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

Ultimate Ears UE 900 Discussion and Impressions Thread - Page 79

post #1171 of 3711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrazino View Post

I don't think there's another IEM with similar bass like PFE 232.

 

The UE900 are aggressive, but the Heir sound harsher. The UE900 play directly into your face, but their upper mids/highs are so well done that it never sounds lacking or harsh. This is where they outperform the 4.Ai, IMO... and also flatter bass, so actually all-around more cohesive (YMMV). No idea where you get the v-shape from because if anything, most people are claiming the Logitech is warm.

Bass quantity will become noticeably less.

 

For your preference, I think you should consider an EQ. I also know somebody who loves his PFE but he uses the FiiO E17 with -2 dB on both ends. Not a dramatic change, but I agree that it sounds better that way.

I got the V-shape thing from a review a think.  With that in my head, I did feel that the mids were less up front than on the 4.Ai.  I'd be fine with the UE900 as long as the bass was as it is now, or a tad more.  I'd probably prefer boosting the bass a bit on the UE's than cut frequencies on the high and low end of the Phonaks.  I would have no problem EQing in theory, but I use a 7th gen iPod classic right now, and I don't see myself upgrading soon.  I wouldn't be opposed to something like Rockbox, but the version for 7th gen iPod isn't far enough along for my taste.  I bought an E11, but the noise floor on it kind of sucks.  Does anyone have any other ideas to help bring up the bass a bit.  Another cheap-ish portable amp with EQ or bass boost?  The ZO?

post #1172 of 3711
*Edit* I would give longer impressions but I'm driving from Monteray Bay to San Francisco :P

Mine blocked within a week or so (20 hours give or take). The interesting thing to note is that if you let them block naturally the decrease in lower frequencies al be more gradual, but it is VERY noticeable. The sound cleans up immensely and the bass is wonderfully punchy, a big improvement over the out-of-box sound.

If you want to block them artificially, a tiny piece of wax would do the trick. That's what swimsonny did. You don't need to fill the whole tube, just block the opening.

For me, the new sound is almost perfect, and after I EQ the upper midrange up a notch, these become my favorite IEMs out of the 400ish dollar category.

Before the bore blocked I couldn't really see myself keeping these because of the midbass plus the veiled upper midrange made vocals lackluster. Now that the bass response is as linear as it is, I think these will be with me for very long time.

HOWEVER one thing that I AM disappointed with is that I will NOT be able to reshell these into customs due to the fact that the minibore would probably not be present in the reshell, which would basically revert the IEM back to it's out-of-box sound, which I did not terribly like.

All in all I am very happy with the UE900. It retains the wide (really wide) and deep soundstage that the TF10 had. If I had a checklist of things I would do to the TF10 to improve it, the UE900 would fill most of the boxes, namely much more prominent mids and slightly less treble presence to reduce the sibilance on poorly recorded tracks while keeping punchy bass (though slightly less impact but better texture).
Edited by Peculier - 12/11/12 at 4:48pm
post #1173 of 3711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peculier View Post

*Edit* I would give longer impressions but I'm driving from Monteray Bay to San Francisco :P
Mine blocked within a week or so (20 hours give or take). The interesting thing to note is that if you let them block naturally the decrease in lower frequencies al be more gradual, but it is VERY noticeable. The sound cleans up immensely and the bass is wonderfully punchy, a big improvement over the out-of-box sound.
If you want to block them artificially, a tiny piece of wax would do the trick. That's what swimsonny did. You don't need to fill the whole tube, just block the opening.
For me, the new sound is almost perfect, and after I EQ the upper midrange up a notch, these become my favorite IEMs out of the 400ish dollar category.
Before the bore blocked I couldn't really see myself keeping these because of the midbass plus the veiled upper midrange made vocals lackluster. Now that the bass response is as linear as it is, I think these will be with me for very long time.
HOWEVER one thing that I AM disappointed with is that I will NOT be able to reshell these into customs due to the fact that the minibore would probably not be present in the reshell, which would basically revert the IEM back to it's out-of-box sound, which I did not terribly like.
All in all I am very happy with the UE900. It retains the wide (really wide) and deep soundstage that the TF10 had. If I had a checklist of things I would do to the TF10 to improve it, the UE900 would fill most of the boxes, namely much more prominent mids and slightly less treble presence to reduce the sibilance on poorly recorded tracks while keeping punchy bass (though slightly less impact but better texture).

