[roy_jones]

Well, after reading all the comparisons between the Shure E4c and the Westone UM2, I finally decided to bite the bullet and pick up the UM2 to compare with the E4 I already owned.

My expectations before I got the UM2 was that it would be hard for it to match the E4c, because with the addition of a Supermacro v3 to the mix, the E4's weakness (bass) had been minimized, and the sound quality was quite satisfactory for me.

I've had the UM2's now for a couple of days, and although I don't have a whole lot of time to be able to do a truly extensive review, I thougth I'd post some intial thoughts.

First of all, a lot of people have described the UM2 as bassy, but I think that it would be appropriate to not only describe it as bassy, but also dark. The bass casts a shadow over the rest of the sound spectrum, such that even vocals seem to be a half-octave lower. It is a very subtle effect, but undeniable. I've tried using different tips with them, to try to get rid of the effect, but the reality is that it's inherent to the canalphone.

I'm using the 627 opamp with my supermacro, which is said to be bassy, so that might be compounding the issue. The thing that is apparent to me, though, that I don't feel has been expressed in a lot of the reviews between these two canalphones, is that the E4c produces better sound quality. A lot of people are saying that it's just a matter of 'tastes', and to a large degree I would agree with that assessment- but to my ears, the UM2 sounds roughly equivalent to a $100 headphone, whereas the E4c sounds a class above.

You can talk about preferences all you want, but in terms of the actual sound quality, the E4 produces clearer sound that is more balanced throughout the spectrum. It is much more resolving. I find the effect of the bass on the UM2 pollutes in many respects the other frequency ranges. For example, bass drums sound inflated. Maybe I like a more forward mid-range, I will admit, and I'd also concede that the various tips you can use can alter the SQ, but vocals sound slightly recessed to me.

Now you'd think that would be the end of the story. Interestingly, it's not. I agree with some of the people that have said that you use an IEM for portable use, and in portable situations, you want added bass. I also think that having solid bass presence does more to 'connect' you to the music, than the production of high amounts of detail. Both are factors that favour the UM2.

The ergonomics is a major benefit, atleast to me. I can only use foamies with the E4's, mostly because the other tips don't seal well in my ears. Well, the UM2 is much better at providing a consistent seal with a variety of tips. This is no small benefit to me.

Another major plus the UM2 has on the E4, is the soundstage. Truly impressive. The E4 can't compete on this level, whatsoever. But soundstage to me isn't as important as the quality of the sound itself, and neither are the ergonomics really. In terms of the UM2 soundstage, it places sounds positionally in ways the E4 doesn't.

The fullness of the sound is superior to the E4. One of the reasons I wanted the UM2, atleast to audition, is that I have not been able to get Tool sounding right (or RATM, or the Tea Party even) with the Shures. The UM2 does a better job with these types of bands, but at the expense of overall sound quality.

Instrument separation is probably better, due to the dual drivers. Interestingly, if the E4's were dual driver, even if they didn't get a benefit in bass at all, they would be a much better canalphone by my books. A lot of the benefits the UM2 has over the E4 are purely a result of the design difference of having the dual driver, and not so much because of the difference in sound quality that is produce as a result of having two drivers.

The E4 is a blacker canalphone. I know that isn't the right use of terminology, and the hissing problems with the UM2 are well documented, but I'm talking more about the space in between notes, or drum beats, where the sound is isolated from the background and the decay is both natural and distinct.

I've got to jet, but I hope to be able to add more as I have more time, and a better chance to get a feel for the UM2.

 

[elephantman]

maybe u should try to equalize ur um2s, cause um2s have the potential to sound like e4, that is, reduce bass and boost treble and midrange.

 

