October 27, 2009 7:48 AM PDT

JH Audio in-ear headphones: Worth $1,099?

by Steve Guttenberg
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 13 comments

The hand-built JH 13 Pro in-ear headphone.

(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)

If you have ears, prepare to open them now.

I've just reviewed a bunch of contenders for the world's best full-size, over-the-ear headphone: Audio Technica ATH-W5000, Denon AH-D7000, Grado PS-1000, Sennheiser HD 800, Stax SR-007Mk2, and Ultrasone Edition 8 headphones--and all boast higher MSRPs than the JH Audio JH 13 Pro in-ear headphone.

Sure, full-size headphones can be used with iPods and MP3 players with varying degrees of success, but they're a lot more of a hassle to lug around than the JH 13 Pro. Honestly, I prefer the sound and comfort of over-the-ear models compared with in-ear headphones. Then again, the JH 13 Pro is a very different type of in-ear design, it uses six drivers--two woofers, two midranges, and two tweeters--to lower distortion compared with other in-ear designs. It's a difference I can hear.

The JH 13 Pro's resolution of fine detail is extraordinary, drums sound more realistic than I've heard from any other type of headphone. The JH 13 Pro is "fast," cymbals' shimmer and sparkle the way they do in real life, and when a drummer whacks his sticks against the drums' metal rims, the sound is more realistic. Dynamic oomph and slam are the best I've heard from an in-ear headphone.

The JH 13 Pro's bass goes deeper than any in-ear headphone to date, but it's the way these headphones decode palpable bass textures that's highly addictive. Electric, acoustic, and keyboard basses sound more different from each other with the JH 13 Pro. Switching over to Monster's excellent new Turbine Pro Gold in-ear headphone ($299) is startling, the Turbines sound mushy and muddled by comparison. The Monster has more mid-bass fullness, which some listeners may prefer. I do not.

The JH 13 Pro's midrange clarity is radically better than any in-ear 'phones I've used to date. Its bass, midrange, and treble are better balanced and accurate than what I'm used to from in-ear designs.

My old reference in-ear Etymotic ER-4P ($299) headphones are still a truly great design, but it sounds awfully thin and dynamically squashed next to the JH 13 Pro. The new headphone's dynamics are so much more visceral than any previous in-ear I've heard, including Jerry Harvey's legendary Ultimate Ears UE-10 headphones. Jerry Harvey is the "JH" of JH Audio.

The JH 13 Pro is a 28-ohm design and it can play nice and loud with iPods and MP3 players. I also played it at home, with a Head Direct tube headphone amplifier, and the sound, especially the bass, was significantly better than what I heard with my iPod.

The JH 13 Pro's superthin cable didn't make any noise when it rubbed against my clothing, and it wasn't prone to tangling and it is user replaceable. That's not the case with any standard, universal fit in-ear headphone I know of; when those cables break, you either toss the 'phone, or pay for a repair.

Forget about noise reduction headphones, the JH 13 Pro's noise isolation is so good I didn't hear a New York City subway train pull into the station! I swear I was completely unaware of its arrival (my back was facing the train). It's not a fair comparison to "universal" in-ear designs, the JH 13 Pro's earpieces are derived from custom molds of my ear canals, so they produce a superior seal than with any off-the-rack ear tip.

Each JH 13 Pro is custom built using molds of your ears made by an audiologist, that's something you pay for on your own (depending on where you live, it can cost between $50 and $150), and send the ear molds to JH Audio.

JH Audio only builds custom in-ear headphones and prices start at $399 for the JH 5 Pro. Every JH Audio headphone is hand built and tested in Apopka, Florida. And if you ever need service, it is handled by the same people who built the headphones in the first place.

Are the JH 13 Pros worth $1,099? In my opinion, absolutely yes. And when you factor in the headphones long-term durability, it's a little easier to rationalize investing in a set of great sounding, very expensive headphones. I think you can expect to get at least 10 years of use out of the JH 13 Pros.

Jerry Harvey has been building custom in-ear monitor headphones for rock bands since 1995. He counts the Rolling Stones, Creed, The Cult, Aerosmith, Foreigner, and Linkin Park as customers. He founded Ultimate Ears in 1997 and designed all of its headphones to 2007.

The technology differences between in-ear and over-the-ear headphones are vast, and I will cover that story in a future Audiophiliac.

Steve Guttenberg is a frequent contributor to magazines and Web sites including Home Entertainment, Playback, and Ultimate AV. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Recent posts from The Audiophiliac
Don't buy an iPod speaker (if you care about sound quality)
Einstein Audio: 'Genius' vacuum tube amp maker
Piano maker Steinway moves into the hi-fi business
Marantz' $6,000 Blu-ray, SACD, DVD-Audio player
Three awesome-sounding 5.1 speaker-subwoofer packages
Six ways to make your turntable sound better
Stereo vs. surround: And the winner is...
A home theater in a box buyer's guide
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (13 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by feverboy777 October 27, 2009 9:29 AM PDT
I don't know about you folks but I find that the better quality headphone I buy ... the closer I come to losing my hearing.... so I stay away from headphones as much as I can.

Your beloved audiophile reader.

