Select comparisons
Being a literal virgin to Jerry Harvey’s world of IEMs, I had no idea what to expect from Sharona, or how it measured up against other brands I’m far more familiar with. Having now had the time and space to make those comparisons for myself, the results are quite interesting, and also hopefully helpful to those who haven’t yet heard a JH Audio IEM.
64 Audio U12t ($1,999). If you know anything about Jerry’s history, you’ll appreciate the irony of my making 64 Audio’s perennial favourite, U12t, the first comparison to Sharona, or even the fact that I have the gall to compare them at all. Instead, I’ll let you Google the storied rivalry between these two companies for yourselves, and keep this review strictly professional.
Like Sharona, U12t is an all-BA 12-driver IEM designed to be a musical mastering and stage monitor. It’s available as both a universal IEM, which is what I own, and a custom monitor (A12t), the differences between which are negligible to the best of my knowledge.
The first notable sonic difference between the two, aside from how relatively easier Sharona is to drive, is the difference in their tonal presentations. Sharona’s sound is fuller, denser, richer in tone and warmer too. U12t is far more linear, with a clearer, crisper focus that still manages to stay on the right side of musical while remaining fairly neutral in tone.
With far less bass density, and a tighter, punchier bass that leans more sub-bass than midbass as its focus, U12t brings midrange and treble details to the fore. As such, U12t is the more ‘technical’ sounding of the two, which doesn’t mean Sharona lacks in technical performance, only that U12t makes its technical strengths more easily apparent.
U12t’s vocals jump out with extreme clarity, sounding natural and detailed, and utterly realistic. Sharona doesn’t have quite the same free-flowing vocal and overall midrange fidelity, but only on account of its denser notes and warmer hue.
Treble extension and sparkle is similar between the two, but U12t comes off airier, while Sharona’s bass dominance influences how I hear treble highlights, with slightly more contrast and a touch less air.
While I wouldn’t call U12t an analytical monitor by any stretch – to me it’s one of the most perfectly-balanced and finely tuned IEMs on the planet – it’s definitely a better tool for dissecting your music and ‘seeing’ the different elements than Sharona.
For its part, Sharona offers a more ‘emotional’ listen, like hot chocolate with delicate undertones to U12t’s finely-brewed Ceylon tea. Both give an accurate, detailed account of the music, but in very different ways, and I’m glad I don’t have to choose between them in my collection.
64 Audio N8 ($1,699, reviewed here). I swear I’m not taking the mickey with yet another 64 Audio IEM comparison, but the bass-first N8 has so many similarities to Sharona I’d be remiss not to. Both IEMs are, in my opinion, tuned around their bass delivery – rich, full, and dense. Sharona is still denser, with deeper extension into sub-bass, and a slight edge in texture rendition and overall weight.
While N8 is itself a warmer IEM, it’s not quite as dense through the lower mids, where Sharona is absolutely stacked, and so sounds relatively lither and lighter. Both IEMs trade blows when it comes to midrange clarity, especially with N8’s default M15 module, but Sharona has the edge in sheer resolution and nuance. Its treble is more detailed too, and even though N8 is no slouch, it’s treble is smoother and slightly more polite by comparison.
Technically, both IEMs play at a very high level, even when compared to the very best of today’s IEMs. Excellent staging (N8 is wider, Sharona is taller and deeper), superb imaging and top-notch resolution. Sharona is the more refined of the two, and while we’re splitting hairs at this level, is also the more accomplished technical performer if I had to pick one.
As with U12t, choosing one over the other would be difficult, because both offer compelling advantages. N8 has that unmistakable dynamic driver bass texture, even though it might not be ‘class leading’ by today’s ultra-high and ultra-expensive standards, while Sharona has the larger-than-life note weight that gives it a speaker-like presentation few IEMs I’ve heard manage to replicate.
And for what it’s worth, both of these custom IEMs take pride of place as the most beautifully-made, aesthetically pleasing and comfortably fitting I’ve had the pleasure of using at any price.
FIR Audio Xe6 ($3,899, reviewed in universal form here). If there’s any IEM in my collection that I thought would bear the closest tonal resemblance to Sharona, it’s FIR Audio’s flagship, Xe6. For once my audio memory didn’t deceive me; these two IEMs are even more similar to each other then Sharona and N8.
There are differences, of course. Sharona is even thicker than Xe6 down low, if you can believe it. Xe6 is known for being thick, dense and warm, but to my ears Sharona is at least that, and maybe even more bass-wise.
Yet both manage to retain a clear, detailed midrange and sparkling, extended treble with outstanding imaging and detail retrieval. Xe6 is perhaps slightly more resolving, and even though it has a bass X-factor with its Kinetic Bass technology, it’s also not the punchiest bass in the box.
Keep in mind my Xe6 is custom, which helps with bass tightness and extension, and I currently use it with Beat Audio’s eye-wateringly expensive flagship cable, Valhalla (reviewed here), which dials resolution, bass tightness and staging to the max.
It’s important to note that with the Signature Series add-ons I chose for Sharona, cost is almost at parity with Xe6 ($3,599 vs $3,899), so while Sharona can be had at a much more affordable price point with basic build options, in my case the two are basically equivalent.
As such, picking one over the other would be like picking between two equally stunning artworks. Sonically you probably only need one or the other, but as a visual collector’s item, both very much earn their place.
Continue to closing thoughts…
