[seankonnery]

Even after 100 hrs burn in, the UE 10 Pro has such a different sound than the Senn 650 on the GO7. It is excellent, but some distortion exists where the 650 had NONE. Also very heavy, fuzzy or cloudy. The 650 is so clear and crisp. I hope I didn't make a mistake buying them. Anyway, they are primarily for portable use, but I was surprised at the sound on the GO7.

On the iriver 120, it sounds even worse; very muddy and mushy. The ety sounded better. I am changing my portable source to the Sony D-EJ2000 along with the new headroom portable dac. I hope that helps.

What do you guys think?

 

[EdipisReks]

i think something is wrong with them.

 

[seankonnery]

so what the h-ll do I do now?

 

[EdipisReks]

give Ultimate Ears a call. UE's customer service is reported to be extremely good.

 

[Born2bwire]

One of the things that's always turned me off about canalphones are the limitations of the driver that they use. Even with the UE10's, you only have a frequency response going up to 16Khz and it just isn't a problem that is solved by throwing more money at it. I was able to listen to the entire Shure lineup, E2, E3c, E4c, and E5c and they all had that missing high end. To me it made them sound slightly muddy. For example, cymbals lost some of their shimmer and sounded dull.

EDIT: Whoops, missed the part about the Ety's sounding better. Yeah, that and the distortion would lead me to think that there is something defective about them too.

 

[Wmcmanus]

How do they fit? Do you get a good seal?

I'm not one to defend any audio-related product because I hear what I hear, and you hear what you hear. Plus, I don't have an 'agenda' to try to push for one pair of headphones versus another.

But that said, I can't think of a single sonic attribute of the ER-4S that I preferred over the UE10-Pro - not detail, not resolution, not bass response, attack, decay, you name it. To my ears the UE10-Pro trumps the ER-4S in every way. Which really makes me wonder if it's a fit issue, or perhaps even a product defect (i.e., over-sealed chamber?). I strongly suspect that it is not a "break-in" issue because mine sounded wonderful from the first note, and of all headphones I've ever owned, I'd say the UE's sound has changed the least from break-in.

Suffice it to say that "heavy, fuzzy and cloudy" are not terms that fit with my UE listening experience, and I suspect you'll get a dozen others to tell you the same thing.

The first bet is to call them, explain the problem, and take it from there.

 

[toaster]

this is the last time i am saying this:

DO NOT EXPECT AN OPEN SOUND FROM YOUR CANALPHONES...EVER.

tired...tired...tired...

if you have the money to drop, the sensaphonics are the best things i've ever heard in my life. (i bet the ue-10's are great too, haven't heard them.)

but please, for the love of all that is head-fi, stop calling these top-end canalphones muddy...they provide some of the best sound possible with today's current technology, but they do not sound like OPEN PHONES.

i doubt anything is wrong with your canalphones...although, i hope something is so you can have them fixed and be happy with them.

...

if you want an OPEN SOUND, CANALPHONES, even the best, are simply NOT FOR YOU.

i don't want to see people waste their money anymore, due to them being unaware of this fact about canalphones.

it also surprises me that some people cannot appreciate the "incredibleness" of the kind of sound quality we can fit inside our ears...it's quite remarkable.

 

[doobooloo]

I'm very sorry for your UE experience but at the same time I'm kind of glad because now I'm not the only one who thinks the UE-10 Pros are mushy and muddy. The bass is just way overbloated and kills the mids and highs, IMO.

Try EQ-ing the bass from 20-500Hz about -3 to -6dB, this will make the sound a lot more "open" and clear sounding.

Anyway, I'm in the process of trying to see if there's anything wrong with my pair of UE-10 Pros - there was another head-fier a long time ago who accidentally received a pair of UE-7 Pros (bass-heavy) labeled as UE-10 Pros, so this may indeed be a similar case?

At any rate, maybe we can talk to UE together about this problem. I'm not in the US at the moment but I'll be back early June.

 

[doobooloo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toaster22 this is the last time i am saying this: DO NOT EXPECT AN OPEN SOUND FROM YOUR CANALPHONES...EVER. tired...tired...tired... if you have the money to drop, the sensaphonics are the best things i've ever heard in my life. (i bet the ue-10's are great too, haven't heard them.) but please, for the love of all that is head-fi, stop calling these top-end canalphones muddy...they provide some of the best sound possible with today's current technology, but they do not sound like OPEN PHONES. i doubt anything is wrong with your canalphones...although, i hope something is so you can have them fixed and be happy with them. ... if you want an OPEN SOUND, CANALPHONES, even the best, are simply NOT FOR YOU. i don't want to see people waste their money anymore, due to them being unaware of this fact about canalphones. it also surprises me that some people cannot appreciate the "incredibleness" of the kind of sound quality we can fit inside our ears...it's quite remarkable.

