[edwardsean]

Hi,

I recently made the jump from full-size headphones to JH13 IEMs. I wrote up my experience in another thread but thought I'd share a corollary experience. Moving back and forth from full-size speakers to headphones to IEMs I've come to the same conclusion as others here. It takes a significantly less amount of money to generate hifi audio from headphones than speakers, and significantly less money to generate that same level of audio from IEMs than from full-size headphones.

So, I thought I'd take a swing at naming this phenomenon: The S/2C/SQ ratio or the 2-4-8 rule. If I try to quantify it, I think it may go something like this. Cost rises in geometric progression to the size of the transducer by a fixed ratio of 2. So in order to maintain the same level of sound quality you have to double the investment moving from IEM to Headphone, and then again from Headphone to Speaker. Or the other way around, going down in size you cut your cost of maintaining sound quality by half each time. Size/2x Cost/ Sound Quality: S2CSQ. For example it takes about $2000 to create a top flight IEM setup. The same quality of reproduction via headphone would double that to $4000. The same quality for a full size speaker system would require you to double that again - $8000. Sonic bliss is, of course, priceless. (Mastercard bills however are not.)

I have real world setups in mind, but I'm not trying to establish anything scientific. This is just a rule of thumb I found helpful to think through as I made my gear decisions. Hope it may be of some use to others.

 

[bee65n]

This is news to me. The general consensus in a previous thread seemed to be that iems have 1/3 the value of full sized headphones (e.g. shure se530's would only give you a sound quality that rivaled full sized headphones that cost around $100).I tend to agree with this sentiment. Case in point, I thought the srh840's sounded better than the se530's I used to own. The big discrepancy seemed to arise when people switched to the jh-13s, with many people arguing that the jh-13s sounded just as good, if not better than full sized headphones of similar price (~$1000). I do not agree with this sentiment. While I have never heard top notch full sized headphones, I do not think that there is such a significant difference between the JH-13 and um3x (which were my favorite iems), and I hope that I will be able to hear a bigger difference when I acquire an expensive headphone. I think the 2-4-8 rule might be true if you were just talking about accuracy, but I'm not sure what "sound quality" entails.

 

[le masseur aveugle]

Quote:

I do not think that there is such a significant difference between the JH-13 and um3x

Dont make me laugh ^^, the difference is far from subtle.

 

[bee65n]

Quote:

Dont make me laugh ^^, the difference is far from subtle.

Laughter is good. Glad I could make your day better. I'm not saying there is no difference. Based on what people have been saying (some even comparing them to $4000 headphones while top universal iems are never expected to perform at $300 headphone level) I expected the jump to be immense. I simply do not feel like there is that much of a difference. To be honest, how could there be? I think the um3x perform quite wonderfully, and in the end, there was not that much room for improvement. Again, this is my opinion, and it may be that you have golden ears while I do not, or that your definition of subtle is different from mine. Even if your opinion agrees with the majority, it is still not a fact.

 

[royhendo]

The JH-13 is disruptive technology, isn't it? I want some.

 

[prone2phone]

maybe bee65n is right, all this hifi is pure business, hypes and marketing, I wouldn't be surprised if the rule was 100$ more = 1% increase in sq for average ears

 

[midoo1990]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bee65n /img/forum/go_quote.gif Laughter is good. Glad I could make your day better. I'm not saying there is no difference. Based on what people have been saying (some even comparing them to $4000 headphones while top universal iems are never expected to perform at $300 headphone level) I expected the jump to be immense. I simply do not feel like there is that much of a difference. To be honest, how could there be? I think the um3x perform quite wonderfully, and in the end, there was not that much room for improvement. Again, this is my opinion, and it may be that you have golden ears while I do not, or that your definition of subtle is different from mine. Even if your opinion agrees with the majority, it is still not a fact.

i think you reached audio nirvana with um3x

.i do think that jumping from a $400 iem to $1200 iem,the difference will be there but very small FOR SOME that they dont signify double the price.some people pay much to hear that small differences and the biggest proof is after market cables.they pay $300-400 just to hear better soundstage,a little bit tighter bass...while others will think,well...thats insane.it depends how you value that incremintal differences between $400 iem and another one triple its price.

