[jude]

​

NOTE:  If you can't see the embedded video above, please CLICK HERE to see the video.​

 
 
In this episode of Head-Fi TV, we take a look at the process of creating custom in-ear monitors, and UE's new way of crafting them. Be sure to watch this episode to see the technological advancements, and how the new processes have helped UE improve the customer experience and custom monitors.
 

---

 
Products mentioned in the video:

 

1. Ultimate Ears Custom In-Ear Reference Monitors custom in-ear montors
2. Sennheiser IE 800 universal-fit in-ear monitor
3. Shure SE846 universal-fit in-ear monitor
4. FitEar MH334 custom in-ear monitor
5. Westone ES50 custom in-ear monitor
6. JH Audio Siren Series Roxanne custom in-ear monitor

 

---

 

Ultimate Ears' New Way Of Making Custom In-Ear Monitors - Head-Fi TV produced by Joseph Cwik and Jude Mansilla
 

---

 

We will occasionally post Q&A episodes of Head-Fi TV.  If you want to submit any questions (or comments), you can do so via email to tv@head-fi.org.

 

​

 

 ​

 ​

 

[jude]

Reserved.

 

[tomscy2000]

Very good video as an introduction.
 
For the past several months, I've been using the UERM whose impressions have been 3D scanned. To date, the UERM is the best-fitting monitor I've used, and my right ear is terribly difficult to fit correctly.
 
Having also been to UE's facilities and been up close with the UE people, I definitely expect them to have spent a lot of time fine-tuning their standard operating procedures to be as consistent as possible. Using the 3D scanning/printing process allows them to continue on that path.
 
The main drawback of using 3D printing for fabricating shells is that UE will now be defaulting to clear shells for all users, except for special requests, where the traditional method will still be used. Hopefully what they're doing is still printing the finished impression and creating the negative colloid from the 3D-printed impression to create the final UV hand-cured shells.
 
One hurdle that I'd like to see UE take on as a challenge is to create demo units that fit better and more comfortably on a greater number of people, as most demo units are simply not very practical to wear, and run into issues of variable insertion depth across clientele, etc. UE, over the years, has amassed a huge collection of ear impressions that they've kept on file. These impressions can in turn be re-scanned and catalogued to form a very large library of ear impressions that can be statistically analyzed for optimal average fit. In fact, they could take things a step further and begin keeping metadata on a client's gender, height, weight, build, ethnicity, facial shape, etc. to further fine tune shapes for different markets. I know such an effort is already widespread in the hearing aid industry, and it is this kind of data that most universal in-ear manufacturers consult when designing their products, but with their own in-house equipment on hand, UE can tailor these information sets to their own needs.

 

[Bina]

Same way of making custom is used by hearing aid manufacturer Audiolab systems. They have two custom in-ear models, but for them, it's just for showing off what they can do.

 

[miceblue]

Nice video! It reminds me of this one from years back:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWdwikZoXzA[/video]

 

[TheDreamthinker]

A question which may be regarded as irrelevant to some, but...
 
...will this faster, more efficient process of producing cIEMs, make them more affordable for the end consumer?

 

[tomscy2000]

  A question which may be regarded as irrelevant to some, but...
 
...will this faster, more efficient process of producing cIEMs, make them more affordable for the end consumer?

 
At scale, yes, but despite a marked increase in demand for CIEMs, the market is still quite small. The majority of costs go into the extensive labor hours of skilled technicians who, as Jude mentioned, were previously the ones physically filling in the imperfections of the silicone A/B material with wax, and are now in front of the computer doing the exact same thing, but with hearing-specific CAD software. Thus, the man hours required for that process are the same. The shells can be printed faster, but the traditional shell manufacturing process doesn't take that long either, at most a few minutes (unless it's a complex multi-layered cure to put in texture and stuff --- look at Noble Audio's stuff as an example --- that takes multiple curing steps), so it becomes more economical if the printing is done in batches (as much as can fill up the SLA printer's tray).
 
However, the rest of the way is exactly the same as before. A technician still has to stuff the components inside, has to test to see if it all works, and the faceplates are hand-made and sealed. So the process is still very labor-intensive --- it has merely become more consistent because of the 3D scanning and processing aspect. Perhaps ten years down the road shells will become cheaper to manufacture, but right now, the equipment needed for the printing process constitutes a massive sunk cost.
 
