Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › The $999 vs $99 Challenge Tour!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The $999 vs $99 Challenge Tour! - Page 30

post #436 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post
 

My lair is encased in a Faraday Cage to thwart the NSA and I will wrap the 'phones in ERS paper and Tin Foil - no one will ever know..

 

So the demos made it to the next member, but your impressions are still trapped inside that cage? :rolleyes: 

post #437 of 524

Just got them in my hand! I will post first impression in shortly!

post #438 of 524

Here is my comparison review of TFRM VS UERM

My first language is not English so please be generous about my broken English. 

 

 

 

Intro

 

For about one week I had both TFRM and UERM to compare! 

I thank to eke2k6 and Rin choi

I used to be fan of ultimate ears and their triple for 10pro. Tf10 Pro was my first iem that cause more than $10.

When some time ago, I hear Rin had modified tf 10pro I was so interested to hear them and here I am with his Mod tf10pro!

Luckily eke2k6 provided UERM as well so we can compare them each other!

 

 

 

 

My evaluating Standard

 

Before I go over the sound of iem I would like to mention few things.

First I do not believe that cable will make sound better.

Second, I also do not believe that amplifier will give me better sound.

 

My entire test was done on IPod touch 5th gen, ifi idac, and O2 amp.

All of that equipment is well known as flat and neutral response and have less than 1ohm of output impedance.

 

I tested both IEM with Classic, Movie & Game OST, Heavy Metal, and some Pop

 

 

Sound

 

General Sound signature of Both TFRM and UERM is V shape sound, Bass and High are emphasized and Mid is recessed.

 

 

Bass: Bass is where UERM had disadvantages due to universal fit mod. As you know Custom iem has almost perfect seal.

However UERM did not have perfect fit. It fits tightly to my ear, but still it does not have same tightness as custom fit.

On the other hands, original tf 10pro was designed as a universal fit iem. 

 

Both of IEM had emphasized mid bass area. That mid bass hump gave me extra punchy to my music, Bass extension was great.I was able to hear around 30~40 Hz area without pulling up the volume too much.

Bass was tight and well controlled.They have fast snappy punch. All the instrumental in bass area was well separated. However, I was able to hear little bit of masking in both iem between drum and bass guitar.

When bass and drum played together in the music, they start to mask over each other.

I feel TFRM has little more Sub bass than UERM. Not 100% sure it’s because of fitting issues but. to my ear TFRM sounded slightly tighter and deeper.

 

 

Mid: Both of TFRM and UERM have well defined mid. They are fairly detail and closer to neutral.

I would not say that they are neutral sounding mid due to missing information around 3khz, but it was much better than what I was expected. Both TFRM and UERM has laidback mid. But they still capture good details of vocal, guitar and other instrumentals in mid area. I won’t say they are vivid and life like.Female vocal lost some of details and guitar sounded somewhat colored. To my ear, TFRM has more details than UERM in mid high area.

 

I found some problem with both iem when I played classical music. When track has violins, the volume of violins starts to change depending on their pitch.This problem is usually found in Audio-Technica’s W lineup headphones due to constant deep and peak on frequency response.All instrumental separated well and did not find much of masking between each other. However, since they have recessed mid, bass slightly mask mid. It is just slight masking that I found in Metal and Classical music but it won’t bother you too much. Both of TFEM and UERM has thinner mid due to emphasized high.

I find TFRM has little bit more forward sounding Mid.

 

 

 

High: TFRM and UERM both have emphasized high. They are vivid and clear. Extension is great on both of iem. I was able to hear up to 15 kHz (my ear can pick up sound up to 17.5 kHz).

Cymbal and high-hat was really stand out on most of music. Because it has a lot of treble, all the instrumental sounded thinner than what I prefer. All harmonic was well played in music and I don’t really find much weakness on them. However I am for sure some people will find them too aggressive and sharp.

I found both of UERM and TFRM sounded equally good to my ear.

 

 

Sound Stage

 

I personally do not care about sound stage because iem always image inside of head. but I found uerm has little more tree dimensional sound to me.

However tree dimensional sound is not always good. As far as I know 3d sound in iem and headphone only come from different volume level between instrumental.

That means un-linear sounding headphone will creates more differences in volume and that will makes you think it tree dimensional sound.

 

 

Both TFRM and UERM have fairly identical sound to my ear. I would scale it 9 out of 10 for its overall similarity. I fond overall performance is better on mod Triple-fi.

This comparison is not accurate to tell UERM is bad because UERM was mod to universal fit but I would say with custom fit UERM will sound as good as TFRM.

However I see UERM is quite overpriced. Sound does not match for the money that you pay.

It is funny to talk about pricing of iem, but to me UERM does not seem have advanced any technology than Triple-fi.

 

 

I specially give thanks to Rin Choi and eke2k6 for giving me a chance to compares them!

I would love to see Rin’s Mod method so I can actually mod tf10 to TFRM!

 

Thank you all to read my short comparison review and see you next time!


