Multi-Custom In-Ear Monitor Review, Resource, Mfg List & Discussion (Check first post for review links & information)
- Thread starter average_joe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- starkey-sa-43 ultimate-ears-triple-fi-10-pro-earphones-gun-metal-blue-with-roadie-case dream-earz-aud-5x rooth-lab-ls-8 ultimate-ears-in-ear-reference-monitors jh-audio-jh16-pro-custom-in-ear-monitors hidition-nt-6pro custom-in-ear-monitors spider-realvoice-vertical-in-the-ear-headphone earsonics-em3-pro kozee-sound-solutions acs-t1 lear-lcm-5 spiral-ear-se-5-way-reference sensaphonics sensaphonics-3max
castleofargh
Sound Science Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Posts
- 10,450
- Likes
- 6,069
can't wait for a AK240 ultimate MKII... if it's them, they might actually do it.
DeepGroove
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2013
- Posts
- 223
- Likes
- 81
When I ordered I was in Southeast Asia and had it delivered to Singapore.
Grzegorz told me there was no VAT discount for ex-UE shipping because the list prices excluded VAT already - he was shouldering the VAT for UE orders.
Never quite understood the logic but I had to pay list price (1299) + 150 euros in Singapore vat upon receipt.
Grzegorz told me there was no VAT discount for ex-UE shipping because the list prices excluded VAT already - he was shouldering the VAT for UE orders.
Never quite understood the logic but I had to pay list price (1299) + 150 euros in Singapore vat upon receipt.
DeepGroove
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2013
- Posts
- 223
- Likes
- 81
can't wait for a AK240 ultimate MKII... if it's them, they might actually do it.
AK240 mk2... be the ultimate ultimate!
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Posts
- 8,807
- Likes
- 3,488
That's already been 'done'
http://www.head-fi.org/t/712487/april-fools-astell-kern-ak480-music-player
Anyway... back to the thread topic...
I'm looking forward to seeing some user-impressions of the 1964Ears 'ADEL' CIEMs. I'm not naive - I take the advertising copy with a degree of caution, but nonetheless, it seems an interesting proposition and who, amongst us, would not care about protecting our hearing? Whilst I have some concerns about loss of isolation with the ADEL approach, I dislike the occasional sense of 'occlusion' a fully-sealed CIEM can yield, which I find more annoying in very cold or wet weather, when it becomes more apparent, in my ear canals (YMMV). The other thing about the ADEL approach is that I wonder whether it may yield beneficial effects in terms of headstage. I've always found it intriguing that open-back headphones are often (not always, but often) noted as having a bigger headstage than closed-back headphones. Doesn't mean the same will be true for ADEL CIEMs, but it might have some such positive psychoacoustic merits.
goodvibes
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Posts
- 9,544
- Likes
- 1,885
I like the idea. I generally get the sense that IEMs with actual low bass have a sort of odd pressurization going on with certain material. No way around it other than to front vent to decouple in some way or not have low bass in the correct perceived balance. Just speculation not based in any tech and obviously, isolation suffers. IEM trade offs abound. I always wondered what something like a bass heavy jh16 with (semi) open ambient ports would sound like.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Posts
- 8,807
- Likes
- 3,488
On the flipside, I really hate the 'whistling' wind noise I get with the DD vent on my MG6 Pros - so much so that I ended up sealing it completely.
Some claim the headstage of the MG6 Pro gets larger with the vent open, but I'm not entirely convinced.
I do appreciate that the Adel approach is different in the sense that the pressure on the ear side of the driver(s) is being relieved, rather than the pressure behind the driver, as in the MG6 Pro scenario.
Well, we'll see... the 1964s should be making their way into customers' hands by late February / Early March
Some claim the headstage of the MG6 Pro gets larger with the vent open, but I'm not entirely convinced.
I do appreciate that the Adel approach is different in the sense that the pressure on the ear side of the driver(s) is being relieved, rather than the pressure behind the driver, as in the MG6 Pro scenario.
Well, we'll see... the 1964s should be making their way into customers' hands by late February / Early March
goodvibes
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Posts
- 9,544
- Likes
- 1,885
http://www.head-fi.org/t/749629/custom-jh13-freqphase-iem-do-third-party-remolds-affect-sound-signature#post_11242130
I added an explanation in a thread that asked about it, in case you're actually interested instead of the usual argumentative spin. I just didn't feel like taking this thread into the trash over it.
The example I used for a non phase aligned example was your NT6. Again, the importance of freqphase is up to the buyer and I make no claims other than personally enjoying my jh13s. It's also far from the only consideration in any purchase.
