CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => IEM Measurements => Topic started by: Anaxilus. on June 15, 2013, 01:31:11 AM
-
So what happens when someone who claims to be a so-called Objectivist (Rin/Inks) makes a claim of fact unrelated to a single/simple set of data like a lone FR graph? You get an emotional advocacy based on a choice to 'believe' your way of thinking/methodology is the right way, and everyone else is wrong. Little knowledge becomes a perceived great knowledge, then absolute certainty. Invariably, this then turns into a personally charged crusade devoid of any actual objective analysis except for the single measurement used to falsely support a broad range of premises and generalizations. I've wasted a lot of time w/ such debates over more than two decades and it's often simple enough these days to pick them apart w/ simple logic and analysis. However, some tend to feel more concrete and specific evidence is the only value worthy of their persuasion even though they often do not apply the same standards to themselves.
That being said, per yesterday's nonsensical trolling by Inks, here is the actual evidence to support my analysis against theirs. Remember, Rin manipulated a TF10 via dampers and whatever other means to make them measure almost identically to the UERM. Based on horrible analysis, absence of logic, and lack of experience, he concluded they use the same drivers; only the dampers were changed thus UE is ripping people off, just like everyone else that Rin/Inks have applied their psychic powers of observation to (Sony, Tyll, LFF, UE, to name a few). Here is the actual data to see you for yourselves:
TF10:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/309321/lightbox/post/9274883/id/808839 (http://www.head-fi.org/t/309321/lightbox/post/9274883/id/808839)
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z21/blackmoly_photos/DSCF3038.jpg (http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z21/blackmoly_photos/DSCF3038.jpg)
http://cdn.head-fi.org/c/c4/c4686954_IMG_6205.jpeg (http://cdn.head-fi.org/c/c4/c4686954_IMG_6205.jpeg)
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z21/blackmoly_photos/DSCF3038.jpg)
(http://cdn.head-fi.org/c/c4/c4686954_IMG_6205.jpeg)
UERM:
http://cdn.head-fi.org/5/53/536d9a58_UERM_Right.jpg (http://cdn.head-fi.org/5/53/536d9a58_UERM_Right.jpg)
(http://cdn.head-fi.org/5/53/536d9a58_UERM_Right.jpg)
Clearly, the TF10 uses a smaller lone woofer that is shorter/smaller than the dual driver assembly. The UERM uses a much larger woofer (length and width) than the dual BA's it employs hidden in the lower left of CT's housing.
Interestingly enough, the UE900 seems to use very similar looking drivers to the TF10 except there are four of them instead.
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/aplus/detail-page/B0094S35W4_UE900_exploded_lg.jpg (http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/aplus/detail-page/B0094S35W4_UE900_exploded_lg.jpg)
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/aplus/detail-page/B0094S35W4_UE900_exploded_lg.jpg)
This is what happens in audio and science when you claim to know via belief, yet refuse to accept what you don't know. You spread myths and lies based on a single data point or simple data set and end up doing severe personal, financial and unknown forms of damage by promoting ignorance. The exact opposite of what Objectivity's original intent is. This is why I can no longer stand the typical universal claims these types espouse, they poison their own wells and still love drinking the water.
-
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
-
Follow up by Helios:
- Helios:Regardless, even if two products have the same Knowles package [for instance, say two products both use a Knowles ED+FK], the performance of each driver is specifically tuned by Knowles to the mfgr's specifications. So a DTEC that you find in a TF10 will most likely being tuned differently internally than a DTEC in a UERM. Then there are filters, dual-boring, and crossovers that are tuned specifically for each product.
- Today at 06:55:30 PM
- Analixus:Yes, corrected in my post that's 4 drivers though they look similar in size to the TF10's lone driver in packaging. I've been looking but it's hard to see anything other than the UERM having a much larger woofer than either TF10/UE900.
- Today at 06:53:27 PM
- Helios:just based on the pics, the larger, dual-BA in the TF10 is likely a Knowles DTEC. The smaller TF10 driver looks like an ED. I do know that the UE900 uses a DTEC + TWFK...a total of 4 drivers. So the UE900 is definitely not a rebadged TF10. Don't know what's in a UERM...got any photos of the raw driver assembly not obscured by the acrylic earpiece?
