[toaster]

i have never had bad problems with wax.

Vicky checked my ears before she did the molds, so i assume if there were a problem like that she would have mentioned something to me. i did want my molds to be perfect, so i brought some q-tips with me on the ride over to meet Vicky, and gave my ears a thorough swabbing just before i got out of the car to meet her.

 

[Zoide]

Oh, ok.

But then what about when you actually get your IEM's? What if you forget to swab or something and you have some big piece of earwax? Wouldn't it all get shoved to the inmost depths of your ear canals? Wouldn't that clog it and have some nasty consequences?

(sorry for being so disgusting, but I think it's a valid concern

)

 

[toaster]

i am not 100% sure, but you can bet lindrone will be here to answer this in a short while...

i believe the actual ear pieces take into account the depth of the molds, and are made considerably shorter. This makes the actual headphones much more comfortable, and probably helps keep wax from getting lodged into the ear piece tubes. if every time i put on the sensas i felt the same pain i did when having my molds done, i would go insane.

 

[winty]

UE10pros are 13 ohms right? Just throwing this out there as an idea... Is it possible that Lindrone's equipment is not up to the job of driving a 13 ohm canalphone?

I'm just wondering whether his experience is necessarily definitive in that respect. I don't personally have a problem with forward vocals on my UE10pros, although I do identify somewhat with the description of the bass being lean (although it can at times be cavernous also).

 

[toaster]

canalphones are all super-efficient, so having "enough power" to drive them is never really an issue.

as a matter of fact, the ue-10 pros are MORE efficient than the sensaphonics, which work just fine for lindrone. but both are very easily driven, proof of which can be seen in them each being easily driven out of an ipod.

 

[iamdone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toaster22 canalphones are all super-efficient, so having "enough power" to drive them is never really an issue. as a matter of fact, the ue-10 pros are MORE efficient than the sensaphonics, which work just fine for lindrone. but both are very easily driven, proof of which can be seen in them each being easily driven out of an ipod.

He said both headphones sound really close through my PPA, so I don't think it had anything to do with power.

As for a the wax issue, they check before the make the molds. I also had no problem and never had one in the past. I had my etys for over a year and half and never needed to change the filters. I changed them once as a test and noticed no difference in sound. I hear some people need to change them every few months or so.

The molds are also I lot longer than the headphone will be. She showed me where they would actually end at.

 

[Zoide]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamdone He said both headphones sound really close through my PPA, so I don't think it had anything to do with power.

I suppose you mean only in terms of volume at an equal knob position? Because if you mean they sound really close in terms of sound signatures then the world will fall apart...

 

[winty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toaster22 as a matter of fact, the ue-10 pros are MORE efficient than the sensaphonics

To be clear I was talking about the fact that due to their low impedance they require pretty large currents, which supposedly not all amps can produce.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoide But then what about when you actually get your IEM's? What if you forget to swab or something and you have some big piece of earwax? Wouldn't it all get shoved to the inmost depths of your ear canals? Wouldn't that clog it and have some nasty consequences?

If you ever have earwax that's developed so deeply that it can no longer be removed with the standard cleaning tools supplied, you'll have to return them to the manufacturer for cleaning and wax removal. In UE's case, you'll probably have to change filter as well, as Sensaphonics has a filter-less design.

This is true with any IEM, even Shure E5's or Ety ER-4... however, it is impossible to develop such deep wax penetration with ER-4, since the filter is placed at the very opening of the bore. With the Shure E5's, the bore length is still reachable with the cleaning tool, however there is a filter that could be punctured if you reach in too deeply, thus requiring return to manufacturer for repair as well.


Quote:

Originally Posted by winty UE10pros are 13 ohms right? Just throwing this out there as an idea... Is it possible that Lindrone's equipment is not up to the job of driving a 13 ohm canalphone? I'm just wondering whether his experience is necessarily definitive in that respect. I don't personally have a problem with forward vocals on my UE10pros, although I do identify somewhat with the description of the bass being lean (although it can at times be cavernous also).

Well, I tested them on both the HR-2 and PPA now.. they can easily get loud enough to blow my brains out. You don't even have to turn the knob past 90 degrees really. I understand your concern, lower impedance means it draws more current, and if not enough current is provided, it will produce a bass cut-off. I am able to reach the lowest bass note possible, which also means that there's certainly not a bass cut-off of any sort. It's just the way its sound signature is designed. It is rather lean in comparison to 2X-S.

Also take in consideration that the UE-10 Pro is originally designed to be running from wireless belt-packs for on-stage monitoring applications. If it can't reach proper driveablity off a 9-volt battery, it has completely failed in its original purpose. So yes, it can be driven off even a 9-volt battery powered device.


So.. with those two questions out of the way...

