[Bengt77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drp /img/forum/go_quote.gif They [...] disappear both figuratively and physically after a few minutes.

Considering the price, that's one huge disadvantage right there!

 

[jp11801]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, Dave is right. No headphone can do what speakers can and even though the K1000 is as close to speaker design as possible, it isn't a speaker, nor will become a speaker. The JH13Pro is excellent, but it isn't comparable to large headphones simply because the entire ear isn't engaged, but then no iem can do that. Still, headphones of any build don't hold a candle to speakers.

this is somewhat misleading as for many speaker listeners the fact that the drivers are in a room creates more problems than it solves. When you look a headphones there are other issues for sure but you take room acoustics right out of the equation.

Full size headphones have the problem of driver housing reflections and the colorations those create. I would counter that the JH13s image as good as or better than most speakers. Keep in mind as I type this I am listening to Alon Lotus SE speakers that have a reputation for monster imaging and soundstage and they are being powered by an 845 tube amp. At the end of the day it is a toss up as to which I reach for (JH13s or my Alons).

Quote:

Originally Posted by cujobob /img/forum/go_quote.gif The engineer is using a different format as a monitor, so there really isn't any way that the IEM could be the same as being mixed for. Headphones and speakers (near-field monitors) are similar enough in how they react with the ear so that its not a huge difference. IEMs have different reflections and unless something is recorded FOR that type of sound, its impossible to be exactly as intended. The difference obviously is not so much that it sounds horrible...just kills the 'ambience' effect.

this is an odd quote as many of Jerry's clients are pro musicians and engineers. Have you even heard the JH13s as they are playback recording with ambience extremely well, take Waltz for Debby recorded at the Village Vanguard, there is a tremendous sense of space with the 13s

 

[manaox2]

You would have to have the same ear reflections as the recording engineer anyway to hear exactly as they did as they mastered, not to mention the same room and equipment with the same positioning of yourself and every other factor. I mean air pressure, health, and mental factors all change how you interpret what you hear. Good luck with that goal, that may be a little too nit picky IMO at the present.

 

[cujobob]

Well, that's fine...if music is recorded via IEMs, but my point was clearly that not all engineers are using IEMs. Their point of reference for how their material sounds is from their monitors. IEMs do not react the same with the ear, that is my point.

Sound is a crazy thing...the room, shape of the ear, amount of earwax, damage to ears, everything..it all effects how we hear things. The room is taken out of the equation with this type of stuff, though. So the rest is important...and is also why sound reproduction is so subjective.

I bought a pair of JH13s and look forward to receiving them tomorrow, actually.

 

[jp11801]

cool you'll be able to report back as to your thoughts on soundstage relative to the JH13s next week sometime. Most engineers do not use IEMs to record with but many use IEMs to monitor live. Most engineers use a combo of a few monitors and headphones.

Sound recording that is done in a studio is artificial and lacks true soundstage and ambience anyway. THe best ambience from rocks and jazz at least is found on recording done in the 50/60s prior to 48+ channels of multracking.

 

[catscratch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by manaox2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The search for the inherent flaw that must exist in the JH13 is looking akin to a witch hunt here. "There must be a witch! Where is it!" attitude abounds.

Ditto. This attitude seems to be dismissing any positives as hype and jumping on any reports of any negatives as fact.

Now, I think a little healthy paranoia and a big heaping spoonful of skepticism is essential in high-end audio, and it's nice to see people overly skeptical than overly trusting. But you have to consider where the glowing praise for the JH13 comes from. A lot of JH13 early adopters are some of the most experienced people around. They're not the sort to jump on any shiny new gimmick, and when they say that these headphones are world-class it pays to listen, because they really have heard everything and are speaking from extensive experience.

 

[cujobob]

I don't quite understand how its difficult to believe they're so good seeing as how Jerry Harvey was the man behind Ultimate Ears which is one of the best names out there.

 

[3X0]

Yes, this thread amounts to a search for disconfirming evidence, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Many consumers are vulnerable to confirmation bias and groupthink after purchasing a product. However in the case of the JH13 I don't believe disconfirming evidence exists.

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by manaox2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You would have to have the same ear reflections as the recording engineer anyway to hear exactly as they did as they mastered, not to mention the same room and equipment with the same positioning of yourself and every other factor. I mean air pressure, health, and mental factors all change how you interpret what you hear. Good luck with that goal, that may be a little too nit picky IMO at the present.

The primary goal of a competent mastering engineer is to make a recording translate to as many listening environments as possible. High end consumer gear will often sound "better" than an accurate mastering environment, but you couldn't master on it because the songs wouldn't translate to other systems.