-
Thanks Anax! While I'm not too much into IEMs, I greatly appreciate bringing light into these issues! :money:
-
Yeah, just wait. I've got an HD600, Paradox, Stock T50RP, MadDog, and HE500 - all here at the same time. I should also mention Tyll was kind enough to send me an artificial ear a long while ago which I never used. (LFF has one for the other side). Hint Hint. Anyways, I'll do a comparo (subjective+measurements) with these headphones, and this time without sponges, since people get all weird about measurements with sponges. Hint Hint.
-
I recently witnessed a blowup involving measurements on the head-fi SM64 thread. Does Inks do thiis sort of stuff often.
-
I recently witnessed a blowup involving measurements on the head-fi SM64 thread. Does Inks do thiis sort of stuff often.
Ever since he read nwavdeuche's blog, he's jumped down the rabbit hole full force and lost it. Unfortunately he's not alone.
-
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.
-
You really do get the feeling that Rin doesn't actually listen to the headphones/IEMs that he measures. @purrin, awesome! Though I feel that the paradox is a superior headphone, I find myself preferring the hd600.
-
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
-
I recently witnessed a blowup involving measurements on the head-fi SM64 thread. Does Inks do thiis sort of stuff often.
I saw that too. I'm surprised he stopped; maybe the mods gave him a warning? I'm surprised he hasn't been banned yet. Some of the assumptions he made on that thread were insane, especially the "measurements not up to standards = automatic bad sound" argument. He sounds like Rin's evil sock puppet.
You really do get the feeling that Rin doesn't actually listen to the headphones/IEMs that he measures. @purrin, awesome! Though I feel that the paradox is a superior headphone, I find myself preferring the hd600.
Same here. I prefer the HD600 because of its genre versatility, and the issues with getting a perfect fit and seal on the Paradox.
-
Thanks for the info, tomscy2000.
I believe your spreadsheet is more accurate. There is some stuff near the bottom of the list that I *know* is more accurate on your sheet versus the other.
-
It's not entirely fair to group Rin and Inks together on this. Inks' emotionally charged crusade is of a "shit on everything and everyone" sort based on someone else's research. There's no real skepticism there, only the defensive projection of a self-appointed apostle. To put it bluntly.
Rin is considerably more skeptical in his approach. It's true that as his blog has matured that he has become more confident and curt in his analyses. That trajectory is not dissimilar to any other reviewer as they accumulate experience. I suspect that if he kept a blog of impressions without delving into measurements and technical analyses that no one would even bat an eye.
That's not the case though, Rin's measurements are his bread and butter. He has come up with a set of standards for judging performance and build quality. These are not necessarily congruent with industry standards or with the techniques and conclusions of other reviewers/techs. I'm for a greater variety of approaches in the DIY measurement community, so I do not see Rin's site as some sort of plague upon the headphone community.
Where he is wrong he deserves to get called out, like with this UERM/TF10 business. Thank you anax & tomscy for providing contrary evidence. There could still be some unresolved mistakes in his analyses. I think that Rin would welcome an opportunity to address them if they are brought to his attention.
-
I think it is fair. Some of Rin's claims are quite lacking in objectivity and are logical leaps. Poor logic or zealous emotion, essentially distinctions w/o a difference here when the claims are the same. I'm not invalidating ALL on Rins' data or ALL of his analyses. Just the more obvious logical leaps and some of the personally targeted remarks that seem quite condescending and self-serving. That's what people need to watch out for. Readers have a nasty tendency to read the printed word and set the authors up on a pedestal as authorities when their arguments or claims extend beyond the scope of their actual data or evidence. I blame lazy readers and thinkers as much, if not more than Inks or Rin. It's their support or lack of calling them out that allows this sort of all-knowing behavior/attitude to perpetuate. Such attitudes are not conducive to proper science or progress. I mean, for the love of all that is holy, I'd love to know what database and algorithms Rin established to reverse engineer LFF's mods w/o opening them based on a single set of measurements. That's some powerful shit, maybe he should be working on political campaigns instead making 7 figures.
It's another shame, just like Harold. People of reason and science should be working together and that involves openness and understanding, not absolutes. Science isn't Fascist!
-
Inks has been pretty weird with emotional crusades for a while.