[HyperM3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roy_jones Well, after reading all the comparisons between the Shure E4c and the Westone UM2, I finally decided to bite the bullet and pick up the UM2 to compare with the E4 I already owned. My expectations before I got the UM2 was that it would be hard for it to match the E4c, because with the addition of a Supermacro v3 to the mix, the E4's weakness (bass) had been minimized, and the sound quality was quite satisfactory for me. I've had the UM2's now for a couple of days, and although I don't have a whole lot of time to be able to do a truly extensive review, I thougth I'd post some intial thoughts. First of all, a lot of people have described the UM2 as bassy, but I think that it would be appropriate to not only describe it as bassy, but also dark. The bass casts a shadow over the rest of the sound spectrum, such that even vocals seem to be a half-octave lower. It is a very subtle effect, but undeniable. I've tried using different tips with them, to try to get rid of the effect, but the reality is that it's inherent to the canalphone. I'm using the 627 opamp with my supermacro, which is said to be bassy, so that might be compounding the issue. The thing that is apparent to me, though, that I don't feel has been expressed in a lot of the reviews between these two canalphones, is that the E4c produces better sound quality. A lot of people are saying that it's just a matter of 'tastes', and to a large degree I would agree with that assessment- but to my ears, the UM2 sounds roughly equivalent to a $100 headphone, whereas the E4c sounds a class above. You can talk about preferences all you want, but in terms of the actual sound quality, the E4 produces clearer sound that is more balanced throughout the spectrum. It is much more resolving. I find the effect of the bass on the UM2 pollutes in many respects the other frequency ranges. For example, bass drums sound inflated. Maybe I like a more forward mid-range, I will admit, and I'd also concede that the various tips you can use can alter the SQ, but vocals sound slightly recessed to me. Now you'd think that would be the end of the story. Interestingly, it's not. I agree with some of the people that have said that you use an IEM for portable use, and in portable situations, you want added bass. I also think that having solid bass presence does more to 'connect' you to the music, than the production of high amounts of detail. Both are factors that favour the UM2. The ergonomics is a major benefit, atleast to me. I can only use foamies with the E4's, mostly because the other tips don't seal well in my ears. Well, the UM2 is much better at providing a consistent seal with a variety of tips. This is no small benefit to me. Another major plus the UM2 has on the E4, is the soundstage. Truly impressive. The E4 can't compete on this level, whatsoever. But soundstage to me isn't as important as the quality of the sound itself, and neither are the ergonomics really. In terms of the UM2 soundstage, it places sounds positionally in ways the E4 doesn't. The fullness of the sound is superior to the E4. One of the reasons I wanted the UM2, atleast to audition, is that I have not been able to get Tool sounding right (or RATM, or the Tea Party even) with the Shures. The UM2 does a better job with these types of bands, but at the expense of overall sound quality. Instrument separation is probably better, due to the dual drivers. Interestingly, if the E4's were dual driver, even if they didn't get a benefit in bass at all, they would be a much better canalphone by my books. A lot of the benefits the UM2 has over the E4 are purely a result of the design difference of having the dual driver, and not so much because of the difference in sound quality that is produce as a result of having two drivers. The E4 is a blacker canalphone. I know that isn't the right use of terminology, and the hissing problems with the UM2 are well documented, but I'm talking more about the space in between notes, or drum beats, where the sound is isolated from the background and the decay is both natural and distinct. I've got to jet, but I hope to be able to add more as I have more time, and a better chance to get a feel for the UM2.

I agree with most of what you said except for a couple things. I felt the soundstage on the E4 was far superior than the UM2's. Granted the UM2's needed some good burn in but I still felt that the music was compact. Now I dont know if anyone has read my other posts but I refer to a band called Delerium a lot. Its hands down my favorite band and also fantastic reference material. They use a lot of 'spacial recognition' (not sure if thats a real term but Ill coin it) in their music. When Im listening to Delerium on my home system I can litterally stand in the middle of the room, close my eyes, and go to different areas and grab at certain instruments in thin air. I feel that the E4's did a much better job at representing the distance and direction of instruments than the UM2's did. As mentioned before, Im also not a bass head, but felt that the bass on the UM2's dominated all the sound. Even if you had your EQ set so that the treble and mids sounded great, anytime bass came on it was almost like it said 'get out of my way, Im getting heard'. I never get any of that on the E4's and feel the bass is quite substantial when sealed properly.

I personally never heard any hissing with the UM2's but I did hear 'pop's' between turning my X5 on and off and also sometimes switching between cds. All my IEM experience is on an X5 unamped, so that should be a baseline indication of where Im coming from.

 

[roy_jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HyperM3 I agree with most of what you said except for a couple things. I felt the soundstage on the E4 was far superior than the UM2's. Granted the UM2's needed some good burn in but I still felt that the music was compact. Now I dont know if anyone has read my other posts but I refer to a band called Delerium a lot. Its hands down my favorite band and also fantastic reference material. They use a lot of 'spacial recognition' (not sure if thats a real term but Ill coin it) in their music. When Im listening to Delerium on my home system I can litterally stand in the middle of the room, close my eyes, and go to different areas and grab at certain instruments in thin air. I feel that the E4's did a much better job at representing the distance and direction of instruments than the UM2's did. As mentioned before, Im also not a bass head, but felt that the bass on the UM2's dominated all the sound. Even if you had your EQ set so that the treble and mids sounded great, anytime bass came on it was almost like it said 'get out of my way, Im getting heard'. I never get any of that on the E4's and feel the bass is quite substantial when sealed properly. I personally never heard any hissing with the UM2's but I did hear 'pop's' between turning my X5 on and off and also sometimes switching between cds. All my IEM experience is on an X5 unamped, so that should be a baseline indication of where Im coming from.

