Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Ultimate Ears UE 900 Discussion and Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ultimate Ears UE 900 Discussion and Appreciation Thread - Page 58

post #856 of 1960
10/22/12 at 3:36pm
Quote:
The thing is Inks, nothing against you, but you are fighting a useless fight right now.  We have 2 subjective findings that agree with Tyll's graphs, and 0 for Rin's.  If two theories are stated, and one is closer to the truth (I'm not saying either is 100% accurate; but one will be more accurate than the other).  The second theory gets tested and returns negative results.  The first theory gets tested to show positive (possible results).  As an objectivist, which theory do you go by for the time being?

I didn't exaggerate the 10 dB drop on Rin's graph.  it's there, grab a ruler and measure it.  It's closer to 9 (after careful observation), sorry originally estimated it by eyesight (I did a quick visual estimate; reason why I estimated to the nearest 5).  Tyll's remains around 5 dB in the raw. 

What you stated about the sub-bass response (and even treble is plausible, I'll by it).  The resistence Rin used were filters right (like the red one he stated that attenuates the hgihs and lows a bit)?  It wouldn't explain the midrange drop (5 dB difference between Tyll and Rin @ 1 kHz).  As well as the midbass hump that Rin shows. 

We'll wait for more impressions to come in, but we have 2 users who find Tyll's graph more representative of what they hear in contrast to Rin's. 

I still want to ask you Inks, can you confirm Rin's findings in the subjective realm?  EG, do you own/have heard the UE 900?

EDIT: BTW, my main gripe with Rin's graph is the 500 Hz - 2.5 kHz region.  I feel that that area is exaggerated more than it actually is on the graph.  Tyll's matches up with my subjective findings on many more levels.  I can care less about the 1 dB deviation in bass from Tyll's graph to Rin's.  They are both concave down and begin dropping approximately at the same area.  Both graphs show the same general shape of the signature, but Rin's graph shows the drop in the mids a little more extreme than described.

Hardly , Rip just mentions bass, 2 biased samples hardly prove anything, . The biggest drop in Rins raw is at 5.5k, 5db at most.and I'm talking about source resistance, Tylls amp will make that drop more gradual from 2.5k and less bass overall.
Edited by Inks - 10/22/12 at 3:44pm
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #857 of 1960
10/22/12 at 4:43pm
The main drop is in the 1k (5 dB). Please listen to the headphones before you speak things as fact. I honestly don't know why I'm talking to someone talking about a headphone they have yet to hear. How do you know for a fact what's right if you haven't heard it.

Our statements are more informed and backed over yours (we have subjective evidence to back a graph). Biased or not (which it isn't, you assume it is because if doesn't stand behind what you feel about a pair of earphones you haven't heard), it's better than nothing (which is what you are bringing into the equation).
Reply
post #858 of 1960
10/22/12 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

The main drop is in the 1k (5 dB). Please listen to the headphones before you speak things as fact. I honestly don't know why I'm talking to someone talking about a headphone they have yet to hear. How do you know for a fact what's right if you haven't heard it.
Our statements are more informed and backed over yours (we have subjective evidence to back a graph). Biased or not (which it isn't, you assume it is because if doesn't stand behind what you feel about a pair of earphones you haven't heard), it's better than nothing (which is what you are bringing into the equation).


There's an ignore button for a reason tinyman ;).

Reply
post #859 of 1960
10/22/12 at 7:21pm
The issue was more of the credibility of the graph rather than how you and certain users perceive this IEM, my hearing of it wouldn't change the points I made. Tylls graphs being different are likely due to his amp and IMO, the differences aren't huge and the flaws are still there in Tylls graphs.Tyll also didn't consider the changes that second pinhole on thr bore can have, which Rin plans on discussing for part 3 of his analysis. It's all in the details, there are things to consider before drawing conclusions.
Reply
post #860 of 1960
10/22/12 at 7:47pm
@tinyman How can you use subjective impressions to validate measurements when subjective impressions differ wildly between individuals and even between the same person on different listening sessions? Objective measurements can only be validated by objective fact finding of the existence or lack of confounding factors in the measurement, such as a bad seal, different plug depth, amp output impedance, etc. Going about it any other way and you'd end up concluding that the Earth is flat because you can't see the curvature where you stand.

That said, the main reason you disagree with Rin's measurements is probably that you are used to reading Tyll's graphs and trying to correlate your listening impressions with those. Rin's measurements turn out differently but if you look at the UE900 vs other phones he measured you'd probably see the same relative trends between them as you would with Tyll's graphs. They may not correlate with your relative impressions though because something as simple as tip selection, fit and plug depth changes the sonic differences between IEMs completely.
Reply
post #861 of 1960
10/22/12 at 7:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

People have said that about the UE 900 on here as well (I'm not one of them, I don't own the UERM).  That's why I'm really questioning the graph that Inks gave.  It contradicts just about every single subjective testimony given thus far.  Graph can be found below (cropped from full image).  Grey is raw, color is compensated (don't know what compensation he uses).

