Review of Inearz re-shelled UM Pro 50 and Comparison to the original Westone UM Pro 50
post-12157405
Thread Starter
Post #1 of 32

twister6

twister6 Reviews
Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
11,640
Reaction score
28,707
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Posts
11,640
Likes
28,707
Website
twister6.com

Manufacture website: http://www.inearz.com, where http://www.inearz.com/remolding1/ - remolding for up to 8 drivers ($125 w/30-day re-fitment warranty).


Discovering CIEMs could be a life changing experience, both for your ears and your wallet. No matter how many eartips you go through to find a perfect fitment/seal with your universal IEMs, nothing will match a precision of a custom mold crafted from your in-ear impression taken by audiologist. Some companies that make their own custom tuned CIEMs, also offer re-shelling of your existing CIEMs or turning IEMs into CIEMs. For the obvious reasons, CIEMs are not easy to sell if you want to upgrade, but you can transfer the ownership if they are re-shelled. Also with IEMs, if you have an expensive multi-driver model and not happy with a fitment, or you want to personalize it through customization, or if you want a removable cable, or if you cracked the shell and no longer covered by warranty - re-shelling can breath a new life into your universal in-ears.

But there is also another side to this re-shelling coin. Unless if the job is done by the original manufacturer of CIEMs, there is a possibility that re-shelled version will not sound the same as the original one. It's not enough to just transplant the drivers and the crossover, but you also need to consider the physical shape, the number of bores, filters, the placement of drivers, etc. As a matter of fact, I would only recommend re-shelling multi-BA IEMs, not hybrids or dynamic drivers. Also, it's not easy to compare the change before and after unless you can rely on going by memory. Since I was able to get my hands on a pair of defective UM Pro 50 where all the inner guts were intact and only the shell was cracked, I saw it as a golden opportunity to re-shell and to compare these to my working pair of UM Pro 50. Considering how pleased I was with Inearz P650 CIEM (now renamed to Euphoria), and knowing they offer re-shelling service for a very reasonable price, I decided this will be a perfect opportunity for A/B comparison. As a disclaimer, re-shelling was complimentary for the purpose of this review, and I Thank Inearz for this offer in exchange for my honest opinion.

Unboxing and accessories.

Unlike their own multi-driver CIEMs and probably to keep the cost down, the re-shelled product comes with a minimum set of essential accessories, including a compact clam shell, a cleaning tool, and Inearz sticker. But have no worry, they offer replacement cables and Pelican case as a separate accessory you can buy on their website. In theory, since you are replacing an existing pair of headphones, you should have a cable already. And with that in mind, I was also pleased they kept the original cable connector since Westone uses mmcx in their current W-/UM- models.



Design.

Westone bean shaped IEMs have one of the best universal fitments I have encounter, along with Noble Savant. But at the same time, my in-ear canal anatomy makes UM Pro 50 (and W60) to be the most sensitive to eartip selection. Going CIEM eliminates eartip variation due to a custom shape and a fitment where you no longer have to worry about eartips.

When it comes to CIEMs, a picture is worth a thousand words and would be the best way to describe them. For my design I asked Inearz to make a clear shell in order to be able to see all the drivers inside, and solid black faceplate with a default company name to make it look clean once in my ears. Since I already provided my in-ear impression when P650 was built and their fitment was perfect, I expected this acrylic re-shelled model to fit the same - and it did. It went in like a butter and a comfortable seal was maintained even when I opened my mouth. Shells looked beautiful in baby-blue transparent color, finish was smooth, and I didn't notice any imperfections (maybe one or two tiny air bubbles). Faceplate attachment was seamless, and I also like how the print on top of the shell facing in was blue on the left and red on the right for an easy ID of the sides.

With an advantage of the clear shell, I was able to examine everything inside with ease. Though the original Westone UM Pro 50 is clear but cloudy, I was still able to confirm a nearly identical arrangement and placement of the drivers and crossover. I also noticed Left/Right/Ground wires were color coded. Another observation, Inearz stayed true to Westone original design where 5xBA drivers output goes into a single bore of a narrow nozzle. Identical to that arrangement, I found a single bore opening with an original filter at the base of it. I can see that an extra effort was made to replicate the exact inner design of UM Pro 50.






