Clarification: CD3000, UE-10 and ProPhonic 2X-S comparisons

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone Indeed, a very good point. That goes even more to making the case that flat curve doesn't necessarily matter though, doesn't it? If you can get a good audible detail along with some coloration that you personally would prefer one way or another, does having a flat curve really matter?

Well, yes and no. I don't believe a flat curve is the be all end all solution to sound reproduction. I don't and what I said just shows that I'm here only to learn and share.

On the other hand, the sharp fall in frequency response is not something that I would want on my headphone (judging from the graph and assuming that it bears a resemblance to reality, obviously). Then again, you state that you don't hear that. So... happy listening! No, seriously. If it sounds fine for you, two things are possible:
1) The graph is not accurate or the 2X-S behave differently with real music as opposed to test signals.
2) You like your music that way. Which turns out to be true even if #1 is true.

So you're in a win/win situation. You have the ideal canalphone for you.

More often than not, though, your messages read more like a... I don't know... endorsement of Sensas and... a mild bashing of UE. To me they often read that way. And I want to understand why, because as I've always stated, what I'm listening with my ears (ultimate) is awesome. Even slightly more so now that I'm amping them through a real amp.

More to the point and my personal feelings aside, I suggest you contact the moderators and ask to modify the sticky review you have up there. It's quite obvious that you have changed your mind regarding that comparison. Let's the review up there keep up to date with your more recent opinion.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Well, yes and no. I don't believe a flat curve is the be all end all solution to sound reproduction. I don't and what I said just shows that I'm here only to learn and share. On the other hand, the sharp fall in frequency response is not something that I would want on my headphone (judging from the graph and assuming that it bears a resemblance to reality, obviously). Then again, you state that you don't hear that.

Well, you still have to recognize just how many other headphone seem to have that "sharp fall-off" in one way or another, and they all sound perfectly fine. If you look at the frequency response chart for headphones like CD3000, HD650, there's some truly bizarre curves... huge fluctuation up and down within a very short range in multiple directions. You can't assume anything from frequency response charts, that's not the "truth" as KPOT would like to say, it simply doesn't tell you enough about anything. It's like looking at an ingredient card of a certain snack food, and deciding to get it because it's got a certain vitamin or calcium, but not looking at the entire ingredient list and realizing it has 300 grams of fat per serving.

Another to thing to add, where Head-Fi members want a flat output, as much as possible, is out of their source, not out of their headphones. Reason being you want your source to sound as pure as possible, you don't want any further manipulation of signal coming out of your source. You want the manipulation of that sound to happen with the amp & the headphone. Some people don't even want coloration of the amp. However, the final piece of the puzzle, the playback equipment, headphone, speakers, whatever it may be, definitely adds their own coloration. It always has, and it should. That's what they're meant to do.


Quote:

More often than not, though, your messages read more like a... I don't know... endorsement of Sensas and... a mild bashing of UE. To me they often read that way. And I want to understand why, because as I've always stated, what I'm listening with my ears (ultimate) is awesome. Even slightly more so now that I'm amping them through a real amp.

The problem is, you guys have all been brain-washed by UE's marketing, regardless of how they sound, their marketing material doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I have not seen a single audio equipment manufacturer that's going to sit there and tell you that flat curve is how they make their speakers/headphones. Let me know if you find anyone other than Ultimate Ears that supports that statement.


Quote:

More to the point and my personal feelings aside, I suggest you contact the moderators and ask to modify the sticky review you have up there. It's quite obvious that you have changed your mind regarding that comparison. Let's the review up there keep up to date with your more recent opinion.

I think the review can stand there as the way it is.. because all the statements made in there are indeed true. However, multiple comparison and people's own intrepretation out of it might be very different. Like I said, I don't personally support the whole CD3000 and UE-10 comparison, because they're closer in sound characteristic, and UE-10 doesn't offer much more than what you already get with CD3000.

The reason why I started this post in the first place, is to actually rid of myself of any possible connection and responsibility. I don't want a CD3000 user, like Sovkiller or someone, go out and get an UE-10, then find themselves saying, "Hmm.. this aren't much better, doesn't give me much I don't already have, what did I just spend the money for?".

The point is that 2X-S offers something UE-10 doesn't have in comparison to CD3000, but UE-10 doesn't offer enough. It doesn't change in perspect of how they compare to each other. It's like comparing a Porsche against a BMW, very different cars. Compare Porsche against Mercedes... still very different and warrants its own price. Compare BMW against Mercedes... then you're talking about relatively the same car with different characteristics and looks... but not different enough for you to be "upgrading" from one to another.

 

[Tyson]

Quote:

The reason why I started this post in the first place, is to actually rid of myself of any possible connection and responsibility. I don't want a CD3000 user, like Sovkiller or someone, go out and get an UE-10, then find themselves saying, "Hmm.. this aren't much better, doesn't give me much I don't already have, what did I just spend the money for?".

