[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Iriver Agreed. The etys seem to made to sound artificially cleaner by getting rid off decay to levels that are just unnatural sounding. Soundstage wize both etys and shures aren't that great though. The shures seem to have a wider soundstage unamped though. The detail in the etys seems to be created (partly) by harmonic distortion as shown in this graphs from this thread http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showp...7&postcount=59. Even if the detail is fake, I gotta admit it is very impressive. It does make you go WOW much more than the other canalphoens I have used. However, The E3s by comparison sound much more realistic, musical, though less detailed, and allow ME to enjoy the music much more. I don't know if the graphs are accurate however as canalphones seem to differ from user to user much, much, much more than regualar headphones.

or is it most headphones artificially sustain decay levels while ety's don't? instrument decay should be a recording artifact, not a reproduction effect. what i noticed with the shure e5c vs the er4s was the shures presented a more enmeshed headstage, with a much heavier bass. while they seemed more natural than the ety's, the ety's plain crystaline sound to my ears allowed the recording more breathing room to either fail or succeed based on its own merits.

as for the charts, they are interesting i guess (what treble roll-off on the e5c?

) but like you said mr. iriver, graphs pale in comparison to listening as a rating tool.

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRBJackson I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Pro's need EQing, and in fact have been moving between no EQ and the Pod's Jazz preset pretty regularly during this evaluation phase. IMO, the straight sound can be catagorized as a bit colored, with strong, natural bass and low midrange (thus Jerry Harvey's EQ recommendations, I suspect), but the overall effect is quite pleasing and non-fatiguing. The high-end seems not so much attenuated/rolled-off as 'in the mix' with everthing else. At any rate, if I wanted to analyze the minutia and details of my recordings, I'd likely go for ER4's (or UE10's), but I'm a music lover first and an audio nut second. The 5 Pro's are proving to be very engaging music makers. I've rarely been able/anxious to spend 3-5 consecutive hours absorbed in sound, and never before with canalphones. I think that says a lot about these little guys.

Slowly but surely I will be vindiacted! [size=x-large]NO MUD!!!![/size]

 

[dscmd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 Slowly but surely I will be vindiacted! [size=x-large]NO MUD!!!![/size]

Seriously guy, can you please knock off the hyperbole?

Honestly, you are becoming tiresome. Not to mention annoying.

 

[trose49]

Tiresome in only 7 posts WOW

 

[joelongwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRBJackson I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Pro's need EQing, and in fact have been moving between no EQ and the Pod's Jazz preset pretty regularly during this evaluation phase. IMO, the straight sound can be catagorized as a bit colored, with strong, natural bass and low midrange (thus Jerry Harvey's EQ recommendations, I suspect), but the overall effect is quite pleasing and non-fatiguing. The high-end seems not so much attenuated/rolled-off as 'in the mix' with everthing else. At any rate, if I wanted to analyze the minutia and details of my recordings, I'd likely go for ER4's (or UE10's), but I'm a music lover first and an audio nut second. The 5 Pro's are proving to be very engaging music makers. I've rarely been able/anxious to spend 3-5 consecutive hours absorbed in sound, and never before with canalphones. I think that says a lot about these little guys.

I'm in total agreement with the above evaluation of the Super.Fi Pros.
I have been using these on a regular basis going on two weeks now, with a switch over to Etys (6i and 4S) for some yard work. Having listened to a LOT of headphones, I am well aware of the Super.Fi's shortcomings, yet I find them to be the most enjoyable and non-fatiguing canal phones I currently possess. With the Super.Fi pros, I find that I'm listening more to the music than to the equipment...........and, for me, that's no small feat.

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

I really like the EQ setting Jasper is using.

I don't understand why UE didn't engineer them that way so they'd sound that way out of the package.

They really are dark, muddy, and rolled-off without EQ, especially for a headphone in this price range. Quite reminiscent of EX-71, actually. For $250, I expect some more detail.

I mean, what is Trose's experience, anyway? He joined this forum to toot his horn about UE Super-Fi's and has done little else since.

-Matt

 

[dscmd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 Tiresome in only 7 posts WOW

What is your problem anyway? It seems like your first post was an attempt to submit a valid review about a product, but since then your attitude and behavior has deteriorated after people started calling you out for an overexuberant review.

