CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

Lobby => IEM Measurements => Topic started by: Marvey on July 26, 2013, 07:28:16 AM

Title: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: Marvey on July 26, 2013, 07:28:16 AM: Ultimate Ears UE-4
Not bad... Not bad at all.
Title: Re: UE-4 (V2)
Post by: ultrabike on July 26, 2013, 07:33:36 AM: Quote from: purrin on July 26, 2013, 07:28:16 AM
Ultimate Ears UE-4
Not bad... Not bad at all.

Measurement-wise those look awesome! Any issues?
Title: Re: UE-4 (V2)
Post by: Marvey on July 26, 2013, 07:35:00 AM: csds
Title: Re: UE-4 (V2)
Post by: Marvey on July 26, 2013, 07:40:07 AM: sw 30 and 300.
Title: Re: UE-4 (V2)
Post by: ultrabike on July 26, 2013, 07:43:57 AM: How do they sound relative to your UERMs?
Title: Re: UE-4 (V2)
Post by: Marvey on July 26, 2013, 07:47:08 AM: Quote from: ultrabike on July 26, 2013, 07:33:36 AM
Quote from: purrin on July 26, 2013, 07:28:16 AM
Ultimate Ears UE-4
Not bad... Not bad at all.

Measurement-wise those look awesome! Any issues?

Very very slight sibilance - they measure "studio monitor neutral" after all. Pretty fantastic. They sound more similar to UERM than TF10. Closet to UERM than anything else I've heard.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: Anaxilus. on July 26, 2013, 08:11:45 AM: Based on my listening I had the UE4 right smack in the middle between my B2 and UERM tonally and technically. A nice place to be. I think they have a clarity advantage over the UERM as does the B2/DBA.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: shipsupt on July 26, 2013, 10:25:46 AM: These things are a bargain in the custom world.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: Questhate on July 26, 2013, 03:11:09 PM: Dang, CT sure wasn't exaggerating when he said they were baby UERMs. I've been waiting for these measurements to see if I should get some as a beater pair.

Did CT send down any of the others, or just the UE-4?
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: TMRaven on July 26, 2013, 03:15:09 PM: How much does a trip to the ear doctor and getting a mold cost again? For 399 those look damn fine.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: Questhate on July 26, 2013, 03:20:27 PM: Audiologists around me go for around $60-$75 ish.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: Kirosia on July 26, 2013, 03:25:38 PM: Mine charged me $25, he's done Etymotic custom-fit molds, but I think, not full-ons. I've had a few remolds done, and I suspect he lets me slide on the cost due to his own initial inexperience (he's gotten better with every subsequent visit), or maybe he just likes my personality. So... find a local audiologist, and make friends with him/her.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: CEE TEE on July 26, 2013, 06:49:52 PM: I really love the UE4. I keep considering getting them as a second pair. I was without my UERM for a bit and hated it...

Note: for UE4, you can only get clear shells (and discounts are no longer available for these due to the low cost).

At $400? Totally worth it, IMO. :)p1
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: munch on July 26, 2013, 09:27:19 PM: this post kind of makes me wish I had given these a chance... if only they came in a universal model of similar performance. :(
looks very nice, though a tad worried if there is sibilance here, but difficult to know how sensitive everyone else is to it.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: ocswing on July 27, 2013, 06:14:26 AM: Has to be asked since they're same price point from the same company. UE4 vs UE900?
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: Marvey on July 27, 2013, 06:18:41 AM: I haven't heard the UE 900. The UE 900 does have more moar drivers tho. Even if they sound similar, I think the question is do you want or need the premium service the customs come with?
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: shipsupt on July 27, 2013, 08:21:49 AM: And the superior fit and seal!
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: zerodeefex on July 27, 2013, 02:31:49 PM: Great, now my interest is piqued. I've been religiously avoiding getting new gear, too :P
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: planx on August 04, 2013, 07:53:21 PM: Just curious, how long have these been out? If it has been out for quite some time now, can anyone explain why these aren't "one of the best IEMs for under $500"?
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: CEE TEE on August 04, 2013, 09:57:58 PM: They have been out a long time, I believe. If it doesn't have the "most drivers" and isn't the "most expensive", how can it be good? :)p15

Also, I figure UE doesn't push them much because there isn't much profit. (But it's a good way to show off UE service and products if someone takes this as their first step into customs.)
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: planx on August 04, 2013, 10:05:56 PM: Quote from: CEE TEE on August 04, 2013, 09:57:58 PM
They have been out a long time, I believe. If it doesn't have the "most drivers" and isn't the "most expensive", how can it be good? :)p15

Also, I figure UE doesn't push them much because there isn't much profit. (But it's a good way to show off UE service and products if someone takes this as their first step into customs.)