Well, they could have paid all that money to be able to get the cd3k sound in a portable package, so they can walk around without looking like a big dork

But I also have to take issue with the measurements. I do NOT hear a roll off in my Sensa's. Remember that UE is a business and that Sesa is a competitor (in a very small market, I might add). I would take those measurements with a huge grain of salt. I would feel the same way if Sensaphonics came out with a graph that showed the 2x-Soft to have a better frequency response than the UE's, for the same reasons. As always, trust your ears, and looking at graphs is no substitue for listening for yourself. Unfortunately in this case, for most people, that is cost prohibitive.

 

[random person]

I just HAVE to jump in here -- I mean BMW is just SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than Mercedes!

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone The problem is, you guys have all been brain-washed by UE's marketing, regardless of how they sound, their marketing material doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I have not seen a single audio equipment manufacturer that's going to sit there and tell you that flat curve is how they make their speakers/headphones. Let me know if you find anyone other than Ultimate Ears that supports that statement.

... I feel the brain-washed thing was uncalled for and unwarranted, in my regards at least.

I did a quick googling:
http://www.audiovideo101.com/diction...t-response.asp
Here a flat response is defined as "a theoretical ideal for audio components, especially speakers". I'd say it wouldn't be wrong to substitute speakers with headphones due to the purpose of the two instruments.

http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/IS...rs.html?page=5
Here Michael Riggs, author of Understanding Audio and Video, is quoted as saying: "Clearly, the ideal [frequency response] would be something like +/-0 dB from 30 Hz to 15 kHz, corresponding to a straight horizontal line across the response chart (that is, 'flat' frequency response). In practice, however, most audio components fall short of perfection. This is especially true of devices such as microphones...loudspeakers, which convert mechanical energy to electrical, or vice versa."

http://www.shure.com/microphones/models/sm94.asp
Here Shure is touting the "smooth, flat frequency response" of its microphone.

http://www.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1868
"If a modern speaker manufacturer cannot achieve a minimum deviation of +/- 3 db within a claimed frequency response of a particular model, it should be back to the drawing board!!" or so thinks one user of this board...

http://www.kellyindustries.com/manuf...rs/tannoy.html
Tannoy speakers with "flat frequency response essential for accurate monitoring".

And I could go on and on... so I have let you know that I found many other manufacturers (and non manufacturers) that believe that flat frequency response is desirable.

On the other hand, and as a closing point, look here:
http://www.stereophile.com/artdudley...ng/index1.html
While not completely discarding the idea of a flat response, he advocates many other factors in evaluating a product (and I perfectly agree).
Here too:
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/138/

So, in the end... peace, as always.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by random person I just HAVE to jump in here -- I mean BMW is just SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than Mercedes!

LOL

Anyway, gorman, those are very good points, but the problem is.. they're all "theoretically sound". Like I said earlier in discussion, if flat response curve is what every speaker can achieve, and what everyone is mastering their music to, then it is highly desirable. Problem is that recording is mastered to mass consumer playback equipments which isn't anywhere near capable of reproducing a flat response.

Theoretically, if everything in the world is perfect, everything will be made with a flat curve, most obviously it isn't.

For on-stage performance, UE-10's flat curve theory is pretty good, because you can get flat curve equalization all the way throughout. From the mic to the soundboard, everything can be adjusted and engineered to be flat, and then outputted through UE-10, which is pretty flat.

At the same time, you can easily equalize everything so it sound flat out of the 2X-S as well. There's so much equipments involved in having a live, on-stage performance... there's adjustments that can be made at every single step of the way.

For playing back recorded material though, it doesn't make much sense, and it doesn't make it automatically superior in this particular application. That's the consideration that all headphone manufacturer makes when they make audiophile headphones, which is the chief reason why no audiophile headphone that I know of produces a flat curve. Really, I can't think of one, if you can think of one, then let me know.

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone That's the consideration that all headphone manufacturer makes when they make audiophile headphones, which is the chief reason why no audiophile headphone that I know of produces a flat curve. Really, I can't think of one, if you can think of one, then let me know.

Hmmm... the closest I found is the Etymotic ER-4S, at least if we are to trust their published frequency response chart. I don't know if you consider those to be audiophile, though.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Hmmm... the closest I found is the Etymotic ER-4S, at least if we are to trust their published frequency response chart. I don't know if you consider those to be audiophile, though.

Yes, indeed, and I do consider them audiophile.. but, did you read the post earlier in this thread? Max Minimum actually cited Ety's site as an example of what philosophy they designed their ER-4S with...


Quote:

Originally Posted by from Etymotic's website The ER-4S earphone has an equalized high frequency response. Most stereo recordings have been equalized, electronically or by choice of microphone type and placement, to sound good with mainstream "good" loudspeakers in typical living rooms. Several studies have been conducted dealing with the subject of loudspeaker response as affected by the listening room. The figure to the right shows the frequency response of loudspeakers considered to be "flat" in five studies. Even a loudspeaker with a perfectly flat power output exhibited a room response 4-10 dB down at 10 kHz, relative to the midband. The ER-4S has been designed with a gradual roll off in the high frequencies similar to that of the curve labeled MCK, which represents a compromise choice. The ER-4S is well suited for all types of stereo recording reproduction.

