[geralt_ll]

My opinion:

I don't know about you guys, but I'm not particularly fond of Unique Melody. Coming from an engineering background, I understand the effort involved in designing and innovating, to create a new product. It's not good business for other IEM manufacturers, unless they can think of means or implementing specialised designs in preventing leakage of their technology.
It wouldn't be surprising (eventually), hearing of IEMs that crack apart with their drivers upon prying of the housing whilst or some other preventive measure in place to protect their innovation.

I can't deny that I am tempted by UM's range of IEMs and performance/price ratio. However this is one area that I feel strongly about, and cannot forsee myself relenting.

The different manufacturers, and their offerings in their IEMs makes this hobby interesting. Also consider how hobbyist (audiophiles) reamain loyal to a particular brand because of their continuous research and innovation.

 

[ClieOS]

If a company feels the need of protecting their own IP, then they should apply for it. If they have chosen not to, then it is assume it is either 1) not worth protecting or 2) not qualified for protection. If you crack open most of the brand name custom on the market, I can assure you that most of them are standard parts that you can order from a few of supplier around the world. So what is there to protect from?

Let me give you an example: Westone UM2 has a tweeter and a woofer in each earpiece, but do you know the tweeter their used is the same Knowles driver Etymotic ER4 series used as full range? Since ER4 is the first non-custom IEM in the market and has been criticized by some as not having enough bass, can we assume Westone stole Etymotic idea then added a woofer of their own? Even if you say there is a crossover in UM2 which ER4 lacks, but the fact that crossover is not difficult to design certainly doesn't help Westone on clearing up the suspicion. The fact is, there are only a handful of suppliers in the world with a limited number of music grade BA drivers, eventually you will find companies using the same / similar parts and design. It surely doesn't mean companies are all copying design from each other. If a company feels very strongly about this sort of protection, then they can develop their own custom drivers and patents - UE has been using custom Knowles drivers since very early on and they have dozens of patents on IEM design, which gives them the ground to battle copycat and the reason to charge you a premier price over their products.

I am not saying that steeling other people invention and design is cool, but I also ask myself this: what makes certain IEM with standard parts much more expensive than others? Is it simply because one company figures out how to put things together first that grants them the opportunity to charge the consumer for more? or is it really costly hardworking research that deserves the extra dollars? I truly don't know the answer to these questions, but I certainly hope it is the later.

 

[fiendie]

I disagree.
It's not as if comanies like Ulitmate Ears work with pixie dust.
They don't design the drivers themselves and if they are able to throw together a balanced setup, fair enough.

I love UM's reshelling service. The housing of my UE Super.fi 5 Pros suffers from nasty discolorations from grease and sweat and the cable socket is completely worn out.
I don't really see what anyone could have against that.

I'm also not particularly fond of brand loyalty. It's a freakin' business that's supposed to make money. If they have a good product, I'll give them some of mine.

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiendie /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not as if comanies like Ulitmate Ears work with pixie dust. They don't design the drivers themselves and if they are able to throw together a balanced setup, fair enough.

That's not always true. Some IEM's use custom drivers. For example, Jerry Harvey designed the drivers for the JH13, sent the design to Knowles for a prototype, and then signed an exclusive contract. So no other manufacturer can make a JH13. The Klipsch X10 is another example. They use a custom full range driver from Sonion that nobody else is allowed to sell.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with using non-custom drivers and creating a product however. And I think Unique Melody has great workmanship and quite a bit of knowledge about what they are doing. They have every bit as much right to compete in this market as anyone else.

 

[geralt_ll]

barleyguy, glad to know that there are some products that are exclusive to one company. If I'm willing to spend that amount on an IEM, I'd might as well get the cheapest of the lot for almost similar performance, unless it is exclusive, like the JH13.

 

[Spyro]

If Westone UM2 is using an ER4 driver and another bass-oriented driver, I am not very impressed with the end product. It's a good IEM but imagine if Ety did the same? I would expect much more.

 

[sphb]

I feel that reshelling is just tweaking your IEMs much like changing cables.
It's just the outside cover of your driver.

 

[fzman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiendie /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm also not particularly fond of brand loyalty. It's a freakin' business that's supposed to make money. If they have a good product, I'll give them some of mine.

I have to disagree, although a bit off the central topic. the trend seems to be that people think of financial transactions as isolated, single events, without any connection to other transactions/events.... not to single out the poster i am quoting, but just using the quote as a springboard to make the point.

