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 57

post #841 of 3603

i need these but i'm waiting for a coupon to pop up during the holidays.  just sold my TF10s to help pay for these...

post #842 of 3603
in german hifi-forum people tell, that it sounds a near to uerm but with less resolution and a tad less treble emphasis.
post #843 of 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by sofastreamer View Post

in german hifi-forum people tell, that it sounds a near to uerm but with less resolution and a tad less treble emphasis.

 

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:

Quote:
Please, I hope no one gets a chip on their shoulder- Yes, my DIY measurement setups are not as accurate! It's OK, it's just a DIY. LOL

 

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


Edited by tinyman392 - 10/22/12 at 8:17am
post #844 of 3603
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 wouldnt take what people have said about these to heart so soon, theres just too much expectation for the product and relating it to a another of the brand is a common norm. Usually those that have settled a while with the sound can give a more accurate representation. There arent that many user impressions of these to begin with and what people post here isnt everyone, there are many users outside/inside of headfi that havent posted impressions. 

 

You want it to forcefully be warm above neutral? Talk about bias. Like it or not, these have a huge midbass hump, sucked out higher midrange and a 10k spike. Tylls graph is pretty much the same (please dont ask me to explain why they are the same, its obvious on the raw, just Tylls graph are elongated, still the same though),Tyll didnt post about the UE900 but doesnt seem he likes it very much. Looks bad even in Tylls equalization. 

 

Rin also has UERM measurements provided by purrin, another reputable user, the UERM is still far more flat using the ISO-standard equalization used by Rin. 

 

Do you understand his criticisms? It doesnt seem that you do at all, he makes a good case for using a diffuse-field standard (DF) rather than free-field or a hybrid of the latter. Free-field faied to demonstrate linearity 20 years ago, its a flawed equalization technique for many reasons, one being that it had no directional notches and peaks, making individual differences too big. Thus his criticism of GE and Tylls for using the outdated equalization, its a sound criticism based on empirical evidenced (which you obviously ignored). GE has actually changed some of their measurement techniques as of recently, perhaps due to his thoughz and Tyll is going to use DF as an option when he implements a graph comparison tool. 

 

He was a founding member of GE and has openly stated great respect for Tyll, its obvious grounded criticism, he's really chewing out free-field equalization. Yes, Rins measurement gear isnt as high grade as that of Tylls and GE thats the point he tries to make, but its the equalization techniques that he critiques. He was actually being quite humble because even though his gear wasnt as high grade, it still wasnt that far off then.  Also, that's an older post, recently he updated his simulator, which pretty much is identical to Tylls and closely matches those of Etymotic and Phonak. 

 

He's doing the 4AI soon, I can say that it's likely going to look better than this. 


Edited by Inks - 10/22/12 at 12:50pm
post #845 of 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

I wouldnt take what people have said about these to heart so soon, theres just too much expectation for the product and relating it to a another of the brand is a common norm. Usually those that have settled a while with the sound can give a more accurate representation. There arent that many user impressions of these to begin with and what people post here isnt everyone, there are many users outside/inside of headfi that havent posted impressions. 

 

You want it to forcefully be warm above neutral? Talk about bias. Like it or not, these have a huge midbass hump, sucked out higher midrange and a 10k spike. Tylls graph is pretty much the same (please dont ask me to explain why they are the same, its obvious on the raw, just Tylls graph are elongated, still the same though),Tyll didnt post about the UE900 but doesnt seem he likes it very much. Looks bad even in Tylls equalization. 

 

Rin also has UERM measurements provided by purrin, another reputable user, the UERM is still far more flat using the ISO-standard equalization used by Rin. 

