or Connect
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 41

post #601 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by audionewbi View Post

From what I have heard UE 900 only compeition both price wise and ofcourse sound-wise is Heir 4Ai (if we are only wanting to compare 4 BA vs 4 BA). 

 

This is the exact head-to-head comparative review I'm hoping to read sometime soon.
post #602 of 4277

What about Westone 4? Also quad driver, and in the price range, although the RC version outprices the 4Ais and 900s, though that might very well change soon given two new competitors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audionewbi View Post

From what I have heard UE 900 only compeition both price wise and ofcourse sound-wise is Heir 4Ai (if we are only wanting to compare 4 BA vs 4 BA). 

post #603 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly87 View Post

What about Westone 4? Also quad driver, and in the price range, although the RC version outprices the 4Ais and 900s, though that might very well change soon given two new competitors.


That'd be fine, too. The Heir and UE came out at pretty much the same time while the Westone has been out for ages, but they may as well join the party. I don't know if anybody has all 3 of those, though.

post #604 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly87 View Post

What about Westone 4? Also quad driver, and in the price range, although the RC version outprices the 4Ais and 900s, though that might very well change soon given two new competitors.

 

I did a comparison to the W4 already :)  I don't have 4.Ai to do comparisons to.  

post #605 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly87 View Post

What about Westone 4? Also quad driver, and in the price range, although the RC version outprices the 4Ais and 900s, though that might very well change soon given two new competitors.

Before i say anything I read a lot of reviews and my comments is based on the review of credible reviewers.

 

As far as I know the cheapest quad BA right now is XBA-4 and sadly its recently reduced price is due to SQ(I own this). Not everyone please about it. So pricewise XBA-4 wins over all the other Quad BA universal IEM. So that leaves us to the SQ comparsion. the best non CIEM are right now 4Ai with the same price range of UE 900. W4 are both over the price of UE 900 as well as there seems to be equal amount of love and hate them. I have yet to read a negative review for 4Ai!

 

So both price wise and SQ 4Ai is the only logical uni that UE 900 should be compared against. Unless W4 offically reduces it suggest retail price right now I doubt many folks will be looking into W4 when 4Ai and UE 900 are in market. 

post #606 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by audionewbi View Post

Before i say anything I read a lot of reviews and my comments is based on the review of credible reviewers.

 

As far as I know the cheapest quad BA right now is XBA-4 and sadly its recently reduced price is due to SQ(I own this). Not everyone please about it. So pricewise XBA-4 wins over all the other Quad BA universal IEM. So that leaves us to the SQ comparsion. the best non CIEM are right now 4Ai with the same price range of UE 900. W4 are both over the price of UE 900 as well as there seems to be equal amount of love and hate them. I have yet to read a negative review for 4Ai!

 

So both price wise and SQ 4Ai is the only logical uni that UE 900 should be compared against. Unless W4 offically reduces it suggest retail price right now I doubt many folks will be looking into W4 when 4Ai and UE 900 are in market. 

 

The thing is, I have also yet to see a negative thing said about the 4.Ai.  Makes me doubt a few things about them...  The W4 can run anywhere from 300 to 400 dollars, the W4R will run around 500.  

post #607 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by audionewbi View Post

Before i say anything I read a lot of reviews and my comments is based on the review of credible reviewers.

 

As far as I know the cheapest quad BA right now is XBA-4 and sadly its recently reduced price is due to SQ(I own this). Not everyone please about it. So pricewise XBA-4 wins over all the other Quad BA universal IEM. So that leaves us to the SQ comparsion. the best non CIEM are right now 4Ai with the same price range of UE 900. W4 are both over the price of UE 900 as well as there seems to be equal amount of love and hate them. I have yet to read a negative review for 4Ai!

 

So both price wise and SQ 4Ai is the only logical uni that UE 900 should be compared against. Unless W4 offically reduces it suggest retail price right now I doubt many folks will be looking into W4 when 4Ai and UE 900 are in market. 

Nope, W4 can be bought for just over $400
I think they are definitely competitive in price

post #608 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by nehcrow View Post

Nope, W4 can be bought for just over $400
I think they are definitely competitive in price

 

They've dipped as low as 330 before.  Street price fluctuates...  

post #609 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

The thing is, I have also yet to see a negative thing said about the 4.Ai.  Makes me doubt a few things about them...  The W4 can run anywhere from 300 to 400 dollars, the W4R will run around 500.  

 

Worried about the hype-machine? ;).

post #610 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

 

Worried about the hype-machine? ;).

 

Always am...  Been victim to it way too much.  People make it seem like an IEM is the absolute when its no where near it.  Just about every IEM gets its hype.  Phonak, I have to say was the most unbiased of them all.  So far, the most one-sided was the ASG-1; I think the Heir 4.Ai is trailing right behind.  Not too many people have had their hands on the 3.Ai, but those that have have also been pretty unbiased on it.  I think the correct word to use for the hype-machine is forgiving.  People tend to be able to forgive/overlook shortcomings on new toys.  I know it takes me anywhere from a few days to a week before I find any real errors (unless the IEM is that bad).  