RS
Reply to this comment
by pubmat October 28, 2009 2:06 PM PDT
I coudn't agree more feverboy. 1,099 is way too much to pay for losing my hearing. I think over-the-ear headphones are a little safer for your hearing anyway.
by parallelrhymes October 27, 2009 9:51 AM PDT
Damn for $1,099 they better love me long time
Reply to this comment
by one_flat_monkey October 27, 2009 12:40 PM PDT
1100 smackers for a device that is predominately used to listen to mp3s. wanna buy a bridge?
Reply to this comment
by soundman45 October 27, 2009 6:57 PM PDT
Ahhh...at what price Ear Candy ???
Reply to this comment
by GlenHinckley October 27, 2009 10:41 PM PDT
Sorry but this guy is smoking something. iPods have some of the cheappist DAC in them that money can buy. I dought any iPod has enough resolution to tell a $20 pair of earbuds from these. I have hooked a few of the iPods i have owned up to Audio Testing gear and they are reall bad and usally have greater than 1% distortion at half volume and one was at 23% at 90% volume. This is not hi-fi it is mush. I have JBL studio monitos 4413s and the base through out of my ipod nano is mush.
Reply to this comment
by eatapc--2008 October 28, 2009 8:10 AM PDT
There is one main killer of good sound that most people simply can't deal with. It's not cheap DACs. It's not MP3 or AAC compression. It's the room.

I prefer a 256k AAC file played through my iPhone into cheap Skullcandy in-ear headphones over 9 out of 10 audiophile systems. It makes no sense putting money into expensive electronics when the room kills the sound anyway.

Two options. One is to put most of your money into building a dedicated listening room. But who can do that? Most of us are stuck with houses and apartments that don't have any good spaces for setting up a big listening studio, and it's hugely expensive anyway. The other option is to put a little money into really good headphones. These JH things intrigue me.

I tried the Monster Turbines for a few weeks (on loan from a friend). They're very good -- better than my Skullcandy 'phones, but not by a lot. I've tried more expensive Shure and Etymotic headphones, but found them much too thin. These JH things intrigue me.
Reply to this comment
by eatapc--2008 October 28, 2009 8:10 AM PDT
There is one main killer of good sound that most people simply can't deal with. It's not cheap DACs. It's not MP3 or AAC compression. It's the room.

I prefer a 256k AAC file played through my iPhone into cheap Skullcandy in-ear headphones over 9 out of 10 audiophile systems. It makes no sense putting money into expensive electronics when the room kills the sound anyway.

Two options. One is to put most of your money into building a dedicated listening room. But who can do that? Most of us are stuck with houses and apartments that don't have any good spaces for setting up a big listening studio, and it's hugely expensive anyway. The other option is to put a little money into really good headphones. These JH things intrigue me.

I tried the Monster Turbines for a few weeks (on loan from a friend). They're very good -- better than my Skullcandy 'phones, but not by a lot. I've tried more expensive Shure and Etymotic headphones, but found them much too thin. These JH things intrigue me.
Reply to this comment
by alegr October 29, 2009 1:41 PM PDT
I would even suggest that for the earphones, good fit and feel may be even more important than audio quality, assuming that the quality is above certain threshold. One will choose well-fitted phones with "good enough" audio quality over pain-in-the-ears phones of god-like sound.
by oooh5615 October 30, 2009 12:30 AM PDT
Are you people out of your f***ing mind? Headphones for $1,700, earbuds for $1,100... What are those made of, zirconium? Heck, if I ever buy myself a set of headphones this expensive, I want mine to be made of fossilized pterodactyl droppings! Any offerings?
Reply to this comment
by Vesicant October 30, 2009 2:11 PM PDT
Gee, Steve, asking if something is "worth" an exorbitant amount of money? Are you trying to lose your audiophile status?
Reply to this comment
by research1st November 3, 2009 8:06 AM PST
JH Audio in-ear headphones: Worth $1,099? In a word, NO!

$1,099 to further damage my already damaged hearing.
And no matter how good they may be, they will never be worth $1,099.

Look up "Sucker Born Every Minute", and you may find a picture of an Audiophile.....
Reply to this comment
by infomaniacnt November 27, 2009 9:17 AM PST
I recently watched "This is It", the Michael Jackson movie. I am 99% certain that these headphones were being used by Jacko and the other performers. Just kinda weird.
Reply to this comment
(13 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Behind the scenes: NORAD's Santa tracker

For decades, the defense group has let you follow the Christmas Eve travels of the jolly old elf. These days, technology is playing a bigger role than ever.

Intel redesigns Atom chip for Netbooks

The chipmaker officially announces the next generation of its popular Atom CPUs for Netbooks, the N450, weeks before the CES trade show.

advertisement

About The Audiophiliac

Ex movie theater projectionist Steve Guttenberg has more or less successfully hitched his future to home theater, but he still pines for the clickity-clack of 35 MM projectors and all the stale popcorn he could eat. Between projectionist gigs he worked as a high-end audio salesman for sixteen years, and produced records for an audiophile label. Oh, and one more thing, nothing annoys Steve more than being confused with the other Steve Guttenberg, the washed-up Police Academy actor. The wordsmith Guttenberg is a frequent contributor to a number of magazines and websites including Home Entertainment, Playback, and Ultimate AV. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Audiophiliac topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right