[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raisin Can you expound on that at all, Lindrone?

Well, you've already read the UE-10 and 2X-S review, right? The triple driver doesn't give any significant advantage over dual-driver design, sure.. the UE-10 Pro produces one more bass note, but the overall bass doesn't carry as much reverberation and satisfaction, at least for me, compared to the Sensaphonic 2X-S. 2X-S is also the more "textured" of the two, it has more details in decay and other minor characteristics. UE-10 is the clean, lean, and much more "monitor" like of the two.

Triple driver doesn't automatically lend to supremacy, it's not like the single versus dual driver problem, where a single driver simply can't reproduce the entire sound spectrum all with convincing impact. Dual-driver design can cover the entire sound spectrum, and in fact that I feel that 2X-S already produces a deeper, richer bass than any other headphone that I've ever auditioned/owned.

So yes, UE-10's triple driver design is really good, but it's not anywhere near superiority over all other design. It is just comparable with the 2X-S in overall sound quality. Even though it does seem that the triple driver should do much more than that... but if a dual-driver is already covering 99% of the sound spectrum, the triple driver really only gets you that last %.

The biggest achille's heel to the whole thing, is that most recordings don't even have a bass that's that deep, I have to search hard through my collection of music to find some rap/hip hop with really heavy bass beat to get that note once in a while, maybe 3 times on a really bass heavy track. The rest of the time the warmer, overall bass of the 2X-S is more preferrable to me by far.

So when it comes down to it, the only way that UE-10 can claim that their three-way design is better than anything else out there comes down to that frequency response chart.

It's a little bit like looking at specs of different headphone, like HD650 produces frequency up to 39,000Hz... but I don't know if you can really identify that, or how useful it'll really be? Either way, HD650 doesn't base their marketing material on the fact that they can produce notes up to 39,000Hz, right?

What's even more interesting, so if UE-10 Pro, with its triple driver and claim to have the only usable frequency reproduction at that low range... what the heck did the UE-7 Pro sound like? You would have to guess that triple driver only produced that lowest bass note unconvincingly, not apparently enough... or is that third driver is basically completely useless and unwarranted? From what I know, UE-7 Pro can produce to that frequency, but it produces much less decibels at that frequency, and it should sound like more of a rolled-off bass, even though it's there, it's not really useful.

Anyway, it just doesn't seem that with what they're doing with triple driver now, it's gaining any significant benefit. Unless you're dividing up the sound spectrum even more discreetly and allowing each driver to produce even finer detail in its own range. That is not what's being done now, the UE-10 Pro doesn't produce as much texture and decay detail than the 2X-S, but it stresses more treble and rising note detail.

 

[Zoide]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone Dual-driver design can cover the entire sound spectrum, and in fact that I feel that 2X-S already produces a deeper, richer bass than any other headphone that I've ever auditioned/owned.

Just curious: what other cans have you auditioned/owned?

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Yes. But again, Lindrone... you are making it sound as if the general consensus was that flat frequency response was unimportant.

Okay, let's put it this way... it may not be general concensus that flat curve isn't important.. but it is also not the general concensus that flat curve is the only thing that's important. I've demonstrated that as much as you have. The fact is, you ignore that I've telling you that flat curve is very much an utopian effort, when reality of different environment, mastering, mixing is thrown into the equation, flat curve is far from ideal. It only works if everything else is flat as well, down to the recording source & mastering process. There's nothing that makes any of those processes "flat".

As a monitor-only, UE-10 can be put into a controlled environment with flat microphone & flat equalization at the sound board. With our playback environment, the music has already been recorded and mixed... it doesn't apply in our environment nearly as much. It only matters that you get to a sound signature that you like, flatness or not, that's not the important issue. You may end up liking a sound that's flat, but it certainly is by no means a technical, all encompassing measurement that everyone should strive for. There's a some people who would attest that flat curved speaker systems matched to flat source & amp equipments sound like crap.


Quote:

And regarding the optimal frequency response for IEM not being flat, if I look at it, I see that in the range indicated by the guy who mentioned that, UEs indeed have some sort of a spike. Or am I mistaken?