UE's efforts to move to 3D scanning and printing are primarily about more consistent fit rates, lessening customer grumbles and hours spent on the phone and over e-mail communicating why a CIEM may or may not require a refit. Absolute manufacturing costs are not necessarily lower, and at this stage of the game, I'd actually argue that they're higher.

 

[DisCHORDDubstep]

This is pretty cool, but what would be cooler is a new UE over ear.

 

[TheDreamthinker]

   
At scale, yes, but despite a marked increase in demand for CIEMs, the market is still quite small. The majority of costs go into the extensive labor hours of skilled technicians who, as Jude mentioned, were previously the ones physically filling in the imperfections of the silicone A/B material with wax, and are now in front of the computer doing the exact same thing, but with hearing-specific CAD software. Thus, the man hours required for that process are the same. The shells can be printed faster, but the traditional shell manufacturing process doesn't take that long either, at most a few minutes (unless it's a complex multi-layered cure to put in texture and stuff --- look at Noble Audio's stuff as an example --- that takes multiple curing steps), so it becomes more economical if the printing is done in batches (as much as can fill up the SLA printer's tray).
 
However, the rest of the way is exactly the same as before. A technician still has to stuff the components inside, has to test to see if it all works, and the faceplates are hand-made and sealed. So the process is still very labor-intensive --- it has merely become more consistent because of the 3D scanning and processing aspect. Perhaps ten years down the road shells will become cheaper to manufacture, but right now, the equipment needed for the printing process constitutes a massive sunk cost.
 
UE's efforts to move to 3D scanning and printing are primarily about more consistent fit rates, lessening customer grumbles and hours spent on the phone and over e-mail communicating why a CIEM may or may not require a refit. Absolute manufacturing costs are not necessarily lower, and at this stage of the game, I'd actually argue that they're higher.

 
So essentially, these new technologies are being implemented to assure a more 'consistent' experience for future / existing customers and not to expand the availability for cIEMs, by reducing the price.
 
In my experience, the things holding people back from buying cIEMs is first and foremost the price and secondly the difficulties which come with possible (international) refits.
 
But if this new way of making cIEMs doesn't effectively reduce the price and therefore doesn't make them more compelling for 'new-comers', this news isn't of relevance for many (dare i say most) audiophiles .
It only effects people who already own cIEMs and are familiar with the daunting process involved or have the ability to buy cIEMs at their present price point (many of which already own cIEMs and fall in the first category).
 
....of course these are only personal impressions and opinions and anyone has the right to concur...

 

[audionewbi]

I always welcome implementation of new technology. Who knows maybe with time as they get more used to this new system and more efficient it might allow them to produce ciem at s lower price and maybe we get to see some discounts too?

 

[TheDreamthinker]

I always welcome implementation of new technology. Who knows maybe with time as they get more used to this new system and more efficient it might allow them to produce ciem at s lower price and maybe we get to see some discounts too?

 
Doesn't look like it...

   
At scale, yes, but despite a marked increase in demand for CIEMs, the market is still quite small. The majority of costs go into the extensive labor hours of skilled technicians who, as Jude mentioned, were previously the ones physically filling in the imperfections of the silicone A/B material with wax, and are now in front of the computer doing the exact same thing, but with hearing-specific CAD software. Thus, the man hours required for that process are the same. The shells can be printed faster, but the traditional shell manufacturing process doesn't take that long either, at most a few minutes (unless it's a complex multi-layered cure to put in texture and stuff --- look at Noble Audio's stuff as an example --- that takes multiple curing steps), so it becomes more economical if the printing is done in batches (as much as can fill up the SLA printer's tray).
 
However, the rest of the way is exactly the same as before. A technician still has to stuff the components inside, has to test to see if it all works, and the faceplates are hand-made and sealed. So the process is still very labor-intensive --- it has merely become more consistent because of the 3D scanning and processing aspect. Perhaps ten years down the road shells will become cheaper to manufacture, but right now, the equipment needed for the printing process constitutes a massive sunk cost.
 
UE's efforts to move to 3D scanning and printing are primarily about more consistent fit rates, lessening customer grumbles and hours spent on the phone and over e-mail communicating why a CIEM may or may not require a refit. Absolute manufacturing costs are not necessarily lower, and at this stage of the game, I'd actually argue that they're higher.