Inearz UMP50 vs Westone UM Pro 50.



The Fit.



Sound impression and comparison to Westone UM Pro 50.

The best way to describe a sound of the newly re-shelled UM Pro 50 version is through A/B comparison with the original Westone version. For this test, I had both headphones equipped with Whiplash TWag v3 pure silver cables and used a few of my summit-fi DAPs, such as PAW Gold and L5 Pro, for sound analysis.

I found them to have the same soundstage width/height, though Westone has a touch more depth while Inearz staging was closer and more intimate. Sound is equally dynamic, with the same level of layering and separation. Westone has a little better transparency, but overall retrieval of details is nearly identical.

Low end has the same sub-bass extension with the same level of rumble, and in both cases bass is well controlled and doesn't spill into lower mids. The difference here is that Westone has more mid-bass slam, while Inearz mid-bass is more balanced. Inearz mid-bass is still elevated with the same quality, but quantity is more polite and balanced better with sub-bass. Mids are nearly identical from full body lower mids (not too thick) to clear detailed smooth upper mids. Also, I found the same treble extension, smooth, not as crisp or airy, but with a good definition.



Conclusion.

The intent of this review was not to encourage someone to take $650 5xBA driver UIEM and invest another $125 to turn it into CIEM with a slightly different sound characteristics. I have read a lot of discussions about re-shelling and going CIEM route where some people are worried about sound change and don't know what to expect. This question is not easy to answer because you need to have the original IEM/CIEM next to the re-shelled version to make a better comparison rather than guessing by memory. That is exactly what I tried to accomplish in my review. To be honest, from the get-go I expected this CIEM to look good and to have a great fitment, but wasn't sure how it will sound in comparison to the original UM Pro 50. Make no mistake, there is a noticeable difference in mid-bass quantity which some might find as an improvement while others won't. But other than that, you can be rest assured that in this case re-shelled version sounds close to the original. I don't know if this going to remain true with every IEM and CIEM, and for sure I wouldn't recommend re-shelling any in-ear headphones with dynamic drivers unless you are OK with a sound change (dynamic drivers push air, and change of enclosure will alter sound). But one thing I can confirm, Inearz did a great job with a build of this CIEM, and they did their best to keep the sound as close as possible to the original. This re-shell definitely gets my thumbs up!
 
Last edited:
post-12158337
Post #2 of 32

tayano

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
378
Reaction score
28
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Posts
378
Likes
28
Thanks for a great comparison. With this slight change of sound in mind, would you reshell your original um50 for a better fit/seal? (Given that you only own one pair of um50).
 
     Share This Post       
post-12158429
Post #3 of 32

twister6

twister6 Reviews
Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
11,640
Reaction score
28,707
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Posts
11,640
Likes
28,707
Website
twister6.com
Thanks for a great comparison. With this slight change of sound in mind, would you reshell your original um50 for a better fit/seal? (Given that you only own one pair of um50).
 
Just based on a personal preference of wanting more bass slam, I would keep it as is.  But I would definitely recommend their re-shelling service.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12159019
Post #4 of 32

RedJohn456

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
3,104
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Posts
4,839
Likes
3,104
 
Manufacture website: http://www.inearz.com, where http://www.inearz.com/remolding1/ - remolding for up to 8 drivers ($125 w/30-day re-fitment warranty).

 
Discovering CIEMs could be a life changing experience, both for your ears and your wallet.  No matter how many eartips you go through to find a perfect fitment/seal with your universal IEMs, nothing will match a precision of a custom mold crafted from your in-ear impression taken by audiologist.  Some companies that make their own custom tuned CIEMs, also offer re-shelling of your existing CIEMs or turning IEMs into CIEMs.  For the obvious reasons, CIEMs are not easy to sell if you want to upgrade, but you can transfer the ownership if they are re-shelled.  Also with IEMs, if you have an expensive multi-driver model and not happy with a fitment, or you want to personalize it through customization, or if you want a removable cable, or if you cracked the shell and no longer covered by warranty - re-shelling can breath a new life into your universal in-ears.
 
