[shane55]

Quote:

I always appreciate everyone's help on here, and I do apologize if I've derailed the thread
 

No derailment here, my friend.
 

 

[CEE TEE]

Hey Matt,
 
You'll want to do a little more research if you consider the UE 7 because it can have three drivers and be tuned like the TF10 or the IERM which is also 3 drivers...depends on how they tune it and which drivers they use.
 
So the UE 7 sound signature will probably be different from TF10 unless you find comparisons or UE on their website stating that they have a similar description to the TF10.  
 
The price difference can come from better drivers but mostly for all the labor that comes with dealing with your impressions and creating/polishing/assembling the shells and tuning the drivers to meet a pre-determined frequency graph for the particular model (within a certain tolerance).  That was explained to me when UE were at our local meet.
 
If you go the customs route- get good, deep impressions made by an audiologist (use a bite-block and don't move around).  You can have a good chance at getting a good fit, it takes a while to get used to them and for the ears to adjust to something really filling the canal but the seal can be wonderful and those things are in.  Many people send their customs back for adjustments, you have 30 days...I recommend trying to live with them for the first two weeks to get used to them.  Mine now seem perfect but they felt weird for 2-3 weeks at least.
 
Quote:

I was considering the UE 7 because like the TF10 has the 3 drivers, only I assume (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) are higher quality due to the price difference and the fact they're customs, and the price is bearable, great quality without a complete wallet bust.

 

[matt9292]

Quote:

Hey Matt,
 
You'll want to do a little more research if you consider the UE 7 because it can have three drivers and be tuned like the TF10 or the IERM which is also 3 drivers...depends on how they tune it and which drivers they use.
 
So the UE 7 sound signature will probably be different from TF10 unless you find comparisons or UE on their website stating that they have a similar description to the TF10.  
 
The price difference can come from better drivers but mostly for all the labor that comes with dealing with your impressions and creating/polishing/assembling the shells and tuning the drivers to meet a pre-determined frequency graph for the particular model (within a certain tolerance).  That was explained to me when UE were at our local meet.

Thanks CEE TEE, I'm going to keep researching until I'm comfortable dropping the money on something like this. Since it's hard with customs, with not being able to test them and such, but you guys are always helpful. 
 
I figured they would be tuned differently than the TF10 and be slightly different with different drivers (I assume at least).
 
I figured most of the price diference  was the process and what they have to do but I assumed they would be different and likely better drivers in the customs
 
Quote:

No derailment here, my friend.
 

That's good, don't want to completely ruin a perfectly good thread that hopefully eventually I can be part of the owner section

 

 

[dj nellie]

My UERMs came in yesterday.  I've been listening for a few hours with my Solo (fed by a Classic) and either TTVJ Slim or SR71b (SE output).  The fit is excellent, and the isolation is better than my JH16, but not as good as my ES5.  The UERM seem to require somewhat more power and/or are less sensitive and efficient than my ES5, which is actually a good thing for me because my portable sources have such hot outputs.  The TTVJ is usable for me now; although it's still loud with the Solo even on the lowest gain and volume, it's slightly less so than my other customs.
 
Please take these impressions with the following caveats:  My JH16 doesn't fit perfectly on the right side, and my ES5 are not with me right now because they're getting slight adjustments to help them stay in place when I move (they fit perfectly otherwise).  Also, any differences I note are generally subtle and by no means night-and-day, but I don't mention them unless I found them comparatively significant.
 
Initial reaction:  This is the sound I've been looking for.  The presentation is pure and effortless, and the soundstage is the widest of all my customs.  This came as a surprise, because I had assumed that a "neutral" IEM would sound compressed or slightly rolled off.  The UERM sounds incredibly detailed and yet quite natural and musical, to the point where it feels like I'm hearing my favorite songs for the first time--which says a lot to me, because my other customs are by no means unrevealing.
 
