For posterity:

Tyll Hertsens:@Inks "Tyll doesn't know how to implement Senns insertion mechanism, it's obvious sorry" I've inserted and measured hundreds of IEMs, you really think I'd make an obvious mistake?  Piss off.

• Today at 07:34:11 AM
• Analixus:Well, maybe Jupiter or Venus would be more accurate.
• Today at 01:46:12 AM
• Analixus:Rin/Inks analysis: Let X=TF10 frequency response. Let Y=UERM  frequency response.  Let U=TF10 drivers.  Let V=UERM drivers.  If 'X' nearly equals 'Y', then U=V.  Brilliant. With that logic, if NASA were aiming for Mars they'd probably end up launching a shuttle into the Sun.
• Today at 01:44:08 AM
• Analixus:oh that's right, FR = identical.  Like if I EQ one speaker to match another, they now sound "identical".  I've been dealing with you small minded know-it-alls telling everyone how much better you've got the universe figured out than others for over 20 years in the audio world.  Btw, just because you say it, doesn't make it so!  Sorry logic and reason escapes you.  Now that you've further impugned LFF AGAIN on this site.  Good bye!
• Today at 12:36:31 AM
• Inks:Tyll doesn't know how to implement Senns insertion mechanism, it's obvious sorry
• Today at 12:31:54 AM
• Inks:Damping! Please don't make more false assumptions
• Today at 12:30:41 AM
• Inks:He has article in Korean where he made a TF10 almost identical to the UERM, sorry. I feel bad for those that got scammed by the Paradox it's logical there mad. Rin is I good terms with the designer who understands where Rin is coming from, he works with what he gets, you're obviously not interested in anything other than bashing
• Today at 12:29:57 AM
• Analixus:Pft, inserting the TF10 deeper toward my reference plane will reduce it's boomy bass compared to the UERM?  Yeah, I have never experienced a reduction in bass w/ deeper insertion using any IEM in my life experience.  Maybe the TF10 is magic?
• Today at 12:28:11 AM
• Analixus:He's had that tone in about 5 reviews I've read.  Pretty common tone for Harold wanabees.
• Today at 12:23:04 AM
• Analixus:No, you guys are using poor inductive logic.  You cited no evidence that the TF10 and UERM use the same drivers other than manipulating the FR of both to appear the same.  He not only bashed the MH1C, but also the intent and motives of the design/designer as a nefarious money grab against audio suckers.  You know he understands T50 modding better than anyone here based on what?  What psychic powers do you have?  People here have been modding and measuring the T50rp here before he even had a website.  I assume you are saying I am defending LFF's paradox?  Guess what, I have never published an endorsement for the Paradox anywhere.  Good luck proving another one of your false claims!  I never have because I have a close personal crelationship to LFF in real life so it's not appropriate for me to make a business related claim either way.  It's you pseudo-objectivst types that operate w/ limited data, select sample sets, piss poor analysis, and faulty logic.  You guys need to stop making universal claims of certainty and then slamming people by impugning their intentions.  Another piece of BS analysis by you guys?  Suggesting Tyll doesn't know how to measure the IE800.  Once again you used your psychic prowess to determine Tyll failed to insert one side deep enough into the reference plane compared to the other.  Well, shit, maybe you and Rin can get together and measure some new VSonics and use that data to tell me what lottery numbers to buy.  Stick to the data and get over yourselves ffs.
• Today at 12:22:13 AM
• Dyaems:im guessing that rin had that "tone" of his review on the paradox because he cant open whats inside
• Today at 12:22:00 AM
• Inks:Anax, your making false claims. He didn't say that about the UERM, they are not the same stock, but the drivers are the same just make it hit the reference plane and change the damping. He also bashed the MH1C because it was indeed bad, luckily it tuned out some Chinese have fake MH1Cs going out as genuine. He understands T50RP modding more than likely anyone here, it's obvious one will want to defend a product they have backed
• June 13, 2013, 11:55:53 PM

Thanks Anax! While I'm not too much into IEMs, I greatly appreciate bringing light into these issues!

I recently witnessed a blowup involving measurements on the head-fi SM64 thread. Does Inks do thiis sort of stuff often.

Thanks for the insights! Yeh, Rin's reviews are pretty dicky and even with all those measurements I don't think he actually listens to them, so much of objectivity. Sadly looks like Rin won't be stopping in perpetuating the nwavdeuche school of thought anytime soon.

The drivers used for the TF10 and the UERM are as follows:

TF10
Highs: UE-HIGH (almost electrically identical to the Sonion 2389, with the same DC resistance and the same FR, as shown by Japanese DIYer KumitateK: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2p8j8sO9mww/ULthvaG__sI/AAAAAAAAA68/Ss3AUdW_N08/s1600/UE-high%E3%81%A82389%EF%BC%88centertap%EF%BC%89%E3%81%AE%E6%AF%94%E8%BC%83.jpg)

Lows: UE-XXX (very similar to the Sonion 33A007)
Note that the UE-HIGH is used in a centertap configuration, which increases the magnetic bias flux across the armature, putting more directionality on the current flow. The terminal taps are said to be zero-bias, but are not used here. In centertap configuration, high end bandwidth is increased (see here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Lb1xHFDzc7U/UaIfFrUSLiI/AAAAAAAACZw/ZrYJrq1zIlQ/s1600/2389+Centertap%E3%81%A8%E3%83%8E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%83%AB.jpg)

UERM
Highs: Looks electrically similar to the Sonion 2389, and has the identifying top cover dimple of the Sonion 2300 series (that the Knowles ED doesn't have)
Mids: Looks identical to the high driver, except the high driver probably has a different value capacitor, perhaps 2.2 uF, attached, while the mid driver probably has something like a 3.3 or 4.7 uF capacitor attached.
Lows: Someone mentioned to me that the low driver was coded as a CI-60003 (for UE drivers from Knowles, the code is almost always 6XXXX, unless they use a generic), and that it measured electrically identical to the CI-22955, but I don't know for sure.

Regarding the UE900, while the TWFK of it is unmarked, I have reason to believe that it's the same version used in the UE700 and in the UE18, the TWFK-60232 (again, basically all UE-spec'ed Knowles drivers are marked 6XXXX, or unmarked; only Sonion drivers will have the 'UE-HIGH", etc. labels), as it behaves very similarly electrically, and manifests all the same phase alterations. TWFK-30XXX TWFK-2XXXX or TWFK-31XXX variants (yes, there are many) don't exhibit the same resonance points.

Rin is clearly not well-versed when it comes to balanced armatures. I've had to correct him a number of times. I'm not going to bother commenting about Inks, as it would take too long.

If you guys need to reference the BA types used in IEMs, look at my spreadsheet, which has been cross-referenced with independent DIYers and manufacturers around the globe: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AlEH752_Y0f6dGUtZVlnZTZUalp0cG5TYzJfYV9kMlE&output=html

You guys can also cross-match it with Japanese blogger 84audio's chart here (though I think mine is slightly more accurate): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AoHxSlnX1Un0dC1iMS1qN1VMODV4Wnd0a0xiNHVXLVE&output=html