Even Etymotics are designed to be "flat to an extent"... it's flat where it made sense to be, and then the curves were changed and tuned where it made sense for their engineers to do so. Of course, you know I didn't like the Ety's because the bass was just not there for me along with various other reasons. However, Ety's engineers didn't make any blanket statement like, "flat curve is the only way to go." They recognized that a perfectly flat curve wouldn't work for the typical recording playback.

 

[gorman]

Well, in all truth the ER-4S chart looks flatter than the UE-10...

Then again, let's finish this debate. I agree with you that those charts are not the only parameter to evaluate audio products. I think they are one of the parameters available The first and foremost ought always to be one's ears.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Well, in all truth the ER-4S chart looks flatter than the UE-10... Then again, let's finish this debate. I agree with you that those charts are not the only parameter to evaluate audio products. I think they are one of the parameters available The first and foremost ought always to be one's ears.

Yeah, they do look flatter from the low through the mids, but once it gets to the highs they look tweaked very differently than the UE-10. I wonder if UE ever conducted their test of the Ety ER-4's.... even Ety ER-4's frequency response chart was a sticking point for some of the Shure vs. Ety argument back then. Shure didn't have a frequency response chart because they didn't believe there's an accurate measuring method for IEM's either.

That's the whole point to this debate, I suppose, frequency response charts are nice to have, but definitely should not be the first step of judgement towards any headphones out there.

Anyway, other than a few troll posts, the rest of the discussion was educational and civil

 

[IZCool]

Lindrone, I think you need to follow Sovkiller's lead and add this to your signature...

Quote:

Disclaimer: Please assume every single statement I make, to mean: “in my system”, “to my ears”, "in my experience", “in my opinion”, etc, otherwise stated...

It probably won't help some people, but for others it might remind them that a discussion forum is a place to exchange opinions, as you have done very well and frequently. If the others won't, I'll thank you for your info and input.

BTW, I found your review on the Shure e5c particularly useful... in decimating my bank account! But I think it was worth it. My friends reckon I'm nuts, but I don't really care that much!

Thanks again!

 

[random person]

If you look at Ultimate Ears website discussion of the UE10Pro they talk about their flat frequency curve for monitoring purposes -- "especially ear monitor systems that do not offer the high frequency boost option." Since these were expressly designed for performance monitoring the flat frequency response and extended highs may well be a legitimate selling point for that application -- not just "marketing." (Although as a marketing professional I could happily get into a long discussion about "marketing" and explain that marketing claims on the part of reputable companies tend to be quite legitimate and are made so that people can make informed choices. It's really not all BS.) At the same time one starts to understand why Jerry makes a point of recommending the UE5c for mastered music applications -- the flat EQ of the UE10Pro for monitoring purposes may not be as "musical" for using them as personal headphones.

In any case it's clear that all but one of the UE10Pro buyers on this forum are blissfully happy with their purchases so what's not to like? But we do need to remember the intended purpose and market for these 'phones, which should account for their explicit design and forward-midrange sound signature. That many love them for general listening is a wonderful thing, but it is clearly not what they were originally intended for. They built the UE5c for the non-musician audience.

 

[scottder]

Ahhh, to yearn for the simple days when lindrone worked for Shure.

J/K

Scott

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IZCool Lindrone, I think you need to follow Sovkiller's lead and add this to your signature... Quote: Disclaimer: Please assume every single statement I make, to mean: “in my system”, “to my ears”, "in my experience", “in my opinion”, etc, otherwise stated...

Yeah, I know... but the problem is regardless of what opinion you make on Head-Fi, unless it's something that's agreeable to everybody, which makes it not much of an opinion at all, you get pummeled. It's sort of pointless to disclaimer oneself, it only make your opinion seem less opinionated and doesn't let you get away with any less criticisms.


Quote:

BTW, I found your review on the Shure e5c particularly useful... in decimating my bank account! But I think it was worth it. My friends reckon I'm nuts, but I don't really care that much!

There's nothing I'd like to do more.. hehehe. j/k...


Quote:

Originally Posted by random person At the same time one starts to understand why Jerry makes a point of recommending the UE5c for mastered music applications -- the flat EQ of the UE10Pro for monitoring purposes may not be as "musical" for using them as personal headphones.

Indeed, but at the same time, they also state this one their website regarding the UE-10:

While this earpiece is designed for “professional” applications, it is just as well suited for use with an iPod, DVD, MP3 players and other devices.

Regardless, Head-Fi is a place where a lot of people want more detail and is willing to trade other aspect of sound for it. If UE-10 indeed has more detail than the UE5c, I think a lot of people will make that trade-off too. UE5c could indeed sound more enjoyable, but most people will not trade that enjoyability if they know they're going to miss just one tad of detail.

A good example is the ER-4 and E5c debate, which is forever a war between detail and enjoyability (fun, groovalizer, whatever else). I'm beginning to think that UE5c is probably something I would enjoy more personally as well, but it's just a purchase that doesn't make any sense, because at this point I have another pair of IEM that doesn't lack detail and is still fully enjoyable for me.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottder Ahhh, to yearn for the simple days when lindrone worked for Shure.

LOL.. classic