Unboxing - Ultimate Ears In-Ear Reference Monitors
Unboxing pix are usually a waste of bandwidth, but the packaging for the new Ultimate Ears In-Ear Reference Monitors ($999 + fitting charge) is worth using up the space. So here we go:
It all starts with a black box...
And now inside this box is:
Another view of that cool black typeface on black...
What's this? A black anodized metal box...
The box is like a miniature Halliburton case, but black.
At last, the headphones inside the case. They come with an adapter for 1/4" stereo headphone plug, and a small cleaning tool.
And lastly a close-up of the in-ear phones themselves. How do they sound? I'll let Chris Martens handle that as part of his epic survey of every headphone on the planet (nearly) in Playback.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
Very nice Photos Steven.
I don't know how they sound but I want a pair. Or at least, if not the earbuds, the box.
Steve, are the cables detacheable like the Shures? And since you have 'em, let us know how they sound...or at least comment to Marten's!
Yes, they have a removable cord.
And I, too, lust after the box :)
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Really, this is over the top. No wonder the audiophile market is firmly in the clutches of obsessives and the true music lovers increasingly seek privacy and refuge from the :"Dark Side of the Moon" types. Just saying....
Don't be shy to disagree, I have some thick skin developing as we speak - or not !!! - perhaps it is beneath y'all to explain yourselves in terms of your age/sex and tested hering acuity. It seems that as our trusted golden ears age and amass some wealth, the manufacturers feel emboldened in terms of the pricing power. W.C.Fields once said.....eehh, I am told not to bring it up, the wife sayz "too anti-intellectual". BTW, she can hear that stuff for me much better, no darn testosterone there, get it ??
Warm regards RB
When someone runs pix of an expensive car or watch on an enthusiast forum dedicated to cars or watches I don't see this sort of post afterwards.
What is it with audiophiles (opps, EXCUSE ME) "music lovers", who post this sort of scree every time someone else posts about a new high priced component.
Get over yourself. Not everything is made for you...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Look Rad, we sometimes think tongue-in-cheek, sometimes say things we regret, and all of us in the game had better learn to laugh at ourselves. I happen to lust after good watches (and beautiful parrots) far more than after audio equipment...the former rarely become obsolete, the latter have improved so much for relatively low cost that one can only exclaim: REMARKABLE!
Yes, a thousand buck earbud is very expensive, but then the dollar ain't worth what it used to be. I would be reluctant to spend a thou for an earbud, less reluctant to spend the same for the AUDEZE headphones. Yes indeed, the "VALUE" of each is hard to determine, either on sound or hardware terms. That is what Steve does for a living.
As a hedge fund manager friend told me about CNBC's Jim Cramer: He knows prices but doesn't know value.
I would not accuse Steven Stone of that lack of common sense. I'd accuse him of everything else (our politics diverge at exact opposite ends for example.)
But Rad, Steve made absolutely no comment about the value of the subject, you had, and value is not in the eyes of the beholder. It is independed of opinion and reflective in absolute objective terms against the competition. For example, the subject may be much better, or incrementally better, or equal or worse sonically than, for example, the Shure 535 I listen to. Value then is determined on two fronts: Construction (build) quality and sound. And that value determination remains to be seen.
For example, I asked about replacement cords. This feature is important, because with a broken cord your earbud is worthless. The Shure's Kevlar reinforced cable is almost indestructible and up to this date it is the best sounding earbud I had heard. The subject UE may sound better and that will be of interest. It has to be SIGNIFICANTLY better though for me to buy it. At twice the price it may not have the same value as the Shure.
Now I am about to strap on my new Girard-Perregaux WT-cc titanium classic wristwatch. I'm sure you'd not think the $15,000 price was worth it when I could just as well have bought a ROLEX for $3500-7000, or a $150 Casio, and all will tell me the time.
BTW, which makes one a true time lover, the guy wearing a Patek or the other wearing a Timex?
I have been using a pair of UE 10 Pro's for several ears now. They are worth every penny. If you haven't listened to them (or any other high quality custom molded in-ear monitors, you really don't have the basis to comment. They have greater passive noise suppression than the active Bose phones. Their tonal range and balance is exemplary. And the in ear comfort over long listening sessions (coast to coast flights for example) is remarkable.
Yes $ 1,000 is a lot. I paid it happily.
BR/-atul
I agree Atul. Unless you have heard every amplifier, preamp, turntable, speaker, wire and whatnot on the planet, from the year 1899 to 2010, you have absolutely no right to comment on any of them. I trust the reviewers at TAS are listening. They must all be idiots. And of course, we all know that a more expensive component - especially one that costs double vis-a-vis the comp - just has to be better than the less expensive one. Every time, right? Now we can return to reality.