I will not argue it here.
goodvibes
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Posts
- 9,544
- Likes
- 1,885
I'll PM. Just looked at my 13s for kicks and the tubes are far from the same length. Never bothered before because I know there's more to how this works.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Posts
- 8,807
- Likes
- 3,488
Hmmmm... my attention was drawn to this today, during a random visit to the SE5 thread, which I haven't looked at for several months:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/549298/review-spiral-ear-se-5-way-reference-a-new-level-of-resolution-review-posted-5-15-12/2070#post_11240498
I doubt I am alone in finding Grzegorz new 'policy' distasteful in its apparent attempt to exert control over both customers and competitors alike.
Let me be clear that I have no objection to proprietary BA/'crossover'/filter configurations being copyrighted, in the sense of competitors not being permitted to copy the configuration for competitive production. That's totally understandable, and I support that being protected.
But it appears the new Spiral Ear policy may seek to go further than that, by actively obstructing legitimate Spiral Ear customers from having their CIEMs re-shelled by a third-party, at some point after the 30-day refit period, if they so wish. People do not spend circa €1500 to be handcuffed and told what they can or cannot do with their legitimate purchase. I also feel Grzegorz is overlooking an important point: Spiral Ear CIEMs are some of the most expensive on the market, and it is undoubtedly a fact that a certain proportion of his customers may only be Spiral Ear customers because they were able to sell their acrylic CIEMs to a second purchaser, for re-shelling, thus raising sufficient capital to help finance purchase of a Spiral Ear product. In other words, seeking to stifle competitors may also, if others play the same game, stifle one's own sales, in the longterm.
It is absolutely understandable that each commercial CIEM-maker desires to protect their labour investment, in painstakingly developing & tuning each CIEM, but the simple reality of this world is that the configuration of each CIEM will, in time, become publicly known. In my view, that is something which every CIEM maker eventually needs to come to terms with, and it needn't be a major problem unless a competitor seeks to actually go into commercial production with the same configuration, using individual, non-Spiral Ear-sourced, components. That would be unfair and legitimately prosecutable.
However, a simple re-shell of a legitimately-purchased CIEM (provided the re-shell is not misleadingly labeled with the original manufacturer's label), is something entirely different from that.
So, given that re-shelling is a simple fact of life in the world of CIEMs, wouldn't it be more realistic to accept that that's just the way the world works? If so, what's the best compromise? Offer your customers a competitively-priced re-shell service, with a nominal transfer-of-ownership fee, or charge very high re-shell fees which send people to competitors who will do the job for a substantially fairer price, and then retaliate by (seemingly) threatening those competitors, and even (seemingly) deriding their workmanship? That does not seem to me to be the most constructive way of handling the situation.
One can either aggressively seek to obstruct customers and competitors from what is relatively common practice in the global CIEM marketplace, or one can simply choose to offer competitive re-shelling services and, optionally, a reasonable 'transfer-of-ownership' service if the legitimate first customer desires to change to a different CIEM (Noble are a good example of this pragmatic and realistic approach).
I completely understand that Grzegorz might prefer that every person in the world who seeks to own a Spiralear CIEM only purchases brand new product directly from him, and only original customers seek re-shells, for themselves, using SpiralEar lab, rather than for the purposes of transferring ownership &/or using a third-party lab, but that's just wishful thinking.
Therefore, seeking to prevent competitors from re-shelling for SpiralEar customers (be it through the use of threats or deliberate technical obstruction) reminds me of a toddler who wishes to keep all the toys in the toybox for themselves, and has a tantrum when someone else walks in the room and wants to play. Generally-speaking, I have found Grzegorz to be professional in his dealings, and I respect his technical ability, too, so I am genuinely saddened to see that he is taking an aggressive stance rather than a pragmatic, adaptive and constructive one. I can't help noticing that this aggressive stance has become evident only since someone else in the marketplace has begun offering silicone-specific CIEM rebuilding skills, and I find it hard to believe that this is just pure coincidence.
As I see it, the CIEM marketplace is an increasingly-competitive one, but seeking to stifle competition, rather than adapting to it and improving one's own lab services, is a very short-sighted approach and one which may disastrously backfire, because an aggressive policy is probably going to:
1) alienate existing customers
2) alienate potential future customers
3) alienate other commercial CIEM makers
4) potentially lead to other makers becoming more aggressive, in response, until the whole industry is unpleasantly vindictive, litigious, and aggressive.
That doesn't seem like a recipe for success, and I certainly wouldn't wish to see this snowball throughout the CIEM industry, as everyone stands to lose.
Spiral Ear is a well-respected company, so I hope Grzegorz will rethink his current approach. I don't think the current policy best represents his products, his best commercial interests, or the best interests of Spiral Ear customers, past, present, or future.