He once accused me of bias in a review which it later turned out he had never read...
The crazy thing was he wouldn't back down about it even when he admitted he hadn't read it. Facts don't seem to convey the same thing to his mind that it does to ours.
-
I think Rin is getting too carried away (his twitter taunts to various manufacturers) because of the attention his blog is receiving (all those links to his graphs must have shown a spike in hits). I value what he does for this hobby - the measurements. Since we don't really have a system of checks and balances, it would be great to "peer review" stuff every once in a while. I believe we ALL want the best performance at the best prices. No one really should be placed on a pedestal anyway.
-
Even though I don't exactly support what he does, he certainly springs some liveliness in the hobby. For most lurkers, like myself, it's quite entertaining to see how much of a fool he is making of himself at given times.
-
I think Rin is getting too carried away (his twitter taunts to various manufacturers) because of the attention his blog is receiving (all those links to his graphs must have shown a spike in hits). I value what he does for this hobby - the measurements. Since we don't really have a system of checks and balances, it would be great to "peer review" stuff every once in a while. I believe we ALL want the best performance at the best prices. No one really should be placed on a pedestal anyway.
Speaking of peer review, how often does purrin did this to his own measurement setup? I'm not trying to be rude; sorry if it sounds like I am.
-
How often does he do what, a peer review?
-
Speaking of peer review, how often does purrin did this to his own measurement setup? I'm not trying to be rude; sorry if it sounds like I am.
I think it was stated before that he keeps his rig private save for a privileged few (not too sure) for personal reasons, but purrin himself will be the best to tell you.
-
Really? C'mon now. It's a straw man argument. I not writing a scientific journal, purporting to be a final authority on measurements, nor a seeker of absolute "truth".
I also rarely come to "conclusions" which would require peer review. I think the strongest I've ever come to a conclusion is that the ESS DAC chips are really problematic???
I've always advocated using your ears. Look at the measurements. Do they correlate well? A little bit. Or not at all. If not, then best to go elsewhere. The statement (before you register) sums it all up:
The irreverent and probably irrelevant non-authoritative site for headphone measurements, i.e. frequency response graphs, CSD waterfall plots, etc. And without the stupid arguing!
-
If I understand what you're asking for I'd offer that is already a sort of built in peer review here, albeit not perfect.
The stuff Purrin measures is either owned by, or has been owned by quite a few of the folks around here. Anything new makes the rounds to a few good listeners, and often a few tin ears like Anax. We've all compared a lot of impressions over time so I think we've got a pretty good idea of how the others describe gear and what that would sound like to us. This is something that has built up over time through a lot of comparisons and gear sharing.
So every time he measures we get a pretty good comparison of our subjective impressions against his objective data.
As it turns out it almost always ends up being pretty representative of what we are hearing.
In the few cases that it's not, he checks the system, re-measures, etc... to be sure that nothing went wrong in the process. Very few times something is uncovered and it is corrected. Other times we're left surprised at the measurements compared to what we are hearing.
I also know that Purrin has shared his technique with some folks he trust and they are confident that his method is effective, if not completely accurate. I'm not sure any measurement system can be considered perfect. The relative results are pretty useful for making comparisons, IMHO.
The same holds true for Tyll's stuff. I've heard enough headphones that Tyll has measured to be able to get a good idea of how his measurements will generally reflect what I'll hear.
Without an industry standard there will always be some discussion about what is the "right" way to take measurements. Without a standard what would a peer review compare against to verify the set up?
Hell, let's face it, we can't even agree what constitutes a "balanced" amplifier out here in the inter web!
-
Thanks for the replies. Again, I'm sorry I touched on a sore point.
-
Did Rin actually make statements to the effect of "UERM is a rip off - it's a tweaked TF10 - shame on UE" or was that Ink's interpretation?
-
Thanks for the replies. Again, I'm sorry I touched on a sore point.
It's important to understand that I am not doing "Science" nor "Objectivity" - that I have never purported such, and if people felt that way, they seriously misunderstood me. This is just a little interesting side thing I'm doing.
Now if were to publish my results in AES (which incidentally publishes a lot of bogus shit), that would be different. If I were to make claims that my measurements were more accurate than Golden-ear's or Rin's, then that would be different too.
