[bearFNF]

In my experience so far, I have not particularly cared for the universal fit versions (Roxanne, K10, etc.), I rolled the dice and got two custom fit sets (roxanme and the UE7 pro, cuz I had to see for myself), I am very glad I did, they sound, to me much better than any of the uni's I have tried. As always this is IMHO and YMMV...

 

[dragoonv]

   
Hi there! Most definitely. I did a lot of playing around and serious listening and the balance stays the same no matter the dial, at least to my ears. Same with the Roxanne's tonality issues in the upper midrange and treble--to me, they are a result of a dip in the upper midrange, so changing the bass doesn't effect it.
 
Of course, as I listened for a long time, I found things like the veil become less noticeable as my ears adjusted, but other things starting bothering me more. Of course, I was doing intensive listening for those days to really hear what the earphones were like...

so the veil is not my imagination...hmm...i also experienced the sudden "no veil" effect when I switched to my se846 after long listening period with the roxanne i guess my roxanne will soon be on the sale page

 

[adammax]

so the veil is not my imagination...hmm...i also experienced the sudden "no veil" effect when I switched to my se846 after long listening period with the roxanne i guess my roxanne will soon be on the sale page

I think u should give rox a mth of listening. It took me a while to appreciates mine and when after brain burn in, BA burn in, etc, doing a/b demo with other, u can probably make a more informed decision.

 

[JonathanCandel]

So... Judgmentday on my way to pick them up. I will check how the case and the shells look and if they completely fixed the CF finish. Soundwise, it might take some time to be able to compare them with my Shure se425, which I have been using on a daily basis. Of course, some nice pics will be posted as well!

 

[diogodasilva]

Email I sent to JH today:
 

Angie,
 
I sense an unusual lack of response from your company.
I trully wanted to just love the Roxannes but your customer service is extremely poor considering the prices of the products you sell.
Because of that I do not trust your company, having seen other customers waiting over 7 months of delays, I really can't
afford to wait that long.
 
I would like to know if we can proceed with a refund asap so I can order from Noble, I can get any answer from them in just a couple of hours, instead of being ignored by you.
 
yours sincerely,

 
 
Can't take it any longer...

 

[H20Fidelity]

  Email I sent to JH today:
 
 
 
Can't take it any longer...

Goodluck to you friend, I would have lost a few nuts by now. 

 

[Trogdor]

I own the JH3A (so that's equal to the JH16FP with bass/phase adjustment) and CF Roxanne's. I can not speak for the universal Roxanne's.

By no means are the Roxanne's veiled, at least in the traditional sense of the word. What happens is MOST IEMs are very forward in presentation due to their lack of headstage. The Roxanne's presents a very wide headstage which I'm go out on a limb and say that a lot of traditional IEM folks (EDIT: traditional in the sense that their primary can is an IEM vs a full size) aren't used to. In fact, someone nailed it when they said that the headstage on the Roxanne's are larger than the LCD-X! I agree - I am LCD-3 owner and had quite a number of DAYs with the LCD-X (not just an hour at a meet).

For example, the Shure SE535s which I had the pleasure of borrowing for several months as my day to day travel companion are great example of what I'm talking about. Headstage is fairly non-existent on them and everything is shoved forward. Typically people ascribe that to "clarity" when in reality they are talking about imaging. The SE846 improves that substantially over the SE535 from what I've read at the cost of treble.

Another example of the veil, the Fostex TH-900, which has a noticeable midrange dip and veiled sound. This is how Fostex though can give the impression of a wide soundstage in a close can, since the preso is set so back due that dip. I owned these cans for a few weeks before ultimately selling them because of that fact.

The Roxanne's don't even come close to sounding like any of the above headphones or IEMs. Nothing like it.

Mike at Headfonia has a review up on the Roxanne's and he pretty much nails it. They are super smooth, very wide, very detailed with a slight treble roll off so they don't have that brightness the JH13/16's had.

However, they aren't so forward in headstage which is going to put off some folks, at least initially, who are used to the universal IEM "Grado" like imaging (the "thinness"). That's why I believe a lot of the "break in" comments are really folks brains adjusting to the new headstage more than anything. YMMV.