Of course, all of this is only my personal opinion, and others (including Grzegorz) may disagree.
I guess only time and global CIEM customers will tell what fruit this approach will bear. My wish is that the CIEM marketplace remains reasonably civil, open, and harmonious, rather than becoming increasingly aggressive and contracting upon itself as a consequence. I also hope that Spiral Ear will continue to be an innovative player in the market, and on fair terms.
UPDATE (30-1-15):
http://www.head-fi.org/t/541494/multi-custom-in-ear-monitor-review-resource-mfg-list-discussion-check-first-post-for-review-links-information/4545#post_11273231
Spiral-ear lab re-shell pricing has now been changed:
spiralear.com/en/more-info/remould/index.html
But, disappointingly, the restrictive & rather negative warranty policy appears unchanged:
spiralear.com/en/more-info/warranty/index.html
http://www.head-fi.org/t/549298/review-spiral-ear-se-5-way-reference-a-new-level-of-resolution-review-posted-5-15-12/2070#post_11240498
spiralear.com/en/more-info/warranty/index.html
"It is not possible to reshell/remould 5-way Ultimate via third-party companies. Our anti-reverse engineering solution makes it impossible to have the monitors reshelled by anyone else, any attempts at copyright infringement or other intellectual property rights misuse of our products will be prosecuted by law.
Please note that any attempts at reshelling SE monitors are so far incompetent, making them no longer Spiral Ear products!"
I doubt I am alone in finding Grzegorz new 'policy' distasteful in its apparent attempt to exert control over both customers and competitors alike.
Let me be clear that I have no objection to proprietary BA/'crossover'/filter configurations being copyrighted, in the sense of competitors not being permitted to copy the configuration for competitive production. That's totally understandable, and I support that being protected.
But it appears the new Spiral Ear policy may seek to go further than that, by actively obstructing legitimate Spiral Ear customers from having their CIEMs re-shelled by a third-party, at some point after the 30-day refit period, if they so wish. People do not spend circa €1500 to be handcuffed and told what they can or cannot do with their legitimate purchase. I also feel Grzegorz is overlooking an important point: Spiral Ear CIEMs are some of the most expensive on the market, and it is undoubtedly a fact that a certain proportion of his customers may only be Spiral Ear customers because they were able to sell their acrylic CIEMs to a second purchaser, for re-shelling, thus raising sufficient capital to help finance purchase of a Spiral Ear product. In other words, seeking to stifle competitors may also, if others play the same game, stifle one's own sales, in the longterm.
It is absolutely understandable that each commercial CIEM-maker desires to protect their labour investment, in painstakingly developing & tuning each CIEM, but the simple reality of this world is that the configuration of each CIEM will, in time, become publicly known. In my view, that is something which every CIEM maker eventually needs to come to terms with, and it needn't be a major problem unless a competitor seeks to actually go into commercial production with the same configuration, using individual, non-Spiral Ear-sourced, components. That would be unfair and legitimately prosecutable.
However, a simple re-shell of a legitimately-purchased CIEM (provided the re-shell is not misleadingly labeled with the original manufacturer's label), is something entirely different from that.
So, given that re-shelling is a simple fact of life in the world of CIEMs, wouldn't it be more realistic to accept that that's just the way the world works? If so, what's the best compromise? Offer your customers a competitively-priced re-shell service, with a nominal transfer-of-ownership fee, or charge very high re-shell fees which send people to competitors who will do the job for a substantially fairer price, and then retaliate by (seemingly) threatening those competitors, and even (seemingly) deriding their workmanship? That does not seem to me to be the most constructive way of handling the situation.
One can either aggressively seek to obstruct customers and competitors from what is relatively common practice in the global CIEM marketplace, or one can simply choose to offer competitive re-shelling services and, optionally, a reasonable 'transfer-of-ownership' service if the legitimate first customer desires to change to a different CIEM (Noble are a good example of this pragmatic and realistic approach).
I completely understand that Grzegorz might prefer that every person in the world who seeks to own a Spiralear CIEM only purchases brand new product directly from him, and only original customers seek re-shells, for themselves, using SpiralEar lab, rather than for the purposes of transferring ownership &/or using a third-party lab, but that's just wishful thinking.
Therefore, seeking to prevent competitors from re-shelling for SpiralEar customers (be it through the use of threats or deliberate technical obstruction) reminds me of a toddler who wishes to keep all the toys in the toybox for themselves, and has a tantrum when someone else walks in the room and wants to play. Generally-speaking, I have found Grzegorz to be professional in his dealings, and I respect his technical ability, too, so I am genuinely saddened to see that he is taking an aggressive stance rather than a pragmatic, adaptive and constructive one. I can't help noticing that this aggressive stance has become evident only since someone else in the marketplace has begun offering silicone-specific CIEM rebuilding skills, and I find it hard to believe that this is just pure coincidence.