The question has always been posed: "I am supposed to take the measurement results on blind faith?" The answer is "No!" Ship explains why in his post above. People don't seem to read. They just look at the cover. If you look at the "measurements" posts, you will find plenty of subjective impressions, which may not always agree with the measurements.
-
Thanks for the replies. Again, I'm sorry I touched on a sore point.
Nothing sore here except where my son shot me playing paintball this past weekend! :)p1
-
Did Rin actually make statements to the effect of "UERM is a rip off - it's a tweaked TF10 - shame on UE" or was that Ink's interpretation?
Quoting from his UERM article: "ON SECOND THOUGHT #4: Is it just me, or the frequency response of the UERM really resembles that of good old Triple.Fi 10 Pro? You be the judge, but as far as their frequency responses are concerned, the deviation here is a matter of a simple crossover circuit / acoustic damper modification. Of course, above response of TF10 can only be achieved when it is situated at the reference plane, meaning when it is custom-molded. Still, there is a chance for reasonable doubt when the price difference is x10. Just sayin', that's all."
-
Thanks for the replies. Again, I'm sorry I touched on a sore point.
It's important to understand that I am not doing "Science" nor "Objectivity" - that I have never purported such, and if people felt that way, they seriously misunderstood me.
Now if were to publish my results in AES (which incidentally publishes a lot of bogus shit), that would be different. If I were to make claims that my measurements were more accurate than Golden-ear's or Rin's, then that would be different too.
The question has always been posed: "I am supposed to take the measurement results on blind faith?" The answer is "No!" ... If you look at the "measurements" posts, you will find plenty of subjective impressions, which may not always agree with the measurements.
The great thing about purrin's measurements does not - at least to me -lie in a (never-made) assumption that his measurements are more accurate than others. By listening to one's headphone, unmodded or after modification, then sending them in and seeing (a kind of translation of )what you are hearing is a great possibility to train your ears. It might very well be that other measurement setups would show slightly different FR curves. It would not be a good idea to compare the curves of different measurement setups and denounce one of the measurement approaches as faulty or inferior. I guess you should only stick to a certain approach and judge the performance of headphones on that very setup/standard. As for me, I am really grateful that I have had the possibility of having my headphones measured by purrin. Plus, not being a blind follower of anybody, I can say I really trust his expertise. Almost anything he has said about my phones, good or bad, I could correlate with.
-
Did Rin actually make statements to the effect of "UERM is a rip off - it's a tweaked TF10 - shame on UE" or was that Ink's interpretation?
Quoting from his UERM article: "ON SECOND THOUGHT #4: Is it just me, or the frequency response of the UERM really resembles that of good old Triple.Fi 10 Pro? You be the judge, but as far as their frequency responses are concerned, the deviation here is a matter of a simple crossover circuit / acoustic damper modification. Of course, above response of TF10 can only be achieved when it is situated at the reference plane, meaning when it is custom-molded. Still, there is a chance for reasonable doubt when the price difference is x10. Just sayin', that's all."
Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. Seems harmless enough.
Regardless of sound, x10 x2.75 - 4.0 price is the cost of customs = low volume / individually made = special fit (I can mow the lawn, be prancing rock star onstage, or engage in mortal combat with foes while I wear them without fear of them falling off). Yeah, the guys at the UE lab in Irvine need to be paid. CA needs to get its taxes, including weird stuff like disability and unemployment insurance. USA needs its cut too. The clean-room where they make the customs needs environmental controls and electricity, which are not free. Last I saw, the UERMs were individually made by USA techs in the USA. I'm pretty sure they are not relying on illegal aliens or teenagers. (I've visited their facilities.) It's probably more expensive for UE to make UERMs than Apple to make iPhones. I'm sure when the molds aren't totally right (which happens 100% of the time counting folks who send theirs in multiple times), UE punishes their employees by making them work for free to fix the molds. Yeah, everything should be free and UE is a bunch of evil corporate capitalists.
P.S.
Amazon TF10 = $255
UERM (meet special) = $700 (including free mold)
-
Did Rin actually make statements to the effect of "UERM is a rip off - it's a tweaked TF10 - shame on UE" or was that Ink's interpretation?
