Preface
Recently I understood I am missing a lot of music on the go, especially when I am not in a 11 hour transatlantic flight, where my W60 paired with marvellous Astell&Kern AK300 served me very well for the last three years. It was very hard to manage music on the go with all the wires, AK300 needing charge every 8 hours, having an extra device in my pocket (and a relatively thick and hefty one) seemed like a lot, so I missed a lot.
At the same time, I could not say no to wonderful musicality that W60 brings to the table, the fatigue-free listening experience, definition and finesse of details it delivered, so I decided to purchase a different pair of IEMs from Westone to explore the other product offering that they have. After all, there is a reason they had this UM Pro line, and I wanted to know everything about this reason in detail. And do it wirelessly, with Westone’s Bluetooth Cable V2.
Comfort
There’s been a lot written about UM Pro line vs. W line, so I will just describe what was the most prominent for me - the build is different, and the updated (V2) UM Pro is very different from W series. In my ear, UM Pro 50s sit deeper and have less protrusion to the outside, and also they have shallower insert, which makes it more comfortable, and also makes me wish to play with tips on W60s so they are sitting deeper in the earcup as well. Overall, UM Pro 50 sits very good in ear and is very comfortable, in it’s own way though.
Sound - Treble
As much as I enjoy the clear plastic and all that, design is secondary to sound anyway, so this is the main thing to discuss. And wow UM Pro 50 is different from W60. After several hours of listening, I identified several main differences that come to a single conclusion in the end.
Treble. This is probably the biggest differentiator I find between these two IEMs. First, UM Pro 50 has the smoothest treble I heard in any headphone, peiod. It is so even that there is practically zero spikes, grain and sibilance. W60 has a very distinct spike somewhere in the mid treble region that adds a very airy sparkle to the sound. Is it good or bad? Spoiler alert, it’s neither, and it’s complicated.
To my ear, UM Pro 60 has 2 to 3 dB less in the treble region than W60 does. That is a lot, actually, and enough to make sound very dark sometimes. But at the same time, if I equalize UM Pro 50 to same level of high frequencies, that smoothness doesn’t let it be so airy as W60 because of the small spike.
So, does it mean UM Pro 50 are hopelessly dark? No, it does not. Both IEMs are obviously in the audiophile territory, which means we have to take what is the source material that is played into account. UM Pro 50 will be dark to my ears while listening to well mastered music, while W60 can sound overly bright and even sibilant with poorly mastered music.
A great example would be the same Money for Nothing by Dire Straits in two distinctly different releases - audiophile-oriented 2013 SACD vs. consumer-oriented remaster that Spotify streams. W60 sound amazing when you listen SACD version, but remaster would be very bright. But then you put on UM Pro 50, and suddenly SACD version is dark, while remaster starts sounding adequate and balanced. A lot of modern music is mastered with a lot of highs, compression does not help and brings more of that high-end shrill forward. UM Pro 50 makes it more than tolerable, allowing to enjoy this music as well.
Sound - Midrange
This is another territory, where UM 50 and W60 are very different. There are two main differences - and again, UM Pro 50 midrange is relatively smooth, very clean and detailed, with lots of texture. However, tuning is different. While UM Pro 50 focuses on mid-treble, and brings out vocals closer, W60 emphasizes lower mids, while leaving upper mids clean and musical. Probably the right way would be to say these IEMs saturate different areas of the spectrum differently, without dips and V shaped areas anywhere.
W60 makes midrange sing, which provides a big impact into their musicality. It is hard to tell whether lower mids saturation is the reason for that or not, but they do sing. UM Pro 50 is less emotional, and it sounds more than it sings - but that is probably the proper tuning for a professionally inclined IEM.
UM Pro 50, in turn, provides «intimate close» presentation of most vocals (except deep male vocals, which would be very close in W60) and overall more thick, full-bodied sound across the midrange. Separation and definition is very similar technically, as they’re both multi-driver IEMs that are capable of that.
