I did briefly compare the two at a shop in Hong Kong quite a while ago. From what I remember, the L05Q demo is more laid back than the UERM? the biggest impression it left on me was that it was very effortless, and the separation is top notch. Bass is much lighter than the UERM and it sounds closer to the ER4 in this regard. Everything else is quite similar. I didn't have a long enough listen to pick out the differences in details and anything specific.
71 IEM Brief Review thread (incl. Rhine Monitors, Cleartune, CustomArt)
- Thread starter jelt2359
- Start date
I did briefly compare the two at a shop in Hong Kong quite a while ago. From what I remember, the L05Q demo is more laid back than the UERM? the biggest impression it left on me was that it was very effortless, and the separation is top notch. Bass is much lighter than the UERM and it sounds closer to the ER4 in this regard. Everything else is quite similar. I didn't have a long enough listen to pick out the differences in details and anything specific.
MikePortnoy
Reviewer at The Headphone List
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Posts
- 1,008
- Likes
- 1,622
Oh I see. That would be confusing since custom version sounds very different than your impressions.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 716
That may be so- on the loaner thread, my impressions seem to jive very closely with what the others are hearing from the demos as well.
MikePortnoy
Reviewer at The Headphone List
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Posts
- 1,008
- Likes
- 1,622
Demos seems not reflecting to exact sound of custom BD4.2. Actually, I am a bit surprised, since we expect that demos would sound similar to custom versions, I mean in general. However, this is very different in Lear case.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Posts
- 1,150
- Likes
- 95
As suggested by jelt2359 I'm posting my impressions of the L05QD here. Please take it as a grain of salt since the CW I used was my friend's custom, which barely went past my 1st bend even though fit was good.
Quote:
The CW sounds more like an extreme version (and less accurate as per the diffuse field curve) of the ER4S. I would say there's a peak in the upper midrange, might be due to tube resonance but it was too long ago so I can't say for sure. Treble is of course not as smooth as the deeply inserted ER4S. Bass is somewhat similar with more speed and snap. All in all, if you like the ER4S there's a high chance you'll also like the L05QD.
IMO the UERM is less aggressive than the CW.The most significant difference is in the lows, where the UERM manage to produce more rounded bass with longer decay than that of the CW due to their mid bass bump, whereas the CW's bass wins hands down in terms of speed and attack. The UERM's midrange is less shouty and more of an all-rounder compared the CW's. When it comes to treble the 2 can be said to be quite similar, with both having some noticeable peaks in the 10-11khz region, though I might say the UERM's treble is still easier to listen to.
Quote:
The CW sounds more like an extreme version (and less accurate as per the diffuse field curve) of the ER4S. I would say there's a peak in the upper midrange, might be due to tube resonance but it was too long ago so I can't say for sure. Treble is of course not as smooth as the deeply inserted ER4S. Bass is somewhat similar with more speed and snap. All in all, if you like the ER4S there's a high chance you'll also like the L05QD.
IMO the UERM is less aggressive than the CW.The most significant difference is in the lows, where the UERM manage to produce more rounded bass with longer decay than that of the CW due to their mid bass bump, whereas the CW's bass wins hands down in terms of speed and attack. The UERM's midrange is less shouty and more of an all-rounder compared the CW's. When it comes to treble the 2 can be said to be quite similar, with both having some noticeable peaks in the 10-11khz region, though I might say the UERM's treble is still easier to listen to.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 716
I'm surprised by this too. However, it wouldn't be the first time I've experienced this. I guess this is why some companies just do a 'generic Acrylic custom' version, rather than try to create a demo version (with tips and all).
I remember I didn't really like the CW's bass. It sounded a bit like plastic barrels, while the UERM can actually articulate more "proper" bass. Different to you, I actually found the CW's sound to be smoother overall.
shotgunshane
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Posts
- 6,062
- Likes
- 1,809
Lol, all these L05QD impressions are scaring me off.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2014
- Posts
- 713
- Likes
- 165
I haven't really been reading this thread in its entirety, but I just want to give a quick shout-out to the thread creator (and fellow singaporean) @jelt2359. really appreciate that you've put in the effort for your multiple rounds of IEM comparisons!
doantrang01
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2014
- Posts
- 10
- Likes
- 10
and yep!! still more coming
getclikinagas
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Posts
- 745
- Likes
- 849
Fantastic work jelt2359!
Thanks for the very enjoyable read. Definitely looking forward to your next
Thanks for the very enjoyable read. Definitely looking forward to your next
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 716
Round 9: Unique Melody Legacy, Mentor and Miracle; ATH IM03; ATH IM70
Unique Melody Legacy ($1600)
After my experiences with the Rooth flagship IEMs, which I’d felt had fallen rather short, I wasn’t expecting much with the UM branded earphones. After all, they’re sister brands under the same company. The Legacy- a twelve driver flagship with limited distribution- was the first I tried. It was smooth and warm, but still retained quite good clarity. The bass was a bit rounded and a tad light- but not adding much punch actually fit well with the overall smoothness. Similarly the treble was silky- absolutely no trace of sibilance. The mids were just a drop dry, a tiny bit recessed, and an ounce lacking in air. More generally, the soundstage was nicely sized, and imaging was also quite good. One thing that could be improved- these seemed to have a strangely sandwiched image. Overall, it also seemed to be almost straining at times- very strange for a twelve-driver.
Unique Melody Legacy Score: 9.4-9.5
Unique Melody Mentor ($1449)
The Legacy had already performed better than the Rooths that I’d auditioned, so I was feeling quite positive now. I was on a roll, and the Mentor did not disappoint. It was definitely brighter than the Legacy, although overall still slightly warm, and with the silky smoothness of its older brother. In terms of the frequency response, the bass hits hard on the Mentor, and brought good punch and weight. The mids were well balanced- neither forward nor recessed, and neither lush nor dry. There was also good clarity here, and this was certainly helped along by a treble more aggressive and edgy than that of the Legacy. This also meant that the Mentor was the airier IEM. Imaging and soundstage was on par- but more impressive here because of the more forward sound.