Quoting from his UERM article: "ON SECOND THOUGHT #4: Is it just me, or the frequency response of the UERM really resembles that of good old Triple.Fi 10 Pro? You be the judge, but as far as their frequency responses are concerned, the deviation here is a matter of a simple crossover circuit / acoustic damper modification. Of course, above response of TF10 can only be achieved when it is situated at the reference plane, meaning when it is custom-molded. Still, there is a chance for reasonable doubt when the price difference is x10. Just sayin', that's all."
You also have to look at his Korean site which the linked convo w/ Inks illuminates upon. Ink's interpretation is the same as mine based on his statements and he is quite intimate w/ Rin. Inks didn't wake up one day and come to the conclusion on his own. This is also based on prior email exchanges w/ Inks I had when the article came out telling him/them they need to cool it w/ the continuous trolling conjecture. The guy does measurements and is soooo technically competent and objective but can't google? He's just a self righteous troll IMHO.
On a side note, James has purchased my TF10 and it will be sent to Rin for modding and comparison by him and others versus a UERM. Not sure I can disclose any further details but that should be a cute experiment.
-
Thanks for the replies. Again, I'm sorry I touched on a sore point.
I don't think this is much of a problem if you are being honest about your questions.
What has seemingly happened before is certain individuals would start to question measurements and methodology (here and there) with the apparent purpose to put down results and work for not so noble reasons and ends.
As far as peer reviews is concerned, I personally (and some others) have repeated Purrin's measurements to some degree successfully. I had and have NOT seen Purrin's setup in person. It seems some people have and may have provided pictures to Jude... for seemingly not so noble reasons. Even so I was still able to replicate some of the results with out Purrin's direct intervention. Obviously at this point Purrin's approach is NOT A BIG SECRET. I believe I understand the basis of his approach and in while I'm obviously not an expert in headphone characterization, I agree with some of the reasoning behind his approach.
Rin runs a public blog, and in his pages he has been very critical of Tyll, Purrin, and pretty much all not-Rin in terms of methodology. At head-fi he seemed to lobby strongly for some sort of DF approach and strongly feels that his way is the right way. There are people that have been working on a proper methodology to measure headphones way before Rin, and currently I'm not aware of an approach that has been universally adopted as the standard and "correct way". There are current AES and other papers that are still presenting results and research about it. So I don't get why Rin (or anybody) at this point feels they have it all figured out, and others have it wrong. Basing oneself on standards at this point does not earn a stronger position, because AFAIK these standards do not have a strong and universally agreed justification yet. A more prudent approach would be to understand that headphone characterization is still a hot research topic (which by the way still relies in subjective appreciation statistics...)
On a slightly different subject, one of the many things that drew me here was that the results and impressions presented correlate strongly with my impressions. The DT990 measurements in other places made it seem possibly enjoyable. I was strongly bias to like them. I did not like them much and impressions and measurements here better explain why. Similar could be said of the many other headphones that have been discussed here.
-
The meet price is now $800 (20%) + free impressions now, at least that's what I paid for mine during the April NY meet. Dunno if it's different for the meets in Cali, but still a good deal imo. In reality, most people are going to need to get refits on their UERMs and you have to consider the cost of that when you pay for the UERMs. The UE techs have to carefully follow your refit directions (they have to get paid of course), and then UE needs to send it back to you, usually via 1 or 2 day shipping, which adds onto the cost.
On a side note, the measurements here really do correlate with what I hear in my headphones, and helps me train train my ears. Thanks, Purrin and headphone lenders!
-
On a side note, James has purchased my TF10 and it will be sent to Rin for modding and comparison by him and others versus a UERM. Not sure I can disclose any further details but that should be a cute experiment.
Will the modded TF10 be enclosed in a custom shell to replication functionality? If not, why bother? I mean, starting from say a DBA02 (the newer version) would give one a head start in terms of similarity to sound sig to UERM.
-
No idea, not my problem. I didn't make the claim so I have no need to support it. Obviously the DBA doesn't have the same drivers as the UERM, like the TF10 does... ::)
On the note of peer review, a distinction needs to be made. On the subject of measurement rigs, there has been quite a bit of peer review/sharing between Tyll, purrin and even Rin to an extent. Goodly amounts of publicly available data on their respective approaches and papers on which they are based.
