Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-Custom In-Ear Monitor Review, Resource, Mfg List & Discussion (Check first post for review links & information)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Multi-Custom In-Ear Monitor Review, Resource, Mfg List & Discussion (Check first post for review... - Page 304

post #4546 of 4554
Quote:
Originally Posted by jelt2359 View Post
 

Thanks for this. Been kicking myself for missing the UERM drop, and since I know you liked the NT-6 and hear them quite similarly to me, this is good context.

No prob, I'm open to giving my impressions on CIEMs to provide some perspective for others here.  I find they are not really similar sounding than what people have said and what I have expected.  I didn't have an idea that a CIEM can be tuned to sound more realistic.  The NT-6 has finer treble for sure which creates better resolution.  You can notice detailing with it because of it's treble and clarity.  

 

I'm listening to Eric Clapton unplugged, and didn't know a CIEM can create an air like feel to the sound of the bass string being picked.  Truely is something. I can only describe it as slight thump air feel to my ear. That's what I mean by realism.  With some tracks I get this slight thump with the NT-6.  This of course requires a certain source to push it to this performance. Definitely have better perspective on it's bass performance. I don't think I have taken notice of this until I compared with UERM.  

 

Comparing both, I can't think of a better word than NT-6 is more "realistic" sounding.  


Edited by SilverEars - 1/29/15 at 7:34pm
post #4547 of 4554

Would have to add, I didn't notice separation until this comparison.  The separation of the sound also contribute to the realism of the environment sound of live stage performance such as the Unplugged album I'm listening to.  Sounds have a dimentionality to them, and different sounds separated out because of this reason.  I believe this is also the reason for people say NT-6 has clarity, you can distinguish the sounds better with it.


Edited by SilverEars - 1/29/15 at 7:23pm
post #4548 of 4554
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post  I got my UERM.  So far, not too impressed yet.  Perhaps similar sounding to my NT-6 as some have said, but there are differences.  I don't find it to be more resolving than the NT-6.  The treble is sharper, and more sparkly than the NT-6. So NT-6 not really a bright CIEM than I thought. Recessed vocals compared to the NT-6.  Since it's dryer sounding, sibilance has texture than smoother on the NT-6. NT-6 has more clarity, now see why people referred to NT-6 being clear sounding. NT-6's clarity shows off with it's finer treble.  I find lower mids less defined with the UERM, and it's treble is what emphasizes definition.  It has more monitor like characteristics than the NT-6.  NT-6 is more musical sounding, and sound seems to have more dimension to them and creates more realism. Of the two NT-6 sounds more realistic of live performances as it has more realistic environmental sound(sound stage?).  UERM is more flat sounding. This is just initially impressions, things can change as I get used to the sound more. Overall, NT-6 is more resolving and is more realistic sounding without coloring like the NT-6.  Just interesting to get a perspective on the performance of the NT-6 after getting the UERM.  NT-6 is my preferred tune for sure.

 

I don't think there's really a debate of which earphone is technically superior?

 

Most people will say the NT6 is more resolving and transparent across the midrange, including me, but I don't feel the need to get one because to me, it's too bright. Granted, I listened to a demo unit, but I definitely got it to a very deep depth and managed to pull treble resonance was beyond 9k. There was just too much lingering air for me that it was almost distracting. STAX sometimes have the same feel, but not the same way. It also had the characteristic 6k treble ringing of the WBFK that I dislike (but it's known to be way less apparent in full customs for all CIEMs with WBFK tweeters). The midrange was very transparent though, ER4-esque.

 

When I demoed the NT6, I wanted to like it, a lot. But I didn't see a need to invest in it, between the UERM and the Music Two (which actually is measurably similar to the NT6, except with a bit more bass and less upper treble. It's also not nearly as refined and more distorting overall, but the midrange response is remarkably similar).

 

The UERM is based off the sound signature of the Yamaha NS10, just with a little more linearity. I don't think people at UE anticipated people to actually like the UERM's signature. The fact that the UERM gained popularity with head-fiers was a completely accident for UE. I find that making sure the fit is very sealed (all excess air is evacuated, and the helix is locked securely) will allow the UERM to sound its best. But my guess is that it should be the same case with the NT6. The UERM is actually slightly too bright at times as well, and that's why I characterize it as a U-shaped response. There's a bit of mid-bass and high-treble lift.