The biggest differences I'm noticing between the UERM, JH16 and ES5:
 
1.  UERM's treble is exquisitely well-defined and crisp.  The presentation is overall slightly brighter than my ES5, as it seems the UERM doesn't have the light veneer of warmth that the ES5 does.  The JH16's treble seems ever-so-slightly muffled in comparison, and the ES5's a little more so.  Again, this came as a surprise to me; if the UERM are indeed "neutral", that doesn't necessarily mean that it will sound dull or rolled-off.
 
2.  The instrument separation and soundstage are the best I've heard from a custom.  Sonic images are rendered in a clean, coherent, and spacious way.  You can really sense the depth and placement of various instruments and sounds in relation to each other.  To me, the UERM makes this kind of information easier to sense than the ES5 and JH16, which require me to focus more to discern imaging details.
 
At the same time, the UERM are very honest about the mastering of the recording.  For example, vintage soul recordings from the '70s that have instruments panned hard to the left and right definitely feel even wider than they do on my other customs.  The ES5, possibly due to the deeper tips and better isolation, feels and sounds slightly congested in comparison.  I'm not sure if it's the UERM imposing a soundstage on the music, or if there was just soundstage information that my other customs haven't been conveying.  But either way it's a thrilling experience.
 
I remember Jude, in his mini-review of the UERM, saying that the UERM's soundstage was particularly impressive to him.  Now I see why.  It's still inherently limited by the in-ear format, but I sense that the sonic canvass is more expansive in every direction than any other custom I've heard--I can feel sounds appearing from behind my ears, from the top of my forehead, and slightly outside of my ears (again, subtle differences but very noticeable).  One thing I've noticed is that the part of the shell that rests on my outer ear is much thicker than my JH16 and ES5.  Maybe it's just my imagination, but this seems to push the tips away from my inner ears and help create the slightly out-of-head imaging that I'm hearing.
 
3.  Finally, the bass-midrange-treble balance is very even, and the transitions are smooth.  At times, I feel that the ES5's upper midrange is slightly peaky, which I notice with sounds like piano chord "stabs" in jazz that feel jarring.  On the other hand, the JH16's midrange sometimes feels slightly recessed or lacking in detail.  The UERM doesn't seem to have any bothersome points of over-emphasis, nor do I feel anything is lacking.
 
Maybe I'm under the biasing effects of the new toy syndrome, but I don't remember feeling this way when I first listened to my JH16 or ES5.  The ES5 is an excellent IEM which I am very happy with, but now that I've heard the UERM, the ES5 seems a bit too warm and less expansive.  And the JH16 now seems a little dull and lacking in focus.
 
I still plan to write a comparison of my customs (I know I've been saying that for ages), but I think that I've found a winner for my tastes and equipment.  It was a shrewd move by UE to leverage the experience and insight of Capitol.  To me, the UERM are proof that, with careful attention to driver tuning and crossovers, 3 drivers can go a long way.

 

[tengen]

Excellent insight nellie! All this talk of UERMs really does pique my interest in another pair...

 

[CEE TEE]

Congrats, dj nellie!  Glad the fit AND the sound are nailing it for you!  Thank you for your comparisons with other customs, that helps confirm that I can be very happy with just the UERM if you like the treble so much in comparison.
 
The more I listen to my RM, the more I love their treble and clarity.  At first, coming from my Grados, I worried that the RM were rolled off in treble. I don't think so anymore.  They have been changing the way I hear...since I really love clarity and detail (plus these are so portable) they are my favorite phones.  My RS2i are my favorite larger phones at the moment.  I'll have to compare them a bit... 
 
Quote:

Initial reaction:  This is the sound I've been looking for.  The presentation is pure and effortless, and the soundstage is the widest of all my customs.  This came as a surprise, because I had assumed that a "neutral" IEM would sound compressed or slightly rolled off.  The UERM sounds incredibly detailed and yet quite natural and musical, to the point where it feels like I'm hearing my favorite songs for the first time--which says a lot to me, because my other customs are by no means unrevealing.
 