The controversial aspect of peer review is that apart from measurement rigs, purrin has made no real claims that require such review to my knowledge. Rin, on the other hand, seems to make one or two claims per article he publishes that sometimes raise an eyebrow. We're the Debbie Downer site, Rin's is more like Newsweek/Equirer.
-
No idea, not my problem. I didn't make the claim so I have no need to support it. Obviously the DBA doesn't have the same drivers as the UERM, like the TF10 does... ::)
On the note of peer review, a distinction needs to be made. On the subject of measurement rigs, there has been quite a bit of peer review/sharing between Tyll, purrin and even Rin to an extent. Goodly amounts of publicly available data on their respective approaches and papers on which they are based.
The controversial aspect of peer review is that apart from measurement rigs, purrin has made no real claims that require such review to my knowledge. Rin, on the other hand, seems to make one or two claims per article he publishes that sometimes raise an eyebrow. We're the Debbie Downer site, Rin's is more like Newsweek/Equirer.
So, by his logic, Nessie = longer-necked Bigfoot? :boom:
Will the modded TF10 be enclosed in a custom shell to replication functionality? If not, why bother? I mean, starting from say a DBA02 (the newer version) would give one a head start in terms of similarity to sound sig to UERM.
The TF10 *can* replicate the UERM, but not without a complete overhaul of the crossover components, tube lengths, and damper values. Adding another Sonion 2389 in parallel to the UE-HIGH would make things easier, actually. However, with all these changes, the "modded" TF10 != TF10...
-
Off-topic:
UERM for $800 only? If it's converted to MYR it'll be three times, and I'll definitely buy one in a heartbeat. Over here, I guess the cost would be a whooping $1400 or so, judging from the retail price of some customs which are made elsewhere and their agents can be found here.
Slightly related topic:
I'm very unsure about the recommendations found on each product. I don't really know how to carry it out. And I'm butthurt when I saw claims that some "novel implementations" on the Flat-4-Sui are not performing as what they were advertised (from what I understand in the passage). Sad Phillip is sad.
-
$800 is a meet price, $999 is the normal price.
-
Yeah sure, claim that TF10 is the same as UE900 or UERM based on one measurement. Well, vs UE900 it might have some traction. (but that has diff. crosses) Not so vs UERM, which looks like the same crossover as TF10, but different drivers with similar (but definitely not the same) impedances.
UERM is different compensation (no extra bass) and almost doesn't have the shell resonance, AKA effin' ringin'. Lack of this feature would change tonality a lot.
Now then, I haven't heard UERM proper. (some loaner with "eh" fit) But I have heard TF10 and UE900.
-
And it begins... http://www.head-fi.org/t/672716/the-999-vs-99-challenge-tour (http://www.head-fi.org/t/672716/the-999-vs-99-challenge-tour)
Will any of you be joining this?
Edit: just realized that it's a closed tour.
-
I'm pretty sure I can convince AstralStorm to eat the thread starter. If that's the preferred conclusion, I mean.
-
Sorry, no, I'm on a vegan diet. Eating objectivistas would raise my blood cholesterol and prevent me from losing weight, they're so full of themselves.
Now then, we actually could sacrifice one UE900, one TF10 and one UERM for this, but where would the fun be?
Let's just measure those and kill the argument - we're only missing UE900.
-
And it begins... http://www.head-fi.org/t/672716/the-999-vs-99-challenge-tour (http://www.head-fi.org/t/672716/the-999-vs-99-challenge-tour)
Will any of you be joining this?
Edit: just realized that it's a closed tour.
It's not a closed tour, but given that the items are quite valuable, Eke and I have primarily contacted folks we already know from our prior loan tours.
Anyone with a Head-Fi account can still apply (PM eke2k6 or james444), he/she'd just need someone we know to vouch for him/her, or convince us in some other way that he/she's trustworthy. Due to time constraints, we may limit the total number of participants though.
As for "eating objectivistas", the last thing I want is to exacerbate an objectivist vs. subjectivist cockfight (though I'm well aware of the risk). I'm far from claiming that this has any scientific merit, but nevertheless think it's a fun experiment and carries the potential to send a message across the fence, in one direction or the other. With that said, I'm asking everyone to keep an open mind, lean back and enjoy... :)p4
-
The thing is, measurements here do not match Rin's measurements.
