Jerry Harvey (JH) Custom IEM Review

[Hart]

I have some $300 Bose 35 headphones I bought for noise cancelling on a plane. Ironically I think they do better than a lot of these multi-thousand dollar headphones. Who would have thought?

 

[Robbo99999]

As @solderdude mentioned, these are intended to be used for live performers on stage. Live performance venues are incredibly loud and usually very reverberant, and so the stage monitors are tuned differently for that very specific use case. You can see this similar tuning philosophy carried over across many different companies that consider live musicians their primary target audience---Ultimate Ears, Westone, JH, Shure, and many 64Audio and Empire Ears custom fitted offerings. They are objectively "wonky" in terms of what we know about how hearing and preferences work in ideal or even good listening conditions, but these are an extreme case and the tool required is highly specialized.

The price, of course, is another conversation and imo has to do much more with the fact that this space is sort of an oligopoly. Think streaming services and airlines.

And talking of another discussion, another one is how do we even know that's the best frequency response for a stage monitor - the answer is probably we don't! I'm not confident that it would be.

 

[WalterW]

Thanks for the review. Obviously, in today´s market, they are as bad, over-expensive and oudated as one can think of. But one has to think of them as a museum´s piece, as Jerry Harvey basically invented IEMs.

 

[Robbo99999]

Were those made before the harman curve? If you assum they aimed for studio linearity, they would be pretty nice. 10-20 years ago these would have been insane specs. Considering the distortion, you could still make a pretty decent harman curve.

Unfortunately they can't be EQ'd with confidence because the trim controls on the IEM are unreliable, you don't know where you're starting from.

 

[brandall10]

Thanks for the review. Obviously, in today´s market, they are as bad, over-expensive and oudated as one can think of. But one has to think of them as a museum´s piece, as Jerry Harvey basically invented IEMs.

The first IEM dates back to the 60s and they were first used in monitoring situations in the 80s. What JH innovated was the use of custom fit multi driver IEMs for monitoring purposes in the mid 90s.

 

[WalterW]

The first IEM dates back to the 60s and they were first used in monitoring situations in the 80s. What JH innovated was the use of custom fit multi driver IEMs for monitoring purposes in the mid 90s.

Ok, let´s specify, heavily popularized and brought to a decent level.

 

[anphex]

Unfortunately they can't be EQ'd with confidence because the trim controls on the IEM are unreliable, you don't know where you're starting from.

Never was a fan of trim/shelf controls, but I actually meant digital EQ.

 

[WalterW]

The new FAD is tilted DF.... lately...

Only with hobbyists who also try to sell headphones...

 

[Madlop26]

I rate them Fine, IMHO they do not deserve the 80% poor rate so far, seems to be a very good design IEM for a stage monitoring purpose. But not great because of the price.

 

[Matias]

I rate them Fine, IMHO they do not deserve the 80% poor rate so far, seems to be a very good design IEM for a stage monitoring purpose. But not great because of the price.

Sorry but even if costs 20 usd, there are options way better on the market right now. Even for free I would reject it and spend the 20 usd of a Zero 2, Gate, Wan'er and the likes. That to me is definitely Poor.

 

[Curupira]

Monitoring instruments/voices during live performances ≠ hifi music enjoyment nor creating a final mix.

Bass on a podium is 'felt' and is not attenuated as much as mids and treble and given the present SPL during a performance one does not want boosted lows anyway (equal loudness contours) as it will muddy that what they want monitored.
One also does not want to hear 'harsh, shrill or sibilance' at higher SPL either (at high volumes) so a bit less 'clarity' is not a bad thing either.
Granted this appears to be a bit too much of a good thing, perhaps, but when the user is used to the presentation he also knows how that will turn out it may well be fine for monitoring.

These are not intended for enjoying, listening to music but a tool for a performer. A bit like the NS10 being a tool for sound engineers. It serves a purpose.
It think it is important to emphasize that.
CIEM's are important (and the word custom means expensive) tools for musicians.

