones though.  They don't create as deep a soundstage as my portable DACs or the DX90, but do present the same level of detail.  It still seems too good to be true to have a listenable phone headphone jack.  Perhaps I'm just drunk on new toy syndrome.  But every time I do a direct comparison to a portable I respect, the iPhone has the same level of resolution.
 
That said, I encourage Roxanne owners out there to listen to a high end desktop DAC.  Doing so turns the Roxannes into full size headphone busters.

 
Roxanne pairs well with DX90. So is JH16FP. The clarity, instrument separation, soundstage and detail resolution of JH16 out of DX90 is more obvious than DX50. Between JH16FP and Roxanne now I think one is not an upgrade over the other. Just like you said with JH13 and JH16.
 
They just have a different sound signature. Roxanne tends to have a bit of a laid back treble and well extended bass (even at the lowest bass setting) compared to JH16.
 
Another difference I can perceive is JH16 appears to have a soundstage that surrounds you. I feel like there are a few sound coming from the back of my head while the Roxanne keeps everything in front but just wider.
 
Depending on the bass setting the Roxanne can sound similar to an Audeze headphone in terms of presentation and JH16 comparable to a Beyer T1. 
 
I used to think that when I have the Roxanne I won't be needing JH16 and thinking of selling it when I only have DX50 as my DAP. But with DX90, I can switch between the two and can enjoy listening with different flavors.

 

[Mimouille]

901 with Discrete card, great pairing. Now I need a new sexier cable.
 

 

[AnakChan]

  901 with Discrete card, great pairing. Now I need a new sexier cable.
 
 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

 
I gather that's not balanced? Don't know anyone who does ready-made balanced for the JHA Rox cables. Think will need to be customised.

 

[Mimouille]

   
I gather that's not balanced? Don't know anyone who does ready-made balanced for the JHA Rox cables. Think will need to be customised.

No one does...officially...anyways it is with the discrete so not balanced. And I do not really care to balance with iems as my ears hear no difference.

 

[pekingduck]

   
I gather that's not balanced? Don't know anyone who does ready-made balanced for the JHA Rox cables. Think will need to be customised.

 
http://www.earphonesolutions.com/roxanne-balanced-cables.html

 

[AnakChan]

http://www.earphonesolutions.com/roxanne-balanced-cables.html

Sorry, I was referring to Mim's connection to the HM-901 where it's a 3.5mm TRRS, not the AK 2.5mm TRRS which you've quoted.

 

[Mimouille]

The Roxannes have convinced me for good that one should never trust other people's opinion. Apart from taste, there are too many variables.

I have heard many negative or so so comments on these, but let me tell you something : they sound absolutely great. Out of my 901 it is pure enjoyment. They manage to be full sounding and spacious with textured bass and smooth overall sound, nice speed. The highs are not the sparkliest I have heard but they are perfectly coherent with the rest. Overall, no issue yet (apart from the 120 reshells).

 

[adammax]

The Roxannes have convinced me for good that one should never trust other people's opinion. Apart from taste, there are too many variables.

I have heard many negative or so so comments on these, but let me tell you something : they sound absolutely great. Out of my 901 it is pure enjoyment. They manage to be full sounding and spacious with textured bass and smooth overall sound, nice speed. The highs are not the sparkliest I have heard but they are perfectly coherent with the rest. Overall, no issue yet (apart from the 120 reshells).

Hello Mimouille. Care to share your reference IEMs/headphone relative to Roxanne sound signature?

 

[fiascogarcia]

The Roxannes have convinced me for good that one should never trust other people's opinion. Apart from taste, there are too many variables.

I have heard many negative or so so comments on these, but let me tell you something : they sound absolutely great. Out of my 901 it is pure enjoyment. They manage to be full sounding and spacious with textured bass and smooth overall sound, nice speed. The highs are not the sparkliest I have heard but they are perfectly coherent with the rest. Overall, no issue yet (apart from the 120 reshells).

I think the customer service issues got them off to a bad start. I doubt there are currently any "bad" TOTL ciems on the market, merely differences in the signature and what you are looking for.  Congrats on the Roxannes, and glad you can finally settle in and enjoy them!

 

[Mimouille]

Hello Mimouille. Care to share your reference IEMs/headphone relative to Roxanne sound signature?

I have all sorts from NT6 which is neutral bright, SE5 is neutral slightly warm with top resolution, 335 is warm bassy intimate ane smooth, Ref1 is fast and clear and bassy...I would say in overall tonality, Roxanne is only slightly warmer than SE5 but its smoother sound and less extended highs make it appear warmer. But it does not sound overly warm, and the fullness of the sound gives it more body than my other iems, apart form 335, which is quite colored though.

Overall I prefer slightly warm signatures but not at the price of a good balance in the sound.

 

[Mimouille]

I have another question for you guys, what is your bass setting. I have been using 12' oclock. But I find that at very low listening volumes when I am inside, 2pm works well.

 

[bearFNF]

I use 2pm most of the time as most of my listening is at home in a quite environment.

 

[robm321]

The Roxannes have convinced me for good that one should never trust other people's opinion. Apart from taste, there are too many variables.

I have heard many negative or so so comments on these, but let me tell you something : they sound absolutely great. Out of my 901 it is pure enjoyment. They manage to be full sounding and spacious with textured bass and smooth overall sound, nice speed. The highs are not the sparkliest I have heard but they are perfectly coherent with the rest. Overall, no issue yet (apart from the 120 reshells).

Agreed. I've had a torturous journey to get the fit right, but they sound as refined as anything I've heard.

I literally had to buy a pair of re-400s for casual listening at work because the Roxanne's were too destracting.

 

[akhyar]

I have another question for you guys, what is your bass setting. I have been using 12' oclock. But I find that at very low listening volumes when I am inside, 2pm works well.

2pm as I use my Rox outside. The slight boosted bass is good enough to mask the outside noise.
If at home, sometime I dial it down to 12pm