 
...it possibly isn't price reduction that they are after, but improving CS for an existing customer base.

 

[tomscy2000]

 
So essentially, these new technologies are being implemented to assure a more 'consistent' experience for future / existing customers and not to expand the availability for cIEMs, by reducing the price.
 
In my experience, the things holding people back from buying cIEMs is first and foremost the price and secondly the difficulties which come with possible (international) refits.
 
But if this new way of making cIEMs doesn't effectively reduce the price and therefore doesn't make them more compelling for 'new-comers', this news isn't of relevance for many (dare i say most) audiophiles .
It only effects people who already own cIEMs and are familiar with the daunting process involved or have the ability to buy cIEMs at their present price point (many of which already own cIEMs and fall in the first category).
 
....of course these are only personal impressions and opinions and anyone has the right to concur...

 
From what I observe, from markets in the US and around the globe, price is usually not the limiting factor, especially in emerging markets of Asia.
 
Ultimate Ears offers the UE4, which is the same price as the UE900, and I can actually imagine the UE4 dropping in price in the future because of the limited options available, but really, custom in-ear monitors will inevitably remain lower in sales volume than universal products. Price is cost-prohibitive for entry-level enthusiasts wishing to buy a top-level product, but TOTL is TOTL, and it really is a luxury offering that isn't accessible to most people.
 
If we go from the perspective of simple supply/demand economics, even though UE's supply capabilities have gone up, they are simply meeting the existing demand for their custom in-ear products in a timely manner. Altering the price point of their CIEMs will shift the demand curve to where it might not be able to deliver a product that can meet its quality and service standards. As mentioned by Jude, the process is still very labor-intensive, so unless they figure out how to automate 3D scan processing and replace skilled technicians with *skilled* robots, UE will not be able to substantially lower prices and still maintain a operational profit margin.
 
Let's view it from another way; switching to 3D scanning/printing has the following benefits for UE:

1. More consistent and faster shipping times
2. More consistent and better fit rates
3. Ability to scale production to meet demand

 
These things have the capability to further:

1. Reduce operational overhead due to lessened customer service burden.
2. Maintain a higher rate of returning clients (competition in the CIEM industry is ever increasing).
3. Be prepared for projected increases in sales volume.

 
Ever since Logitech officially took over UE in 2008, the team at UE has been remarkably clear about its goals, and it is to increase consistency in all areas, from presentation to delivery times to build quality, durability, and even sound quality. This step, now, is merely a continuation of that goal.

 

[audionewbi]

I read a while back that someone was experimenting with taking impression using flexible polymer that expanded by having air gently blown in them that as a result expanded and took an exact impression of out ear digitally needing no remodelling.

What happen to that? I actually thought it was UE who were doing that.

 

[tomscy2000]

  I read a while back that someone was experimenting with taking impression using flexible polymer that expanded by having air gently blown in them that as a result expanded and took an exact impression of out ear digitally needing no remodelling.

What happen to that? I actually thought it was UE who were doing that.

 
JH Audio was demoing it, but it's an independent company whose name escapes me at the moment. There's more than one company doing ear scanning, but they're actually all hearing aid oriented because those scanners can really do the canal only, up to the external acoustic meatus. It won't be able to take impressions of the tragus/anti-tragus, helix/anti-helix, cymba/cavum conchae, etc. The technology is also far from mature.

 

[warrenpchi]

 
For the past several months, I've been using the UERM whose impressions have been 3D scanned. To date, the UERM is the best-fitting monitor I've used, and my right ear is terribly difficult to fit correctly.

 
I too am listening to an SLA-printed UERM right now.  I can confirm that both the fit and sound are absolutely stellar. 

  I just wanted to point that out, in case anyone is wondering whether this process has been perfected enough to produce a result that stands up to real world scrutiny.
 

maybe we get to see some discounts too?

 
Come to one of our California meets!  That by itself will get you a 25% discount. 

 

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 

I read a while back that someone was experimenting with taking impression using flexible polymer that expanded by having air gently blown in them that as a result expanded and took an exact impression of out ear digitally needing no remodelling.

 

it's an independent company whose name escapes me at the moment.

 
Probably Sonomax.