Why do I say that some UE purchasers might have been brainwashed? Just look at the arguments over and over again just further pushes that fact over anything else. Notice I never said that UE-10 Pro was an crappy product... the only reason why UE-10 was even mentioned in this thread, is that I did comparison of UE-10 Pro and 2X-S against HD650, and 2X-S is more like HD650. It does not mean that UE-10 Pro is crap, but if HD650 is your taste, then UE-10 Pro is *NOT*. You can still love the UE-10 Pro for different reasons, but in this particular context, it is the wrong choice, period.

So, why do I still say some UE purchasers are still brainwashed? It has to do with their reasonings, not their purchase! Even if they had no clue what the hell they were talking about, and end up with a UE-10 Pro, it's still one of the best IEM out there. The question is, would've been better for their particular taste for sound if they got the 2X-S instead?

I'll just say this, if you bought an UE-10 Pro... these should have been your reasoning:

1. You like a lean and clean sound presentation
2. You want a sound that's slightly more analytical
3. You like your presentation to sound more neutral-cold, not warm
4. You want the one extra bass note in trade off for an overall more vibrant bass (like I said, lean and clean)
5. The slightly compressed frontal soundstage doesn't bother you
6. You want semi-transparent coloring options

If your reasons are any of the following, you are just lucky that UE-10 Pro turned out be good:

1. You believed that they are indeed, as advertised, the "Best IEM in the world". Anyone can claim that on their site, there are IEM manfacturers that uses dynamic drivers that claims they're the "best" because they use a single dynamic driver that produces a full-range, natural sound. Do you believe them too?
2. You believed that "flat curve" is the holy grail of good sound, and all speakers and headphones should be made to have a "flat curve". This simply isn't true, I think you all have read the arguments by now.

There's a very big difference between making a decision based on reviews, opinions, and accurate sound descriptions and interpretations, and basing it on some technical details posted on the particular equipment manufacturer's website. Especially when it's some big, bold marketing claim. Trying to extrapolate a headphone's worthiness based on nothing but technical claim is also ludicrous.

For example, have you seen the spec on the Sennheiser HD280 compared to HD600?

HD280: 8 - 25,000 Hz
HD600: 12-39,000 Hz

This would lend you to believe that HD280 has much better lows and HD600 has a much sharper high.. just by looking at the technical specs. Well, based on personal experience, HD280's piercing highs are much more grating to my ears than the soft highs that HD600 produces. Similarly, the "deep bass" of the HD280's are much less present and useful than HD600's bass. Without looking at the specs, I wouldn't even know HD280 was supposed to produce deeper bass? So.. errr.. what does that all mean to you?

I'm not saying UE-10 Pro is crap, although I don't like it as much as 2X-S. In every technical aspect they're pretty close to each other, 2X-S just has some characteristic that I like much more. I would recommend UE-10 Pro to people who wants a very clean and more analytical sound. The problem, and the source of my anger and rage in most of these arguments, is that people has been making their decision to purchase UE-10 on completely the wrong type of reasoning. Technical specs, marketing claim, and the wrong perception of the ideology behind having "flat curves".

Once again, "flat curve" is an utopian effort in an utopian world where everything else is flat. Our world is full of hills and trenches, so are our recording, mastering, and outputting methods.

 

[Zoide]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone If you ever have earwax that's developed so deeply that it can no longer be removed with the standard cleaning tools supplied, you'll have to return them to the manufacturer for cleaning and wax removal. In UE's case, you'll probably have to change filter as well, as Sensaphonics has a filter-less design. This is true with any IEM, even Shure E5's or Ety ER-4... however, it is impossible to develop such deep wax penetration with ER-4, since the filter is placed at the very opening of the bore. With the Shure E5's, the bore length is still reachable with the cleaning tool, however there is a filter that could be punctured if you reach in too deeply, thus requiring return to manufacturer for repair as well.

Oh, but I mean wax that gets stuck in the depths of your *ears* not of the canalphone bores. Surely you can't return your *ears*

Another thing you mentioned that I found interesting is that the 2X-S is filterless but the UE10-Pro uses a filter. I suppose not having a filter is good b/c you don't have to keep on buying/changing them. But surely there is some utility to filters? Does it result in a significant difference in the day-to-day use of the UE & Sensa cans?

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoide Oh, but I mean wax that gets stuck in the depths of your *ears* not of the canalphone bores. Surely you can't return your *ears*

LOL... okay... well, you have to get a doctor to remove deep earwax that can't be removed via other methods. Before that they'll recommend solutions that can dissolve the warwax and make it flow out of your first. You can buy these solutions over the counter at any drug store.


