[HRA]

My comfort issues with the Sensa's were most probably a function of poor impressions more than anything else. I've popped them in today and compared to the UE-10's. It's a very subjective thing to say which is better as its all in "the ears of the beholder". My opinion is that the UE-10 outperform the Sensa's....but this is just my impression.

 

[gorman]

I ordered UE-10, full soft.

At the end of the day, why I decided this way?

1) I *knew* that if I went for a double driver choice I would have always been left with a nagging desire to try the triple driver design.

2) I'm not at all convinced that a company with those clients could put out products that are cracks prone in the outer shell.

3) Michael Santucci admitted candidly that 2X-Soft emphasize bass response... now, I might infer the same from UE-10 frequency response chart but... nonetheless, that left me unconvinced.

4) Mindy Harvey has got to be the most quick replying company's president of the world. Always very patient. And I *did* have lots of questions and special requests.

Now... if about point 2 I will turn out to be wrong... no problem, you'll be the first to know it. And you can bet I *would* write it here.

*After* I had already decided on the UE-10, I saw Lindrone's new pictures of his 2X-Soft and I have to say I don't like the finish the silicone allows for. I think it's in the nature of the material, but it looked pretty uneven to me. That was not a deciding factor, but it could have been had I seen those pics before.

 

[cmascatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman *After* I had already decided on the UE-10, I saw Lindrone's new pictures of his 2X-Soft and I have to say I don't like the finish the silicone allows for. I think it's in the nature of the material, but it looked pretty uneven to me. That was not a deciding factor, but it could have been had I seen those pics before.

Don't let the pics fool you. My 2X-S are totally smooth and the finish is uniform. However, I have found them very difficult to photograph well. The silicone material is clear with a slight pinkish hue that casts weird shadows and swirls when shot. It looks perfect to the eye, though. The 2X-S does not have the crystal-clear glass-like look of the UE10s which I would guess makes the UEs more photogenic. The other thing that is tough to see on my photos is the embedded "sticker" in the left IEM that says "CJM-1588" (my initials and the Serial #) -- it looks like a scratch every time I try and zoom in on it.

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmascatello The other thing that is tough to see on my photos is the embedded "sticker" in the left IEM that says "CJM-1588" (my initials and the Serial #) -- it looks like a scratch every time I try and zoom in on it.

Does your camera have anything like the "Macro" function which is commonplace in most digital cameras? You might try using that.

And as I mentioned, I decided *before* looking at those pictures.

 

[Jamey Warren]

It helps to use a "bite block" when having your impressions made. My previous custom plugs (westone) didn't fit as well as one would hope. My UE's fit great.

 

[cmascatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Does your camera have anything like the "Macro" function which is commonplace in most digital cameras? You might try using that. And as I mentioned, I decided *before* looking at those pictures.

Yeah, my camera is a good one and it has all sorts of Macro functionality. My biggest issue is the lighting in my office and house -- it is kind of hazy, especially at night whcih is when I end up trying to take the shots. Maybe I will be able to get decent ones when I get my head out of my rear and take daytime photos with natural light...

 

[lindrone]

Doesn't matter what mode and what lighting you try to use with the 2X-S.. they are just extremely hard to photograph. Any leftover dust and lint shows up like pimples on the very tip of your nose. The finish is in fact, very smooth and comparatively soft.

Quote:

3) Michael Santucci admitted candidly that 2X-Soft emphasize bass response... now, I might infer the same from UE-10 frequency response chart but... nonetheless, that left me unconvinced.

Hmm... so did you want more bass or less bass? If you're looking for a solid bass, 2X-S rivals E5c in just about in every way in how it presents the bass and beyond. It's more accurate, more texture and tonality, and extends deeper as well. E5c has more mid-bass vibration than the 2X-S, which makes the E5c a little more fun and entertaining in that guilty pleasure sort of way.

If you wanted less bass.. well.. then... hmm...

If you wanted more bass... well... this thing can already blow my brain out... so I don't really need more

 

[earful]

what about a weight comparison? which set weighs more per ear? not being facetious here. even earbuds that are heavy make the listening experience unpleasant in the end for me, so i'm curious about how much these custom-molded pieces weigh.

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone Hmm... so did you want more bass or less bass? If you're looking for a solid bass, 2X-S rivals E5c in just about in every way in how it presents the bass and beyond. It's more accurate, more texture and tonality, and extends deeper as well. E5c has more mid-bass vibration than the 2X-S, which makes the E5c a little more fun and entertaining in that guilty pleasure sort of way. If you wanted less bass.. well.. then... hmm... If you wanted more bass... well... this thing can already blow my brain out... so I don't really need more

Hi Lindrone! I wanted a flat response with the right quantity of sound for all frequencies. Since I was really interested in both products... I don't know, in the end I opted for UE-10 Pro, because I hoped that the triple driver design would result in a flatter response throughout the audible spectrum.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Hi Lindrone! I wanted a flat response with the right quantity of sound for all frequencies. Since I was really interested in both products... I don't know, in the end I opted for UE-10 Pro, because I hoped that the triple driver design would result in a flatter response throughout the audible spectrum.

hmm.. I see... the only problem is, at this level of audiophilism... I think "flat" is too much of an opinion rather than a fact. Even if the frequency response chart measures flat, it doesn't tell you much about what the headphone really sound like... Sound signature still varies.