It's possible that either UE silently changed the UERM or he got a defective model.
We need more UERMs measured.
-
We have two. Mine and purrin's are a bit different. A lot of pirates have them locally as well.
-
I'll post both UERM measurements I have. They are slightly different with Anax's being slightly brighter. (His are universals)
-
Well, they are customs w/ universal sleeves. So not demos or anything.
-
The thing is, measurements here do not match Rin's measurements.
It's possible that either UE silently changed the UERM or he got a defective model.
We need more UERMs measured.
Rin actually measured both, the custom (http://rinchoi.blogspot.co.at/2012/11/ultimate-ears-custom-in-ear-reference.html) and universal (http://rinchoi.blogspot.co.at/2013/07/ultimate-ears-universal-in-ear.html) UERM version. The results differ quite a bit and he told me he'd tune the TFRM in between.
Edit: Subjectively, I don't hear a significant difference between the universal and customs version. But both sound way better than the TF10 to my ears.
-
Oh right, could you please post the uncompensated data too? As in compensated for the microphone only.
That'd be useful for comparison purposes, as Rin was twiddling with the compensation recently.
-
Will do. It's also my intention to provide raw data going forward.
-
- Helios:just based on the pics, the larger, dual-BA in the TF10 is likely a Knowles DTEC. The smaller TF10 driver looks like an ED. I do know that the UE900 uses a DTEC + TWFK...a total of 4 drivers. So the UE900 is definitely not a rebadged TF10. Don't know what's in a UERM...got any photos of the raw driver assembly not obscured by the acrylic earpiece?
TF10 = Sonion 3300 Red damper + Sonion 2300 Green damper and crossover to match them. UE is big enough to get drivers designed as per their specification to match the impedance and other characteristics.
UERM = Knowles CI + Sonion 2300 + Sonion 2300. Again might be manufactured to UE specific characteristics. Apart from crossover , sound tube diameter, length, filter placement will all affect fr and phase.
So it would be interesting to see how close TF10 can be tuned to UERM without making too big changes.
-
As I've been saying. Why? Just buy a UE 4.
I don't think what people realize is UE is more about premiere products and service. Their bread and butter are the customs.
-
From commercial point not sure if that's true after Logitech took them over.
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the low-end stuff found on Best Buy or on Amazon doesn't seem to have much to do with the customs shop (the UE building in Irvine I just visited a few days ago.)
If anything, Logitech has actually improved internal processes within UE proper.
-
I talked to Jeanette from UE a good while at last year's LA Meet. When I asked her how the Logitech takeover was, she was very candid in saying that the UE staff wasn't very receptive to it and was nervous about the potential changes that would happen. But in the end, they turned out to be very hands-off with the customs department, and let them do their own thing while offering resources and support.
The consumer stuff that has the Logitech/UE branding seems to just be an afterthought to pay the bills, but their customs operations does seem to be where most of their focus is.
-
Actually, talking to some friends of mine who know far more about the IEM industry than I do, Logitech is apparently focusing more on their UE universals and less on their customs department going into the future. This is what I've been told by a few folks who seem to know what's what.
-
I guess what I'm saying is that the folks who make the consumer stuff are different than folks who make the customs. While the TF10 is part of UE's history, replaced by the UE900 recently, the UE factory in Irvine didn't seem to have much to do with the UE900 (or below), other than probably providing the mothership Logitech, its expertise. In other words, there seems to be a Logitech/UE and a dedicated UE (customs.)
Trying to tweak a TF10 (now discontinued) into having performance more similar to the UERM (in an attempt to make whatever confused statement, i.e. "UERM is a rip off", "TF10 is really a UERM gimped", "UE is ripping us off", etc.) is like trying to add engine and suspension mods to a Toyota MR-S (also discontinued) to make it perform like a Lexus LF-A. And yes, I surmise it's possible with mods to make the MR-S faster or at least very close to the LF-A on more technical tracks such as Buttonwillow or Streets of Willow Springs. But that completely misses the point of Lexus.
-
Steets of Willows is such a fun tack! And super physically demanding on a bike.
It's even evident when you call the UE customs group that it's very separate from the big Logitech machine. After crushing one of my 11's I was totally amazed at the level of customer support that I got.
Of course that might be due to my rock star status...