Thought I would repost my impressions of the demo UM Miracle and Merlin from the audition thread here.
One of the limitations of custom monitors in consumer applications has always been the fact that there really is no good way to ‘try before you buy’ – a fact especially concerning considering the relative difficulty and expense of going the custom route. In an attempt to convince potential customers that higher-end customs really are worth the asking price, manufacturers started building ‘demo’ versions of custom monitors – customs molded to fit most ears complete with nozzles that work with conventional eartips. I’ve recently had a go at two such demos – one of the Unique Melody Miracle and the other of the newly-released Merlin. Both units were supplied by UM Australia as part of the Head-Fi loaner program. Big thanks to them for the opportunity to sample these units and to Anaxilus for handling everything stateside.
General Notes
The Miracle uses 6 balances armatures and two passive crossovers. The Merlin is a hybrid IEM, using 4 BA transducers and a single dynamic driver. Both use a dual-bore design and the Merlin is also vented. It’s difficult to say how the vent impacts the isolation, however - the noise blocking abilities of the two demo units are very similar and both yield to the full custom Miracle. The long-term comfort of the demo units is also not very good for me despite the shells having been molded as compactly as possible.
For the purposes of this testing, I used my standard listening setup – Cowon J3 with and without a 5x mini3 and an iBasso D10. Tracks used for critical listening were selected from my lossless library, mostly in wma format.
Sound Quality
Demo Miracle vs Custom Miracle
UM Miracle demo
UM Miracle demo
As some may know, I own a fully custom UM Miracle – a (spectacular) gift from the Head-Fi community that has been my sound quality benchmark for the past six months. My full review of the custom Miracle can be found towards the bottom of the first page of this thread. Looking at the custom Miracle and demo Miracle side by side, it is pretty clear that there should be sonic differences between them – the size and shape of the shells varies significantly between the two. All of the Miracle’s armatures are of the self-contained, non-vented variety but there is still a disparity in driver placement and sound tube lengths between two units, not to mention the inevitable differences in fit. This may explain why, try as I might, I simply couldn’t get the demo Miracle to sound like the real thing - originally designed as a full-shell custom monitor, the Miracle sounds significantly poorer to me as a universal.
With the best fit I was able to achieve with the demo Miracle, the biggest balance difference was at the low end. My custom Miracle has deep, plentiful bass that is both powerful and very controlled. The demo lacks some of the sub-bass presence of the real Miracle, offering instead slightly greater mid-bass presence and gentle roll-off at the very bottom. It sounds warmer than the real thing as a result and offers less crispness and articulation. Clarity is a bit poorer across the range and the overall performance isn’t quite as impressive as that of the custom Miracle. The mids of the demo are less detailed, clean, and engaging – not hugely so but enough to make me pick the real thing over the demo every time. The demo even requires a bit more volume to be enjoyable. The top end is more prominent on the custom Miracle, with better definition and cleaner presentation of cymbal crashes. The demo Miracle ends up being slightly darker in tone as well, though it is still brighter than the Merlin unit.
It is the differences in presentation, however, that kill the demo Miracle for me - here the test unit is not even in the same league as the custom-shelled IEM. Whereas the ‘real’ Miracle is easily the most engrossing and dimensional earphone I’ve heard, the presentation of the demo is very reminiscent of a number of high-end universals. The soundstage is not as large as that of the full-shell custom and lacks the fantastic on-center feel. I find the presentation of my Miracle to be incredibly enveloping without overstepping any bounds but the demo doesn’t offer anything above high-end universals such as the Westone 4 in imaging, separation, or positioning. It doesn’t necessarily seem small or confined but ends up sounding much ‘flatter’ and less convincing. Truth be told, the slightly laid-back - especially in the midrange - sound of the Miracle simply doesn’t work without the coherent imaging of the full custom, and the whole experience suffers greatly as a result.
Demo Merlin
UM Merlin demo
UM Merlin demo
My disappointment in the Miracle demo makes evaluating impressions of the demo Merlin quite difficult. To rule out the double variables of custom fit and different driver configuration, I mostly compared the Merlin to the demo Miracle and not the full custom. It is entirely possible that the demo Merlin is closer to the real thing than is the Miracle; the opposite can be true as well.
For one, the Merlin seems to require more power than the Miracle. The difference is not huge but it is noticeable – even the demo Miracle is easier to listen to at low volumes with a player such as my Sansa Clip. The bass roll-off is accentuated with the clip and less noticeable with the Cowon J3 or when a mini3 is added into the mix. Flat sub-bass or not, it’s difficult to call the Merlin anything but bassy – it would really make a great earphone for those whose musical enjoyment hinges on feeling the bass. The Miracle is by no means bass-light for my taste but the Merlin is on a different level. The significantly greater mid-bass quantity carries with it greater sub-bass presence as well. The Merlin is not quite as linear as the full-custom Miracle – quite possibly a limitation of the demo – but there is still more than enough deep, thumping low-end grunt to go around. In addition to greater bass quantity, the Merlin boasts all of the usual dynamic-driver characteristics – it is softer of note, fuller, and more liquid-sounding than the Miracle. There is a reverberant character to the bass, likely the fault of longer attack/decay times, and even a bit of boominess on occasion – not at all surprising considering the overall weight of the low end. The detail requires a few extra notches of volume to bring out and even then the Miracle remains a touch more crisp in typical armature fashion. All in all the Merlin really showcases bass designed to please those who find balanced armatures to sound unnatural at the low end, not beat the Miracle in texture and detail.
