Epunrated
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2014
- Posts
- 42
- Likes
- 10
if anyone here want to let ur SE Ulti version go, please remember me ^^
so many thanks
so many thanks
NT6 is opposite of 5 way.
in what way ? i am talking about the se5 ref , not the se5 ult
is se5 ref different sounding than NT6 ?
@Average Joe can you help out here ?
He explained the difference of se5 ref vs NT6 in the review (1st page) pretty clearly.
They are totally different sounding monitors.
i will read it again...
i see you have se5 , is it the ult or the ref edition ?
I have both. But I don't listen to ref any more.
So you gave up on the solar or mentor?
I am glad you enjoyed the NT6, tamed your desire for a while.
Ult to my ears is better than ref for sure, it's a lot more neutral, accurate and clean. The imaging is more focused and overall more refined. It is a superb complement for NT6. Did that untamed your fire again sotos?
Some perspective on the Ultimate vs Reference.
I've recently exchanged my Reference for the Ultimate. The Reference were my favorite IEMs and what I thought to be end-game, but I was curious to hear what the Ultimates were about.
First impressions with the Ultimate:
Details!
Clarity!
Transparency!
Space!
Where is the bass?
The Ultimate indeed set a new standard for me in terms of transparency and spacial qualities. If the Reference were dark, someone turned on the light! The consequence of this ultra-transparency is that I can't describe the Ultimate signature - because I can't hear them. All I hear is the source. The Ultimate literally "disappear", and that's quite a feat. The soundstage has also greatly improved, with impressive width and depth. It's a big change from the Reference which sounded small and lacked air. Except in the bass department, where the details and weight are now really disappointing, the Ultimate are technically impressive.
However, the sound is now... very light. This is a radical departure from the Reference's rendering, which was dense, full-bodied, and built like a tank. Exit the creamy, mesmerizing vocals: mids are now pure and sharp like cristal. Exit the rumbling, head-shaking bass: now it's lean and quick. (Coming from the Reference it sadly sounds like a fly fart.) Exit the intimate soundstage that gave me the impression to be in the studio with the band: now the soundstage depicts a large, open-air stage. It's more comfortable but less personal. Finally exit the muted highs: now they are free, beautifully extended and smooth like a morning mist.
This lightness is kind of a problem. First, because the Ultimate a real princess to pair. They don't fare well with the AK240: the sound is too bright and too thin. They work okay with the Hugo, but the notes lack body (maybe they would benefit from the added warmth of a tube amp.) They work better with the warm, analog-sounding Plenue 1, but they quickly reveal the technical limits of this DAP. Tough!
Second, because it is also hard to predict what will sound good. For example. the Mad Max soundtrack sounds fantastic, with great imaging and energy which remind me of the IMAX screening, while the Jurassic Park soundtrack lacks intensity and gravitas. Overall, pop and acoustic work well, and everything bass-driven (e.g. electro) is not enjoyable.
Third, light notes sometimes go in the way of realism. For example, piano notes just lack the serious weight that stems from a grand piano. Bell-like resonance is still good, but the church bell is now kind of a ringbell...
Despite what the name and price suggest the Ultimate are, at least for me, not an upgrade but a “sidegrade”. They are different dish. The best metaphor is the one made by jelt: the Reference taste like a rich chocolate ice cream while the Ultimate taste like a sugar-free sorbet. You gain a more spacious presentation and more clarity but you lose bass quality and quantity and density. The opposite of the Ultimate would be the LCD2, while the Reference stand in between.
Do I like the Ultimate? Sure. Do I miss the Reference? Yes. They had more character. They sounded special. The Ultimate sound more "classic". Or maybe I just prefer ice cream to sorbet!
Some perspective on the Ultimate vs Reference.
I've recently exchanged my Reference for the Ultimate. The Reference were my favorite IEMs and what I thought to be end-game, but I was curious to hear what the Ultimates were about.
First impressions with the Ultimate:
Details!
Clarity!
Transparency!
Space!
Where is the bass?
The Ultimate indeed set a new standard for me in terms of transparency and spacial qualities. If the Reference were dark, someone turned on the light! The consequence of this ultra-transparency is that I can't describe the Ultimate signature - because I can't hear them. All I hear is the source. The Ultimate literally "disappear", and that's quite a feat. The soundstage has also greatly improved, with impressive width and depth. It's a big change from the Reference which sounded small and lacked air. Except in the bass department, where the details and weight are now really disappointing, the Ultimate are technically impressive.
However, the sound is now... very light. This is a radical departure from the Reference's rendering, which was dense, full-bodied, and built like a tank. Exit the creamy, mesmerizing vocals: mids are now pure and sharp like cristal. Exit the rumbling, head-shaking bass: now it's lean and quick. (Coming from the Reference it sadly sounds like a fly fart.) Exit the intimate soundstage that gave me the impression to be in the studio with the band: now the soundstage depicts a large, open-air stage. It's more comfortable but less personal. Finally exit the muted highs: now they are free, beautifully extended and smooth like a morning mist.
This lightness is kind of a problem. First, because the Ultimate a real princess to pair. They don't fare well with the AK240: the sound is too bright and too thin. They work okay with the Hugo, but the notes lack body (maybe they would benefit from the added warmth of a tube amp.) They work better with the warm, analog-sounding Plenue 1, but they quickly reveal the technical limits of this DAP. Tough!