Sound - Bass
As non-basshead, I find both headphones bass to be slightly elevated above neutral, but very, very impactful. It seems like UM Pro 50 provides more kick in the mid-bass section, while W60 bass is more even. Both retain good bass extension, but sub-bass in both is not overly present, and just indicates its presence below bass and mid-bass. At the same time, sub-bass impact would make both IEMs sound like you’re wearing a subwoofer, and it may become very fatiguing very quick.
Sound - Soundstage
Both IEMs sound fairly wide, W60 being wider, but not dramatically. The biggest difference is depth - W60 sometimes presents things like they are layered in depth, and there’s a dark black background between sounds. UM Pro 50 sounds «flatter» and everything is just spread out across the scene left to right.
Conclusions
UM Pro 50 and W60 are very different IEMs that would appeal to very different people as well as very different material to listen shines very differently on them. UM Pro 50 may seem dark on excellently mastered music, while W60 may seem bright on poorly mastered tracks. With ability to EQ high frequencies, UM Pro 50 seems like a more universal IEM that is capable of a lot, while W60 is an audophile IEM and shines on well mastered tracks, is more musical, has better layering and depth, but is more demanding and won’t let you out easy with a Spotify remaster where engineer was overly excited with a Highs knob.
W60, to me, is an audiophile marvel - musical, layered, involving, engaging, transparent while being full-bodied enough, with great bass, great resolution and also - fatigue free.
UM Pro 50 is really a monitor, being more neutral, but still has it’s distinct Westone sound signature - bull bodied, great bass, great resolution, fatigue-free. At the same time, having W60 available, I would really wish UM Pro 50 being less flat, deeper sounding in terms of soundstage depth and separation, and more musical. But won’t I get W60 then? This comparison leaves me with a question, rather than an answer.
It’s hard to choose, and thanks god I won’t have to. These are stellar examples of how portable audio can be approached in an uncompromised manner.
Recently I understood I am missing a lot of music on the go, especially when I am not in a 11 hour transatlantic flight, where my W60 paired with marvellous Astell&Kern AK300 served me very well for the last three years. It was very hard to manage music on the go with all the wires, AK300 needing charge every 8 hours, having an extra device in my pocket (and a relatively thick and hefty one) seemed like a lot, so I missed a lot.
At the same time, I could not say no to wonderful musicality that W60 brings to the table, the fatigue-free listening experience, definition and finesse of details it delivered, so I decided to purchase a different pair of IEMs from Westone to explore the other product offering that they have. After all, there is a reason they had this UM Pro line, and I wanted to know everything about this reason in detail. And do it wirelessly, with Westone’s Bluetooth Cable V2.
Comfort
There’s been a lot written about UM Pro line vs. W line, so I will just describe what was the most prominent for me - the build is different, and the updated (V2) UM Pro is very different from W series. In my ear, UM Pro 50s sit deeper and have less protrusion to the outside, and also they have shallower insert, which makes it more comfortable, and also makes me wish to play with tips on W60s so they are sitting deeper in the earcup as well. Overall, UM Pro 50 sits very good in ear and is very comfortable, in it’s own way though.
Sound - Treble
As much as I enjoy the clear plastic and all that, design is secondary to sound anyway, so this is the main thing to discuss. And wow UM Pro 50 is different from W60. After several hours of listening, I identified several main differences that come to a single conclusion in the end.
Treble. This is probably the biggest differentiator I find between these two IEMs. First, UM Pro 50 has the smoothest treble I heard in any headphone, peiod. It is so even that there is practically zero spikes, grain and sibilance. W60 has a very distinct spike somewhere in the mid treble region that adds a very airy sparkle to the sound. Is it good or bad? Spoiler alert, it’s neither, and it’s complicated.