I feel that the 2X-S is fairly flat, but it's still very emotionally engaging and exciting. I've heard other headphones that are also considered "flat" which aren't so emotionally engaging for me....

Hard to say one way or another.

 

[random person]

jamey -- would you mind telling us more about the UE5C? I was torn between that and the UE10 but decided on the UE5c based on durability, its intended use (exclusively IPOD, 90% while at the gym weight training, running and the like, 10% while traveling) and the thought that with two drivers it would be slightly smaller than the UE10 and therefore less "horsey-looking." Plus I'll admit it seemed like overkill to drive an IPOD with a cool $1,000 'phone -- just the principle of the thing. (Mind you, I generally have no problem spending money on audio. My home speakers are B&W Silver Signature 30, costing me a cool $18 grand and to my mind worth every penny. And I drive them with Krell equipment, so I'm no cheapskate. But price aside, in this case I liked the idea of 'phones that were explicitly designed for portable devices -- just seemed like a better match of components. Am I right?)

Anyway is the hard acrylic material on the UE5C comfortable? Is there a huge difference in comfort between that and the UE10 soft? I would expect a sonic difference between the two but do you find the UE5C bass adequate?

Do whatever you can to tell me I made the right choice, will ya?

I'm countin on ya! (and anyone else, for that matter!)

 

[lindrone]

Chime in with my 2 cents...

I think hard acrylic isn't necessarily uncomfortable... after all, for years that's all they were made out of. The question here is more about isolation, as I understood it. Hard materials will separate slightly from your ears when you open your mouth, because the facial muscles will effect your ears shape slightly. When you go and make custom molds, they ask you to open your mouth slightly, so they can get a mold that'll hold when you open your mouth, and maybe a little tight when your mouths are closed. Of course, if you open your mouth really wide or yawn, they'll still lose their seal temporarily.

If I had to choose between hard acrylic and universal fit plugs (tri-flange, foamies, whatever), I would think that hard acrylic is still better.
However, soft materials will flex and bend as your ear shape changes slightly, so they can hold their seal much better even when you're talking... and of course, singing (after all, they were made for that purpose).

I wouldn't also think of hard acrylic as being anymore "rugged" than soft materials of any kind. Think about it, if you drop hard acrylic on the floor... it'll scratch and possibly crack. If you drop the soft materials, they'll just absorb the impact.

 

[random person]

Thanks, lindrone!

As always, your comments are thorough and insightful!

UE did talk about relative durability of hard acrylic vs softer versions on their website but when I spoke to them they said comfort-wise they were about the same, the only difference being a slightly tighter seal on the softer versions as they warm up in your ear and tighten more closely. As I thought about it I was less concerned about a "musician's fit" and more concerned about relative isolation and comfort vs foamies, where I assumed (and you appear to agree) that custom would be superior. I also imagined myself struggling to get em out of my ears if they were incredibly tight -- a prospect I found a little alarming!

As for molding well the instructions for UE have you mold with your mouth WIDE open. The audiologist said that tends to ensure a straight shot into your canal, just in case your canal is hopelessly twisted. Happily I am told I have perfectly shaped and straight canals (who knew?) so the molds should have come out nicely.

Oh one more thing lindrone -- per our PMs on the subject of earphones recently I was pleased to discover that all my stuff is encoded at 162 or 192 (or whatever is the next increment) AAC and not 128 MP3. So hopefully I'll not miss out on too much detail as I move up in these 'phones! I am hopeful too that the UEE5c is sonically similar to the Shure E5c!

ps have you used your sensaphonics on an airplane? Do they get even tighter given pressurization?

Thanks for your help on this -- again!

 

[HRA]

Get the UE-10....much better than the 5 imho....I own both. That is assuming you like the brand. As far as "horsey-looking" I'm not sure what you mean. Size will be the same since they will be made from a mold of your ear. Two or three drivers fit in the same space...unless your ears are the size of a fly

P.S. Unfortunately 18 grand doesn't buy anything near the best of the speakers that are out there....sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[random person]

Hmmm . . . I thought the third driver did take up some extra space. Also my ears are a little fly-like!

And here I am looking for simple reassurance to reduce my insatiable audio lust by discussing price-value and intended use and you go and recommend the UE10!

I would expect nothing less from a man who has everything!

Thanks for your posts on this subject -- you carry a lot of weight given that you are probably the only living soul who has tried them all, from UE to Sensaphonics.

But really, arene't the UE5c at least a REASONABLE choice? I'm comin from Shure E3 so I'm assuming I'll have fun with the new ones!