Ultimate Ears UE Pro Reference Remastered! (UERR)
Nov 20, 2015 at 3:11 PM Post #46 of 811
@warrenpchi and @jude,

Would you please speak to the idea that this new earphone does not occupy quite the same role as the UERM? Do I have that right? I'd like It's more for higher rez audio? Thanks!
 
Nov 20, 2015 at 3:59 PM Post #47 of 811
As I understand it...
 
UERM = old model, sadly found unfit for hi-res.
UERR = new model, remastered for hi-res via secret process.
 
Lessons learned: UERR is the new champ, UERM gets the boot.
 
End of story.
 
wink.gif
 
 
Nov 20, 2015 at 4:20 PM Post #49 of 811
It says right in the first post:
Last week in Los Angeles, Ultimate Ears and Capitol Studios held a private event at Capitol Studios to give a sneak preview of the next-generation replacement of the UERM--an entirely new custom in-ear monitor model that will replace the UERM, called the UE Pro Reference Remastered.
 
Nov 20, 2015 at 6:39 PM Post #50 of 811
@warrenpchi and @jude,

Would you please speak to the idea that this new earphone does not occupy quite the same role as the UERM? Do I have that right? I'd like It's more for higher rez audio? Thanks!

It sounds like the UERR will indeed be replacing the UERM and will likely fit the same role as the UERM.
 
Do note that no one has heard the new UERR yet as there are currently no production models.
 
Nov 20, 2015 at 7:18 PM Post #51 of 811
jelt, sorry, I may have been partially mistaken on that.  While it remains to be seen as to whether it the UERR is a successor - we'll all need to hear it to make that determination - it is definitely replacing the UERM in terms of availability.

For newcomers to the Reference Monitor series, I guess it doesn't matter as availability makes the choice for them.  For existing UERM owners, I suppose the question is whether to upgrade or sidegrade?  We'll see after there are impressions posted.


Thanks!
 
Nov 21, 2015 at 10:31 AM Post #52 of 811
I remember in the 70s avoiding Capitol vinyl albums pressed in the US and instead searching for British or German imports instead due to the clearly superior sound of the imports. I know this has nothing to do with this particular product, and the game has changed considerably in the past 40+ years, but the tainted brand name still exists in my mind. I'm sure once I pop these in my ears, that will all go away.
 
Nov 22, 2015 at 7:14 PM Post #55 of 811
  Generally has more to do with where the recording was made and initially released. I suspect you listened to a lot of British bands.
 

 
HiDef!
 

Yes, the Beatles were part of all of that. But the same was of Classical Music recordings - some of them recorded in the US. Glen Campbell was also on that label. RCA was another label releasing terrible sounding vinyl in the 70s.  But times have changed drastically, and the search for clean sounding recordings has changed - especially since all the Beatles recordings have been remastered twice. Back to the IEMs. . .
 
Nov 23, 2015 at 4:46 AM Post #56 of 811
I think recording fits here to some extent, especially with the emphasis on bit rate and recording quality by UE and Capitol for their new monitor. There's exceptions to every rule along with weakest link philosophy but master tapes sent overseas were dubs (of dubs), often played on different decks.
 
I don't understand the? about the purpose of this new monitor. They think they've found a better way to add some refinement with better highs and damping. Here, they are damping the drivers. In other makes where siamesed drivers are used it's naturally cancelled. Nice to see it addressed and there's more than one way to do these things.
 
I'm sure they massaged the every aspect of the unit including driver placement and xover. You don't casually redo a product this important to the make. Curious if it the ticked up the low bass a bit to replicate the actual studio monitors though I suspect not as it seems that driver is the same. Not to the overdone level of others but it could be a touch stronger. It's fine as is but I'd like to see that addressed as much as other aspects in a mixing phone even if it's already VG in all areas or even considered best in some. Perhaps they suppose that EQ is on hand if needed and this the best option for their design parameters and hearing a mix. 
 
Nov 23, 2015 at 5:59 AM Post #57 of 811
I haven't heard any Ultimate Ears product. They must be very good considering all the people using them here. Agree with mtliu about Capitol records. They don't have a great reputation in realistic sounding recordings.

With the loudness wars, ridiculous eq, horrible remasters, and often total lack of a 3D soundstage it is difficult to consider any of the large record labels a positive influence. The average sound quality of the main music labels is worse now than 30 years ago. Amazing UE gets great results.
 
Nov 23, 2015 at 6:38 AM Post #58 of 811
Capitol Studios' recording facility is available to anyone or any label and they're a great place. They also don't force anyone to use anything on hand even though it's top notch but are willing to help if requested. You can walk in with a Nagra and a couple mics and call it a day if you like. It's about choices made by engineers and producers, not the studio. I doubt UE uses bad or unnatural recordings to make their choices. 
rolleyes.gif
 
 
Nov 23, 2015 at 1:23 PM Post #59 of 811
  I think recording fits here to some extent, especially with the emphasis on bit rate and recording quality by UE and Capitol for their new monitor. There's exceptions to every rule along with weakest link philosophy but master tapes sent overseas were dubs (of dubs), often played on different decks.
 

 
And also analog. I do also have to emphasize that the game has changed since most of the world has gone digital. I am not only complaining about pressings that are from 45-years ago, but also the mysterious decision to take these dubs of dubs and subject them to further processing such as the addition of reverb and delay. They did sound kind of cool (but not clean nor accurate) in my car stereo in the 70s, but I did prefer the German and British pressings - which were not a Capitol product.

What I do remember is that RCA and Capitol pressings at the time would have horrible surface noise - a low frequency whoosh - and I could see the subsonic distortion in my woofers, sucking out the power from my Japanese receiver with wood-grained panels. Other offenders were Atlantic and Atco and all the companies that contracted out to them. I didn't seem to get that from Polygram or Warner pressings. Granted I'm also talking about mainstream releases that were $5-$8. I remember using cartridges by Shure, Grado, and Grace - so my equipment was also mainstream. I also used that clamp device that attempted to remove warps from pressings. However, most of my RCA Dynagroove pressings seemed to warp no matter what I did. RCA offended worse than Capitol. The German and British pressings always sounded better and had less surface noise. 

I'm sure Capitol studios is very different from the way it was back then. Most of the recordings I'm talking about were made on 4-16 track analog tape. At the time, it was only major studios where someone could get this professional sound. Now the game has changed, and for less than it cost me to buy my playback equipment back then, these days almost anyone has access to equipment that is capable to producing sound that is better than what was possible back then.

However, talent and know-how are still a very valuable commodity that no technology can make up for. . .Autotune (arg) included. 

What I should realize is that so-called tainted opinion of Capital is 45-years out of date and I should get over it. All the reasons why I disliked Capital are gone. But that red label with Capital at the bottom or the black label with the rainbow perimeter brings back memories of recordings that could be bested by imports. . .even collecting music has changed. 

Damn, I'm old!


 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top