All depends on what they're measuring and where, and how closely that graph even simulates the average ear canal. That chart is assuming that the mechanism they used (which has already been mentioned earlier in this thread) correctly simulates the ear canal, thus the drop in resonance is compensated for correctly. What if it's not? If it's a little off from that, the spike you see might become a huge hump, and the drop-off on the 2X-S might be flatter than you think. Tell you the truth, it could just be completely whacked and all over the place.

Either way, that measured spike is probably why the midrange vocal and instrument sound so much more forward than everything else. It produces a compressed and congested middle soundstage and frontal imaging that's just not very welcoming to me.


Quote:

As to what you mean by their design not being better than dual-driver designs, I'd like some evidence for this, or at least some explanation of what you mean, apart from your personal preference in sound signature.

Just explained it, if you want anymore explanation.. err.. haven't I already done this fifteen times? You just don't really want to believe any of it anyway.


Quote:

One more thing. You are calling them unethical in their business approach. Well, Jerry Harvey is indeed a sound engineer and given his measurements he might well believe in good faith that his product is the best out there. If he believes that in good faith I don't see how you could call him unethical for stating it.

Well, here's an interesting, real-life example that I've just recently experienced. I'm a graphic designer, right? Recently I had to work on a lot of images that needed to be color corrected in a certain way. I had forgotten that a few days prevy to the assignment, I had switched to a newer monitor. I had not yet calibrated my colors properly. We finished all the color correction, and later on found that all the images showed up darker with a tint of red on all the other displays. I went back, corrected the color on my monitor and redid all the color correction.

What is my point in that example above? What we're basically seeing here, is that Jerry Harvey believes that his testing methodology is bullet proof, and it will properly emulate the human ear canal to a reasonable degree. The question is, if he thinks so high of his testing methodology, why has so few company followed lead? The unit that uses for his testing is published, it's no secret what he uses for his test.

At the same time, the unit he uses for the test is used for testing hearing aids, not IEM's, which has a much larger sound reproduction spectrum than hearing aids. It could be that the testing instrument does work perfectly, it could be that the testing instrument only work perfectly within the given sound spectrum reproduction range of a hearing aid. It could be that it really doesn't work perfectly at all, just an approximation because hearing aids really don't have to be as precise as IEM's.

What if 5 years from now, he realizes that he had a flaw in his testing methodology, and everything he has made in the past 5 years of his life are all measured incorrectly? It's just like a week after I did all the color correction, I realized my monitor wasn't calibrated correctly, and had to tell everyone, get the images re-corrected and sent back out again.

Okay, so that's all supposition anyway. It could be that Jerry Harvey has the perfect testing methodology and no one else knows it yet. There's only one, solid fact though.. there's no industry established standards for testing this type of things, there's no solid standards for testing speakers, testing headphones, certainly not for testing IEM's. So relying on that type of claim for marketing or the purchasing of those type of equipment is dubious at best.

We should purchase audio equipments based on auditions and experiences, communication with other people who had similar experiences and tastes and such. You should never, ever buy any audio equipment based on technical claims like the ones made on UE's website, or even Sennheiser's, Sony's, or anybody else, period. Of course, in case of custom IEM's, all you have to rely on are experiences of others and description of other's experiences. Unfortunately, that's the way it is... but that shouldn't change any of the concepts behind purchasing equipments. Just because you can't really audition them doesn't mean you should all of a sudden start trusting charts and specs blindly.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoide Just curious: what other cans have you auditioned/owned?