 

 

The graph is not my own (even though I uploaded it).  I cropped it out of the many graphs that were merged into one single JPEG.  That said, the graph (along with other measurements) can be found here: http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/10/ultimate-ears-ue900-general-analysis.html

 

With that said, I don't trust the graph at all, it matches very little to what I'm hearing.  2k upwards looks right on the raw, but everything before that looks off.  With that said, I'm waiting for another measurement, or an explanation on how this graph can be interpreted to sound warm above neutral (in comparison to the UERM).

 

I also saw this statement on Rin's site about his own measuring techniques when he chews out everyone else's.  He says that their techniques are bad, but never gives an empirical contrast to his own (something he really needs to do).  In this article he makes this statement:

 

They are in tiny letters and underlined so it's harder to see.  The statement can be found here: http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/03/personal-concerns-regarding-other.html

I can't speak to the ue900 but the GR10 I sent Rin sounds a lot like they measured so I doubt it a setup issue. That set were the least top extended pair I've come across and the bass to mid balance was very much as measured. I also feel a somewhat descending top sounds more natural than flat out or peaky one on IEMs but that's a personal view. While other love them and I understand why, TWFKs haven't been my cup of tea. Don't know if that's what's used here but it sure looks like one or at least a derivative.

Reply
post #862 of 1960
10/22/12 at 7:58pm
Further to my last post, the non repeatability of human impressions presents a nasty dilemma for IEM measurements: no set of measurements will ever faithfully represent what different human reviewers hear are the sonic signature of the IEMs being measured, or even their relative differences. But that's because human impressions are so variable and non-repeatable. The irony is that this even has a detrimental effect on the repeatability of IEM measurements, as no two measurers can agree on the same measurement apparatus and compensation curves to capture the moving target of human hearing. If human hearing were repeatable we would long since have settled on one standard way of measuring and compensating IEMs. As it is the best we can do is take one measurer's measurements and compare between them. And sometimes we can't even do that as the same measurer changes his equipment and changes his mind on how to measure and compensate halfway through...
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 10/22/12 at 8:01pm
Reply
post #863 of 1960
10/22/12 at 8:02pm

@ Tinyman392: I think I need to explain something here. Don't worry, I won't be like Mitt Romney trying to explain his 47% remark biggrin.gif

 

 

 

 

My data superimposed on top of Tylls. With a simple pinhole clogging, you can change the bass response by a great degree. And since Tyll and some of the users auditioned earlier models, I suspect there has been a modification with the size of the pinhole at the manufacturer's end when they finally rolled the retail version out, in order to make the IEM slightly more bassy. Even if you don't feel it, it does not mean it's not there! (NO, I WONT SAY YOUR BODILY FLUID GOT INTO THAT PINHOLE LOL)

 

And let us not forget my IEC-60711 measurement technique not only match Etymotic Research's data and Phonak's data, but also that of Tyll. 

 

Be prepared for the part3, cause it gets even more funky!


Edited by udauda - 10/22/12 at 8:08pm
Reply
post #864 of 1960
10/22/12 at 8:20pm
Hi Rin! Really like your blog. Posted this comment on this post
http://rinchoi.blogspot.hk/2012/09/the-effect-of-ear-sleeves-yet-another.html?m=1
What are the real world implications of using all these different tips, particularly small vs large bore tips as they would likely end up at different insertion depths? And what do you think about using EQ to correct ear canal and sound tube resonance problems?

What do you think?

Sorry for the brevity, I'm on a phone right now
Reply
post #865 of 1960
10/22/12 at 9:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

@tinyman How can you use subjective impressions to validate measurements when subjective impressions differ wildly between individuals and even between the same person on different listening sessions? Objective measurements can only be validated by objective fact finding of the existence or lack of confounding factors in the measurement, such as a bad seal, different plug depth, amp output impedance, etc. Going about it any other way and you'd end up concluding that the Earth is flat because you can't see the curvature where you stand.
That said, the main reason you disagree with Rin's measurements is probably that you are used to reading Tyll's graphs and trying to correlate your listening impressions with those. Rin's measurements turn out differently but if you look at the UE900 vs other phones he measured you'd probably see the same relative trends between them as you would with Tyll's graphs. They may not correlate with your relative impressions though because something as simple as tip selection, fit and plug depth changes the sonic differences between IEMs completely.

 

I do want to see if anyone hears the UE900 similar to Rin's measurements right now, so I'm waiting for people to speak up (more data, the better).  I, in the past, have been able to agree to a couple of Rin's compensated findings (my IEM collection doesn't match up too well with what Rin's measured).  

 

I hear them a lot like Tyll's simply because I don't hear that 9 dB dip in the 1k region.  Even further, I hear the spike in the 2.5-2.7 kHz region higher than Rin measured it.  I will agree there is a bump in the 500 Hz region (both graphs actually show this).  As stated earlier, I'm not worried about the bass or treble on Rin's graphs, they look accurate enough for me.  

