Originally Posted by Alc Jr /img/forum/go_quote.gif With a headphone like the JH13 that is touted as having miniscule to no flaws, why can't other headphones do the same?
I'm aware that more drivers does not necessarily equal more sound quality, and that custom molds help the JH13's, but for instance, why can't a flagship universal like the TF10 have the awesome mids that the SE530 does?
Why do certain headphones seem to have a fault that others excel in, can't they just cover all bases, or do the designers purposely not do their best so that later models can come out and improve upon a design?
I'm sorry if I appear ignorant by this, but by all means correct me, I'm curious.
You can't cover all bases. It's not possible. Different people like different things. The mids of the 530 don't do anything for me, so my "perfect headphone" wouldn't have them.
JH13 -- I am sure a lot of people would have issues with the JH13. They haven't heard them yet, so no complaints about it have come up.
Many high end products are manufactured in such a way that only a small percentage of what is manufactured becomes the high end product and then lesser examples are "harvested" to make lower end products. The classic examples are microchips and hard drives. But it also happens with headphones in some cases. For example, Grado sells their high end headphones with closely matched drivers, down to .5 dB or less. In order to do that, they have to test pairs of drivers, and reject anything that doesn't match almost perfectly and also anything that doesn't meet the performance specifications. I would bet that those drivers that fail testing for the very high end end up in lower end products. For example, the Grado SR60 is only matched to 1 dB, and generally has less detail than the high end, but the drivers are otherwise very similar.
The reason I bring this up in this topic is because in order to have a near perfect set of headphones, you would need to manufacture lots of extra parts and cherry pick the very best examples. Which I believe is what happens in many cases. But there are a limited number of those parts, which are sold at a price premium, either by necessity or to leave room in the market for lower end products.
Originally Posted by jjcha /img/forum/go_quote.gif JH-13 certainly has flaws. Treble is on the splashy side. I'm surprised people haven't complained more that they're bright.
Reasonably fast and detailed but it's not like an electrostatic or anything. Bass is emphasized, particularly when amped (but not nearly as badly as some other headphones out there). Soundstage is good for an IEM but not nearly the sense of space of any high end headphone I've owned. Not the most liquid of headphones.
My view is the JH-13 is a lot easier of a proposition - it doesn't try and do anything other than what an IEM does well. Tonally it's balanced, reasonably detailed, good separation, etc. But it doesn't shine on presentation like the K 1000, or melt away like the HP1000 or even a good HD600 setup. Just less ambitious, easier to make more people happy.
Best,
-Jason
I guess you don't like in-ears much. But then again this reinforces everything
that has been said already.
Originally Posted by sebhuber /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess you don't like in-ears much. But then again this reinforces everything
that has been said already.
Looks at UE-11, Sensaphonics 2X-S in the corner... (and thinking sadly about prior JH-13 Pro I left in a cab) - I wouldn't say that.
Though, I think I have though always been vocal that the IEM while serving a great purpose, at least for me doesn't come anywhere near replacing my full sized cans.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
(sorry for OT remark)