Auditioned:
Beyer DT880
AKG K501
Ety ER-4P/S (extensively for weeks for reviews)
Sennheiser HD600 w/ all sorts of cable
Sennheiser HD650 w/ all sorts of cable
Grado SR-125
Grado SR-225 w/ all sorts of pads
Grado HP-1000
Audio Technica W2002
Audio Technica W100 (I think?)
Audio Technica A1000
Audio Technica A100 (might have been W100?.. too many A-T's, can't remember)


Own(ed):
Shure E2c
Shure E3c (this is still with my gf)
Shure E5c
Sennheiser HD280
Sennheiser HD497
Sennheiser HD580 w/ Oelbach
Ultrasone HFI-700
Audio Technica A900
Sony V6
Sony CD3000
Ultimate Ears UE-10 Pro
Sensaphonics ProPhonic 2X-S

I think I've auditioned almost everything under the $1000 mark in terms of headphones. Two manufacturers that I really didn't have that much experience with are AKG and Beyerdynamics.

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone Okay, let's put it this way... it may not be general concensus that flat curve isn't important.. but it is also not the general concensus that flat curve is the only thing that's important.

I don't seem to recall ever having written that. I actually gave you two examples of people stating that flat is undesirable. Quote:

The fact is, you ignore that I've telling you that flat curve is very much an utopian effort, when reality of different environment, mastering, mixing is thrown into the equation, flat curve is far from ideal.

Not only I've not ignored it, I actually brought evidence to that thesis... Quote:

As a monitor-only, UE-10 can be put into a controlled environment with flat microphone & flat equalization at the sound board. With our playback environment, the music has already been recorded and mixed... it doesn't apply in our environment nearly as much. It only matters that you get to a sound signature that you like, flatness or not, that's not the important issue. You may end up liking a sound that's flat, but it certainly is by no means a technical, all encompassing measurement that everyone should strive for. There's a some people who would attest that flat curved speaker systems matched to flat source & amp equipments sound like crap.

This is where I think it gets really subjective. Source might not be flat, amp might not be flat, speakers/headphones might not be flat... I think that well recorded and mastered music ought to be listened to with as much as a flat chain of equipment as possible. Badly mastered music... who knows? Quote:

Just explained it, if you want anymore explanation.. err.. haven't I already done this fifteen times? You just don't really want to believe any of it anyway.

This is not true. You are talking about your listening experience, which does not necessarily tell a lot about the technical merits of a design over another. I'm *not* saying 2X-S sound badly or anything. I've always stated that I believe them to be an extraordinary product. Always. Please, do not paint me in this way. I don't think I deserve it. There have been other people on these forums that have been downright rude to you. I don't believe it was my case. Quote:

What is my point in that example above? What we're basically seeing here, is that Jerry Harvey believes that his testing methodology is bullet proof, and it will properly emulate the human ear canal to a reasonable degree. The question is, if he thinks so high of his testing methodology, why has so few company followed lead? The unit that uses for his testing is published, it's no secret what he uses for his test.

This question could only be answered by him. As I stated, I believe that that claim has been made in response to Westone "unequalled accuracy and response" claim, since it specifically refers to triple driver designs. Quote:

At the same time, the unit he uses for the test is used for testing hearing aids, not IEM's, which has a much larger sound reproduction spectrum than hearing aids. It could be that the testing instrument does work perfectly, it could be that the testing instrument only work perfectly within the given sound spectrum reproduction range of a hearing aid. It could be that it really doesn't work perfectly at all, just an approximation because hearing aids really don't have to be as precise as IEM's.

You are right, it could be all these things. But given that we are talking about a sound engineer here... I'd be inclined to at least give him the benefit of doubt. Quote:

So relying on that type of claim for marketing or the purchasing of those type of equipment is dubious at best.

I did clarify that I didn't even take that into consideration when making my choice. Quote:

Just because you can't really audition them doesn't mean you should all of a sudden start trusting charts and specs blindly.

Was there anybody on this forum advocating for that?

 

[random person]

This thread is getting more and more amusing. I'm certain, for example, that Ultimate Ears would be delighted to hear themselves compared to the Evil Apple, Intel, or in prior threads, Microsoft. After all, this is only a TEN PERSON Mom and Pop company! They should be so lucky as to have the level of market power that some posters have attributed to them.