 

Comparing to Rin's TF10, the depth of the V in the UE 900 is deeper than that on the TF10; something is wildly off as just about every subjective finding has said otherwise (I can't make this comparison myself).  Remember, I'm reading the raws, not the compensated stuff.

 

When measurements don't match up to what people can hear themselves, it raises questions to the validity of the given measurements.  This is why I opted to wait for another raw graph and compare it.  Tyll's graphs were posted by Inks, which were much closer to what I heard compared to Rin's (specifically the midrange).  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

I can't speak to the ue900 but the GR10 I sent Rin sounds a lot like they measured so I doubt it a setup issue. That set were the least top extended pair I've come across and the bass to mid balance was very much as measured. I also feel a somewhat descending top sounds more natural than flat out or peaky one on IEMs but that's a personal view. While other love them and I understand why, TWFKs haven't been my cup of tea. Don't know if that's what's used here but it sure looks like one or at least a derivative.

 

Many of Rin's raws, I agree with.  The Phonak PFE 022 (greys) is a prime example of this.  It's almost of a direct carbon copy of what I hear.  

 

The setup definitely isn't the problem.  I'm sure Rin measured the 900s multiple times and got similar results.  I think the problem lies in the software used to measure, more specifically, the software in combination with the UE 900 together causing some sort of error.  


Edited by tinyman392 - 10/22/12 at 9:09pm
Reply
post #866 of 1960
10/22/12 at 9:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by udauda View Post

@ Tinyman392: I think I need to explain something here. Don't worry, I won't be like Mitt Romney trying to explain his 47% remark biggrin.gif

 

 

 

 

My data superimposed on top of Tylls. With a simple pinhole clogging, you can change the bass response by a great degree. And since Tyll and some of the users auditioned earlier models, I suspect there has been a modification with the size of the pinhole at the manufacturer's end when they finally rolled the retail version out, in order to make the IEM slightly more bassy. Even if you don't feel it, it does not mean it's not there! (NO, I WONT SAY YOUR BODILY FLUID GOT INTO THAT PINHOLE LOL)

 

And let us not forget my IEC-60711 measurement technique not only match Etymotic Research's data and Phonak's data, but also that of Tyll. 

 

Be prepared for the part3, cause it gets even more funky!

 

OK, this explains a lot of it.  Thanks.  

Reply
post #867 of 1960
10/23/12 at 12:31am

Rin's raw data doesn't seem too far off from what I heard. That overall bump at 500 is a bit large compared to what I was hearing, perhaps by 3 dB or so, the rest seems to fall similarly in line, differing by 1-2 dB at most in other places.

 

I'm curious how the pinhole design affects the sensation of bass. My guess is that while the coupler/microphone will still detect high SPLs, the sensation of impact on the eardrum is significantly diminished because of diminished airflow through that little tiny pinhole impacting the cross-sectional area of the tympanum. Just a wild guess, but penny for your thoughts?

 

EDIT 2: That low-pass looks like a Chebyshev response... any thoughts?


Edited by tomscy2000 - 10/23/12 at 1:52am
Reply
post #868 of 1960
10/23/12 at 8:24am

I picked up a set yesterday since I was in a city that had an aple strore. I dont understand graphs but can tell you sound fantastic. I had a set of customs made from some tf10s a few years back but I only listened to the tf10s for a few hours before they were in the mail to be customized. So I cannot comment on the improvements.

 

Like I said however, they sound great. I have no problem getting a seal with them. I prefer the comply tips but ruined the medium size set pushing them down to far on the 900 stem. Im using the medium sized silicon tips and they still sound good to me.

 

Im not a big fan of the cables but I dont think I will return them over it. Hopefully someone will be able to make a custom cable down the road. Also, Im not planing on having customs being made with them now, but the option is always there.

Reply
post #869 of 1960
10/23/12 at 9:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by schwallman View Post

I picked up a set yesterday since I was in a city that had an aple strore. I dont understand graphs but can tell you sound fantastic. I had a set of customs made from some tf10s a few years back but I only listened to the tf10s for a few hours before they were in the mail to be customized. So I cannot comment on the improvements.

 

Like I said however, they sound great. I have no problem getting a seal with them. I prefer the comply tips but ruined the medium size set pushing them down to far on the 900 stem. Im using the medium sized silicon tips and they still sound good to me.

 

Im not a big fan of the cables but I dont think I will return them over it. Hopefully someone will be able to make a custom cable down the road. Also, Im not planing on having customs being made with them now, but the option is always there.

I have Beat Audio Silver sonic MKIII cable for my Shure SE535LTDs. I tried them on the UE900 and they work fine.

Reply
post #870 of 1960
10/23/12 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRCMRGN View Post

I have Beat Audio Silver sonic MKIII cable for my Shure SE535LTDs. I tried them on the UE900 and they work fine.

Thanks. Sounds interisting. I will have to look into it. I just think  the stock feels pretty cheap. I like a little more weight to it.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Ultimate Ears UE 900 Discussion and Appreciation Thread