But there is also another side to this re-shelling coin.  Unless if the job is done by the original manufacturer of CIEMs, there is a possibility that re-shelled version will not sound the same as the original one.  It's not enough to just transplant the drivers and the crossover, but you also need to consider the physical shape, the number of bores, filters, the placement of drivers, etc.  As a matter of fact, I would only recommend re-shelling multi-BA IEMs, not hybrids or dynamic drivers.  Also, it's not easy to compare the change before and after unless you can rely on going by memory.  Since I was able to get my hands on a pair of defective UM Pro 50 where all the inner guts were intact and only the shell was cracked, I saw it as a golden opportunity to re-shell and to compare these to my working pair of UM Pro 50.  Considering how pleased I was with Inearz P650 CIEM (now renamed to Euphoria), and knowing they offer re-shelling service for a very reasonable price, I decided this will be a perfect opportunity for A/B comparison.  As a disclaimer, re-shelling was complimentary for the purpose of this review, and I Thank Inearz for this offer in exchange for my honest opinion.
 
Unboxing and accessories.
 
Unlike their own multi-driver CIEMs and probably to keep the cost down, the re-shelled product comes with a minimum set of essential accessories, including a compact clam shell, a cleaning tool, and Inearz sticker.  But have no worry, they offer replacement cables and Pelican case as a separate accessory you can buy on their website.  In theory, since you are replacing an existing pair of headphones, you should have a cable already.  And with that in mind, I was also pleased they kept the original cable connector since Westone uses mmcx in their current W-/UM- models.
 
 
 
Design.
 
Westone bean shaped IEMs have one of the best universal fitments I have encounter, along with Noble Savant.  But at the same time, my in-ear canal anatomy makes UM Pro 50 (and W60) to be the most sensitive to eartip selection.  Going CIEM eliminates eartip variation due to a custom shape and a fitment where you no longer have to worry about eartips.
 
When it comes to CIEMs, a picture is worth a thousand words and would be the best way to describe them.  For my design I asked Inearz to make a clear shell in order to be able to see all the drivers inside, and solid black faceplate with a default company name to make it look clean once in my ears.  Since I already provided my in-ear impression when P650 was built and their fitment was perfect, I expected this acrylic re-shelled model to fit the same - and it did.  It went in like a butter and a comfortable seal was maintained even when I opened my mouth.  Shells looked beautiful in baby-blue transparent color, finish was smooth, and I didn't notice any imperfections (maybe one or two tiny air bubbles).  Faceplate attachment was seamless, and I also like how the print on top of the shell facing in was blue on the left and red on the right for an easy ID of the sides.
 
With an advantage of the clear shell, I was able to examine everything inside with ease.  Though the original Westone UM Pro 50 is clear but cloudy, I was still able to confirm a nearly identical arrangement and placement of the drivers and crossover.  I also noticed Left/Right/Ground wires were color coded.  Another observation, Inearz stayed true to Westone original design where 5xBA drivers output goes into a single bore of a narrow nozzle.  Identical to that arrangement, I found a single bore opening with an original filter at the base of it.  I can see that an extra effort was made to replicate the exact inner design of UM Pro 50.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Inearz UMP50 vs Westone UM Pro 50.
 
 
 
Fitment.
 

 
Sound impression and comparison to Westone UM Pro 50.
 
The best way to describe a sound of the newly re-shelled UM Pro 50 version is through A/B comparison with the original Westone version.  For this test, I had both headphones equipped with Whiplash TWag v3 pure silver cables and used a few of my summit-fi DAPs, such as PAW Gold and L5 Pro, for sound analysis.
 
I found them to have the same soundstage width/height, though Westone has a touch more depth while Inearz staging was closer and more intimate.  Sound is equally dynamic, with the same level of layering and separation.  Westone has a little better transparency, but overall retrieval of details is nearly identical.
 
Low end has the same sub-bass extension with the same level of rumble, and in both cases bass is well controlled and doesn't spill into lower mids.  The difference here is that Westone has more mid-bass slam, while Inearz mid-bass is more balanced.  Inearz mid-bass is still elevated with the same quality, but quantity is more polite and balanced better with sub-bass.  Mids are nearly identical from full body lower mids (not too thick) to clear detailed smooth upper mids.  Also, I found the same treble  extension, smooth, not as crisp or airy, but with a good definition.
 