 

Nothing much excites me these days, even when they're good. I was turned on my the Rhines Stage 5 for a while, and then my interest waned. It was too traditionally U-shaped. I actually keep going back to the MH334, which is a bass-lifted, mid-forward, smooth treble earphone, but it has a lasting sound that's easy to listen to at all volumes.

post #4549 of 4554
I always go back to SE5. If the Ultimate has more air it will be perfect to me.
post #4550 of 4554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post

I always go back to SE5. If the Ultimate has more air it will be perfect to me.

that's what I am thinking.

post #4551 of 4554
post #4552 of 4554

Things are getting ridiculous. Seriously, it is becoming out of control.

post #4553 of 4554

1964ears ADEL A12 first impressions should be on the way, soon, considering that some of the kickstarter orders are due for dispatch very soon.

 

Looking forward to hearing if this relatively novel approach will bring dividends to audiophile sound quality, or if it will only be noticeably relevant for high SPL musician/stage usage :popcorn:

post #4554 of 4554
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

 

I don't think there's really a debate of which earphone is technically superior?

 

Most people will say the NT6 is more resolving and transparent across the midrange, including me, but I don't feel the need to get one because to me, it's too bright. Granted, I listened to a demo unit, but I definitely got it to a very deep depth and managed to pull treble resonance was beyond 9k. There was just too much lingering air for me that it was almost distracting. STAX sometimes have the same feel, but not the same way. It also had the characteristic 6k treble ringing of the WBFK that I dislike (but it's known to be way less apparent in full customs for all CIEMs with WBFK tweeters). The midrange was very transparent though, ER4-esque.

 

When I demoed the NT6, I wanted to like it, a lot. But I didn't see a need to invest in it, between the UERM and the Music Two (which actually is measurably similar to the NT6, except with a bit more bass and less upper treble. It's also not nearly as refined and more distorting overall, but the midrange response is remarkably similar).

 

The UERM is based off the sound signature of the Yamaha NS10, just with a little more linearity. I don't think people at UE anticipated people to actually like the UERM's signature. The fact that the UERM gained popularity with head-fiers was a completely accident for UE. I find that making sure the fit is very sealed (all excess air is evacuated, and the helix is locked securely) will allow the UERM to sound its best. But my guess is that it should be the same case with the NT6. The UERM is actually slightly too bright at times as well, and that's why I characterize it as a U-shaped response. There's a bit of mid-bass and high-treble lift.

 

Nothing much excites me these days, even when they're good. I was turned on my the Rhines Stage 5 for a while, and then my interest waned. It was too traditionally U-shaped. I actually keep going back to the MH334, which is a bass-lifted, mid-forward, smooth treble earphone, but it has a lasting sound that's easy to listen to at all volumes.

In comparison to the UERM, I didn't find the NT6 as bright.  That's based on hearing UERM then switching over to the NT6 so the contrast is easily noticible.  I can see why you would say the UERM would have a U-shaped response, but I find it to have half of U shaped with the high frequencies lifted. Hence I think it's brighter, and it's a bit forward in that treble area, with the mids(I should have said mids instead of lower mids), right after the treble being dipped a bit which makes the vocal uneven in definition for some tracks depending on what frequencies are emphasized.  It's definately not like ER4 when it comes to bass, it has sufficient bass quantity, and it gets boomy for recordings that pushes it and tighter than my V3 which has pretty distorted bass, but still not up there with the NT6.  NT6 pushes out more bass when the track pushes it out, and like I said it will put out a bit of nuances like a bit of air when the track has it.  So I find it a bit forward and uneven from the highs to the mids with less bass than the NT6.  

 

As far as fit.  The UE fit is similar to the 1964 V3 I have.  Hidition fit is something else.  Once you put it on, it on there very tight and adheres with a bit of pressure.  They ask for closed mouth impressions.  I think by doing this and creating such a tight fit, they are opening themselves up for higher chances of re-fits, but I do like how it fits and perhaps it has it's purposes.

 

To me the comparison of UERM to NT6 is like comparing DX90 to one of the newer AK DAP(IIs).  The treble is slightly thicker, and a bit forward at the treble, but the NT6 has thinner treble which still the brightness can be noticible if it's the only CIEM listened to, but if switching over to UERM and back, the UERM is noticibly brighter and forward.  UERM is still a fantastic CIEM, and it's a top contender at it's price range. Since NT6 is capable of outputting thin treble, I find that it's a good reference monitor to know if the source outputs good resolution.  

 

Just so that people are aware.  The newer version of NT6, the V2 doesn't have the 10k peak, and the similar bass lift like the pro.  They've recently changed the tune.


Edited by SilverEars - 1/30/15 at 5:10pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-Custom In-Ear Monitor Review, Resource, Mfg List & Discussion (Check first post for review links & information)