Quote:
Originally Posted by trose49
This is not an opinion it is a fact!
[size=x-large]NOT MUDDY![/size]
|
We all agree that sounds are subjective. Not only that, but our opinion of them is strongly influence by our exposure. I didn't think my UEs were muddy - in fact I thought that they were clearer than the E3Cs (which they are), with better seperation (which they have), and more detail in general (which is true). But that opinion was based entirely on my having owned E2Cs for a week and E3Cs for a couple of months. When I brought another canalphone (E4C) into the mix and worked back and forth, then my opinion changed. I wasn't missing any treble or high-midrange until I heard something that had it in spades. I also noticed how huge the bass was, since the E4C doesn't have anywhere near that kind of bass power.
You bring up the time needed to adjust to the phones. I agree with that generally. But to me the SF5P sounded great out of the box, because I think of it as a better E3C - more treble, more bass, less pronounced midrange. I was in love with it and listened a fair amount for about a week.
To say that you don't know how anyone could say that the UEs are muddy implied an absoluteness to the term.
It's a comparative term, not an absolute one - and unfortunately, you haven't heard the competition. I'm not saying you'd like the Shures better, but I believe that you'd understand what people are talking about if you heard the same phones. Come to think of it, I think that term has been brought up exclusively by those who HAVE tried both.
The UEs are great phones, and so are the Shures. For that matter the ER4S might be even better for me (never heard them). But I'm willing to admit my lack of a well-rounded and fully experienced perspective.