 
Conclusion.
 
The intent of this review was not to encourage someone to take $650 5xBA driver UIEM and invest another $125 to turn it into CIEM with a slightly different sound characteristics.  I have read a lot of discussions about re-shelling and going CIEM route where some people are worried about sound change and don't know what to expect.  This question is not easy to answer because you need to have the original IEM/CIEM next to the re-shelled version to make a better comparison rather than guessing by memory.  That is exactly what I tried to accomplish in my review.  To be honest, from the get-go I expected this CIEM to look good and to have a great fitment, but wasn't sure how it will sound in comparison to the original UM Pro 50.  Make no mistake, there is a noticeable difference in mid-bass quantity which some might find as an improvement while others won't.  But other than that, you can be rest assured that in this case re-shelled version sounds close to the original.  I don't know if this going to remain true with every IEM and CIEM, and for sure I wouldn't recommend re-shelling any in-ear headphones with dynamic drivers unless you are OK with a sound change (dynamic drivers push air, and change of enclosure will alter sound).  But one thing I can confirm, Inearz did a great job with a build of this CIEM, and they did their best to keep the sound as close as possible to the original.  This re-shell definitely gets my thumbs up!
 
 
Great write up Alex. Do you know it it would be possible with something that utilizes dynamic drivers or is it BA iems only?
 
     Share This Post       
post-12159044
Post #5 of 32

twister6

twister6 Reviews
Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
11,640
Reaction score
28,707
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Posts
11,640
Likes
28,707
Website
twister6.com
Originally Posted by RedJohn456 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Great write up Alex. Do you know it it would be possible with something that utilizes dynamic drivers or is it BA iems only?
 
 
Oh, anything could be re-shelled, Tamal.  There is no limitation to the type of a driver, dynamic or BA.  It's just my personal opinion that you can get closer to the original sound sig with re-shelling of BA drivers since they are less dependent on acoustic enclosure in comparison to dynamic drivers that need "room" and venting of the shell.
 
Btw, I know I mentioned that if I would have to choose between Inearz or original Westone version, I would pick Westone because I want more bass, but in reality if I would have a cracked UM Pro 50 and get it re-shelled - I wouldn't regret Inearz version even for a second.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12159088
Post #6 of 32

RedJohn456

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
3,104
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Posts
4,839
Likes
3,104
   
Oh, anything could be re-shelled, Tamal.  There is no limitation to the type of a driver, dynamic or BA.  It's just my personal opinion that you can get closer to the original sound sig with re-shelling of BA drivers since they are less dependent on acoustic enclosure in comparison to dynamic drivers that need "room" and venting of the shell.
 
Btw, I know I mentioned that if I would have to choose between Inearz or original Westone version, I would pick Westone because I want more bass, but in reality if I would have a cracked UM Pro 50 and get it re-shelled - I wouldn't regret Inearz version even for a second.

That would make for interesting possibilities. I would potentially like to get a pair of B3 Pro 1 made into ciems one day so this was pretty interesting to read. 
 
Also, the westone would be easier to take in and out whereas with CIEM shells you have to spiral it in and out everytime. Not the most elegant of procedures I bet :wink:
 
     Share This Post       
post-12159110
Post #7 of 32

tayano

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
378
Reaction score
28
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Posts
378
Likes
28
Twister, do you think you could identify the difference in sound signature without having the original UM50?

Are you able to EQ the slight decrease in mid-bass?
 
     Share This Post       
post-12159153
Post #8 of 32

Ivabign

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
453
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Posts
2,917
Likes
453
Very interesting Twister - I imagine one of the reasons they sound similar is that the Pro50 is a pretty easy fit; you can usually get a great seal since they are diminutive and the ergonomics are spot-on. Where I have found the advantages are with a re-shell of a universal is with a unit that is difficult to fit. Like the TF10. The TF10's are notoriously difficult to get seated in the ear and often that effects the sound. With a proper sea from a custom, many of the idiosyncrasies of the UE product are lessened and eliminated. The sucked in mids are more forward - something that is often mentioned as a defect in the sound.
 
Very cool experiment - and also goes to show what great work they do at Inearz.
 