 

[SilverEars]

Another example of the veil, the Fostex TH-900, which has a noticeable midrange dip and veiled sound. This is how Fostex though can give the impression of a wide soundstage in a close can, since the preso is set so back due that dip. I owned these cans for a few weeks before ultimately selling them because of this fact.

The Roxanne's don't even come close to sounding like any of the above headphones or IEMs. Nothing like it.

Mike at Headfonia has a review up on the Roxanne's and he pretty much nails it. They are super smooth, very wide, very detailed with a slight treble roll off so they don't have that brightness the JH13/16's had.
 

What you say of a closed can makes lots of sense, I forsee mids being buried because of the enclosure.  Open can do not suffer such affect, but they would lack sub bass because of the openness.
 
Regarding headfonia review, you just reinforced what everybody are saying about dark sound by saying treble roll off.  If what others are saying about 13 being close to neutral and transparent, wouldn't the treble roll off enhance the mids and the bass.  I don't get the reason for the dial because of this reason.  I'm scratching my head as JH would try for U shape response typically as he enhances bass from what I hear.  It's unusual what he did here with the dial, but I'm guessing with the dial these can be mid forward ciems with bass tuned down.

 

[Trogdor]

Regarding headfonia review, you just reinforced what everybody are saying about dark sound by saying treble roll off.  If what others are saying about 13 being close to neutral and transparent, wouldn't the treble roll off enhance the mids and the bass.  I don't get the reason for the dial because of this reason.  I'm scratching my head as JH would try for U shape response typically as he enhances bass from what I hear.  It's unusual what he did here with the dial, but I'm guessing with the dial these can be mid forward ciems with bass tuned down.

The dial does make a HUGE difference and you are exactly right in that respect.

That is to me the biggest flaw with the Roxanne's. The dial doesn't work for me like the dial on my JH3A.

IMO, I would say the "dark" labeling is not far off if you consider the LCD-3 as dark cans. At least that's where I am coming from.

 

[SilverEars]

I think I know why JH went with that sound signature.  He had to come up a different signature.  I think either make the sound clearer or more detailed, and if can't surpass the 13 and the 16 FP when it comes to that, he had to look for other options or features.  And the dial probably came up and opted to change the signure to be different from what he has made in the past, so he's not doing another 13 or 16 again in terms of new type of sound if he cannot bring improvements to the table.  This is my guess.  I'm thinking he was going for a different signature than what he had made before.

 

[tupac0306]

I think I know why JH went with that sound signature.  He had to come up a different signature.  I think either make the sound clearer or more detailed, and if can't surpass the 13 and the 16 FP when it comes to that, he had to look for other options or features.  And the dial probably came up and opted to change the signure to be different from what he has made in the past, so he's not doing another 13 or 16 again in terms of new type of sound if he cannot bring improvements to the table.  This is my guess.  I'm thinking he was going for a different signature than what he had made before.

Sound signature-wise, Roxanne=jh13=jh16.

The minute you put on Roxanne you know you are listening to a jh product.

 

[warrior1975]

Personally, I think the dial is there as a selling point. That was one of my biggest reasons of interest. I just wish it was setup a little different. flat to +15db is not ideal for me. I'd prefer to be able to take some bass out depending on genre of music.

 

[kiff]

The treble is described by some as rolled off yet in this video Jerry says this is the first iem to extend beyond 20khz and how the roxannes were designed specifically to overcome treble roll-off. Am I missing something here?

http://youtu.be/P_G62IGzJE0

 

[tupac0306]

The treble is described by some as rolled off yet in this video Jerry says this is the first iem to extend beyond 20khz and how the roxannes were designed specifically to overcome treble roll-off. Am I missing something here?

http://youtu.be/P_G62IGzJE0

I could only hear up to 19 KHz with test tones.  But still it's pretty well extended. 
 
The treble roll off people talk about is actually "laid back" extension: upper treble is so less pronounced compared to rest of the spectrum, specially the lower treble, which makes the roxanne sounds clear but not transparent and shimmer enough.

 

[Trogdor]

I could only hear up to 19 KHz with test tones.  But still it's pretty well extended. 

The treble roll off people talk about is actually "laid back" extension: upper treble is so less pronounced compared to rest of the spectrum, specially the lower treble, which makes the roxanne sounds clear but not transparent and shimmer enough.

Right, and one man's "shimmer" is another man's "sibilance."