[Alc Jr]

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.

 

[james444]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alc Jr /img/forum/go_quote.gif why can't a flagship universal like the TF10 have the awesome mids that the SE530 does?

Because there might be one or two folks who don't think the SE530's mids are awesome?

 

[lucozade]

i agree with james444, there is a lot of folks out there and we all have differrent tastes in how we want are music to sound .

 

[rawrster]

different strokes for different folks

there are some in here who love the SE530 mids and some who absolutely hate it. the same goes for other phones and their qualities. It will be quite difficult to find a phone that has universal consensus among everyone here. We all got different tastes and what I may like in a phone someone else might hate it. That's probably why some of us here got phones that do things differently so they get a taste of something different every once in a while.

 

[StevieDvd]

From a viewpoint all headphones cover all the bases. The definition of 'all the bases' though differs.

A humble set of iem's for $5 probably meets the criteria of its designer/manufacturer of selling cheap and in quantity - they don't have a criteria that says it must be the best headphone in the world but still $5 do they.

 

[Pianist]

Well, if we are talking about in-ear headphones then apart from personal preference, fit plays a big role too. Because each persons ears are different and in-ears usually require a good seal to sound right, many will not be able to get the most out of an in-ear because they may not be able to get it to fit properly, sometimes not even realizing that the fit is not good. Then the people complain that an in-ear lacks bass, or sounds muddy, or has recessed treble etc, when in fact with a good seal all those problems may be eliminated. I used to own Shure SE530 and that was the worst IEM I've ever owned when it comes to getting the fit right. I have narrow ear canals and with pretty much every tip I tried, SE530 either created too pressure in my ear resulting in a terribly compressed, muddy sound, lacking bass and treble, or just did not seal tightly enough resulting in loss of low frequencies, dominating midrange and a harsh low treble. However, I was lucky to be able to get a good seal a few times and during those times SE530 sounded nothing like what most people describe them to my ears. There was no recessed treble, no harshness, no in your face mids, no lack of bass - the sound was so perfectly balanced, so full, rich, detailed and dynamic that my jaw just dropped. I could hear no compromises in the sound at all - it really did sound like a high-end IEM!

I suspect that the many of people who complain that a high-end universal are lacking something experience similar problems to those I had with SE530 and often without even realizing that the fit they got, even though it may feel comfortable, is not quite right.

 

[kmhaynes]

1) Different consumers like different types of sounds -- bass-heads, details freaks, fun-sound fanatics, etc. (nothing does it all).

2) Different companies have different missions in life -- some want to produce the best possible sound reproduction with no regard to cost; others want to give everybody out there an affordable music experience that's decent, but not perfect (nothing's perfect, anyway).

3) Man's grasp on technologies changes and improves, so things generally get better over time.

While you are trying to work out this whole philosophical quagmire, maybe you will figure out why it rained on my daughter's well-planned, very-expensive, outdoor birthday party last Saturday.

 

[DC5Zilla]

Nothing is perfect (flawless)

 

[Young Spade]

People want different sounds from their headphones, simple as that. Detail, bass, fun? Emphasis in different ranges of the frequency for different genres.... stage size and the list goes on and on.

And sorry about the rain kmhaynes

 

[smrtby123]

All engineering is compromise

 

[TheGame21x]

Nothing is perfect and people's perception of what is great in a pair of headphones will always differ from person to person.

 

[9pintube]

As you age you will find besides HEADPHONES most "things" in life are flawed.....IMO

 

[jjcha]

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

 

[Young Spade]

That last paragraph reminded me of my UM3Xs. Not very flashy or shiny (the treble) and doesn't have bloated bass... it just best replicates what you throw at it and I love them for that.

 

[classakg]

Its hard to find a perfect headphone, since we all have different music and sound tastes.