I understand where your frustration comes from but you're clearly overreacting. seankonnery didn't say the phones sounded "closed" - just mushy and muddy. He/she did say the Etys sounded better (don't know if they were enjoyable but still, better) so I don't think it's a problem with canalphones and their inherent "closed' sound but more with his (and my) specific pair of UE-10 Pros.

Also, to a certain degree IMO the Etys are one of the more open sounding phones, IMO, due to their incredible capability to resolve detail.

 

[root]

Call me stupid, but I find T2XS to be open-sounded (source is primarily iRiver iHP 140, unamped). The most awesome, incredible and realistic sound I've ever experienced; ever.


I got my own impressions done by Andy Shiach, the very owner of ACS Hearing Protection in Harpenden. He told me that the lion's share of perfect sound depends exactly on perfect molds. It's the most significant part. Maybe that's the case. Where did you get your molds from Seankonnery? But then again, I've never heard UE-10 Pro's.

 

[seankonnery]

Thanks, guys. I will call them tommorrow.

I listened closely again last night. They do sound great, but the senn 650 was able to take care of the distortion in the "t" and "Sh" sound in certain vocalists but the UE's do not. Also the cymbals sound tinny and shallow. Both sounds are very disappointing.

 

[seankonnery]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus How do they fit? Do you get a good seal? I'm not one to defend any audio-related product because I hear what I hear, and you hear what you hear. Plus, I don't have an 'agenda' to try to push for one pair of headphones versus another. But that said, I can't think of a single sonic attribute of the ER-4S that I preferred over the UE10-Pro - not detail, not resolution, not bass response, attack, decay, you name it. To my ears the UE10-Pro trumps the ER-4S in every way. Which really makes me wonder if it's a fit issue, or perhaps even a product defect (i.e., over-sealed chamber?). I strongly suspect that it is not a "break-in" issue because mine sounded wonderful from the first note, and of all headphones I've ever owned, I'd say the UE's sound has changed the least from break-in. Suffice it to say that "heavy, fuzzy and cloudy" are not terms that fit with my UE listening experience, and I suspect you'll get a dozen others to tell you the same thing. The first bet is to call them, explain the problem, and take it from there.

The seal is perfect. The sound is excellent. I am just disappointed that it doesn't do what the senn 650 does for the cymbals and the "t" and "sh" sound of some vocalists. They are better than the Ety's; for sure.

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born2bwire Even with the UE10's, you only have a frequency response going up to 16Khz and it just isn't a problem that is solved by throwing more money at it.

can you hear sounds above 16k hz?

why make the driver work to make these sounds when most people cant even hear them?

the "rolloff" at 16k hz is clearly a low-pass filter applied to the high frequency driver. it is too smooth, and abrupt to be the driver "running out of frequency" at 16k hz.

i guess it may be good to have more frequency "bufferzone" if you wanted to use an open 'phone as a dogwhistle.

 

[Born2bwire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod can you hear sounds above 16k hz? why make the driver work to make these sounds when most people cant even hear them? the "rolloff" at 16k hz is clearly a low-pass filter applied to the high frequency driver. it is too smooth, and abrupt to be the driver "running out of frequency" at 16k hz. i guess it may be good to have more frequency "bufferzone" if you wanted to use an open 'phone as a dogwhistle.

Hearing tests say that I can easily hear into the 19KHz and I expect that most people can hear up to 18KHz. To me, it makes a big difference when I listened. When I talked to the Shure reps at the Chicago meet (they had one of their canalphone engineers and a marketing rep), the engineer said that the high end roll off was due to the limitation of the driver. If they could make the driver reproduce above 16KHz, why wouldn't they? The designers of CD's decided over 20 years ago that the cutoff for reasonable hearing would be at 20KHz. If they're producing a $900 custom IEM, why wouldn't they try to reproduce the entire frequency response of CD's?

 

[raisin]

Because they don't make the drivers- those are produced with the hearing aid industry in mind, not high fidelity.