Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/
I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:
5 stars: The product is
very good and received the "
highly recommended" award from me.
4 stars: The product is
very good and received the "
recommended" award from me.
3 stars: The product is
good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]
2 stars: The product is
only about average or even somewhat below that and
somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]
1 star: The product is
bad/severely flawed to
outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]
Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10
Source:
Personal unit.
Miscellaneous:
I bought them from Amazon when they were sold off ridiculously cheap on Black Friday, and sort of regret not having gotten a second or third pair the same year or the next when they were discounted again.
Undoubtedly, they are true classics and probably the original definition of “v-shaped” sound in IEMs.
Several nice accessories came included.
I
really like the tin carrying case. It doesn't only look and feel phenomenal and is very sturdy, but it's also padded on the inside. Easily one of my most-loved and most unique in-ear carrying cases.
I love the turquoise blue chrome/mirror colour design.
Somewhat unusual shape and geometry, but I like it, and it is also quite unique.
Build quality is good enough – the in-ears appear more fragile and less sturdy as well as less premium compared to my Shure SE425, but are overall still sturdy enough if treated well.
Unusual shell geometry but comfortable in my ears. The cable's memory wire ear guides definitely contribute to the good fit and comfort in my ears. Others may feel otherwise.
Okay-ish/average cable – springy but sturdy. Has got a chin-slider.
Two-pin connectors, however one of the Triple.Fi 10s’ rather unusual features is that their left side’s connector doesn't follow the standard of the "upper" pin being the "+" pin, but has the layout inverted (only on the left side).
Three Balanced Armature drivers per side, two acoustic ways, (oval) dual-bore architecture with dedicated acoustic dampers.
Sound:
Largest included silicone tips.
Tonality:
V-shaped sound.
The Triple.Fi 10 are some of the most reactive in-ears to subtle output impedance deviations from 0 Ohms (even a perfect output impedance of 0.1 Ohms already shows measurable (but still inaudible) deviation effects), and become audibly darker in the highs the higher the output impedance of the device they are connected to is, even to the point of sounding “warm and dark”, with a downwards sloping response if the device’s output impedance is on the higher side.
The bass elevation starts to rise around 600 Hz and reaches its climax around 85 Hz with a quantity of about 8 dB compared to diffuse-field flatness, even though it is only a little less present between 100 and 200 Hz. Extension is flat and free of any roll-off down into the real sub-bass.
So yeah, the main focus is on the sub- and midbass, but the upper bass is already punchy as well and there is also some low fundamental range lift but no intrusive warmth (just a bit of pleasant lower midrange thickness).
The upper mids, presence range and middle treble are somewhat in the background, giving voices a rather distanced presentation in the mix with still good-enough timbre.
The area between 8 and 10 kHz is emphasised and on the bright side, with present/forward cymbals that have a rather metallic, however not sharp timbre.
In summary, they represent a quite traditional v-shaped fun/loudness tuning.
Frequency Response:
Etymotic ER-4S-Compensation
This is also pretty much how I perceive them, although obviously without the excessively shown treble between 7 kHz and 16 kHz.
InEar ProPhile 8 Compensation
Resolution:
Tight and fast bass, as it could be expected from the two small, non-vented BA drivers for low-frequency reproduction. Perceived bass details and texture fit well into the Triple.Fi 10’s performance category.
Good resolution and note separation (actually ultimately not even
that far away from my UERM in a direct comparison, but still with a noticeable gap between them) but nonetheless still in a lower league when compared to my Audio Technica ATH-IM03, Westone W4R or Logitech UE900 when it comes to separation and actual micro details (not the fake stuff generated by elevations), especially in the midrange that just sounds quite two-dimensional and lacks “layering”.
Clean treble reproduction but not on the same level as some of the other, more modern v-shaped IEMs.
Soundstage:
Rather wide but with pretty much no spatial depth. Slightly elliptical, however in a flat way.
Precise instrument positioning and separation.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Comparisons:
Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900/UE900S:
The UE900 are tuned more balanced/neutral compared to the more v-shaped Triple.Fi 10 but ultimately not (flat) neutral either but have a relaxed upper midrange and thick lower mids.
The UE900 are less bassy and milder in the lower highs, with perceptively more linear super treble extension and therefore more subtle glitter/shimmer, whereas the Triple.Fi 10 are more distant, cooler sounding in the mids, especially compared to the UE900s’ thick lower midrange that spills clearly into the central midrange.
In terms of resolution, the UE900 are just a slight bit superior in direct comparison, even in the midrange, while bass attacks sound a bit tighter on the Triple.Fi 10 that seem to decay somewhat faster.
To my ears, the UE900s’ stage is even a bit wider, but has especially got some more spatial depth compared to the flat sounding Triple.Fi 10.
When it comes to instrument separation, the UE900 may be a bit ahead.
Custom Art Ei.3:
The Triple.Fi 10 are more v-shaped with the more distant, slightly hollow and thin appearing mids; a brighter, splashier treble elevation; and also somewhat (but not much) stronger bass emphasis.
The Triple.Fi 10 win in terms of bass attack, speed and tightness, while midrange details are a little higher on the Ei.3, whereas actual treble details are about similar.
In terms of soundstage width, the Ultimate Ears present the wider room, while the Ei.3 have got more depth and therefore the superior layering while instrument separation and imaging precision is on a pretty much similar level.
Audio Technica ATH-IM03:
To my ears, these are similar enough to the Ultimate Ears, albeit with a leading edge when it comes to technicalities.
Both are v-shaped, but the IM03 less splashy and metallic in the highs.
Bass-wise, the Audio Technica even have about one dB extra in the midbass, with pretty much similar bass quantity as the Triple.Fi 10 in the sub-bass and lower mids, which makes them sound just a little bassier and fuller as a result.
Voices appear less distant in the mix compared to the Ultimate Ears.
The upper treble peak is also located in the 8 kHz to 10 kHz area but not as present, which results in a milder, more realistic and less splashy elevation.
The IM03s’ additional way in the midrange definitely shows and they present quite a step up in this area, with the highs also being technically more proficient.
In terms of bass decay, though, the Triple.Fi 10 sound faster compared to the ATH-IM03 whose lower notes linger just a bit longer, giving them more “body”, while control is nonetheless great.
The Audio Technicas’ stage is audibly deeper than that of the Triple.Fi 10, and quite three-dimensional circular (ultimately it is a bit more on the oval side, though).
Conclusion:
True classics with a v-shaped tonality. They don’t really do anything wrong (while they do not necessarily particularly excel in any specific area either) and present a sound that still fits well into the ~400$ range with a punchy bass with fast, clean decay, and sparkly highs that resolve well enough to pull this elevation off; solely the “two-dimensional” midrange and flat soundstage are things that could be improved.