As I see it, the CIEM marketplace is an increasingly-competitive one, but seeking to stifle competition, rather than adapting to it and improving one's own lab services, is a very short-sighted approach and one which may disastrously backfire, because an aggressive policy is probably going to:
1) alienate existing customers
2) alienate potential future customers
3) alienate other commercial CIEM makers
4) potentially lead to other makers becoming more aggressive, in response, until the whole industry is unpleasantly vindictive, litigious, and aggressive.
That doesn't seem like a recipe for success, and I certainly wouldn't wish to see this snowball throughout the CIEM industry, as everyone stands to lose.
Spiral Ear is a well-respected company, so I hope Grzegorz will rethink his current approach. I don't think the current policy best represents his products, his best commercial interests, or the best interests of Spiral Ear customers, past, present, or future.
Of course, all of this is only my personal opinion, and others (including Grzegorz) may disagree.
I guess only time and global CIEM customers will tell what fruit this approach will bear. My wish is that the CIEM marketplace remains reasonably civil, open, and harmonious, rather than becoming increasingly aggressive and contracting upon itself as a consequence. I also hope that Spiral Ear will continue to be an innovative player in the market, and on fair terms.
UPDATE (30-1-15):
http://www.head-fi.org/t/541494/multi-custom-in-ear-monitor-review-resource-mfg-list-discussion-check-first-post-for-review-links-information/4545#post_11273231
Spiral-ear lab re-shell pricing has now been changed:
spiralear.com/en/more-info/remould/index.html
But, disappointingly, the restrictive & rather negative warranty policy appears unchanged:
spiralear.com/en/more-info/warranty/index.html
nickie
Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Posts
- 82
- Likes
- 12
Completely agree with your input.
I was considering buying one pair of the SE5 but due to the current state of his owner-transfer and remold policy i might consider Customart or other EU-based company instead.
Like most people here i have absolute zero chance of auditioning the SE5 or any CIEM for that matter before purchasing them.
The main source of info has always been head-fi and other blog reviews. While they most of the time do provide quite helpful descriptions of the sound and its technical capability, chances are very high that the sound might not be what people are looking for or thought it would be.
When that happen being able to sell it for a "reasonable lost" to pursue other alternatives is critical considering how much these costs.
I think Spiral Ear is being very shortsighted here.
I was considering buying one pair of the SE5 but due to the current state of his owner-transfer and remold policy i might consider Customart or other EU-based company instead.
Like most people here i have absolute zero chance of auditioning the SE5 or any CIEM for that matter before purchasing them.
The main source of info has always been head-fi and other blog reviews. While they most of the time do provide quite helpful descriptions of the sound and its technical capability, chances are very high that the sound might not be what people are looking for or thought it would be.
When that happen being able to sell it for a "reasonable lost" to pursue other alternatives is critical considering how much these costs.
I think Spiral Ear is being very shortsighted here.
SilverEars
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Posts
- 14,509
- Likes
- 6,503
I got my UERM. So far, not too impressed yet. Perhaps similar sounding to my NT-6 as some have said, but there are differences. I don't find it to be more resolving than the NT-6. The treble is sharper, and more sparkly than the NT-6. So NT-6 not really a bright CIEM than I thought. Recessed vocals compared to the NT-6. Since it's dryer sounding, sibilance has texture than smoother on the NT-6. NT-6 has more clarity, now see why people referred to NT-6 being clear sounding. NT-6's clarity shows off with it's finer treble. I find lower mids less defined with the UERM, and it's treble is what emphasizes definition. It has more monitor like characteristics than the NT-6. NT-6 is more musical sounding, and sound seems to have more dimension to them and creates more realism. Of the two NT-6 sounds more realistic of live performances as it has more realistic environmental sound(sound stage?). UERM is more flat sounding. This is just initially impressions, things can change as I get used to the sound more.
Overall, NT-6 is more resolving and is more realistic sounding without coloring like the NT-6. Just interesting to get a perspective on the performance of the NT-6 after getting the UERM. NT-6 is my preferred tune for sure.
Overall, NT-6 is more resolving and is more realistic sounding without coloring like the NT-6. Just interesting to get a perspective on the performance of the NT-6 after getting the UERM. NT-6 is my preferred tune for sure.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 716
Thanks for this. Been kicking myself for missing the UERM drop, and since I know you liked the NT-6 and hear them quite similarly to me, this is good context.
Users who are viewing this thread