These were also reference inside the audiophile community back when JH Audio and UE were the go to solution for IEMs. Aside from the "gentleness" given by lack of pinna, that may help in monitoring, I think the tuning is also well beloved for music listening for people that seek "detail": that retracted pinna can produce a sensation of spaciouness inside the mix, and will further enhance the perception of "microdetail"/shimmeryness that audiophiles love through the contrast from the 7-8khz elevated region.

I say all this because that style of tuning is still persistent among iems that are well regarded as "detail" driven, like the UM's Mests, the Dunu SA6s, the performer 8 and a few others.

 

[WalterW]

I think the tuning is also well beloved for music listening for people that seek "detail": that retracted pinna can produce a sensation of spaciouness inside the mix, and will further enhance the perception of "microdetail"/shimmeryness that audiophiles love through the contrast from the 7-8khz elevated region.

A flat turing with a quite strong peak at 8 kHz should provide "detail" and "spaciousness" ? I don´t think so. Or at least only as a fake effect. Other than the use as a monitor in a very noisy environment, I cannot see any advantage in such a tuning and even as a monitor it is questionable. Just outdated.

 

[Robbo99999]

Never was a fan of trim/shelf controls, but I actually meant digital EQ.

Yes, but you're misunderstanding something, read the bit in Amir's review where he says:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you look to the top left, you see a set of trim controls that are supposed to change the bass response. I tested that and what they call "bass" extends up to 1 kHz! Shame as I was hoping it would boost < 100 Hz. On the other hand, I needed the controls to equalize the left and right channels. Setting them to the middle (by eye) produced a response in the right channel which was well below that of left."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, so you can't be sure what frequency response you're starting with because the trim controls on the IEM are unreliable, so therefore you can't be sure what your starting frequency response is & therefore it invalidates any EQ. In fact Amir also mentions in his conclusion that you'd need "instrumentation" to match the channels and without that you end up "listening to a soup of mismatched frequency responses". Yeah, so that's where I'm coming from.

 

[Curupira]

A flat turing with a quite strong peak at 8 kHz should provide "detail" and "spaciousness" ?

Depends on what you call "detail", hence the quotes. Of course a correct pinna has higher fidelity than this style of tuning. It's all about the perceived contrast. The recessed pinna makes the the vocals and main instruments lose their protagonism making the overall "volume" seem lower and making them seem more distant, artificially creating a wider stage. The enhanced treble region that follows then creates the illusion of "microdetail" as people like to call it, making plucks, strings and other high order harmonics more evident.

 

[Madlop26]

Sorry but even if costs 20 usd, there are options way better on the market right now. Even for free I would reject it and spend the 20 usd of a Zero 2, Gate, Wan'er and the likes. That to me is definitely Poor.

Again, this IEM son not for listening to music at your home, is for a music performer on the stage to be able to listening what he is playing or singing; FR response, sensitivity and form is maximized for that.

 

[beeface]

review of one of these next?

 

[Ktacos]

Musician, worked in live, playd with IEM's, did monitors mixes. You guys are off that poor response curves are meant to provide musicians with some sort of signal that is more beneficial in a live settings. Neutrality matters just as much in this area. These are just junk IEM's like most of the high dollar ones, the custom IEM industry is IMO a bit of a scam. A lot of musicians don't use custom IEM's either for live, and the ones that used off the shelf IEM's, I would look up their response curves to get a better idea of what I'm looking at. I'm a little annoyed at how often users here chime in about the music performance side of things when they've never been a part of it.

 

[GaryH]

The myth that there should be different frequency responses in audio production / reproduction equipment really needs to finally die. It's pretty disheartening that some repeatedly continue to spread this misinformation and many others give it a like, on a science forum, when the science is clear on this issue and has been for a long time, as musician, audio engineer and leading acoustic scientist Dr Sean Olive explained in this article on audio's circle of confusion 15 years ago now.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Jerry Harvey / JH Audio custom made IEM. It was kindly donated to the forum by a member and cost starts at US $2,299.

View attachment 391523
The multidriver IEM feels quite substantial. I was pleasantly surprised in how well it fit my measurement artificial ear. Alas, my own ears were not so fortunate as I could not even get them to stay there let alone seal. So no listening tests for this review.

I am told these were "the" go-to custom IEM for live music until competition arrived in the last few years. The review sample was made for a band member.

