PhilS
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
- Posts
- 3,158
- Likes
- 13
I've got my Ultimate Ears UE-5c a little after Christmas and really got the chance to do some serious listening on a recent trip to San Francisco. I thought I'd post a few thoughts for those considering these phones.
First, I am very impressed with the comfort level and ease of inserting and removing theses phones. After a little bit of practice, it really does take just 2 or 3 seconds to take them out if you need to hear something or talk to someone. And they are really very comfortable. The comfort and the ease of getting a good seal make a huge improvement over the Ety ER-6 and ER-4S, and I suspect other "over the counter" phones like the Shure models.
Second, with respect to sound quality, I would first like to comment on the difference between these and the Ety phones. I seem to recall reading on this forum several weeks ago a comment to the effect that the UE-5c was only a slight improvement over the Ety ER-6 and the ER-4S, both of which I have spent time with. I don't know how anyone could reach this conclusion objectively. The UE-5c is a huge step up in sound quality, IMO, and I liked the Ety phones quite a bit.
Third, I really enjoy the sound of the UE-5c's, with one caveat. The mid-bass hump that is often discussed is definitely there. I knew this going in, but was not concerned, as I use them with a Rio Karma, which has an excellent EQ feature. With only a few minutes experimentation, and a quick review of the frequency response on the Ultimate Ears website, I was able to compensate for the mid-bass hump and achieve the sound I want (basically by reviewing the frequency response charts for the UE-5c and UE-10 Pro, and EQ'ing to match the UE-10 Pro frequency response).
In conclusion, I am happy with my choice, because the UE-5c's fit my needs and complement my portable player quite well. I wanted to go the Ultimate Ears route rather than Sensaphonics, for a few reasons, partly because of the price of the cheapest Sensaphonics model and also because I wanted a hard acrylic phone. I didn't want to spend the extra $350 for the UE-10 Pro, however, since I don't anticipate I'll be using these phones often enough to justify the price. (I tend to use the Sennheiser PX-100 for a lot of my portable listening for reasons unrelated to sound quality.) If I did not have a player with a good EQ so I can adjust the sound of the UE-5c to my liking, or if I was going to use these phones on a frequent basis, I think I would have regretted not going with the E-10 Pro. But if one only wants to spend around $600 for a great fitting and excellent sounding canal phone, the UE-5c's are a really a great choice and, as I said above, a definite improvement over the Ety's (and probably the Shures as well).
First, I am very impressed with the comfort level and ease of inserting and removing theses phones. After a little bit of practice, it really does take just 2 or 3 seconds to take them out if you need to hear something or talk to someone. And they are really very comfortable. The comfort and the ease of getting a good seal make a huge improvement over the Ety ER-6 and ER-4S, and I suspect other "over the counter" phones like the Shure models.
Second, with respect to sound quality, I would first like to comment on the difference between these and the Ety phones. I seem to recall reading on this forum several weeks ago a comment to the effect that the UE-5c was only a slight improvement over the Ety ER-6 and the ER-4S, both of which I have spent time with. I don't know how anyone could reach this conclusion objectively. The UE-5c is a huge step up in sound quality, IMO, and I liked the Ety phones quite a bit.
Third, I really enjoy the sound of the UE-5c's, with one caveat. The mid-bass hump that is often discussed is definitely there. I knew this going in, but was not concerned, as I use them with a Rio Karma, which has an excellent EQ feature. With only a few minutes experimentation, and a quick review of the frequency response on the Ultimate Ears website, I was able to compensate for the mid-bass hump and achieve the sound I want (basically by reviewing the frequency response charts for the UE-5c and UE-10 Pro, and EQ'ing to match the UE-10 Pro frequency response).
In conclusion, I am happy with my choice, because the UE-5c's fit my needs and complement my portable player quite well. I wanted to go the Ultimate Ears route rather than Sensaphonics, for a few reasons, partly because of the price of the cheapest Sensaphonics model and also because I wanted a hard acrylic phone. I didn't want to spend the extra $350 for the UE-10 Pro, however, since I don't anticipate I'll be using these phones often enough to justify the price. (I tend to use the Sennheiser PX-100 for a lot of my portable listening for reasons unrelated to sound quality.) If I did not have a player with a good EQ so I can adjust the sound of the UE-5c to my liking, or if I was going to use these phones on a frequent basis, I think I would have regretted not going with the E-10 Pro. But if one only wants to spend around $600 for a great fitting and excellent sounding canal phone, the UE-5c's are a really a great choice and, as I said above, a definite improvement over the Ety's (and probably the Shures as well).