EDIT - When it comes to re-shelling Dynamic Drivers, all re-shell companies are not the same. I don't believe that Inearz re-shells anything other than BA Driven IEMs. UM will and there are others - best to get a quote prior to committing to a dynamic driver IEM.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12159179
Post #10 of 32

twister6

twister6 Reviews
Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
11,640
Reaction score
28,707
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Posts
11,640
Likes
28,707
Website
twister6.com
Twister, do you think you could identify the difference in sound signature without having the original UM50?

Are you able to EQ the slight decrease in mid-bass?
 
Subtle difference in soundstage intimacy, probably not.  But mid-bass, I probably would.  Btw, we are not talking about night'n'day difference :) 
 
With EQ, I haven't tried, but I think using Parametric EQ of PAW Gold, I can zoom right in to boost it.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12159575
Post #11 of 32

Spyro

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
6,574
Reaction score
241
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Posts
6,574
Likes
241
Another outstanding review by Twister6 but let me try to help him out some.
Westone offers the easiest most comfortable fitting IEM’s in the industry.
If you achieve a good fit with Westone IEM’s, re-shelling  them is a colossal waste of money.
Any “re-shell”  company that is merely switching drivers out couldn’t possibly achieve the intended sound perfection of the original manufacturer that put 1,000’s of hours of sound engineering time in.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12159623
Post #12 of 32

twister6

twister6 Reviews
Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
11,640
Reaction score
28,707
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Posts
11,640
Likes
28,707
Website
twister6.com
  Another outstanding review by Twister6 but let me try to help him out some.
Westone offers the easiest most comfortable fitting IEM’s in the industry.
If you achieve a good fit with Westone IEM’s, re-shelling  them is a colossal waste of money.
Any “re-shell”  company that is merely switching drivers out couldn’t possibly achieve the intended sound perfection of the original manufacturer that put 1,000’s of hours of sound engineering time in.
 
Absolutely, 100% agree!  And that is exactly the reason why I put in my Conclusion that intent of this review was not to encourage someone to re-shell their Westone IEM, but rather a golden opportunity I had to compare re-shelled version (by Inearz) versus the original version.  It just happens to be UM Pro 50 since I got my hands on a defective pair with a cracked shell.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12159900
Post #13 of 32

RedTwilight

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
1,153
Reaction score
418
Location
Singapore
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Location
Singapore
Posts
1,153
Likes
418
Great information @twister6 ! Really informative and quite helpful, especially since some of us are thinking of dabbling in diy ciems.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12161363
Post #14 of 32

twister6

twister6 Reviews
Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
11,640
Reaction score
28,707
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Posts
11,640
Likes
28,707
Website
twister6.com
  Very interesting Twister - I imagine one of the reasons they sound similar is that the Pro50 is a pretty easy fit; you can usually get a great seal since they are diminutive and the ergonomics are spot-on. Where I have found the advantages are with a re-shell of a universal is with a unit that is difficult to fit. Like the TF10. The TF10's are notoriously difficult to get seated in the ear and often that effects the sound. With a proper sea from a custom, many of the idiosyncrasies of the UE product are lessened and eliminated. The sucked in mids are more forward - something that is often mentioned as a defect in the sound.
 
Very cool experiment - and also goes to show what great work they do at Inearz.
 
EDIT - When it comes to re-shelling Dynamic Drivers, all re-shell companies are not the same. I don't believe that Inearz re-shells anything other than BA Driven IEMs. UM will and there are others - best to get a quote prior to committing to a dynamic driver IEM.
 
You are absolutely correct!  I just got confirmation from Inearz, they only re-shell BA driver IEMs.  But I can see how some other companies who make multi-driver hybrid customs, like UM or AAW, will have expertise to re-shell those.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12161449
Post #15 of 32

tayano

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
378
Reaction score
28
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Posts
378
Likes
28
I sent a pair of Fischer amps FA-4 to inearz due to that my left and right earcanal are not equal in size. I've had big problems with a good seal, hopefully I'll get a god seal with a minor decrease in SQ. If I'm able to EQ the subtle difference and have a great fit I'll be very pleased. I'll return with my impressions when I receive my IEMs.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top