To my ear, UM Pro 60 has 2 to 3 dB less in the treble region than W60 does. That is a lot, actually, and enough to make sound very dark sometimes. But at the same time, if I equalize UM Pro 50 to same level of high frequencies, that smoothness doesn’t let it be so airy as W60 because of the small spike.
So, does it mean UM Pro 50 are hopelessly dark? No, it does not. Both IEMs are obviously in the audiophile territory, which means we have to take what is the source material that is played into account. UM Pro 50 will be dark to my ears while listening to well mastered music, while W60 can sound overly bright and even sibilant with poorly mastered music.
A great example would be the same Money for Nothing by Dire Straits in two distinctly different releases - audiophile-oriented 2013 SACD vs. consumer-oriented remaster that Spotify streams. W60 sound amazing when you listen SACD version, but remaster would be very bright. But then you put on UM Pro 50, and suddenly SACD version is dark, while remaster starts sounding adequate and balanced. A lot of modern music is mastered with a lot of highs, compression does not help and brings more of that high-end shrill forward. UM Pro 50 makes it more than tolerable, allowing to enjoy this music as well.
Sound - Midrange
This is another territory, where UM 50 and W60 are very different. There are two main differences - and again, UM Pro 50 midrange is relatively smooth, very clean and detailed, with lots of texture. However, tuning is different. While UM Pro 50 focuses on mid-treble, and brings out vocals closer, W60 emphasizes lower mids, while leaving upper mids clean and musical. Probably the right way would be to say these IEMs saturate different areas of the spectrum differently, without dips and V shaped areas anywhere.
W60 makes midrange sing, which provides a big impact into their musicality. It is hard to tell whether lower mids saturation is the reason for that or not, but they do sing. UM Pro 50 is less emotional, and it sounds more than it sings - but that is probably the proper tuning for a professionally inclined IEM.
UM Pro 50, in turn, provides «intimate close» presentation of most vocals (except deep male vocals, which would be very close in W60) and overall more thick, full-bodied sound across the midrange. Separation and definition is very similar technically, as they’re both multi-driver IEMs that are capable of that.
Sound - Bass
As non-basshead, I find both headphones bass to be slightly elevated above neutral, but very, very impactful. It seems like UM Pro 50 provides more kick in the mid-bass section, while W60 bass is more even. Both retain good bass extension, but sub-bass in both is not overly present, and just indicates its presence below bass and mid-bass. At the same time, sub-bass impact would make both IEMs sound like you’re wearing a subwoofer, and it may become very fatiguing very quick.
Sound - Soundstage
Both IEMs sound fairly wide, W60 being wider, but not dramatically. The biggest difference is depth - W60 sometimes presents things like they are layered in depth, and there’s a dark black background between sounds. UM Pro 50 sounds «flatter» and everything is just spread out across the scene left to right.
Conclusions
UM Pro 50 and W60 are very different IEMs that would appeal to very different people as well as very different material to listen shines very differently on them. UM Pro 50 may seem dark on excellently mastered music, while W60 may seem bright on poorly mastered tracks. With ability to EQ high frequencies, UM Pro 50 seems like a more universal IEM that is capable of a lot, while W60 is an audophile IEM and shines on well mastered tracks, is more musical, has better layering and depth, but is more demanding and won’t let you out easy with a Spotify remaster where engineer was overly excited with a Highs knob.
W60, to me, is an audiophile marvel - musical, layered, involving, engaging, transparent while being full-bodied enough, with great bass, great resolution and also - fatigue free.
UM Pro 50 is really a monitor, being more neutral, but still has it’s distinct Westone sound signature - bull bodied, great bass, great resolution, fatigue-free. At the same time, having W60 available, I would really wish UM Pro 50 being less flat, deeper sounding in terms of soundstage depth and separation, and more musical. But won’t I get W60 then? This comparison leaves me with a question, rather than an answer.
It’s hard to choose, and thanks god I won’t have to. These are stellar examples of how portable audio can be approached in an uncompromised manner.
Thanks in advance