Hmm, if that's the case CT, how would the UE4 deal as a "reference" monitor for me? I've ended up selling the ER-4S as I didn't enjoy the overall response and the comfort was ludicrous. More interestingly, how does the UE4 actually compare against the UE900 and UERM as others have said?
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: CEE TEE on August 05, 2013, 12:14:14 AM: I think that it compares very well with the UERM. I find it clean and though it might have a bit less extension at the top and bottom, I think the UE4 has a very clear upper midrange/low treble that should make it good for a monitor. What is "clear" for me might be "bright" or have some "bite" for others though. I don't think the UE4 has "errors of commission". The RM and the 4 don't put a bass hump in there to fatten things up. The UE5, UE7, UE18 do that. The UE11 also do it but seemingly keep things more linear in the low with proper amping and also a bit more top end than UE18 so I prefer them in the "bigger" sound category.

The UE900 is purportedly more colored (added bass warmth) than the UERM and therefore I would think it more "fun" than both the UERM and the UE4.

To me, I would think the UE4 would be akin to having Yamaha NS10 on the desk. When you want the weight, physical impact and the bass/low bass, you turn on the Mackie HR824 to check the mix. (That's what one of my friends does, anyway. I should ask him to compare.)
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: planx on August 05, 2013, 12:44:53 AM: Hmm... In that case, maybe the UE4 might be a good reference IEM for me. I kept telling myself that I was going to stop, but something keeps pulling me in :)p13

Haha love how the HD800s are on the ground, just chillin'
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: AstralStorm on August 05, 2013, 03:25:34 PM: Which armature(s) is it?

Looks like UE-HIGH from TF10 with different damper setup, but I could be wrong.
Sonion 2300 family? (2.5/5k ringing)

Are those Super.fi 4 (possible but unlikely, I remember them being dark with 7k emphasis), or the UE4 Pro CIEMs?

Nice studio there, CeeTee. Bit outdated pic, or do you have another Super7? ;)
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: CEE TEE on August 05, 2013, 04:39:05 PM: ^It's a friend's studio and yep...before I sold the Super 7. One friend has full-range monitors (huge) and the other uses that NS-10/HR824 combo to poke at the mix and hear it.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: tomscy2000 on September 06, 2013, 11:25:47 AM: Had the opportunity to visit UE's headquarters last week and listened to their entire product lineup.

I completely agree with what people are saying --- the UE4 is the bang-for-buck jewel of the UE lineup, and descriptions of it being a 'baby UERM' are not inaccurate in the least bit. Aside from the UERM, which was my favorite of the lineup, the UE4 was either second or third (the PRM doesn't make the top three), a toss up between it and the very fun-sounding (not neutral and a bit mid-recessed) UE11.

It's too bad the UE4 only comes in clear shells (guessing they're trying to leverage the SLA printer to minimize costs), but it is definitely something people should look into, provided they don't mind paying $400 for "only two drivers".
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: AstralStorm on September 06, 2013, 03:47:44 PM: By the way, this looks like "TWFK done better". Bit less peaky, less upper mids dip, better extension, better distortion, better subbass...

Knowles FEC + (Sonion?) UE-HIGH with cross around 2k? Or is it some Sonion bass driver?
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: Anaxilus. on September 06, 2013, 07:42:55 PM: Quote from: AstralStorm on September 06, 2013, 03:47:44 PM
By the way, this looks like "TWFK done better". Bit less peaky, less upper mids dip, better extension, better distortion, better subbass...

Knowles FEC + (Sonion?) UE-HIGH with cross around 2k? Or is it some Sonion bass driver?

Despite the reduced peakiness, the high driver is more gritty, less refined and liquid than the TWFK in the B2. But it's more tonally correct than the UERM. UE4 is right in the middle of the UERM and B2 for treble timbre. Same goes for perceived clarity levels.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: tomscy2000 on September 07, 2013, 01:25:35 AM: AFAIK, TWFK peakiness stems from the enclosure size affecting the regularity of the magrad field, causing more instability in the armature mechanism --- no amount of stiffness in the armature mechanism will make up for an irregular magnetic field, and which is why TWFKs in their raw form (no passive components attached) all have similar resonant peaks/valleys. We have to remember that each FK and WBFK driver is about the size of a ladybug.

From what I saw, the UE4 uses a 2300/1700 combination. The 1700 driver for the lows actually has its port in the '12jd' position, which is on top of the cover plate, rather than straight out in the '12c' or '12s' positions.