Edited by skfktkwjs - 3/14/14 at 5:42pm
post #439 of 524
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skfktkwjs View Post
 

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to write up impressions!

 

Adding to the impressions post now.

post #440 of 524
Mmmhmm. Those impressions came from an angle I think is unique and I enjoyed reading them.
post #441 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post

Mmmhmm. Those impressions came from an angle I think is unique and I enjoyed reading them.

 

Same here. Thanks @skfktkwjs!

post #442 of 524

Quick update on the tour status, regretfully there have been some complications. One earpiece of the TFRM has lost a grill and damper, thus making further evaluation pointless.

 

 

Thankfully Rin has offered to do a complete overhaul of the TFRM, so things will turn out well again. However, that will take some time.

 

Also, this impedance adapter that Rin especially built for the TFRM/UERM seems to have gone missing at some point of the tour:

 

 

So, if any of you tour members have it still lying around somewhere, I'd be grateful if you could send it to Eke.

 

I'll post a new update when the TFRM is fully restored... :smile_phones: 

post #443 of 524
While the TFRM is on a siesta, may I propose an interesting sideshow...

I offer a new challenger that aims to not approximate, not equal, but exceed the UERM. And not for $99, but a fraction of the price. evil_smiley.gif

This challenger comes with some strings attached, however; to take full advantage of it, the tester should ideally have:
-for home listening, a PC+DAC+amp setup, preferably a PC with Windows Vista or Windows 7 installed. There will be some support available for XP and 8.1 but on Macs it will be difficult.
-for mobile listening, not a dedicated DAP, not an iPhone or iPod, but... an Android smartphone--one which you are willing to root.

If the organizers are interested, please pm me for details evil_smiley.gif I will probably need to play with the UERM for a while so could it be arranged to ship them to Hong Kong?

biggrin.gif
post #444 of 524
I have multiple rooted android smartphones and would be willing to loan one out for the tour, assuming I can be a part of it wink.gif
post #445 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I offer a new challenger that aims to not approximate, not equal, but exceed the UERM. And not for $99, but a fraction of the price. evil_smiley.gif
 

:eek: April Fool's Day is long gone.

post #446 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

While the TFRM is on a siesta, may I propose an interesting sideshow...

I offer a new challenger that aims to not approximate, not equal, but exceed the UERM. And not for $99, but a fraction of the price. evil_smiley.gif

 

Still into the old habit of equalizing the SHE3580, Joe? ;) 

post #447 of 524
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post
 

 

Still into the old habit of equalizing the SHE3580, Joe? ;) 

 

I chuckled.

post #448 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

Still into the old habit of equalizing the SHE3580, Joe? wink.gif  

I call it digital acoustic compensation now tongue.gif

My friend, the developer of the software (Zhuhang maintains the thread but doesn't develop), calls it Digital Dynamic Compensation (DDC):
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2191223

He took the impulse and frequency responses of more than 500 earphones and created first-approximation correction filters for them. The corrections are based around pushing the frequency response plots on e.g. goldenears and innerfidelity to the middle line, but the compensation curves on these sites is notoriously contentious (ie having a phone tread the middle line does not necessarily equate to high SQ) and neither does it take into account the sharp tube, ear sleeve and ear canal resonances that occur (these may occur at significantly different frequencies for dummy ears and the probe microphones sitting at the end of the dummy ear canal, both of which may exhibit significantly different acoustic impedance characteristics from real human ears).

I have long known how to listen for and correct the abovementioned resonances as they occur inside my real live ears, but a high quality overall frequency response curve has eluded me until recently. But I believe I have made significant progress recently--I have applied digital acoustic compensation to $5 and $10 buds of lesser quality than even the SHE3580 (you see, I had to keep their identity secret so had to make do with unbranded buds on wholesale in Shenzhen) and have them reported as sounding like $200 and $500 respectively from industry insiders and audiophiles kept in the dark about their real identity.

I believe the time is ripe to challenge the $999 mark with something more decent... like the SHE3580 but not limited to it wink.gif

Measurements have long shown that even cheap single dynamic IEMs are capable of capturing the full range of audio frequencies with at least as little distortion as multi-BA IEMs. What remains lacking is the frequency and phase response--now both of these can be correct digitally. Imaging is also a function of frequency and phase response, as evidenced by research into head-related transfer functions. If there are further audio qualities you seek (such as those famous handwaving buzzwords like speed, resolution, PRAT...), I challenge you to frame them in a scientifically comprehensible manner... biggrin.gif

Finally, the existing challenge of this thread stemmed from a comment that the TF10 had a similar looking FR to the UERM and Rin Choi subsequently trying to make them even more similar via modding. What's the difference between FR hacking via physical modding and digital manipulation? It is even known that most single driver headphones behave in pretty much a minimum-phase nature such that modifying them via either physical mods or minimum phase equalizers (yielding the same FR modification) yields the same phase change...
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 4/25/14 at 9:48am
post #449 of 524
Yeah pretty questionable but I'm always game to try :-)
post #450 of 524
I've used viper4android even outputted to an e17
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › The $999 vs $99 Challenge Tour!