Second, because it is also hard to predict what will sound good. For example. the Mad Max soundtrack sounds fantastic, with great imaging and energy which remind me of the IMAX screening, while the Jurassic Park soundtrack lacks intensity and gravitas. Overall, pop and acoustic work well, and everything bass-driven (e.g. electro) is not enjoyable.
Third, light notes sometimes go in the way of realism. For example, piano notes just lack the serious weight that stems from a grand piano. Bell-like resonance is still good, but the church bell is now kind of a ringbell...
Despite what the name and price suggest the Ultimate are, at least for me, not an upgrade but a “sidegrade”. They are different dish. The best metaphor is the one made by jelt: the Reference taste like a rich chocolate ice cream while the Ultimate taste like a sugar-free sorbet. You gain a more spacious presentation and more clarity but you lose bass quality and quantity and density. The opposite of the Ultimate would be the LCD2, while the Reference stand in between.
Do I like the Ultimate? Sure. Do I miss the Reference? Yes. They had more character. They sounded special. The Ultimate sound more "classic". Or maybe I just prefer ice cream to sorbet!
Even though the majority of people that have had both have concluded the Ult to be a nice upgrade from the Ref, I find myself drawn to the Ref for the reasons you mentioned based on my reading. Already having the transparency of my Hidition NT6pro, I am looking for a more organic companion, but the pro has served me so well that I have not been in a hurry. Now with the Ult available, I am even more hesitant to make a move without being able to hear them first. Wish I could talk the company into a tour, but have failed so far. Will try again soon.
i think that se5ult is the better, more 'organic' one
at least this is the impression i get from reading impressions from people who owned both
and someone i pm'ed told me that se5ult is definitely the better ciem and a definite upgrade
this last review/comparison got me a little confused, actually
Some perspective on the Ultimate vs Reference.
I've recently exchanged my Reference for the Ultimate. The Reference were my favorite IEMs and what I thought to be end-game, but I was curious to hear what the Ultimates were about.
First impressions with the Ultimate:
Details!
Clarity!
Transparency!
Space!
Where is the bass?
The Ultimate indeed set a new standard for me in terms of transparency and spacial qualities. If the Reference were dark, someone turned on the light! The consequence of this ultra-transparency is that I can't describe the Ultimate signature - because I can't hear them. All I hear is the source. The Ultimate literally "disappear", and that's quite a feat. The soundstage has also greatly improved, with impressive width and depth. It's a big change from the Reference which sounded small and lacked air. Except in the bass department, where the details and weight are now really disappointing, the Ultimate are technically impressive.
However, the sound is now... very light. This is a radical departure from the Reference's rendering, which was dense, full-bodied, and built like a tank. Exit the creamy, mesmerizing vocals: mids are now pure and sharp like cristal. Exit the rumbling, head-shaking bass: now it's lean and quick. (Coming from the Reference it sadly sounds like a fly fart.) Exit the intimate soundstage that gave me the impression to be in the studio with the band: now the soundstage depicts a large, open-air stage. It's more comfortable but less personal. Finally exit the muted highs: now they are free, beautifully extended and smooth like a morning mist.
This lightness is kind of a problem. First, because the Ultimate a real princess to pair. They don't fare well with the AK240: the sound is too bright and too thin. They work okay with the Hugo, but the notes lack body (maybe they would benefit from the added warmth of a tube amp.) They work better with the warm, analog-sounding Plenue 1, but they quickly reveal the technical limits of this DAP. Tough!
Second, because it is also hard to predict what will sound good. For example. the Mad Max soundtrack sounds fantastic, with great imaging and energy which remind me of the IMAX screening, while the Jurassic Park soundtrack lacks intensity and gravitas. Overall, pop and acoustic work well, and everything bass-driven (e.g. electro) is not enjoyable.
Third, light notes sometimes go in the way of realism. For example, piano notes just lack the serious weight that stems from a grand piano. Bell-like resonance is still good, but the church bell is now kind of a ringbell...
Despite what the name and price suggest the Ultimate are, at least for me, not an upgrade but a “sidegrade”. They are different dish. The best metaphor is the one made by jelt: the Reference taste like a rich chocolate ice cream while the Ultimate taste like a sugar-free sorbet. You gain a more spacious presentation and more clarity but you lose bass quality and quantity and density. The opposite of the Ultimate would be the LCD2, while the Reference stand in between.
Do I like the Ultimate? Sure. Do I miss the Reference? Yes. They had more character. They sounded special. The Ultimate sound more "classic". Or maybe I just prefer ice cream to sorbet!
Subbed to this thread this morning and started reading at this page, so logically I immediately noticed your (imo very interesting) post :rolleyes:
Now before this I was almost sure that I would end up sometimes with a SE5 ult as endgame (based on the raving FFAB review). But after this I'm not so sure about that anymore, as bass (quality & quantity) is also a very important part of the signature to me. Besides that I think I often prefer darker sounding signatures (I also liked the LCD-2 very much) over (too) bright ones => less fatiguing on the ears during long listening sessions
Also just read post #1 (AJ's superb SE5 ref review) of this thread and the ref might be more my cup of tea after all...also a bit less painfull (- €330) on the wallet in the end