 

[hurryup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwardsean /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi, I recently made the jump from full-size headphones to JH13 IEMs. I wrote up my experience in another thread but thought I'd share a corollary experience. Moving back and forth from full-size speakers to headphones to IEMs I've come to the same conclusion as others here. It takes a significantly less amount of money to generate hifi audio from headphones than speakers, and significantly less money to generate that same level of audio from IEMs than from full-size headphones. So, I thought I'd take a swing at naming this phenomenon: The S/2C/SQ ratio or the 2-4-8 rule. If I try to quantify it, I think it may go something like this. Cost rises in geometric progression to the size of the transducer by a fixed ratio of 2. So in order to maintain the same level of sound quality you have to double the investment moving from IEM to Headphone, and then again from Headphone to Speaker. Or the other way around, going down in size you cut your cost of maintaining sound quality by half each time. Size/2x Cost/ Sound Quality: S2CSQ. For example it takes about $2000 to create a top flight IEM setup. The same quality of reproduction via headphone would double that to - $4000. The same quality for a full size speaker system would require you to double that again - $8000. Sonic bliss is, of course, priceless. (Mastercard bills however are not.) I have real world setups in mind, but I'm not trying to establish anything scientific. This is just a rule of thumb I found helpful to think through as I made my gear decisions. Hope it may be of some use to others.

"Top flight" of each type, yes, but how would "top flights" compare to each other in only SQ? The "top flights" of each setup may be better sonically than another.

 

[Modifiedz]

Somewhat true. You can achieve Hi-Fedelity sound for less cash going the IEM route. To hear the accuracy that the JH-13's give you going to full-size speakers you are going to need to spend several times more. Headphones fall in between.
Its a matter of preference and what is more important to you. You dont have to chose just 1.
Its true that the top end of full-size speakers at $6,000-$30,000 against the top end of IEM's at $2,000 might re-produce a sound with the same amount of accuracy, but the way that sound enters your body has a great effect on how you will percieve its accuracy.
It will depend most on what your budget is set at to achieve a certain amount of Fidelity that is acceptable to you. It might be a waste to spend 10 Grand on full size speakers if I already have a pair of JH-13's and Grado PS1000, but some (including I) will still do it because I want to have the best of everything, not just Headphones/IEM's.

 

[edwardsean]

Hurry Up: Yes, there is no denying that. An IEM is not a full-size headphone, which is not a home speaker. The home speaker is going to arguably provide the best over all experience. However, sound quality is something that can be compared across platforms. Tonal balance, transient detail/ resolution, accuracy, imaging, lack of distortion, etc. are things that all source/ amp/ speaker designers strive to achieve. That is what I mean by maintaining sound quality over different types of systems.

However, those are all technical benchmarks. When it comes to end-users like us all that counts is how that translates into experiencing the music. I can say that for $2K there is a connection with the music parallel (not identical) to an $8K home system. The joy of a fluidly real passage into the music corresponds in each case. The illustration I would draw from the world of video is this. It is order-of-magnitude cheaper to produce a good HD image on a portable 16 inch computer screen vs. a 65 inch home theater unit. Nevertheless, color saturation, image accuracy, resolution, etc. is video quality no matter the delivery system.

Where the analogy breaks down is that with the JH13s you're not talking about a 16 inch computer screen. What you have here is analogous to one of those experimental "wearable" video modules that go on your head like glasses. They supposedly give the illusion of wall-size images. Again it's not identical to a home theater but creates a corresponding experience. We're still a tech-generation away from this in video. The JH13s have just about brought this to reality in audio.

Boy, this is long winded, but one last word about cost. I know that 2K is no small amount of money, now more than ever. I'm just saying it constitutes the most accessible entry into audiophile territory. There is surely a law of diminishing returns where you spend hundreds, thousands, to buy that last 1% of SQ. I can assure you that the steps leading up to the JH13 are not so incremental.

At the end though we buy the tech to enjoy the music, not buy the music to enjoy the tech. So, truly, happy listening.