The midrange of the Merlin is perhaps even more laid-back than that of the Miracle. Due to the heavier bass presence it sounds a touch recessed and a bit thinner than that of the demo Miracle. The Miracle is also a bit brighter, or, rather, more neutral due to differences in overall balance and tends to beat the Merlin in overall crispness by a small margin. Not a large difference overall and one that becomes even smaller into the treble. Aside from the balance of the Merlin being skewed in favor of the low end, I really can’t tell the top ends of two demos apart – a plus, assuming it will translate into full custom form. Presentation-wise, the demo Merlin may even get ahead of the demo Miracle at times - the soundstage is a bit more wide and airy and differentiates itself better from reasonably spacious universals such as the Sennheiser IE7. It’s still not as enveloping and immersive as the full custom Miracle but is more tolerable than the demo Miracle. Then again, if a more separated and spread-out left-right soundstage is desirable in place of the singular, coherent sonic image of a full custom, I just don’t see the Merlin beating an open universal such as the MDR-EX1000.
Conclusion
Left->Right: UM Miracle, UM Miracle demo, UM Merlin Demo
My experiences with the UM’s Miracle and Merlin demo units are a mixed bag. There are many variables but the one thing I am certain of is that with the fit I was able to get, the Miracle demo is not doing the real thing justice. It provides a reasonable approximation of the custom’s sound signature, which is not all that surprising since response is easiest to test for, but the absolute quality and refinement of the full-shell Miracle just isn’t there. By far the largest difference is in the presentation, which is much more ‘universal’ on the demo. It is akin to comparing an Etymotic HF5, which tends to sound wide and well-separated but a tad flat and not very involving, to a universal with good 3-D imaging, such as the CK10 or W4.
Other things learned in the process:
-Quite a few of the top universals I’ve heard are competitive with these demo units in many ways, which may be the reason why most customs manufacturers do not sell universal versions of their earphones – those would simply have to be priced much lower to be compete in sound quality with existing universals.
-Cramming five or six drivers into a shell is absolutely not indicative of overall sound quality and that there is more to a high-end custom than number and type of drivers.
Despite my tangential takeaway, the whole purpose of this audition was to audition the new UM Merlin – a hybrid custom with a single dynamic bass driver and 2+2 armatures used for the mids and highs. Assuming the relationship between the sound of the demo Merlin and the custom one is similar to that between the two Miracle units, I would expect the full-shell Merlin to deliver exactly what it promises – tons of deep and powerful dynamic-driver bass laid over the sound signature of an armature-based custom. Though there is still an emphasis difference between the midrange and low end of the Merlin, the crossover is clearly less flawed than that of UE’s old hybrid - the hideous SF5EB - and the powerful low end integrates reasonably well into the overall sound.
A final disclaimer - demo units could potentially fit some people better than others and may or may not be a better approximation of how the custom IEM will sound than they were for me. It is therefore doubly important for reviewers to state that they’ve only tried a demo or someone else’s mold when commenting on customs as the gap in performance is there and can be a relatively wide one. In addition, while the well-known adage of ‘try it for yourself’ still holds, the value of reviews might be higher for custom monitors than I expected since demo units can leave key elements out of the equation. I can honestly say that if I had heard only the demo, I’d probably have walked away from the Miracle content with my stable of universals.
Bonus photo for those who remember how this thread got started:
Quote:
Anyone knows what the (if there is any)difference is between the Ultimate Ears 400 and Ultimate Ears 500? The UE 500 is not on the European site while the UE 400 is not on the North America site, are the IEM just the same headset only with a different name? Because they also look exactly the same.
Also thanks for this incredible thread, the last couple years I have been spoiled by the 595 so I'm searching now for a higher end iem. I'm now doubting between the DTX 71(€66), UE 400vi(€64) and DTX 101(€82) any advice? Another question is it so the higher end IEM use better cables, because I bicycle with the IEM I keep breaking them within a year at the plug(eg no sound in of the ears) even though I am careful with it I already broke several Sennheiser CX's
I would guess the UE400 and UE500 are the same. Those are some very high quoted prices. The UE500/UE400 (presumably the same thing) sounds very different from the Beyer sets - not as warm or bassy but brighter, thinner, and more distant. They are good earphones but the signature is not for everyone. As for cables, some do and some don't. How the cable are attached matters just as much as the strength of the actual cables. I would put more stock in Beyer's build quality than UE's, personally. The DTX101 may not look it but it is a very solid product.