 

The effects of the block were apparent by the first week (the first time through).  The second time through, it was 100% gradual, and I heard it as it was going (I started hearing change on the 3rd day).  Full effect didn't finish for me until about 2 weeks in though (midrange fully came in). 

 

Due to sheer preference (not technicality), these are my current go-to IEMs. 

post #1174 of 3711
I don't suppose the upper midrange gets boosted somehow by the minibore being filled does it?

Also I just wish iPod classics had proper EQ capability.

Tinyman, the upper midrange doesn't bother you? I found it most noticeable when listening to female vocals or higher pitch male singers like Mika. Female vocals were not as distinguishable, very present but not as detailed and articulate as I would have liked.
post #1175 of 3711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peculier View Post

I don't suppose the upper midrange gets boosted somehow by the minibore being filled does it?
Also I just wish iPod classics had proper EQ capability.
Tinyman, the upper midrange doesn't bother you? I found it most noticeable when listening to female vocals or higher pitch male singers like Mika. Female vocals were not as distinguishable, very present but not as detailed and articulate as I would have liked.

 

SORRY FOR THE COUNTLESS EDITS I'VE DONE TO THIS POST...

 

No, it's a perceived increase.  The bass causes a perceived increase in clarity in the midrange as well as detailing and retrieval.  Only the bass is affected (not the midrange).  A decrease in one area can also be perceived in some instances as an increase in the rest.  EG, if you decrease the mids, you get a perceived increase in bass and treble (or a perceived decrease in mids).  Since our ears are naturally more sensitive to the midrange, we'll hear changes in those more apparently (even in contrast if something else changed).

 

Regarding upper-midrange.  This is what is called a resonance spike.  I strongly believe any good IEM should have one of these (see note below).  It allows clarity to come out fully in the upper midrange as well as vocals shining stronger.  The main problem is that the mids don't reach up into the higher 4k region as well so female vocals don't have as much lift as they should (I hear this as well and did mention it in my review). At this point with the UE 900, it does amplely well for most vocals though.

 

EDIT: Note

__________________________

 

Note: our ear canal naturally resonate certain frequencies in the upper-midrange and lower-treble by a certain degree.  Reproduction of this resonance is really a must be reproduced by an IEM since it bypasses the parts of the ear canal that resonate these areas.  I believe (I may be off) that Etymotic Research was the first to document this scientifically.  Phonak has also used this in their PFE1xx series (grey filters) as well as many other companies (Ultimate Ears, Westone, Jerry Harvey Audio, ACS Customs...) 

 

EDIT 2: RE: Upper midrange again

 

I think the actual problem isn't the upper midrange (although there is a slight problem, it does fine with each artist/singer I've tested).  The problem actually, IMO, exists in the midrange (smack center).  The vocals lack a sense of body, lushness as I call it.  This is most likely due to the dip in the 1 k region (if you want to get into objective observations).  This will affect male vocals to not be as strong as they should be and can create improper timbre from a few (I hear it as well).  Some emotion may not be well brought out either (sadness is normally portrayed using this region of the vocals). 


Edited by tinyman392 - 12/11/12 at 5:31pm
post #1176 of 3711
Yeah a lack of "lift" is exactly how I would describe it. Well, I guess i have to stick with EQ for the time being. I'm looking into getting an aftermarket cable since I'm not a fan of memory wire. Perhaps it may somehow elevate the sound somehow? Probably not.
post #1177 of 3711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peculier View Post

Yeah a lack of "lift" is exactly how I would describe it. Well, I guess i have to stick with EQ for the time being. I'm looking into getting an aftermarket cable since I'm not a fan of memory wire. Perhaps it may somehow elevate the sound somehow? Probably not.