I think the UE5/JH5 may be using a 2300/2000 combination (didn't bother to check), which is why it has a little more mid-bass, as 2000 series drivers seem to be unable to flatten out with resistance, whereas the CI responds a little better (which is why designers love the CI, you can practically bend it to your will). Either way, whether it's a 2000 or CI, you'll get more of a mid-bass hump than with a 1700, which can be made near ruler-flat.

BTW, about the TWFK "improved" statement, the UE4 is basically a foretelling of the next "buzzword" dual driver, except instead of the TWFK, it's from Sonion in the form of the 1723 AcuPass. This driver assembly is essentially a 2300/1700 combination, but with an acoustic low-pass, combined into a single tube exit bore. Just so you guys get an idea of the potential of this thing, it was first pilot tested in the TDK BA200. It uses a prototype version that doesn't have an integrated PCB board (the final version is similar to the Knowles GQ). The BA200 has been near universally lauded for both its subjective and objective sound performance. Having put up a light to the FitEar Parterre several times, and discussing with others that have knowledge, I'm quite sure (98-99%) that the Parterre also uses the 1723 driver (though the AcuPass mechanism can be used on a number of different driver combinations, from what I've seen inside the Parterre, it's likely still the 1723), the CanalWorks CW-L12 uses the 1723, the Cosmic Ears BA4 uses the 1723 as a base with an additional 3300-sized dual driver, the Minerva Performer Pro uses it, and several other CIEM companies are using it as well, either alone, or as a base to add off of.

The best part about the 1723 is that Sonion practically hand holds you in the tuning process. Their applications manual shows people the effect of tube lengths/diameters on quarter-wavelength resonances/nulls, as well as damper effects. If anyone wants to try their hand at Hack-a-CIEM, it should be with the 1723. It comes in an unvented and vented version too for bass. Essentially, it's a CIEM "Easy Button". I imagine the market to be flooded with AcuPass-equipped IEMs within the next two years. I had intended to write a whole article on this driver but just wanted to give the pirates a heads up.

So yes, the UE4 is basically the progenitor of the AcuPass principle, because of its 12jd port (which I'm sure has diameter restriction), and then finally coming to fruition in the BA200, before going to mass wholesale. I'm sure Sonion is very proud of this thing and wants to stick it to Knowles with it (though I know KA has some tricks up its sleeve as well).

BTW, here are pictures (from that other forum) of the UE4 disassembled...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/609370/ue-4-pro-dismantling#post_8370874
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: Anaxilus. on September 13, 2013, 06:28:28 PM: Picked up the TDK BA200 based on tomscy2000's post and curiosity. This is a very good IEM for the money. Will have more to say later. I'd say for those who have issues w/ the B2 and it's fit, the BA200 is these alternative I've heard so far. Excellent clarity and imaging and much better bass extension and low end resolution than the DBA/B2. This might end up being my go to backup. Was able to snag a set on Amazon for $120. Unfortunately not the last word on overall refinement, but less rough around the edges especially in the treble than the GR07.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: tomscy2000 on September 17, 2013, 10:14:39 AM: Ah nice. It is one of the better values in IEMs, methinks. If you want more sparkle, you can try to change out that red (2200 ohm) damper; keep in mind that this figure is the vented option, so the bass shelf is about 3.5 dB lower for the BA200.

(http://i.imgur.com/nRJD0ZL.png)
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: LFF on September 17, 2013, 06:33:15 PM: These look damn good.

I need to give you my old UE-10 so you can measure that. The UE-10 was the precursor to the UERM and at the time (2005), it was Jerry Harvey's top tier CIEM.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: AstralStorm on September 17, 2013, 09:43:01 PM: Quote from: tomscy2000 on September 07, 2013, 01:25:35 AM
AFAIK, TWFK peakiness stems from the enclosure size affecting the regularity of the magrad field, causing more instability in the armature mechanism --- no amount of stiffness in the armature mechanism will make up for an irregular magnetic field, and which is why TWFKs in their raw form (no passive components attached) all have similar resonant peaks/valleys. We have to remember that each FK and WBFK driver is about the size of a ladybug.

So you say that if I take FK and WBFK separately, they will be way better? I smell opportunity...
Or if I changed the cross on there to use them as a true dual, would the peaks disappear, as the fields become coherent?

Interesting about 1723. It seems like what I was considering doing, but I thought to use CI-30050 as the bass (throttle to 1.5k? what's the harmonic distortion there?); 26A007/9 as mids+highs (best THD, great FR) and 2354 as the tweeter (best extension), maybe x2.
All low impedance meaning more headroom for impedance and crossover tweaks.