This mercenary attitude is a problem, imho. a good deal of what business should be about is relationship-building. the price you pay is not the entire determinant of the value you have received from the transaction..... and this cuts both ways.

customers are less likely to show any loyalty to a brand, seller, or manufacturer, and they, in return are less likely to "go the extra mile" to provide service, when they don't see it as contributing to repeat business. and, it tends to snowball.

now i am not saying you should overpay, or ignore price; just put it into proper perspective. Rethink the old chestnut "You get what you pay for". seems like most of the issues that arise in this forum about things like:

'hey , i think these are fakes', 'I sent my money, and now x is not returning my emails/calls etc, and i haven't gotten my product', 'they wouldn't honor my warranty because it wasn't from an authorized dealer', and other issues of this sort generally come from going for the lowest price- and show that lowest price does not equal best value.

Informed brand loyalty makes lots of sense-- blind brand loyalty does not....

ymmv

 

[parrot5]

That's for the manufacturers or shops to think about (about repeating customers), and not me as a customer. I vote with my money for the best product that suits my current taste and situation. If some basement shop has the equipment and expertise to put together a pair of custom IEM that is balanced (,as proven by the RMAA results that accompany each pair.. something that UM isn't doing, I think, but another Chinese manufacturer is), I don't mind trying them.

 

[wantmyf1]

I'll be loyal to a retailer that treats me well, even if I have to pay a little extra for it. It's nice not having to worry about what might happen if anything goes wrong with the purchase. However I'm not loyal to a particular product brand. I will buy whatever superior product meets what I need. Now back on thread topic:

Innovation is not only found in the development of source components themselves but also in the way the components are put together. Nintendo (on my mind as my wife just got a Wii) put together a unique console based on games and motion detection. There was nothing new about either but the way Nintendo combined them was unique.

Having said that I know nothing about UM and haven't even heard the name before. Maybe they are sub-standard. I don't know. But IMO just because they don't have unique BA (dynamic?) speaker technology doesn't mean there isn't innovation.

 

[dnullify]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiendie /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm also not particularly fond of brand loyalty. It's a freakin' business that's supposed to make money. If they have a good product, I'll give them some of mine.

hear hear.

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrot5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's for the manufacturers or shops to think about (about repeating customers), and not me as a customer. I vote with my money for the best product that suits my current taste and situation. If some basement shop has the equipment and expertise to put together a pair of custom IEM that is balanced (,as proven by the RMAA results that accompany each pair.. something that UM isn't doing, I think, but another Chinese manufacturer is), I don't mind trying them.

UM does include frequency graphs with every pair of remolds, and I believe with their customs as well.

 

[fiendie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fzman /img/forum/go_quote.gif This mercenary attitude is a problem, imho. a good deal of what business should be about is relationship-building. the price you pay is not the entire determinant of the value you have received from the transaction..... and this cuts both ways. customers are less likely to show any loyalty to a brand, seller, or manufacturer, and they, in return are less likely to "go the extra mile" to provide service, when they don't see it as contributing to repeat business. and, it tends to snowball.

I consider the service to be part of the product and I gladly pay for it.
It's not my job to make the manufacturers feel good about themselves

If I value the extra mile I ask around if the service is good *before* I make my purchase.

I find it a bit strange that I somehow have to dangle repeat business to receive good customer service.
In that case the debt is on the manufacturer not me.

Quote:

now i am not saying you should overpay, or ignore price; just put it into proper perspective. Rethink the old chestnut "You get what you pay for". seems like most of the issues that arise in this forum about things like: 'hey , i think these are fakes', 'I sent my money, and now x is not returning my emails/calls etc, and i haven't gotten my product', 'they wouldn't honor my warranty because it wasn't from an authorized dealer', and other issues of this sort generally come from going for the lowest price- and show that lowest price does not equal best value.

No arguing with that. I am not a cheap skate.
I was just fighting the notion that low price means low quality and re-using someone elses "innovations" and offering a service on top of that is somehow immoral.

 

[fzman]

Fiende,

I was not suggesting that you, or anyone else in this thread is a cheapskate. My comments should be taken more as a rant that business is moving further and further away from the "relationship building" model, and that it is the fault of both buyers and sellers, and that their behaviors feed off of, and cause the pattern to continue.

Your specific comment about 'brand loyalty' was a convenient port to anchor my reply. What I would say is that I think people interpret the term 'brand' too narrowly these days--it's not just a logo on a product, and buying other products because they have the same logo on them as others.... The brand really is the entire company, and how it does business and treats all of its stakeholders, the reputation it creates and the entire experience of transacting business with it.

As for UM specifically, I think it is not an obvious theft of intellectual property, if they customize an existing iem for your specific ears. They are not claiming to do other than that. If their own iems rely on technology taken from other iems, that is a different issue. While i do believe that the housing contributes to the sonic signature of an iem, i think a re-casing, is like an organ transplant. If your brand comment was simply to indicate that people shouldn't 'boycott' UM because of their like for Shure, etc... then I agree. On the other hand, I think it is good and right to do so to any company that knowingly tries to profit or otherwise benefit from stolen intellectual property.