 

Do you understand his criticisms? It doesnt seem that you do at all, he makes a good case for using a diffuse-field standard (DF) rather than free-field or a hybrid of the latter. Free-field faied to demonstrate linearity 20 years ago, its a flawed equalization technique for many reasons, one being that it had no directional notches and peaks, making individual differences too big. Thus his criticism of GE and Tylls for using the outdated equalization, its a sound criticism based on empirical evidenced (which you obviously ignored). GE has actually changed some of their measurement techniques as of recently, perhaps due to his thoughz and Tyll is going to use DF as an option when he implements a graph comparison tool. 

 

He was a founding member of GE and has openly stated great respect for Tyll, its obvious grounded criticism, he's really chewing out free-field equalization. Yes, Rins measurement gear isnt as high grade as that of Tylls and GE thats the point he tries to make, but its the equalization techniques that he critiques. He was actually being quite humble because even though his gear wasnt as high grade, it still wasnt that far off then.  Also, that's an older post, recently he updated his simulator, which pretty much is identical to Tylls and closely matches those of Etymotic and Phonak. 

 

He's doing the 4AI soon, I can say that it's likely going to look better than this. 

 

Tyll's graphs are different by a long shot.  I'll trust Tyll's raws over Rin's right now.  Those graphs I will agree with.  You telling me that they are the same is just about a joke.  Rin's graphs show a ~9-10 dB drop from the 500 Hz range to the 1 kHz range while Tyll's only drop 5 dB (max).  Tyll's graph also drops slightly slower in the treble (from the 2.5 kHz spike to the 10 kHz spike) before the 10 kHz spike.  While Rin's graph shows more of a U in this area, Tyll's shows more of a V.  The big part is the midrange vs bass levels here in the raws.  Tyll's shows them a lot closer to neutral, while Rin's shows them as a V shape (about the depth of the Phonak 232 V; raw measured by Phonak).  Rin shows the 500 Hz bump as being much larger than the 2.5 k spike while Tyll shows the opposite.  The graphs are different on so many levels.  It has nothing to do with stretching horrizontally.  It has something to do with y dB at x Hz.

 

There is something up with Rin's graph.  Tyll's graph basically confirms my hearing, as well as what has already been said about it.  Rin's contradicts everything that has been said (I'm staring at the little V in the middle of the graph that has a 10 dB drop).  I'll believe it's a 5 dB drop (I know there is a drop around there), but no way it's 9 dB (that's Phonak, and I've compared them head to head numerous times, the UE 900 does not have a 9 dB drop like that). 

 

The thing is that at least 3 people (myself included) have confirmed this warm over neutral sound of the IEM, Tyll's graph can be read to show that, Rin's shows more of a V-shape.  With all that said, I hear the 900s (raw) as described by Tyll's graph, not Rin's.  I honestly feel that there is an error somewhere in Rin's graph.  Be it a software error (no fixes for that unless you recode how the software runs) or a hardware one.  There is something off with Rin's graph.  Tyll's actually seems closer to what I (as well as others) hear. 

 

Remember when I said that objective results need to be confirmed by subjective (objective can't confirm itself), but subjective can be confirmed by other subjective as well as objective.*  Well, application right now.  I can confirm Tyll's graph (and it confirms the others' subjective findings as well).  Rin's graph remains unconfirmed by anything. 

 

*This is my stance when it comes to objective evidence.  If it doesn't work in the real world (subjective ideas), the model (graph) is off. 

post #846 of 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

Tyll's graphs are different by a long shot.  I'll trust Tyll's raws over Rin's right now.  Those graphs I will agree with.  You telling me that they are the same is just about a joke.  Rin's graphs show a ~9-10 dB drop from the 500 Hz range to the 1 kHz range while Tyll's only drop 5 dB (max).  Tyll's graph also drops slightly slower in the treble (from the 2.5 kHz spike to the 10 kHz spike) before the 10 kHz spike.  While Rin's graph shows more of a U in this area, Tyll's shows more of a V.  The big part is the midrange vs bass levels here in the raws.  Tyll's shows them a lot closer to neutral, while Rin's shows them as a V shape (about the depth of the Phonak 232 V; raw measured by Phonak).  Rin shows the 500 Hz bump as being much larger than the 2.5 k spike while Tyll shows the opposite.  The graphs are different on so many levels.  It has nothing to do with stretching horrizontally.  It has something to do with y dB at x Hz.