Quote:

Another thing you mentioned that I found interesting is that the 2X-S is filterless but the UE10-Pro uses a filter. I suppose not having a filter is good b/c you don't have to keep on buying/changing them. But surely there is some utility to filters? Does it result in a significant difference in the day-to-day use of the UE & Sensa cans?

In older IEM designs, filters are used to keep out earwax and such things from being able to reach the driver. They are also used to "shape" the sound to make the sound less harsh. If you ever tried listening to Ety ER-4 without the filter, the sound is quite harsh and painful. The question is which one came first, was it the desire to use a filter that caused the driver to sound more harsh to balance out the smoothing effects of a filter, or was it that to smooth out the harsh sound of the driver, they had to install a filter? I'm guessing is more the former than latter.

Sensaphonics just decided not to use a filter in their design, probably because they can make a good sounding IEM even easier without a filter (one less variable to throw into the whole thing, right?), also because there's no simple way to replace a filter in a custom fit IEM as opposed to universal fit IEM anyway. Even though UE-10 Pro does have filter in their IEM, if you look at where they're positioned, they are incredibly hard to service and replace on your own. Even Shure E5c and E3c does not use a user-serviceable filter. The only canalphone out there that does is really only the Ety ER-4.

 

[cct1]

With regard about the whole ear cleaning thing (Don't read this if you 've just eaten):

My audiologist sent me straight to an ENT friend of mine to get my ears cleaned, they were so bad (that was for a different set of ear molds for something altogether different though--silicone westones). If they're not too bad, your audiologist can clean them themselves. When they make impressions, it's common to see a little bit of wax on them--no big deal.

When I had my ears cleaned, I had a wax ball in each ear--my ENT thought it was definitely possible that shoving all these universal fit IEMs in my ear could be the culprit for the impaction. If it sounds like it was painful to have them clean, all I can say is, it was...

When I got my impressions for the custom IEMs (about a year later), for what it's worth, my ears were clean--Murine eardrops work wonders, but if you've got a ton of wax in their in the first place, get your ears cleaned out first.

As for silicone vs acrylic, I've had them both, and I prefer the acriylic. I don't notice any difference in comfort, despite the fact that the acrylic one go in a little bit deeper. The outsides of the acrylic are slightly easier to clean (wax tends to wipe off better; it tends to smear more on the silicone--not that much difference though). More importantly is cleaning the bores--as far as I can tell, they're both equally a pain to clean. The acrylic molds are easier for me to insert, they're "slicker" than the silicone ones I own. But these are all relatively minor differences, and if the Sensaphonics are coated with something, like Iamdone suggests, they may clean just as easy and insert just as easy as acrylic. The major reason I went with acrylic is I think it will hold up better over time; I've seen it mentioned that silicone is more comfortable for extended periods of listening, but I rarely go more than an hour and a half at a time, so that didn't come into play for me.

Filter vs. no filter is a bigger issue for me. If you don't have problems with wax, I wouldn't worry about it. If you do, I'd be a bit concerned about a filterless IEM (someone should ask Sensaphonics directly wether this is a legitmate concern or not). Having had to change clogged ety filters, I cringe at the thought of wax getting into an unfiltered IEM. Having cleaned the bores of the UE's, the wax can go down in there a fair distance--I never had it go to the end of the tube, to the filter (yet, at least), but it is still a concern. There is no way I'd attempt to change a UE filter if it clogged, but my suspicion is UE could do it fairly easy--they changed my UE5C filters, to see if would make a difference--I sent them in on Weds, had them back on Monday--so I don't think it's a big deal to do. I don't know how easy it would be to clean filterless IEM's clogged with wax; it my be just as easy (again, someone with Sensa's might want to ask them about this). Either way, if you own Sensa's or UE's, I would take the manufacturer's recommendation about cleaning the IEM's--especially the bores--after each use.

 

[dmt1]

That post above is mine--(I originally used cct1 here, but changed to dmt1--same username at ipodlounge, easier for me to remember). Had a brain fart and signed in wrong today. BTW, is there any way to get rid of a sign-on?

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmt1 BTW, is there any way to get rid of a sign-on?

In vBulletin 3.0.x it's possible to merge two existing accounts into a single one. You might want to try and ask the administration of the forums for this.

Regarding silicone, I can definitely testimony that when I take my UE-10 out, after a couple of hours of listening, they are much softer then when I inserted them.

 

[raisin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cct1 The acrylic molds are easier for me to insert, they're "slicker" than the silicone ones I own. But these are all relatively minor differences, and if the Sensaphonics are coated with something, like Iamdone suggests, they may clean just as easy and insert just as easy as acrylic.

Good information, dmt1. Yes, the Sensa's are coated (my audiologist mentioned that it comes from europe, somewhat secretively, and she wishes she could get some). I had wondered what it's purpose was, and your supposition seems to hit it right on the head.