[Mr Iriver]

[size=medium]UE triple.fi pro and Shure SE530 (aka shure E500) review[/size].

In my posession are two devices dat achieve sound quality I used to think impossible to achieve in a portable package. These are the shure Se350, and the ultimate ears triple.fi pro. For the rest of this review I'm gonna refer to the Triple.fi pro canalphones as "TFP", and to the SE530 as "E500." For those of you lazy to read the whole review, who want to know which is the best of the two either pair is in the same level. It seems to me that the E500s are slightly more accurate with the best midrange I have ever heard, but the TFPs equal the overall sound with detailed and smooth highs.

Looking closer into the sound im gonna describe how the two pairs respong to the "low Frequencies," "midrange frequencies," "high frequencies," and also how the overal sound comes together/ "soundstage, imaging, smoothness."

Sound

Lows:

Both the TFP and the E500 will destroy any of the other universal fit canalphones in terms of their bass response. I remember trying the E500 and the UE10 pro (custom fit canalphones), and I remember finding the E500 to easily surpass the bass response of the $900 UE10 pros which are custom canalphones. And with the bass response of the TFPs being up there with the E500s I have no doubt whatsoever that these TFPs should provide better bass response than the UE10pros.
Between the TFP and the Shure E500 there quality of the low frequencies is comparable, but the way in which these frequenceies are presented is different. The E500s to me represent a much bigger sound,dat extends much lower. I personally think the E500s provide with the best bass response of any portabe phones in the market, with a response that seems rather flat throughout the low frequencies. The TFPs present the bass differently, and although not as natural sounding or real, but the quality of it is more textured, yet not as deep. As far as amplitude, I feared these phones with their three drivers would overemphasize the bass, but in both phones, the mids and the highs come through perfectly.

Midrange:
Midrange wise, I have never heard any headphone or canalphones under the 1k range dat surpasses the shure E500's incredibly pristine midrange. But I have also never heard the Stax sr001 Mk2 portable system, which supposedly has some of the best midrange in any headphone at any price range. The midrange however is very nice and lush, and extremely detailed. More detailed than the midrange in the TFPs. The midrange is pretty much perfect making it a great set for vocals, and rock. This is not to say that the TFPs arent even comparable. They are definately comparible, but the midrange seems to be weaker than the rest of the spectrum, in emphasis dat is. The TFP midrange is still incredibly detailed, and overall very amazing, but I guess it makes the sound boring to me in comparison.

Treble:
Treble wise, is where the TFPs shine. Welll their bass is pretty awesome too, but their treble, although a lil emphasized is still smooth, and incredibly detailed. Just like the E500s were perfect with their midrange these have their treble. I personally prefer the smoother response in the treble, of the E500s, but the TFP are just slightly more pristine here. The etyomtic treble I always found to be rather annoying for example, with their annoying over emphasiz at certain frequencies, which added with their thin and innacurate decay, made for a sharp brittle sound in comparison to other IEMs. Both the E500s and the TFP provide more detail than the etymotics in the treble, which is what people praise etys for, but the TFPs take the treble a step further maintaining it very very detailed, slightly emphasized, yet smooth. The E500s on the other hand, are also more detailed than the etymotics here, and treble is very very smooth with the rest of the frequencies, but the detail does not jump out as much in the treble as it does on the TFPs.

Overall Sound.

Well I personally am preferring the E500s so far, but they are both equally great sounding. Both hae great performance in their bass with the E500s providing a more accurate bass sound, the E500 have the best midrange I have heard on the $1k, but the TFPs win in the treble department. Timbre wise, the shures seem more accurate, with perfect decay, but the TFPs do so well here dat its definatelly gotta be a preference thing. Soundstage it seemd to me dat the shure e500s had a better soundsage with more depth, but in some cases I enjoyed the flatter but longer from left to rite soundstage of the TFPs. The TFPs soundstage is weird, but dat is in a good way. Is more like say a long oval from left to rite, while the shure E500s are more like a circle, dat although more 3dimensional, does not expand as much.

Overall Design

Although the sound of the two is comparable, I dont think the design is. The E500s are a far smarter design. Out of the ear both pairs look very nice, but when worn the shures are definatelly more comfortable, and manage to look cool on your head rather than odd. Although i said the E500s are more comfortable, a lot of it depends on the ears, and neither pair is uncomfortable anyways.I do like the wiring for the TFPs though, but shure is known for great customer service.


If you guys have any questions let me know.

 

[Mr Iriver]

can a mod add the word review to the title of this thread.

 

[apnk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Iriver /img/forum/go_quote.gif can a mod add the word review to the title of this thread.

You can edit the post yourself. (click edit and then click "go advance")

BTW nice mini review. I agree on the UE design, I never liked it or the fit.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by apnk /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can edit the post yourself. (click edit and then click "go advance") BTW nice mini review. I agree on the UE design, I never liked it or the fit.

thanks. I fixed the title.