 

I try my best not to feed the machine.  Whenever I do, it seems I get attacked for it XD  Thankfully it hasn't happened with the 900s since I don't feel hype has built up yet.  The people who have it in their hands were able to come up with an unbiased view on it.  


Edited by tinyman392 - 9/27/12 at 6:48am
post #611 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

Always am...  Been victim to it way too much.  People make it seem like an IEM is the absolute when its no where near it.  Just about every IEM gets its hype.  Phonak, I have to say was the most unbiased of them all.  So far, the most one-sided was the ASG-1; I think the Heir 4.Ai is trailing right behind.  Not too many people have had their hands on the 3.Ai, but those that have have also been pretty unbiased on it.  I think the correct word to use for the hype-machine is forgiving.  People tend to be able to forgive/overlook shortcomings on new toys.  I know it takes me anywhere from a few days to a week before I find any real errors (unless the IEM is that bad).  

 

I try my best not to feed the machine.  Whenever I do, it seems I get attacked for it XD  Thankfully it hasn't happened with the 900s since I don't feel hype has built up yet.  The people who have it in their hands were able to come up with an unbiased view on it.  

 

Can't argue with you there. Just another reason why I feel it is very important to have an opportunity to sit down with a piece of kit and familiarize yourself with it before really coming to a final conclusion. If I had only a few minutes or even a few hours with the AKG 30003s I would not have been able to walk away with a clear picture of their sound nor would I have said they were worth their price. But after spending weeks with them and getting to know there sound I could say I think they are worth the price. Same thing for the Tralucents. Although I must say I found myself preferring them to the AKGs within just a few hours of listening (signature preferences are a part of this) but I got to spend a lot of time with them as well. I'm not gonna lie and hype anything for any reason. Either I'm gonna love it or hate it (also got the meh-inbetween lol)  and it's based on my opinion, it's just that and up to anyone to take it as advice or a grain of salt ;).. I'll just tell it how I hear it :).


Edited by lee730 - 9/27/12 at 6:55am
post #612 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

Always am...  Been victim to it way too much.  People make it seem like an IEM is the absolute when its no where near it.  Just about every IEM gets its hype.  Phonak, I have to say was the most unbiased of them all.  So far, the most one-sided was the ASG-1; I think the Heir 4.Ai is trailing right behind.  Not too many people have had their hands on the 3.Ai, but those that have have also been pretty unbiased on it.  I think the correct word to use for the hype-machine is forgiving.  People tend to be able to forgive/overlook shortcomings on new toys.  I know it takes me anywhere from a few days to a week before I find any real errors (unless the IEM is that bad).  

 

I try my best not to feed the machine.  Whenever I do, it seems I get attacked for it XD  Thankfully it hasn't happened with the 900s since I don't feel hype has built up yet.  The people who have it in their hands were able to come up with an unbiased view on it.  

 

It's difficult to fault the 4.Ai at its price point, though. I can tell you some of its flaws:

(1) it has an obvious dip at ~3.7 kHz, and a relative peak at 5.8-6 kHz; if you EQ it out, then you get a smoother, more rounded, more accurate response. In its unaltered state, the treble can seem very, very slightly peaky;

(2) its bass is boosted a little bit and doesn't reach as deep as, say, a 334. if the 232 uses the Sonion drivers (type, not specific model, I know they're proprietary spec but it's probably 17A007/9-derived for the lows) that I suspect it's using, then it's possible the 232 can reach deeper

(3) Its accessory set isn't great. The case is too big for portable storage, and the cleaning loop looks/feels crappy.

(4) The level balance between its lower midrange and treble levels gives people the sense of smoothness (a little too smooth for my tastes) in certain instruments like the piano, and thus, in combination with the dip/peak I already mentioned, the timbre isn't flawless. Excellent, but not flawless.

 

I don't think the 4.Ai is TOTL, end-all, be-all... but it is very good, and is a great, great deal at the asking price. I think the 232 with reference filter will be more accurate sounding in the mids/vocals at the expense of body, and the UE900 will be more fun-sounding.

 

I listened to the UE900 for a very short period of time inside a hot, musty Logitech promotion bus. It sounded nice, but my instinct is to say that it's not built for analytical use like the 4.Ai is. I have nothing against the UE900; I think it's a nice product that comes with great, useful accessories, and has that big company feel and polish, but I'll need more time to give a real assessment.

post #613 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

It's difficult to fault the 4.Ai at its price point, though. I can tell you some of its flaws:

(1) it has an obvious dip at ~3.7 kHz, and a relative peak at 5.8-6 kHz; if you EQ it out, then you get a smoother, more rounded, more accurate response. In its unaltered state, the treble can seem very, very slightly peaky;

(2) its bass is boosted a little bit and doesn't reach as deep as, say, a 334. if the 232 uses the Sonion drivers (type, not specific model, I know they're proprietary spec but it's probably 17A007/9-derived for the lows) that I suspect it's using, then it's possible the 232 can reach deeper

(3) Its accessory set isn't great. The case is too big for portable storage, and the cleaning loop looks/feels crappy.