The biggest differences I'm noticing between the UERM, JH16 and ES5:
 
1.  UERM's treble is exquisitely well-defined and crisp.  The presentation is overall slightly brighter than my ES5, as it seems the UERM doesn't have the light veneer of warmth that the ES5 does.  The JH16's treble seems ever-so-slightly muffled in comparison, and the ES5's a little more so.  Again, this came as a surprise to me; if the UERM are indeed "neutral", that doesn't necessarily mean that it will sound dull or rolled-off. 

 

[shane55]

I second CEE TEE's congrats and tengen's comments on your UERM's and posting. Great news all around. Keep us updated.
 
cheers.

 

[shipsupt]

For you UERM guys.... do you find them to be unforgiving of poor recordings/source material? 
 
 

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

For you UERM guys.... do you find them to be unforgiving of poor recordings/source material? 

Hmmm, there's a matter of degree that needs to be considered there.  They aren't as unforgiving as some $1000+ resolving headphones but if you listen to really bad stuff it won't cover it up and make it sound better.  It's not a euphonic type of phone.  It's basically neutral and transparent but not in a hyper way.
 

 

[CEE TEE]

I do kind of have a funny story here...on Wayne Shorter's debut album, Speak No Evil, the first track "Witch Hunt" has a "crackly" distortion that has tricked me (when using UERM) into looking at my cable connections at least 3 times.
 
I just checked the track out for the distortion with my RS2i and Benchmark...the noise starts around 0:44 with some BIG horns.  Not as noticeable on the Grados, certainly (using Jumbos).
 
If they are detailed, that does include "defects".  Or, euphemistically speaking- I guess you could call them "special effects". 

 
I want to be able to hear what's there, warts and all.  If not, I can grab something other than my UERM.   I haven't been using anything other than .wav files for a long while though. 
 
Quote:

For you UERM guys.... do you find them to be unforgiving of poor recordings/source material? 

 

[shane55]

Quote:

 
I want to be able to hear what's there, warts and all.  If not, I can grab something other than my UERM.   I haven't been using anything other than .wav files for a long while though. 
 

.wav files? What are them? 

Heh heh... I'm right with you, Sir. And nothing like making your own at 24bit/96k from some precious vinyl.
 
Detail? You're looking for fully-blemished detail? I can't make any comments about the UERM, but I do know of a couple things that might fit the bill.... but that would really be way OT.

 

 

[tengen]

Quote:

I want to be able to hear what's there, warts and all.  If not, I can grab something other than my UERM.   I haven't been using anything other than .wav files for a long while though. 
 

 
Any particular reason why you're using .WAV, such as editing? I would really re-encode those into FLAC or ALAC, something less clunky, because WAV files are large. And you can tag FLAC/ALAC files to your heart's content.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

 
Any particular reason why you're using .WAV, such as editing? I would really re-encode those into FLAC or ALAC, something less clunky, because WAV files are large. And you can tag FLAC/ALAC files to your heart's content.

I store everything in WAV then convert to the respective player.  Though the QA350 only does WAV lol.
 

 

[CEE TEE]

Sony made me do it!  Don' get me started...  (The letter "t" was omitted for em-pha-sis and a colorful accent.)
 
Quote:

Any particular reason why you're using .WAV, such as editing? I would really re-encode those into FLAC or ALAC, something less clunky, because WAV files are large. And you can tag FLAC/ALAC files to your heart's content.

 

[CEE TEE]

@Shane55:  I count on you to take it up at LEAST a notch.  Or in some OT direction.  Or to be really funny...I'll listen to anything from you!  

 
Hey, would like to hear the DBA-02 sometime...almost bought a pair of those!  (Wondering what they sound like compared to UERM.)
 
Quote:

Detail? You're looking for fully-blemished detail? I can't make any comments about the UERM, but I do know of a couple things that might fit the bill.... but that would really be way OT.