I'm very surprised about your comment regarding soundstage. I'm trying to figure ways that I could be perceiving it differently, subjectively, but I keep coming back to a belief that the UM2's have greater soundstage, objectively. Does anyone else feel that the E4's have greater soundstage?

Are we defining it similarly? That's the big question in my mind, because I can't imagine the E4's having more soundstage by my definition. You're referring to positional sounds covering a wider 'space', in terms of being more like a classic headphone? I'm asking myself if I'm generalizing instrument separation to blend that concept together with soundstage, but I don't feel that's it.

I completely agree about your point as far as the bass overshadowing the other areas of the spectrum. I expected that going in. But what kinda surprised me, was that even if you accepted that this is a bassy canalphone, I had expected that the mids and highs would be of similar 'quality' to the E4, just 'less' of them. I'll hear these accounts that the UM2 can sound as good as the E4 in the mids and highs, just that they're differently proportioned, without EQ...and now I'm gonna have this reaction

when I hear that in the future.

 

[exkgb]

E4 sounds awesome with an amp... too bad straight out of the Ipod they are almost as bad as the Ety Er-4 as far as bass goes

Does the new G version have a boosted bass for non-amped portable use?

 

[steel102]

according to what shure has said so far, it shouldn't. only differences are color/cord length/smaller plug.

 

[HyperM3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by exkgb E4 sounds awesome with an amp... too bad straight out of the Ipod they are almost as bad as the Ety Er-4 as far as bass goes Does the new G version have a boosted bass for non-amped portable use?

Consensus says if youre using <5g Ipod then you wont get the same sound quality from the E4 a you would with the newer version or even from another brand. My buddy bought a new 1g flash player from Iaudio and took my old E3's off my hands for it. Even the bass with them on the flash player sounds really good comparably speaking. Ive never listened to headphones amped so I would have no input whatsoever on that subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roy_jones You're referring to positional sounds covering a wider 'space', in terms of being more like a classic headphone?

I honestly have never listened to a classic headphone (open, closed, electrostat....) so I guess Im an extreme noob in that regard. However, I love my home theater speakers (Def Techs) for which I listen to all my music on. But yes, Im referring to the area that I can define the position of the insturments to be in. I find that with the UM2's, I always felt like I was sitting under or right on the drums. That the vocals were behind a wall in front of me, mids right in front of my face, and highs up and to the sides. I never really had a definitive all encompasing sounstage where music would 'flow' around me like the E4's.

 

[Pete7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roy_jones I'm very surprised about your comment regarding soundstage. I'm trying to figure ways that I could be perceiving it differently, subjectively, but I keep coming back to a belief that the UM2's have greater soundstage, objectively. Does anyone else feel that the E4's have greater soundstage? Are we defining it similarly? That's the big question in my mind, because I can't imagine the E4's having more soundstage by my definition. You're referring to positional sounds covering a wider 'space', in terms of being more like a classic headphone? I'm asking myself if I'm generalizing instrument separation to blend that concept together with soundstage, but I don't feel that's it. I completely agree about your point as far as the bass overshadowing the other areas of the spectrum. I expected that going in. But what kinda surprised me, was that even if you accepted that this is a bassy canalphone, I had expected that the mids and highs would be of similar 'quality' to the E4, just 'less' of them. I'll hear these accounts that the UM2 can sound as good as the E4 in the mids and highs, just that they're differently proportioned, without EQ...and now I'm gonna have this reaction when I hear that in the future.

I got rid of my E4's after having UM2's for about 2 months. To my ears, E4 had little or no soundstage compared to UM2. All dual drivered canalphones characteristically win out over single driver in the sound stage department. If your willing to go the extra mile for a better overall sound, give the UM56 custom tips a try. You'll find the sound less "darker", with a boost in the treble department.

