UE Pro Reference Remastered (UERR/UERM v2)

I've spent a few days with the custom UERR and here are my early thoughts (subject to change, or at least I hope they change):

The RR is not a minor tuning change, rather the change is pretty dramatic. The RR’s bass is more present than the RM across the board, with a welcomed slight improvement under 50hz. Many will find this a welcome change and indeed I appreciate the extra rumble. However, gone is the incisiveness and articulation of the RM bass. The RR is looser and more playful, some might describe it as more natural. I could live with this change, if the rest of the spectrum remains closely in tact to the RM, but unfortunately this is only the tip of the iceberg.

The RM is known for ever-so-slightly laid back midrange, yet that midrange is nuanced, effortless and highly resolving, if a bit less emotionally intimate than desired at times. On the other hand, the RR places vocals in-your-face forward with a wall like presentation of instruments. It can feel somewhat claustrophobic, and at times is somewhat shouty. While very upfront, it loses engagement. It has caused regualr fatigue over the listening sessions I’ve given it and I find myself invariably skipping to the next song,regardless if it's a favorite or not. There’s just no room to breathe and feel space. Everything above 1.5k is shelved down on the RR, so rock guitars are lacking presence and air. In general, instruments feel flat and lifeless, albeit full and slightly rich. This is a stark and shocking difference to the RM. There just is no connection to the music at this point.

The RR is ultimately more extended than the RM. I hear to about 17k in the RR versus 16k on the RM using test tones. However the RR is lacking significant air and sparkle compared to the RM. As mentioned before, everything after 1.5k is shelved down considerably and instrument realism takes a serious hit in my estimation. This lack of air and space makes the RR staging seem much smaller in width as well, while depth is maintained.

The RR is more sensitive to output impedance than the RM. The RR is pretty much unlistenable out of my iPhone 6S+ due to the 3.3 ohm OI. Treble takes a nose dive on it. The UE Pro Line Drive is almost a must own with the RM. Any OI over 1 just makes the RR too dark and bassy.

To say I’m disappointed is an understatement. Frankly I don’t understand how this is from the same lineage. And lastly, it just doesn’t seem very reference to me. Maybe my impressions will change over more time. For those interested, they have about 28 hours or so on them. Sources have been the iPhone 6S+ with and without the line drive, MS-AK120 (mezzo soprano modded ak120 with less than 1 ohm OI), and a Chord Mojo mated with an AK100.

 

I owe you a reply over PM! The stage widens a little and the air starts to come in after some time. The detail is there, but it's definitely presented very differently from the RM. I don't think you'll grow to like it given your tastes (I think I shared some of my apprehension for you in particular over PM).

The RR was heavily tuned by Capitol/UMG. They made it the headphone they wanted to make the first time around. I suspect that's one of the reasons why there's a much stronger center image and the width of the stage has been diminished. If you listen closely over time, you'll notice it's easier to pick apart certain parts of the music.

 

You are probably right about not growing to ultimately like them. I don't foresee them gaining enough breathing room for me.

There's really no place else to turn for a more neutral tuning, except back to my UERM.

 

Correct. The 6S+ has 3.3 ohm output impedance. This causes the treble to drop off a cliff. I'd only recommend 1 ohm or less output impedance on a source for the UERR.

 

I have a Vibro Veritas coupler. While not exactly accurate stock, I've had it calibrated against an IEC711 coupler, so I'll try and measure my UERM and UERR soon for comparative purposes. Haven't tried measuring customs before, so not sure what kind of results I'll get but may be worth seeing the differences between the two.

 

I spent some time this morning experimenting with measuring the RR and RM. Suffice to say, it’s a little difficult to get a proper seal with customs on the coupler but I was able to get consistent enough results, with diffuse field compensation, to learn a few things:

-The RR is definitely bassier than the RM. The increase actually starts in the lower mids. Everything under 700k seems to be boosted over the RM

-The RR has a small increase over the RM between 1k and 1.5k (perhaps 2 db).

-The RR and RM are identical between 2k and 5k.

-The RM rises after 5k until it peaks around 10k but the RR stays leveled off after 5k.

These data points help correlate some of the differences I’m hearing. After listening to the RR all weekend, the RM sounded pretty thin at first. It was surprising how much bassier and fuller the RR is over the RM. The increase under 700k and across the entire bass range, plus the small peak at 1.5k, explains why vocals sound so forward and occasionally shouty. If the RM is known for being slightly laid back in the upper midrange (2-5k), the RR is laid back across the same upper midrange and entire treble range as well. While the RR is more linear (shallower peaks and dips) in the entire upper range than the RM, it sounds overall less neutral with a lot less and air and space. I’m also curious about the RR and RM being identical between 2-5k. I’m wondering if this is a tuning choice or more of the selected balanced armature driver inherent frequency response. Perhaps it’s a little of both.

While this brings the overall picture a little more in focus as to the changes, I have to say they seem a little heavy handed- everything over 1.5 is roughly 10 db down or so and never recovers. I’m going to experiment EQ’ing above 5k through 10k or for more treble presence. Maybe split the difference between the RM and RR, to see if it helps the RR breathe a little and feel less claustrophobic. If this produces satisfactory results, maybe I’ll think about picking up a Cowon Plenue D to use with the RR. It’s only $290, has less and 1 ohm and supposedly has great EQ capability. Plus it’s pretty small and has up to 100 hour battery life. That would beat somehow carrying around the addition of Pro Line Drive (which, granted, is tiny) with the iPhone to use EQ; I just find connecting something to my iPhone cumbersome on the go. My AK players’ EQ features are very basic and not really conducive to a more surgical EQ.

 

The bass goes off a cliff below 300 hz, so definitely a leak somewhere. I'll experiment with decored Comply tips in place of putty. Orange is RM and blue is RR.

 

The Veritas is wider that the mouth and tapers in. Universals seal quite easily, so I think if take a decored comply, and fit around the canal piece it will seal a lot better than applying putty around it. I'll spend some time this weekend working it out.

The bass of the RR was consistently more. That's all that can be gleaned at this time. It definitely sounds bassier by about 3dbs across the entire bass range if I were to guess.

 

My customs are less bassy than the demos FWIW.

Sending universals to Marv this week.

If anyone is looking to purchase, let me know. I'd like to send you to Jazmin for getting us a loaner.

 

Nothing like a little perspective to liven things up. This morning I purposely attempted to manipulate my senses with a little psychoacoustic fun. For 30 minutes or so, I listed to the much, much bassier and lower mid forward Rhapsodio Solar. It also has comparatively less treble presence. Immediately after, I started listening to the RR for my commute. Instantly the RR felt much lighter and thinner. While still sounding mid-centric, it no longer felt claustrophobic and I had an enjoyable listen on my commute.

The RR is certainly detailed. It pushes low level details very forward. I think the small staging properties of the RR and this forward presentation can make it difficult to adjust to, especially coming from the RM, at least for me. Today’s experiment showed me I can appreciate what the RR brings to the table. Like Zero mentioned, my preferences heavily lean towards the RM and while I’ll probably never love it, perhaps I can learn to live with the RR.

 

I still owe you a reply to your PM

I actually am using the RR daily now over the RM. I honestly find staging on in ears to be garbage no matter how good it is so the relative change in perceived width doesn't really bother me.

 

No rush!

I think staging in iems is obviously different from headphones and I tend to refer to it headstage. However I definitely notice differences that can have impacts to overall perception and enjoyment factor. But a headstage doesn't have to be large to be enjoyable. Intimacy presented well can be quite powerful. Just because it's coming from something shoved in ones head doesn't make it unimportant for me. Plus psychoacoustics are pretty fascinating!