Alternative bass driver is FED-30048-I04 - thoughts on this one? Its FR is not as good - I could use that 1k resonance of CI.
Any ideas where I can get small numbers of the Sonion BAs for experiments?

Otherwise, I'd have to skip 2354(s) (real shame) for WBFK, replace 26A007/9 with inferior 26A005/8.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: tomscy2000 on September 18, 2013, 04:24:59 AM: Quote from: AstralStorm on September 17, 2013, 09:43:01 PM
So you say that if I take FK and WBFK separately, they will be way better? I smell opportunity...
Or if I changed the cross on there to use them as a true dual, would the peaks disappear, as the fields become coherent?

Your best bet is to use a DWFK (yes, a dual WBFK exists) for upper-end bandwidth. However, the driver usually has high-impedance SKUs, and the peaks will still exist, you just have more headroom to tune them down. You can then use something else for the midrange.

Quote from: AstralStorm on September 17, 2013, 09:43:01 PM
Interesting about 1723. It seems like what I was considering doing, but I thought to use CI-30050 as the bass (throttle to 1.5k? what's the harmonic distortion there?); 26A007/9 as mids+highs (best THD, great FR) and 2354 as the tweeter (best extension), maybe x2. All low impedance meaning more headroom for impedance and crossover tweaks. Alternative bass driver is FED-30048-I04 - thoughts on this one? Its FR is not as good - I could use that 1k resonance of CI. Any ideas where I can get small numbers of the Sonion BAs for experiments? Otherwise, I'd have to skip 2354(s) (real shame) for WBFK, replace 26A007/9 with inferior 26A005/8.

AFAIK, the FerroFluid drivers are not good for audio. The FerroFluid really is only good for shock protection.

Why use a 2354 over the 2389? The 2354 is just the vented version of the 2389; on an IEC60711, they'll measure identically above 1k, basically. In fact, because of the venting, the 2354 will probably have a little more THD in the highs too.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: AstralStorm on September 18, 2013, 08:46:22 AM: Because I missed 2389 being identical? There are so. many. numbers.

Still can't find a reasonable retailer with Sonion armatures. Their distributors (esp. for Europe) are eerily silent and have broken webpages.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: timjthomas on October 08, 2013, 01:02:25 PM: I have not had the opportunity to try a CIEM. How do the UE-4's compare to something like Luis' Paradox?
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: CEE TEE on October 08, 2013, 03:19:56 PM: Quote from: LFF on September 17, 2013, 06:33:15 PM
These look damn good.

I need to give you my old UE-10 so you can measure that. The UE-10 was the precursor to the UERM and at the time (2005), it was Jerry Harvey's top tier CIEM.

Jerry's JH10 is still supposed to be his most neutral monitor, from what I understand. The UE-10 was re-tuned to be more neutral after he left and became the UERM. Bit more bass on the Jerry-tuned CIEMS, that is known to be his style and what I've been told are the difference between the two...

tjthomas, in my opinion the Paradox are warmer/darker and have more of a lush low end compared to the UE-4.
Title: Re: Ultimate Ears UE 4 (V2 measurement)
Post by: tomscy2000 on October 20, 2013, 02:07:01 AM: The UE10/JH10x3 use different drivers from the UERM.

The UERM uses two Sonion 2389-type high and mid drivers, with different high-pass cap values (to space out the mids and highs correctly), and a Knowles CI driver (similar to the CI-22955, but not identical).

AFAIK, the UE10 uses two Sonion 2000-type (similar to the Knowles CI) drivers and a Sonion 2389-type driver for the highs. This is a similar driver selection to the UE7, except that the UE7 is two-way, meaning that the two Sonion 2000-type drivers are twinned (in parallel or series), while the UE10 is three-way, so there's a high-pass applied to the second Sonion 2000-type driver for the midrange.

The Sonion 2389-type high driver in the UE10 likely also has a larger cap value, e.g. 2.2 uF vs 1.5 uF, compared to the UE7, as the UE7 is super sparkly and kinda mid-recessed. From all indications, the UE10 shouldn't be this way. We can also predict that the UE10 will have a warmer, thicker midrange, as is customary for the Sonion 2000 / Knowles CI sound (CSD measurements may be more telling in this respect).

If the UERM was derived from the general sound of the UE10, then it was that they probably started off giving the Capitol guys a sample hearing of the UE10, and went from there to tweak the sound signature of the UE10, eventually completely replacing at least a couple drivers and reworking the entire crossover network.