 

[roy_jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HyperM3 I honestly have never listened to a classic headphone (open, closed, electrostat....) so I guess Im an extreme noob in that regard. However, I love my home theater speakers (Def Techs) for which I listen to all my music on. But yes, Im referring to the area that I can define the position of the insturments to be in. I find that with the UM2's, I always felt like I was sitting under or right on the drums. That the vocals were behind a wall in front of me, mids right in front of my face, and highs up and to the sides. I never really had a definitive all encompasing sounstage where music would 'flow' around me like the E4's.

I'm going to have to challenge you on your comment about soundstage. The reason is that part of the idea for making 'yet another' thread on this popular comparison, is that I'm slightly annoyed by the fact that when I was researching where to spend my hard earned university-student money, I would read contradictory stuff about each of these earphones, and would just assume that it was a subjective issue, with no real objective truth value.

What I realize now, is that's not the case. There are some clearly definable difference of which there is no room for debate. I believe that the issue of soundstage is one of those examples. I'm hoping this thread can address some of the real differences between these IEM's, because I think that too much leeway is given for differences of opinion.

Someone can say they 'like' a headphone better than another one, but if there's something that be objectively stated, I hope that there can be more accuracy than some of what I've read.

I guess what it does, is it teaches you which posters you can watch for, in terms of giving you feedback that you can trust as somewhat objective. Obviously there are going to be differences of preference, but I'm starting to think that gets much more 'respect' than maybe it should.

And please don't think I'm targetting you or your post as an example of this more general point. I honestly don't mean it as such...but it kind of sparked a bigger issue in my mind.

 

[roy_jones]

Double post...

 

[HyperM3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roy_jones And please don't think I'm targetting you or your post as an example of this more general point. I honestly don't mean it as such...but it kind of sparked a bigger issue in my mind.

I dont feel targeted by any means. I myself am partially confused now. If I was explaining it the way I though it was meant but am incorrect, Id like to be corrected so I can speak informatively in the future.

 

[roy_jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete7 I got rid of my E4's after having UM2's for about 2 months. To my ears, E4 had little or no soundstage compared to UM2. All dual drivered canalphones characteristically win out over single driver in the sound stage department. If your willing to go the extra mile for a better overall sound, give the UM56 custom tips a try. You'll find the sound less "darker", with a boost in the treble department.

It's interesting that you bring this up, cause it causes me to reflect on what I value most in terms of characteristics that are important to me in an earphone. For me, the issue of soundstage is kind of a derivitive sound quality issue. I don't really view it as being 'sound' related, as such, but more of a secondary characteristic that still impacts on the listening experience. I know that is a somewhat contradictory statement, because I do recognize that soundstage is very much directly sound related.

For me, having more resolving, higher quality sound reproduction, in the sense of accuracy and balance and clarity- is more important than having soundstage. I see the soundstage advantage of the UM2 as being purely design related, like you observed with the dual-driver vs. single driver distinction. That doesn't take anything away from the ultimate effect of it, which is a significant difference in the UM2's favour.

I also really like that instruments with the UM2 are clearly separated, which I think is related to the soundstage advantage, and also strikes me as a tangible benefit of the dual driver design.

I'm disappointed that the IEM isn't more balanced. People always talk about how the E4c is unbalanced because of its weaker bass, but the E4 is much more objectively balanced than the UM2, by my ears. The UM2 is bassy, sure, we all know that or have read about that. But not only is it bassy, but it casts a shadow of darkness over the entire sound spectrum. The E4 might be light in the bass, but it's clear and balanced mids and highs don't contaminate the other areas of the sound spectrum in the same way.

I know it's often said that all commercial non-custom IEM's are flawed. Well, the UM2 is more 'flawed' than the E4c, technically.

What is funny, is that even with the comments I'm making about the UM2, I'm still not decided which one I'm going to keep. The UM2 is so much more ergonomically friendly for me (and this is a factor that VERY MUCH could be subjective) that it is making the decision tougher. But ideally, you don't want to be deciding with non-SQ factors as your primary criteria for making a selection or decision between these two earphones. The E4's are particularly not suited to my ears, in terms of their design.

I've wondered if I was to roll opamps to find something with a more mids and highs oriented sound signature, in my SM3, whether that might be another way of trying to accomodate for the problems with the UM2.

The point being, though, that the UM2 would require major compensation as far as with the rest of my equiptment, to get it sounding anywhere near balanced...and even then, in direct contradiction to a lot of the popular opinion here- I still don't believe, objectively, that it can approach the E4c in overall sound quality characteristics.

No amount of EQ or even the custom option of UM56 would likely change that.