(4) The level balance between its lower midrange and treble levels gives people the sense of smoothness (a little too smooth for my tastes) in certain instruments like the piano, and thus, in combination with the dip/peak I already mentioned, the timbre isn't flawless. Excellent, but not flawless.

 

I don't think the 4.Ai is TOTL, end-all, be-all... but it is very good, and is a great, great deal at the asking price. I think the 232 with reference filter will be more accurate sounding in the mids/vocals at the expense of body, and the UE900 will be more fun-sounding.

 

I listened to the UE900 for a very short period of time inside a hot, musty Logitech promotion bus. It sounded nice, but my instinct is to say that it's not built for analytical use like the 4.Ai is. I have nothing against the UE900; I think it's a nice product that comes with great, useful accessories, and has that big company feel and polish, but I'll need more time to give a real assessment.

 

Response to bolded areas.  First one:

  • OT: but the way the 4.Ai has been written about, it reads like it will be the end-all, be-all.  The AS-2 has been written the same way too.  People just seem to underscore the negatives (your list is the first list that I've seen of any negatives put to an unbiased light) and push the positives (creating a huge positive bias).  This bias creates the idea of an end-all, be-all as it seems that it doesn't have a negative (as it is ignored).  Thanks for the assessment of the 4.Ai though.  It's good to know (first unbiased negative thoughts I've seen about it).
  • You have it backwards regarding the 232 and 900.  the 900 is actually more accurate, the 232 is more fun-sounding IMO.  I will admit that the vocals on the 232 are more accurate due to the body and extension.  
  • I can't stress that last statement enough.  Tips breaking in, burn in, brain adjustments have caused the vocals to gain a hint more dynamic to them.  Makes them tolerable for me, but still not quite at the level that 232s and W4s do vocals.  Treble toned down a bit, the IEM as a whole is perceived as being a lot warmer.  
post #614 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post
  • OT: but the way the 4.Ai has been written about, it reads like it will be the end-all, be-all.  The AS-2 has been written the same way too.  People just seem to underscore the negatives (your list is the first list that I've seen of any negatives put to an unbiased light) and push the positives (creating a huge positive bias).  This bias creates the idea of an end-all, be-all as it seems that it doesn't have a negative (as it is ignored).  Thanks for the assessment of the 4.Ai though.  It's good to know (first unbiased negative thoughts I've seen about it).
  • You have it backwards regarding the 232 and 900.  the 900 is actually more accurate, the 232 is more fun-sounding IMO.  I will admit that the vocals on the 232 are more accurate due to the body and extension.  
  • I can't stress that last statement enough.  Tips breaking in, burn in, brain adjustments have caused the vocals to gain a hint more dynamic to them.  Makes them tolerable for me, but still not quite at the level that 232s and W4s do vocals.  Treble toned down a bit, the IEM as a whole is perceived as being a lot warmer.  

 

I know what you mean about the hype train. My statements regarding the 232 and 900 are with respect to the 4.Ai and constrained only to the midrange, rather than to each other. I will need to check again, but I distinctively remember the 232 having more accuracy across the midrange.

 

About the UE900 specifically, my first thought were that it was like an odd amalgamation of the TF10 and UE700. I've never enjoyed UE mids, and I suspect that may be why I didn't like the UE900 as much as I felt I should've. On the flip side, however, I think the UE900 will sell excellently and make Logitech/UE lots of money.

post #615 of 4277
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

I know what you mean about the hype train. My statements regarding the 232 and 900 are with respect to the 4.Ai and constrained only to the midrange, rather than to each other. I will need to check again, but I distinctively remember the 232 having more accuracy across the midrange.

 

About the UE900 specifically, my first thought were that it was like an odd amalgamation of the TF10 and UE700. I've never enjoyed UE mids, and I suspect that may be why I didn't like the UE900 as much as I felt I should've. On the flip side, however, I think the UE900 will sell excellently and make Logitech/UE lots of money.

 

Ah, that explains a lot then.  Yes, across only the midrange, the 232 does fare better in terms of accuracy.  As a whole (through the entire range), the 232 is more of a fun sound (due to boosted lows and highs) while the 900s are more (tonally) balanced.  The 900s do have a large warmth to their midrange.  Quality-wise, I do believe the 232 trumps the 900 in just about all aspects though.  


Edited by tinyman392 - 9/27/12 at 9:39am
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