It's difficult to fault the 4.Ai at its price point, though. I can tell you some of its flaws:
(1) it has an obvious dip at ~3.7 kHz, and a relative peak at 5.8-6 kHz; if you EQ it out, then you get a smoother, more rounded, more accurate response. In its unaltered state, the treble can seem very, very slightly peaky;
(2) its bass is boosted a little bit and doesn't reach as deep as, say, a 334. if the 232 uses the Sonion drivers (type, not specific model, I know they're proprietary spec but it's probably 17A007/9-derived for the lows) that I suspect it's using, then it's possible the 232 can reach deeper
(3) Its accessory set isn't great. The case is too big for portable storage, and the cleaning loop looks/feels crappy.
(4) The level balance between its lower midrange and treble levels gives people the sense of smoothness (a little too smooth for my tastes) in certain instruments like the piano, and thus, in combination with the dip/peak I already mentioned, the timbre isn't flawless. Excellent, but not flawless.
I don't think the 4.Ai is TOTL, end-all, be-all... but it is very good, and is a great, great deal at the asking price. I think the 232 with reference filter will be more accurate sounding in the mids/vocals at the expense of body, and the UE900 will be more fun-sounding.
I listened to the UE900 for a very short period of time inside a hot, musty Logitech promotion bus. It sounded nice, but my instinct is to say that it's not built for analytical use like the 4.Ai is. I have nothing against the UE900; I think it's a nice product that comes with great, useful accessories, and has that big company feel and polish, but I'll need more time to give a real assessment.