 

[b0rk]

mmm, interesting thread

I ordered some UM2s a few days ago.. one of the things I read on these forums is that they require a good burn-in. First the bass comes out and then later the highs come out, maybe one of the drivers needs longer to burn in. Some people recommend playing trebbly music through them?
Just wondering if this is why they sound dark.
I'm going to review mine but only after at least 2 weeks burn in!
Luckily being in the UK and ordering from USA if I don't like how they sound I can actually sell them for a profit on ebay

I agree with ergonomics being an important factor, that was one of the deciders for me too. I tried the E3C and found they needed a bass + trebble boost to get the sound I was after and also comfort was an issue. I read UM2 are far more ergonomic and easier to insert / remove. I'll be wearing them in labs, round university, into lectures etc so thats deffo important! Also as I had to boost bass and trebble on E3C I figured I was a mild bass head

- the music didn't sould 'alive' before that.

 

[countach]

UM2 are wild. They have to be EQ'ed. I whould not recommend them to anybody who knows little about sound and equalizing or if his source can't EQ.

I'm a sound technician, so I know how to EQ, and every sound device normally needs EQ, some fix. Depends of the stage, the monitors or the environment. In fact, in the iem world, different tips provide different EQ, not electronic EQ but natural.

The issue with the UM2 is that they are very unbalanced with certain sources. I remember the first time I listened them: It was incredible who bad they sounded.

Then I discover, A/B'ing with Shure E4, that UM2 can reach all high range that the E4 are proud of. Then the lows are so big that can be trimmed a lot too.

The EQ settings for UM2 have to be substractive, I won't recommend raising highs, for example. In unamplified and cheap sources, for example (sound cars, MP3 players), simply lowering all from 20 hz to 8 Khz, (about -10 db) UM2 starts to sound quite well, sharp, fine, punchy, bright, non-sibilant, and powerfull.

So, that is. UM2 are not easy IEMS, not plug and play IEMS, but the sound they can deliver, if treated properly, is simply wonderful.

 

[roy_jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by countach UM2 are wild. They have to be EQ'ed. I whould not recommend them to anybody who knows little about sound and equalizing or if his source can't EQ. I'm a sound technician, so I know how to EQ, and every sound device normally needs EQ, some fix. Depends of the stage, the monitors or the environment. In fact, in the iem world, different tips provide different EQ, not electronic EQ but natural. The issue with the UM2 is that they are very unbalanced with certain sources. I remember the first time I listened them: It was incredible who bad they sounded. Then I discover, A/B'ing with Shure E4, that UM2 can reach all high range that the E4 are proud of. Then the lows are so big that can be trimmed a lot too. The EQ settings for UM2 have to be substractive, I won't recommend raising highs, for example. In unamplified and cheap sources, for example (sound cars, MP3 players), simply lowering all from 20 hz to 8 Khz, (about -10 db) UM2 starts to sound quite well, sharp, fine, punchy, bright, non-sibilant, and powerfull. So, that is. UM2 are not easy IEMS, not plug and play IEMS, but the sound they can deliver, if treated properly, is simply wonderful.

I disagree with your comment about the UM2 being able to reproduce the same level of high end clarity and resolution as the E4...but I'm open to the idea of learning how to do it, if it is possible. I tried bumping the highs yesterday using my X5 EQ, and found that it responded very poorly to EQ. The highs became very unpleasant, slight sibilance, very abrasive.

Here's what I see as the major problem with what you're saying. You said that the UM2 needs subtractive equalization, but what portable players have a substractive EQ? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not aware of any that are commercially available and popular. I'm guessing the Karma might, but that does little to save the UM2's...because you shouldn't have to specialize your equiptment that much for one link in the chain, IMO.


I would imagine almost no one here is using these for monitoring- they're using them as earphones in their portable rigs. What's the point of talking about high quality dedicated sources, or equivalent? I'm willing to concede that these might be a great monitor, but no one here is using them as monitors, so that really doesn't impact on the discussion.

I will admit that with a high quality portable amp, I think they improve in their weaknesses. I wonder whether I'm using the wrong opamp in my supermacro, for these IEM's. I'm using the 627 opamp, and I've heard it's bassy.

I've got a real love-hate relationship with these things at this point. In some circumstances, I'm finding that I am very impressed, especially with soundstage and instrument separation, and that the problems I perceive with the mid-range reproduction, as well as the high end clarity and resolution aren't as bad as I might've thought. There are other times where I literally can't believe that people compare them favourably to the E4's on the strict level of sound quality.