So the goal may not be to hear things exactly as they did when mastered, because the goal of mastering wasn't to require you to have the same system. But because that isn't the goal of mastering, any really good monitor should bring out the detail of the performance. And ultimately it's hearing the performance of the music that's important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cujobob /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sound is a crazy thing...the room, shape of the ear, amount of earwax, damage to ears, everything..it all effects how we hear things. The room is taken out of the equation with this type of stuff, though. So the rest is important...and is also why sound reproduction is so subjective. I bought a pair of JH13s and look forward to receiving them tomorrow, actually.

The brain tries to compensate for most of the factors above - earwax, room dynamics, even frequency balance to a certain extent. And it generally does a pretty amazing job at it, allowing us to hear the source minus a lot of those factors. But that doesn't argue against subjectivity, because the brain compensating for things could make things more subjective, not less.

Congrats on your JH13's.

 

[Hello]

I don't know if this is on-topic or off-topic, but I am considering purchasing the JH-13. My number one concern is the insertion/removal process. I currently own the Ety-4S, which are universal iem's, and there is a bit of discomfort in putting them and taking them out. Plus, I find that when I remove the Ety's, it scrapes out whatever earwax I have in my ears. I don't think this is the best thing for my ears, and it is a bit unsightly and annoying to have the earwax on the iem. For me, the most comfortable headphones are earbuds -- easy to put in, easy to take out, light weight, and no clamping force (like with full size headphones).

How does the JH-13 stack up in terms of comfort? Does it have the same general issues as my ety's -- just mitigated a bit by the fact that they are customs?

 

[drp]

Hello, Hello.

I've owned Etys, Shure E2, E5s, and Sensa 2X-S. The JH13 are by far the easiest to insert and remove. Unlike universals where you have a driver that you compress into place, with the proper technique, customs are much easier to insert and remove.

The technique is simply to place the cord over your ear and then hold the driver rotated (~80 degrees) so that the first thing to enter your ear canal is the nozzle (cone; part that goes in your ear), and then rotate them into place. Removal is a simple reversal or this process. After having the JH13 for just a few days, using them is as comfortable as darning or removing a well-fitting pair of gloves; there is absolutely zero discomfort in any part of the process. Properly molded, they are ultra comfortable; not at all like something that has been compressed into your ear canal.

Yeah, high end ear buds (I have several Yuin models) are great and easy to use; serve a specific purpose.

 

[davidhunternyc]

I was thinking about something in regards to the JH-13 Pro and soundstaging. I am no engineer and so this idea of mine will probably be shot down by all of you out there with scientific and engineering backgrounds. Here is my idea nonetheless: With 6 drivers in each earpiece, is it possible to engineer an algorithm where the signals from the drivers are are very slightly time delayed? The delay can even be something so small as 1000th of a second. Perhaps this would fool the brain into thinking that the sound is coming from afar thus increasing soundstaging. Maybe a delayed signal will mimic what happens when sound bounces off the out ear. Perhaps all it will do is cause smearing. I don't know. I am sure audio engineers have dealt with time delayed signals before and again, I don't know how much success they have had. Any thoughts?

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was thinking about something in regards to the JH-13 Pro and soundstaging. I am no engineer and so this idea of mine will probably be shot down by all of you out there with scientific and engineering backgrounds. Here is my idea nonetheless: With 6 drivers in each earpiece, is it possible to engineer an algorithm where the signals from the drivers are are very slightly time delayed? The delay can even be something so small as 1000th of a second. Perhaps this would fool the brain into thinking that the sound is coming from afar thus increasing soundstaging. Maybe a delayed signal will mimic what happens when sound bounces off the out ear. Perhaps all it will do is cause smearing. I don't know. I am sure audio engineers have dealt with time delayed signals before and again, I don't know how much success they have had. Any thoughts?

Not really. Delaying everything would be imperceptible, because it would be the exact same thing 1000th of a second later. Delaying only part of the frequency range would cause phase cancellation, which smears the sound.

I'd say for people that want their headphones to sound like speakers, something like the Smyth Realiser, which simulates a speaker environment in headphones, would be the thing.

 

[cujobob]

Having only certain frequencies time delayed, as I believe you are suggesting, probably wouldn't work without a major tradeoff...a separate driver for ambience could theoretically be added, but other tradeoffs would appear.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Well, I guess what I am saying is that the first three drivers would send the entire signal into the ear and then very slightly after, the other three drivers would send the exact same signal. Right now, I am listening to my Cambridge Soundworks radio and I could just tell that I am not hearing the sound all at one time.