 

There is something up with Rin's graph.  Tyll's graph basically confirms my hearing, as well as what has already been said about it.  Rin's contradicts everything that has been said (I'm staring at the little V in the middle of the graph that has a 10 dB drop).  I'll believe it's a 5 dB drop (I know there is a drop around there), but no way it's 9 dB (that's Phonak, and I've compared them head to head numerous times, the UE 900 does not have a 9 dB drop like that). 

 

Both simulators are about the same, compare raw graph graphs of each level each frequencies, 2db differences at most. The fact that you compared using the equalizations of each in the latter is the real joke. 

 

The thing is that at least 3 people (myself included) have confirmed this warm over neutral sound of the IEM, Tyll's graph can be read to show that, Rin's shows more of a V-shape.  With all that said, I hear the 900s (raw) as described by Tyll's graph, not Rin's.  I honestly feel that there is an error somewhere in Rin's graph.  Be it a software error (no fixes for that unless you recode how the software runs) or a hardware one.  There is something off with Rin's graph.  Tyll's actually seems closer to what I (as well as others) hear. 

 

What are their standards for neutral anyway? That can be all over the place to begin with. Since you hear it like Tylls graph, willing to admit theres a bid midbass hump, midhigh suckout and high treble spike? Funny how there has to be real problem now that you just aren't willing to accept the results. Rin recently did that comparison to Phonaks simulator with outstanding results, theres no issue, the issue is that you cant accept the results. 

 

Remember when I said that objective results need to be confirmed by subjective (objective can't confirm itself), but subjective can be confirmed by other subjective as well as objective.*  Well, application right now.  I can confirm Tyll's graph (and it confirms the others' subjective findings as well).  Rin's graph remains unconfirmed by anything. 

 

*This is my stance when it comes to objective evidence.  If it doesn't work in the real world (subjective ideas), the model (graph) is off. \

There's no way to confirm highly biased, tainted impressions. 

post #847 of 3603

How is there a huge midbass hump with Tyll's graph? It look linear to me and in fact, that's how I hear the bass from the UE900.

post #848 of 3603

Originally Posted by Rip N' Burn View Post

How is there a huge midbass hump with Tyll's graph? It look linear to me and in fact, that's how I hear the bass from the UE900.

Compare to X10, a known IEM with a big midbass hump, its about the same. Now compare to a more linear EX1000, definitely a big hump. In itself doesnt look big due to the way Tylls graphs look forgiving in the bass, things will be more clear when Tyll implements a comparison tool 


Edited by Inks - 10/22/12 at 2:06pm
post #849 of 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post
 

 

Seriously?  I compared the grey (raw) graphs...  Unless you missed it, I did say that many times.  I don't like either compensation (Rin's as well as Tyll's). 

 

Look at the grey, forget the color.  Rin's graph rolls off way earlier than Tyll's does at a steeper rate.  The bump at 500 Hz is much greater exagerated on Rin's graph by about 2 dB partly due to the fact that the 1 kHz region dips at least 5 dB more than Tyll's. Look at the way that the spikes slope down past the 2.5 kHz region on Tyll's graph compared to Rin's.  The slope of the graph is a lot sleeper on Rin's graph than Tyll's.  It's all there.  There is no arguing it now.  I've resized both graphs so 10 db up and down are equal, and the spacing for the frequency axis is equal as well.  There are major differences, differences you claim aren't there. 

 

 

Now regarding subjective results.  I'm not going to speak for anyone else this time around.  It was ignorant of me.  Unfortunately.  I can confirm that Tyll's graph is closer to what I hear (almost exact) in contrast to Rin's.  The problem with confirmation is that it's a real-world experience/result that confirms the objective data.  There is no disputing it right now unless you have some subjective input... 