Even more ridiculous is lindrone's intonations about how it's only "their marketing department" not tech support or customer relations that he has an issue with. Since this is a ten-person company, the President Mindy Harvey is likely to work on customer relations in the morning, operations and tech support and marketing in the afternoon, and maybe spends a half hour a week overseeing the website. I take it from Lindrone then that Mindy is a good person only in the morning, but once it gets to late in the day when she wears her marketing hat -- well, she becomes positively evil then! I mean, let's get real. These comparisons and statements are ridiculous and make fools of all of you that make them.

This is a tiny company in a tiny market. The level of anger being directed at them is entirely disproportionate, and frankly, nuts. Even if people have been misguided enough to believe the UE10 is technically superior -- who cares? (And, by the way, it may well BE technically superior -- even if lindrone doesn't prefer them, or heaven help us, can't hear the difference or doesn't think the difference is significant.) Frankly, I'm trying to understand why any of you care why anyone buys anything. For all you know somebody may buy UE products so that they can get a color that matches their painted toenails! Who cares?

The level of self-righteous boorishness being expressed here is both intolerable and stupid. And as for the constant discussion of business models and business practices -- please. Save it for your first day of business school -- and then get laughed out of the program.

 

[dmt1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone What's even more interesting, so if UE-10 Pro, with its triple driver and claim to have the only usable frequency reproduction at that low range... what the heck did the UE-7 Pro sound like? You would have to guess that triple driver only produced that lowest bass note unconvincingly, not apparently enough... or is that third driver is basically completely useless and unwarranted? From what I know, UE-7 Pro can produce to that frequency, but it produces much less decibels at that frequency, and it should sound like more of a rolled-off bass, even though it's there, it's not really useful.

You're making some strong assumptions without remembering what each monitor was designed for. Not really fair. The UE-7 was designed to be used with a high frequency booster; the UE-10 is designed to reach out on the high end without it, which is probably why it's more expensive. It would be interesting to know how a UE-7PRO with the high frequency booster would sound against a UE-10PRO without, but that's so esoteric I doubt we'll see that one anytime soon. As for the rolled off bass, you're forgetting that the UE7PRO is first and foremost a monitor tuned specifically for musicians (I believe the UE7PRO has drummers specifically in mind), not people like us--the UE10PRO is probably the better sound signature for most people out of the two for listening to recorded music--I don't see the UE folks pushing people toward the 7's, moreso toward the fives and tens probably at least in part because of these reasons. They have different monitors for different types of musicicans--heck, you knew that....

 

[plainsong]

Before we get too angry though, remember it's possible as a "small" company to have a huge market share and to be perceived as overly aggressive by your competitors (read: violating that gentlemen's agreement to not post FR charts) thanks to clever outsourcing. UE doesn't need to have a marketing department. They can hire an outside company to handle that. In fact, you can hire outside companies to delegate most of the running of your business, so "small" doesn't have the same meaning anymore. I just want to point that out. And in there marketing, yes UE is far more aggressive. Whether you think that's good or bad is up to you.


Quote:

Originally Posted by random person This thread is getting more and more amusing. I'm certain, for example, that Ultimate Ears would be delighted to hear themselves compared to the Evil Apple, Intel, or in prior threads, Microsoft. After all, this is only a TEN PERSON Mom and Pop company! They should be so lucky as to have the level of market power that some posters have attributed to them. Even more ridiculous is lindrone's intonations about how it's only "their marketing department" not tech support or customer relations that he has an issue with. Since this is a ten-person company, the President Mindy Harvey is likely to work on customer relations in the morning, operations and tech support and marketing in the afternoon, and maybe spends a half hour a week overseeing the website. I take it from Lindrone then that Mindy is a good person only in the morning, but once it gets to late in the day when she wears her marketing hat -- well, she becomes positively evil then! I mean, let's get real. These comparisons and statements are ridiculous and make fools of all of you that make them. This is a tiny company in a tiny market. The level of anger being directed at them is entirely disproportionate, and frankly, nuts. Even if people have been misguided enough to believe the UE10 is technically superior -- who cares? (And, by the way, it may well BE technically superior -- even if lindrone doesn't prefer them, or heaven help us, can't hear the difference or doesn't think the difference is significant.) Frankly, I'm trying to understand why any of you care why anyone buys anything. For all you know somebody may buy UE products so that they can get a color that matches their painted toenails! Who cares? The level of self-righteous boorishness being expressed here is both intolerable and stupid. And as for the constant discussion of business models and business practices -- please. Save it for your first day of business school -- and then get laughed out of the program.