 

[jinp6301]

you might want to take the internet slang out such as "dat" for that and some of the spelling and grammar errors.

otherwise, GREAT review

 

[Aidanael]

Nice review

 

[Audio Fidelity]

I have this two pair IEMs and totally agree with your review. Shure also provided more isolation than UE.

 

[JimBob1971]

Nice review.

I've heard both and I'd like to add a comment about soundstaging: The Shures present the music in front of you generally, whereas the UEs tend to have you "in" the music if that makes sense.

 

[denisavu]

Nice review - I'm in the market for the E500 too.

 

[Spyro]

Great review. Are you going to end up keeping both or sending the TFP's back? I choose the TFP's because I listen to jazz and I heard they are better for jazz, also because I wanted the one with better highs, and finally because I have never owned a UE product and decided to take the plunge. But I would love to hear the E500.

Question: You mention that the treble on both is better detailed than the Ety's?? Are you sure on that wording/description? Please elaborate if possible. I would seem to think Ety is the most detailed treble of any IEM in the world, but fully understanding that not everyone wants that much treble or that fast of a treble, type of decay, etc. no matter how accurate it is.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great review. Are you going to end up keeping both or sending the TFP's back? I choose the TFP's because I listen to jazz and I heard they are better for jazz, also because I wanted the one with better highs, and finally because I have never owned a UE product and decided to take the plunge. But I would love to hear the E500. Question: You mention that the treble on both is better detailed than the Ety's?? Are you sure on that wording/description? Please elaborate if possible. I would seem to think Ety is the most detailed treble of any IEM in the world, but fully understanding that not everyone wants that much treble or that fast of a treble, type of decay, etc. no matter how accurate it is.

Well the thing is decay is detailed as well. Just think of it like this. When something is really detailed it should show things with extreme accuracy giving the detail to show how the real thing is. That means lacking this natural decay it is lacking that detail. And the impressive thing, is that with the extra space room (soundstage) in this triple drivers iems, now we are getting all this extreme detail, with the decay, which with the better separation comes out clearly and overal more detailed. at least that is how it sounds to me. As far as bass, people say all the bass can be heard on the etys and stuff, but it isnt entirey true. The E500s especially extend way lower than any other canalphone I have ever tried, while maintainin dat extension flat.

 

[Spyro]

So it sounds like you are saying (in your opinion) that the Ety's get the detail correct at impact on the front end but these other two get it correct through the whole striking of the tone beginning to end.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif So it sounds like you are saying (in your opinion) that the Ety's get the detail correct at impact on the front end but these other two get it correct through the whole striking of the tone beginning to end.

Not exactly. Im saying dat treble wise. The etys are indeed detailed and all. When u see their sound as a complete package however, this treble which they have is alittle too emphasized. The other downside, is their highly innacurate timbre, and decay, but yes their treble is very detailed. But in my opinion, these two triple driver phones maintain their detail smooth, more detailed, with better decay and far more accurate timbre, all at once. It is possibly helped by the extra space provided by the bigger soundstage, but overall teh whole package seems to be more towards the perfection in tone. The ety treble although emphasized is very good, but its mosty the tone of it, dat makes the huge difference between them and these triple drivers. Although, I still find both triple drivers more detailed. And that is not only in the treble, but also in the bass, the mids, and like i mentioned also the treble.

 

[jant71]

You're really right there, Mr Iriver. I listened for the longest while to my PK2 with S cable versus ER4S. The Ety has more detail, period. Buuuuuuuut, the longer decay and more well rounded notes of the PK2/S let you hear things that the Ety doesn't. Since they were as fast and more comfy I decided to let the Ety's go.

I am still searching for the isolating solution. The Ety was a sort of replacement for the Triple.fi's. I want the speed, forward mids, seperation, and clarity(smack dab in the middle between ER4 and Triple.fi) that the PK2/s gives. ER4 and the UE are on the same level(excellent) but fell short in different areas for my tastes.

I am going to try the E500 next and I have the S cable now which has improved all my low imp. phones(CD780, Elecom ohp700, ER4P, S.fi 3, PK2) by 15%-20% in overall SQ.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jant71 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're really right there, Mr Iriver. I listened for the longest while to my PK2 with S cable versus ER4S. The Ety has more detail, period. Buuuuuuuut, the longer decay and more well rounded notes of the PK2/S let you hear things that the Ety doesn't. Since they were as fast and more comfy I decided to let the Ety's go. I am still searching for the isolating solution. The Ety was a sort of replacement for the Triple.fi's. I want the speed, forward mids, seperation, and clarity(smack dab in the middle between ER4 and Triple.fi) that the PK2/s gives. ER4 and the UE are on the same level(excellent) but fell short in different areas for my tastes. I am going to try the E500 next and I have the S cable now which has improved all my low imp. phones(CD780, Elecom ohp700, ER4P, S.fi 3, PK2) by 15%-20% in overall SQ.

Wow, u serious. Im gonna have to try dat s cable.