 

With that said, have you heard the UE 900?  If not, how can you be certain (with no error) that Rin's graph more accurately portrays the UE 900 over Tyll's if you haven't even heard the IEM? 

post #850 of 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rip N' Burn View Post

How is there a huge midbass hump with Tyll's graph? It look linear to me and in fact, that's how I hear the bass from the UE900.

 

Thank you for this. Two confirmations now. Objective data cannot stand without subjective confirmation. It's like making a theory without testing it in the real world.
post #851 of 3603
EDIT: Double Post, sorry. Lagging system.
post #852 of 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Compare to X10, a known IEM with a big midbass hump, its about the same. Now compare to a more linear EX1000, definitely a big hump. In itself doesnt look big due to the way Tylls graphs look forgiving in the bass, things will be more clear when Tyll implements a comparison tool 


Well, I did own the X10 at one point and I agree that it has a big mid-bass hump but the TF10, which I compared at the same time, had less of a mid-bass hump.

 

I recently did a side by side comparison with the UE900 and the TF10 and it was quite evident for my ears that the TF10 has a mid-bass hump which the UE900 did not have but rather noticed more sub-bass.

 

I recently sold my EX1000's, and going from memory, if the UE900 has more mid-bass, it wouldn't be by that much.

post #853 of 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

Seriously?  I compared the grey (raw) graphs...  Unless you missed it, I did say that many times.  I don't like either compensation (Rin's as well as Tyll's). 

 

You did at one point, the 10db drop. 

 

Look at the grey, forget the color.  Rin's graph rolls off way earlier than Tyll's does at a steeper rate.  The bump at 500 Hz is much greater exagerated on Rin's graph by about 2 dB partly due to the fact that the 1 kHz region dips at least 5 dB more than Tyll's. Look at the way that the spikes slope down past the 2.5 kHz region on Tyll's graph compared to Rin's.  The slope of the graph is a lot sleeper on Rin's graph than Tyll's.  It's all there.  There is no arguing it now.  I've resized both graphs so 10 db up and down are equal, and the spacing for the frequency axis is equal as well.  There are major differences, differences you claim aren't there. 

 

I just remembered something very important that I overlooked. Rin has recently been comparing his results with Tylls since they pretty much have the same simulators and settings. But he has recently found that Tylls graph, match  with a higher output impedance source driven, perhaps a qc jitter in Tylls amp or settings were changed. The big differences between the two are in the bass and that it's explained because of this as the more gradual drop in the midhighs. 

Also he suspect a leak in the MDR7550s graph as it has more bass in his results and real listening, double checking his results. As Rin mentions, the UE changes with resistance. Either its response as whole is about the same on both still, midbass hump, midhighs suck out, treble spike, unit differences may also be there, though slight. 

 

I dispute the error because the simulators themselves are constantly tested and possible failures as well. I will be able to listen to the UE900 very soon as well though. His recent FAD measurements didnt astray at all from what I heard. 

Rin N Burn, youre using a D2 and that Sony player, those reduce the bass on the UE900 quite a bit. 


Edited by Inks - 10/22/12 at 2:45pm
post #854 of 3603

My Cowon and Sony player barely get used any more. I actually used a Sansa Clip when I compared the TF10 and UE900. The Clip is not known for bass roll off.

post #855 of 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rip N' Burn View Post


Well, I did own the X10 at one point and I agree that it has a big mid-bass hump but the TF10, which I compared at the same time, had less of a mid-bass hump.

 

I recently did a side by side comparison with the UE900 and the TF10 and it was quite evident for my ears that the TF10 has a mid-bass hump which the UE900 did not have but rather noticed more sub-bass.

 

I recently sold my EX1000's, and going from memory, if the UE900 has more mid-bass, it wouldn't be by that much.

 

Thanks for the further confirmation

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post
 

 

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.


Edited by tinyman392 - 10/22/12 at 2:58pm
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