If you want credibility here, then you really need to earn it. So far you're doing a really rotten job, as your last several posts in this subject have shown.

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyfrenchman27 I mean, what is Trose's experience, anyway? He joined this forum to toot his horn about UE Super-Fi's and has done little else since. -Matt

I am the King of the world with no [size=xx-large]MUD!!![/size]

SUPER.FI 5 PRO = NON-MUDICAS-HIFI-IS!

 

[dscmd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 I am the King of the world with no [size=xx-large]MUD!!![/size] SUPER.FI 5 PRO = NON-MUDICAS-HIFI-IS!

Can somebody ban this guy already? What a waste of space.

 

[trose49]

That's Great, Dis-credit a perfectly valid "review" Opinion etc.. and then when you get the guy good and poed just ban em. that makes for a great forum for people to learn. I am just defending myself from all the personal attacks. If you dont like my posts dont read them!

Super.fi's do not have MUD IMO! Terrific Clear Highs IMO, true the music that is input into them IMO. Great BASS IMO, and very effiecent for use with an IPOD IMO.

Then again it is IMO!

 

[dscmd]

You can yell and scream about how "this is my opinion" and "this is fact" and post in colored fonts all you want, but it doesnt change the fact that you've turned into a considerable jerk despite the fact that the people you say are 'discrediting' you were in fact trying to be very constructive and even suggested ways in which you could have made your review sound less biased. I don't see anyone else's Super.fi review get jumped on as much as yours. What does that say? To me it means the credibility behind your review is suspect.

The ultimate test is how people who are in the market for UEs (like me) respond to your review. Frankly, it didn't help me one bit. And that says more about your so-called review, AND your replies, than anything else.

I'm done with this topic. I can find better, more credible reviews of the Super.fis elsewhere.

 

[rx7_fan]

You guys need to chill, I have a feeling that this thread is about to be locked.

P.S.
Trose49 grow up, get a life.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT wow I think Herry Harvey forgot to include an external equalizer with each super.fi order...that's some massif EQing going on. He should recall all of the super.fi's What was he thinking

I think the idea was to provide a enjoyable sound experience out of a portable (the iPod in particular). As BRBJackson stated, they don't necessarily sound bad with no EQ, quite the contrary actually. Even with no EQ I find myself completely absorbed in the music with the SF5P. The reason Jerry and I were discussing the EQ settings was to try and achieve a flatter sound for us audio nuts.

I can imagine quite a few people would actually prefer the stock sound or somewhere in between to the EQ curve represented in that picture.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Iriver It does make you go WOW much more than the other canalphoens I have used. However, The E3s by comparison sound much more realistic, musical, though less detailed, and allow ME to enjoy the music much more. I don't know if the graphs are accurate however as canalphones seem to differ from user to user much, much, much more than regualar headphones.

Interesting... The E5's make me go wow all the time, and they don't have the Etymotic flaws. What I dig the most though is all of the WOW sessions compared to the WOW moments. I mean don't get me wrong, the E5 has plenty of wow moments too but the WOW sessions are what have kept them in my ears everyday since I got them.

Regarding the SF5P... I'm going to do a big review here in the next couple of weeks that will include the UE Super.Fi 5 Pro, Shure E4, Shure E5, Shure E2 (I have it, might as well add it in

), and possibly the Etymotic ER4s and UE Super.Fi 5 EB, so I'll withold any major commentary until then. I'm still trying to give each canalphone the time they deserve to give an accurate assesment. For now though, I find the Super.Fi 5 Pro at least as, if not more engaging than the E5. That is not to say, however, that they are ultimately better. I have yet to determine my opinion there.

 

[ewolfs]

Sorry Guys, to jump in on this thread, I have no Super.Fi 5, so I can’t join the discussion if they are muddy or not, but when I read all the threads about this earphone where almost everybody agrees that they are a little short coming on the highs, and the confirmation from UE that they start to roll of at 12 KHz, where the 500 $ UE-5c have a roll-of at 16 KHz, I start thinking, if this is not a commercial decision, like ‘hey when we make them as great sounding as the 5c, who is gone pay the extra money for it, so maybe if we install a little band filter to top them off, people will hear the difference. And still by 5c’s. Just my 2c