If you look to the top left, you see a set of trim controls that are supposed to change the bass response. I tested that and what they call "bass" extends up to 1 kHz! Shame as I was hoping it would boost < 100 Hz. On the other hand, I needed the controls to equalize the left and right channels. Setting them to the middle (by eye) produced a response in the right channel which was well below that of left.

JH Audio Roxanne IEM Measurement
Let's start with our frequency response measurement:
View attachment 391525
The story is told right there. We can forgive the flat bass but what is up with the treble shortfall and to that degree? Is it optimized for vocals?

Equalization should be relatively easy given the broad areas that need to be filled in:
View attachment 391524

Distortion is kept in check:
View attachment 391527
View attachment 391528

That is likely due to deep insertion which brings with it, very high sensitivity:
View attachment 391529

The deployment of crossover and bass filtering means uneven/low impedance:
View attachment 391530

Conclusions
Is high accuracy needed for monitoring the rest of the band while doing your thing? I would think so. Sadly the Roxanne doesn't remotely deliver on that. If my testing is accurate, the difference in the two channels is quite high below 1 kHz. Matching requires instrumentation which likely few have. So likely they have been listening to a soup mismatched frequency responses. Hopefully whoever is dominating this field today does better than Jerry Harvey Roxanne IEM offering.

The only positive thing I could say is that the fit in my fixture was excellent. Better than any normal IEM in the way it sat and locked into the cavities of the artificial ear. If that is managed in the users ears, then there is positive result there.

On the very high cost, I am told this is reasonable for custom IEMs.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Thanks Amir! Excellent review as always. Here are some differing perspectives:
1) The low end that these have is actually much higher than what was measured since they are meant to be sealed into the ear. I would liken the difference to a woofer in free air vs. mounted in a box. These things have a ton of low end when they are properly sealed in the ear canal and that's what custom in-ears are for. I will get some measurements of mine at some point but I always have more low end than that and I have mixed probably 500 shows on a set of these and there is no lack of low end so I'm guessing that the measurements here weren't from a proper seal.
2) The "low frequency" attenuators are terrible. I never liked them and I have often had a similar experience in that they don't match. Most of us monitor engineers that used them would set them and then tape over them so the musicians can't adjust it.
3) They are designed for use as an in-ear monitor for the stage where we have EQ on every input and output. They also go deeper into the ear canal when they are made properly so you will get more top end response. So the comparison of frequency response to the Harmon curve is less applicable here. That being said, I do prefer in-ear monitors that have a bit more top end and less 200-500Hz in them.
4) Anyone who thinks a $20 set of earbuds can equal these are just plain wrong here. Custom in-ears are effective because they seal (to some degree depending on the craftsmanship) into the ear canal. They can provide as much as 35db reduction of outside noise, which is totally necessary since the artists are in a room with a massive PA that can be as loud as 105-110db (usually closer to 102db). Your $20 earbuds would still allow so much noise from the outside that they would be much less effective in these scenarios. I could go into a lot more detail on this but we can just leave it there.
5) The cost is actually not crazy given how much work goes into getting them to fit properly. They are CUSTOM. They should probably cost more. It's wild that people commented on JH "going bankrupt" while others think that they are too expensive. The reality is that they are not expensive enough.
6) These things get louder than any other IEM that I've ever used. They can punish your ear drums into submission. While this is not ideal, it is very useful in some live situations because it takes some power to be able to hear what's going on over a massive PA system.
7) If you have never used IEM's to perform live or you have never mixed a band on them, then you probably don't get the usefulness of these. Listening to music and performing music live are completely different. The JH Roxanne in-ear is possibly the most used in-ear monitor for live situations in the history of live music. There was a point 5 years ago when the majority of major bands were using these. Jerry Harvey changed live music with his designs.
8) The mismatch in frequency response here is a real problem and Amir is correct, but in a live situation we have much bigger variables.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

It's a stage monitor, most likely tuned to highlight the musicians instrument. Usual monitoring is you, click track and a tiny bit of the band.

There is no "usual monitoring" and not every band uses a click track. There are many artists listening to full mixes. It really varies widely.