 

[random person]

Hi Plainsong --

Just to clarify, Mindy is their marketing department!

As for marketing being evil -- well I'm a 25+ year marketing professional, started a web consulting/marketing firm, and have been a marketing professor at an Ivy leage business school. So no, I don't think marketing is evil. I think it makes the world go 'round!

That said, I don't believe in malicious tactics or misleading statements. In any case, I don't think UE is guilty of either.

 

[penbat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by random person Hi Plainsong -- Just to clarify, Mindy is their marketing department!

Mindy is crap hot responding quickly to emails. But i detect that she is not a techy. For example, when i asked her for guidance on whether to choose UE-5 or UE-10 with my IPod she just said i would be happy with either and didn't go into any more detail technical or otherwise. So that wasn't very helpful.

 

[penbat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by penbat Mindy is crap hot responding quickly to emails. But i detect that she is not a techy. For example, when i asked her for guidance on whether to choose UE-5 or UE-10 with my IPod she just said i would be happy with either and didn't go into any more detail technical or otherwise. So that wasn't very helpful.

Any takers for this thread surpassing 200 posts ?

 

[Big D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toaster22 The fact that the UE website says "best iem's in the world" bothers me.

If you are going to quote something and put it in parenthesis then you need to get your quote correct.

The actual wording on Ultimate Ears website is:

"Quite simply the finest personal monitors in the world."

This phrase could be interpreted more vaguely than your incorrect quote. It could refer to the quality of the components used or the workmanship, etc.

 

[iamdone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by penbat Any takers for this thread surpassing 200 posts ?

It can easily go past 200 if toaster posts his impressions of the sensaphonics when he gets them. I'd suggest starting a new thread for that. I think I even piggybacked his thread since it was supposed to just be about his painfull experience and meeting the audiologist and her daughter.

 

[ayn]

Very entertaining post indeed... I paid for my 2XS last week and should get them next week. Can't wait. No pain at all getting my impressions done, it was fast and painless, and only cost $40!

--Andrew

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman This is not true. You are talking about your listening experience, which does not necessarily tell a lot about the technical merits of a design over another. I'm *not* saying 2X-S sound badly or anything. I've always stated that I believe them to be an extraordinary product. Always. Please, do not paint me in this way. I don't think I deserve it. There have been other people on these forums that have been downright rude to you. I don't believe it was my case.

Well, therelies part of the problem, a lot of what I talked about before with the 2X-S and UE-10 comparison are technical, just the interpretation of it leaves some people think that it's just "preference". For example, when I say, "the bass of the UE-10 Pro is only one note deeper, no more.".. That is a technical statement, because that's simply the way I hear it... but people can easily take that and interprete them as my preference if they choose to.

When I say 2X-S has more texture and warmth, that's also a very "technical" statement; I mean, it's still depend on one's observation, but it's a very observational statement rather than an opinion. People who didn't want to believe me can easily take that and make that into just "lindrone's opinion" as well, right? All observation depends on the observer to a certain degree, but I would believe that there's more truth in observations than false information. Otherwise may as well not read this site at all.

In contrast, when I said, "I really like the 2X-S more because of its texture and warmth." That's an opinion, because of certain factual, technical observation that I made, I liked it for that reason. I could very well say, "I liked the UE-10 Pro because of its lean and crisp presentation.", and that would be an opinion as well.

So when you ask me for more evidence, I don't know what else one could ask for. Am I supposed to come up with some magical testing instrument that can tell everyone some sort of benchmark that how much decay, detail, instrument separation that each headphone produces? Only if we had such an instrument that can do that... then we would all have it easier.