Unique Melody Mentor Score: 9.6
Unique Melody Miracle ($1049)
The first thing that struck me about the Miracle was its well-rounded, sustained mids- definitely not dry, and with good airiness. The bass here is punchy and snappy- very good, although just a glimpse lighter and less authoritative than the Mentor. Which one you prefer may simply be a matter of taste. Up top, the treble is less edgy than the Mentor. Still energetic, though. As with its siblings, clarity continues to be good, and the smooth house sound is evident. The warmth- while still there- shows up least on the Miracle. Soundstage here was the biggest of the trio, although the differences were not big. Imaging was about equal.
Unique Melody Miracle Score: 9.6
ATH IM03 ($300)
The IM03 had a presentation that was a bit warm, and overall quite natural. There is also very good balance- none of the frequencies stand out more than the other, and they are all well matched in terms of their forwardness. The bass was not of the punchy variety, and speed was just okay, but it nonetheless served up good texture and detail. The mids were a little dry, and lacking in airiness. The treble is actually quite weak. Overall, the IM03 falls behind in PRaT and rhythm. It also had a peculiar soundstage- in terms of pure size, it falls in between ‘above average’ and ‘quite big’, but unfortunately seems to achieve this by making the sound a bit diffused.
ATH IM03 Score: 8.9-9.0
ATH IM70 ($100)
The IM70 was warm and smooth, with quite a large soundstage. Unlike the IM03, the bass is weighty and impactful. This warmth also comes without an edgy high-end to compensate. Instead what you get are smooth top notes with good clarity. Indeed, clarity is pretty evident throughout- which is very impressive for an IEM with this type of signature. In the midrange, the presentation is more forward, and is not lush, although airiness can be better. Overall, this was a very organic, clear, smooth and effortless signature.
ATH IM70 Score: 9.2-9.3
Unique Melody Legacy ($1600)
After my experiences with the Rooth flagship IEMs, which I’d felt had fallen rather short, I wasn’t expecting much with the UM branded earphones. After all, they’re sister brands under the same company. The Legacy- a twelve driver flagship with limited distribution- was the first I tried. It was smooth and warm, but still retained quite good clarity. The bass was a bit rounded and a tad light- but not adding much punch actually fit well with the overall smoothness. Similarly the treble was silky- absolutely no trace of sibilance. The mids were just a drop dry, a tiny bit recessed, and an ounce lacking in air. More generally, the soundstage was nicely sized, and imaging was also quite good. One thing that could be improved- these seemed to have a strangely sandwiched image. Overall, it also seemed to be almost straining at times- very strange for a twelve-driver.
Unique Melody Legacy Score: 9.4-9.5
Unique Melody Mentor ($1449)
The Legacy had already performed better than the Rooths that I’d auditioned, so I was feeling quite positive now. I was on a roll, and the Mentor did not disappoint. It was definitely brighter than the Legacy, although overall still slightly warm, and with the silky smoothness of its older brother. In terms of the frequency response, the bass hits hard on the Mentor, and brought good punch and weight. The mids were well balanced- neither forward nor recessed, and neither lush nor dry. There was also good clarity here, and this was certainly helped along by a treble more aggressive and edgy than that of the Legacy. This also meant that the Mentor was the airier IEM. Imaging and soundstage was on par- but more impressive here because of the more forward sound.
Unique Melody Mentor Score: 9.6
Unique Melody Miracle ($1049)
The first thing that struck me about the Miracle was its well-rounded, sustained mids- definitely not dry, and with good airiness. The bass here is punchy and snappy- very good, although just a glimpse lighter and less authoritative than the Mentor. Which one you prefer may simply be a matter of taste. Up top, the treble is less edgy than the Mentor. Still energetic, though. As with its siblings, clarity continues to be good, and the smooth house sound is evident. The warmth- while still there- shows up least on the Miracle. Soundstage here was the biggest of the trio, although the differences were not big. Imaging was about equal.
Unique Melody Miracle Score: 9.6
ATH IM03 ($300)
The IM03 had a presentation that was a bit warm, and overall quite natural. There is also very good balance- none of the frequencies stand out more than the other, and they are all well matched in terms of their forwardness. The bass was not of the punchy variety, and speed was just okay, but it nonetheless served up good texture and detail. The mids were a little dry, and lacking in airiness. The treble is actually quite weak. Overall, the IM03 falls behind in PRaT and rhythm. It also had a peculiar soundstage- in terms of pure size, it falls in between ‘above average’ and ‘quite big’, but unfortunately seems to achieve this by making the sound a bit diffused.
ATH IM03 Score: 8.9-9.0
ATH IM70 ($100)
The IM70 was warm and smooth, with quite a large soundstage. Unlike the IM03, the bass is weighty and impactful. This warmth also comes without an edgy high-end to compensate. Instead what you get are smooth top notes with good clarity. Indeed, clarity is pretty evident throughout- which is very impressive for an IEM with this type of signature. In the midrange, the presentation is more forward, and is not lush, although airiness can be better. Overall, this was a very organic, clear, smooth and effortless signature.
ATH IM70 Score: 9.2-9.3
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Posts
- 1,150
- Likes
- 95
So in your opinion the Miracle is on par with the Mentor?
Sokolnitz
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Posts
- 23
- Likes
- 13
Thanks a lot for your reviews. So, Jelt2359, in your opinion, IM70 is an incredible bang for the buck ?
Users who are viewing this thread