 

Theoretically speaking, the cable could do it, but it may not be as likely.  I've adjusted to memory wires, all cables have them now :p  I don't mind the soft ones the UE 900 uses :p

post #1178 of 3711
I actually prefer the UE900 cable to the Westone cable.. The Westone one feels too hard. I don't see why memory wire is necessary since a decent cable when worn over the ear will just hang nicely from the ear. Is there some hidden usefulness to memory wire that I'm not experiencing? :S
post #1179 of 3711

So I just got my U.E900 after a warranty exchange for my failing triple fi 10, gotta love there C.S....Haven't had a chance to hear them yet, will do tomorrow. 

post #1180 of 3711

Is the ue900 a better overall sounding headphone than the SE535? 

post #1181 of 3711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peculier View Post

I actually prefer the UE900 cable to the Westone cable.. The Westone one feels too hard. I don't see why memory wire is necessary since a decent cable when worn over the ear will just hang nicely from the ear. Is there some hidden usefulness to memory wire that I'm not experiencing? :S

 

They can help keep your IEM in place.  That's about it though :p  There might be some other uses.  I know Aurisonics suggests using them to stablize the IEM in your ear and allow a more comfortable fit (helps a bit for smaller ears since the Aurisonics housing is large). 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inear View Post

So I just got my U.E900 after a warranty exchange for my failing triple fi 10, gotta love there C.S....Haven't had a chance to hear them yet, will do tomorrow. 

 

Nice, can't wait to see impressions :p

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Towwers View Post

Is the ue900 a better overall sounding headphone than the SE535? 

 

I don't know if there is anyone who's heard both yet.  If there is, I'm sure they'll tune in soon :)

post #1182 of 3711
I have. The 535 has far too little treble presence for my tastes (and thus less than the UE900), but has much fuller sounding mids. Bass on the 535 is slightly more present than the UE900 after the mini-bore has been filled. In terms of overall detail, I firmly believe the UE900 wins there.

I'm not a big fan of mid-centric IEMs like the SE535 and the SM3, so to me the UE900 does sound better.

But one thing to note is that the SE535s are pretty darn expensive... I would not recommend anyone to buy them blind.
Edited by Peculier - 12/11/12 at 9:16pm
post #1183 of 3711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Towwers View Post

Is the ue900 a better overall sounding headphone than the SE535? 

 

I actually don't want to comment because I think the SE535 is very over-hyped. I didn't like it at all.

However, I have mentioned the German Fischer Amps FA-3E quite a few times and everybody who has heard both, FA and Shure, agrees that the FA-3E is a much better SE535 (regarding technicality and tuning).

 

I did a close comparison of FA-3E with the UE900 (as did others) in a German forum and the UE900 still won.

post #1184 of 3711

Good to know, but I think it is time to compile all the comparisons together into one table.  Anyone up for the challenge?  I think the list should include at least the following IEMs:

 

UE900

W3, W4/4R

SE535

FA-3E

PFE232

Heir 4.Ai

 

I don't think it needs to be too complated, just some overall options on how the IEMs compare to the UE900 will do.

post #1185 of 3711
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSheep View Post

UE900

W3, W4/4R

SE535

FA-3E

PFE232

Heir 4.Ai

 

I have compared all of the above except for the W3 (which's tonality is regarded as total crap so I never even considered it) and I have shared my impressions here and there, but mostly in a German forum.

W4 and PFE kinda jump out of the pool as "special". One being very soft and relaxing, the other being an aggressive V-shape.

 

The rest is relatively comparable. My conclusion is that subjectivity will determine anyone's favorite. At this level I think the performance is very good with each and personal preference will decide. I don't see the use of a comparison table.

Maybe my hearing is also not as good as I think.


Edited by Ultrazino - 12/12/12 at 3:05am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Ultimate Ears UE 900 Discussion and Impressions Thread