Hi,
Yeah, agree--you're not done spending. None of us ever are. Just when I think I have my ultimate system... you know how that ends.
I'm presently running a JH3A with a Halide Bridge too. I have the PP6 demo is well. Just a side note first. I've found the Halide makes a real difference to the sound quality of the JH3A, but feeding the PP6 with the Halide into the coax, vs. a good optical cable into the toslink is negligible. This actually equalizes the costs of the units a bit, because to really get the best performance from the JH3A you have to input into coax.
As for the specific bass questions, the JH3A bass is pretty fantastic hitting all the marks: quantity, detail, texture. It's one of its best features. However, the PP6 has a pretty gorgeous bass itself. I don't really feel like I'm losing that thumping impact--overall--when I switch between the two. I'm traveling right now so I have to wait to get back home to do some final A/B's. There is a definite difference in terms of where they hit in terms of frequency emphasis but I'm not quite confident I would place it accurately by memory. Here is what stands out the most for me. The JH3A bass presence is "always on" even when the bass knob is turned down flat. You can only defeat it by switching it off entirely. Then the lack of bass is pretty dramatic bringing the Jh16 down to Jh13 bass levels. The PP6 is more program responsive. When there is a lot of bass in the track, it reproduces it well. It can hit pretty hard in fact, and sometimes produces more impact on a certain track than the Jh3A, even without engaging the bass boost. So as it stands, the 3A will add bass, and the PP6 will be more faithful to the source material.
In real world use which one you favor depends on what kind of music you listen to and your preferences. For example, music mastered in the 80s has a weak bass response, so you won't get that deep full modern bass from the PP6 on those tracks, because the bass is not there in the source. The 3A will add in bass and give it that deeper/stronger bass response. The PP6 still sounds full in the bass but the 3A will generate more bass, again, when bass is low on the track. So it depends whether you want accurate reproduction or added bass. Judging--solely in the area of bass response--for 80s music I would favor the 3A personally for these reasons. Switching to acoustic music the 3A's added bass can interfere with the pristine clarity and detail you want throughout the frequency spectrum. If you flip the bass to 'off,' you get that clarity (turning it functionally into a Jh13) but personally the sound is bit thin. The PP6 is more full in the lower registers, when the 3A bass switch is disengaged.
The next wrinkle in all of this are the relative bass controls. The JH3A's bass boost is a marvel. It's one of the best implementations of its kind as it is able to add the lower registers with a minimum of phase anomalies and interference of other frequencies. Also, it's a knob so it's eminently adjustable. The PP6 unfortunately does not do nearly so well. It only has two stages of boost. The boost also is a bit "ham-fisted" for me, lacking the natural nuance of the 3A bass boost. All of a sudden there is just a whole lot more of the lower registers that covers too wide a Q in my opinion. It adds bass quantity without qualitatively fitting the frequency curve organically to the music. Having said that, except for experimentation, I leave the PP6 bass boost alone, and when I do, I find the bass in the PP6 to be quite strong and extremely well textured and detailed. So, much so that I can't actually agree with those who say that the PP6 doesn't fit rock, electronic, or "fun" genres as well as the 3A. I actually like the PP6 for rock, pop, electronica, etc, and appreciate the 3A for acoustic and jazz, even with the 3A bass switch on, for the following reason.
Let me say that the PP6 sounds more "analog." I know that's almost a useless descriptor. But I mean that it has thicker, richer mids than the 3A and is, in that way, more euphonic (I successfully avoided saying "musical" and replaced it with a word that basically means "sounds good"). And as I said, it's quite full throughout the frequency spectrum, so the bass is not weak, and when the source pounds the PP6 responds. By the same token, the PP6 can get thick to the point of muddy/hazy. There's also a peak somewhere near 8K? that can get a bit strident and distorted. The 3A on the converse, can get thin and analytical, however, it isn't sterile. The 3A has a transparency and clarity that the PP6 lacks. So contrary to the thinking of others, in terms of tonality and voicing, I quite like the PP6 for "fun" genres and the JH3A for "serious" genres.
However, another critical area I'll touch on is the soundstaging. Both could be considered airy and spacious. However, they are significantly different in terms of presentation. They both follow their "house sound." The 3A like other JH products is more intimate and gives you the sense of a studio space, the PP6 tends to scale larger. As for aspects of separation, imaging accuracy, and dimension, I'll save for a future post along with other observations when I'm not pulling from memory.
Didn't mean to go on this long but I knew there was some curiosity out there about how the two units compared. I hope something in there might be helpful. I should add that I only have a universal demo of the PP6 and a custom mold for the JH3A-16s.
Best Regards,
Edward