TAS November 2010 Issue, Page 56: "Shure has done a masterful job of blending outputs from the SE535's triple drivers, so that they speak with one coherent voice. Tonal balance is dead neutral while the overall sound is full-bodied, detailed, and ultra-refined."
One correspondent chose to read the very opposite: that the 535 doesn't speak with one coherent voice, its tonal balance is not dead neutral but bass heavy and treble shy, while the overall sound is colored, smeared, and unrefined. And that Shure made a claim for his preferred model - "monitor" - that they had in fact, never made. In other words, he believes what he wants to believe, rather than what is. Maybe he's an Obama fan?
TAS Editor-in-Chief Robert Harlley December 2010 issue Page 16:
"It has become axiomatic in high-end audio that truth and beauty in an audio component are mutually exclusive. That is, if a component is beautiful sounding, it must depart from the truth. Concomitantly, if a component is truthful it must sound something less than beautiful. This dichotomy is so pervasive that it goes under a wide range of names: " accuracy vs. musicality," "ease vs. resolution," and "romantic vs. incisive".... "But this dichotomy is...fundamentally false. If you subscribe (as I do) to the view that the better the component, the closer it sounds to live instruments in an acoustic space."
I subscribe to Robert Harley's definition above which does not mean I have heard every earbud or headphone made since the invention of these devices but include the select few I have heard.
Moreover, as someone who has spent time recording in studios, a musician, and having reviewed audio gear, I've had an earful about claims for accuracy that are anything but. Ditto for many engineer's preferences for hyped detailing that slap one across the face. Some well-intentioned designers may call such technicolorations "accurate." I call them for what they are: colorations, annoying, and tiring.
Buyers should always listen for themselves with ancilliary equipment they are familiar with and remember that like one's nether regions, we all have opinions.
Lastly, you either believe what Chris Martens and other TAS staff tell you or you don't.
I ordered a set of these this week and am anxiously waiting for them to arrive. I can't wait for your review. Any idea when it will be done?
I talked with Chris Martens on Monday.
He, too, is eagerly awaiting his pair...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I got mine yesterday. All I can say is that I'm in love. I enjoy the flat signature so much that I actually dropped the crossover on my home systems sunfire subs and recaliberated audyssey on both my Marantz's I didn't realize how much I was missing because of bass bloat. My Nautalis 805s and DynAudio Countour 5.4s have never sounded so good.
Well, I think Mr Stone knows exactly that I am not stupid enough to object or to even mention the price of this item. Over the top was the infantile unboxing ritual as perform by Steven dude, it only made me angry with Shure that they did not make the box non-removable. But no envy or criticism of each buyer's perceived ROI, totally beneath me, you know...
Rad, dude, Chill-out, put down the dubie, wait a couple of days, and your logic may return, or not...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Still would love to see a review on these!
On 11/15 agb wrote:
I agree Atul. Unless you have heard every amplifier, preamp, turntable, speaker, wire and whatnot on the planet, from the year 1899 to 2010, you have absolutely no right to comment on any of them. I trust the reviewers at TAS are listening. They must all be idiots. And of course, we all know that a more expensive component - especially one that costs double vis-a-vis the comp - just has to be better than the less expensive one. Every time, right? Now we can return to reality
I need to respond to this unnecessarily sarcastic and logically flawed critique. I suggest:
1: Reviewers can comment about whatever they wish
2: But if they trash a product because of its (high or low) price without ever listening to it, it is perfectly appropriate to question their judgement.
BTW, you do not need to time travel to 1899 to listen to a pair of UE 10 Pro's
Atul, you have completely misrepresented what I said. Moreover, your reply had nothing to say that we all don't already know. Lastly, I apologize for my tongue-in-cheek reply to you earlier.
No one suggested anything but agreement with your last comment. What applies to reviewers applies to audiophiles in general. And that, was what my earlier remarks were about. Listen for yourself, and pay little attention to adverts. Price may or may not have anything to do with performance. The parts in all these earbuds are relatively cheap and are sourced from the same suppliers. The characteristics of each type (frequency range ) armature is specified for the makers of earbuds, so are the instructions for building crossover networks. It costs more to have five armatures than one. The more low and midfrequency armatures are used, the lower the distortion of the sound given the same input voltage. However at some point there is the law of diminishing returns, the same as with multidriver speakers. And complications may cause their own problems - the precision of crossover points for example may be impacted negatively, all depending on the skills of the designers. Also, the ports for each armature has an effect on the sound quality. So in addition to materials and shapes chosen, there are a number of other issues the designer needs to resolve. There may be a happy medium amongst these choices, as well as a happy medium for price points, beyond which it wil be necessary to conclusively prove the benefits of one design over another, especially if one costs twice as much as the other.
In the real world, a $25,000 bookshelf speaker has to be substantially better than a $3000 bookshelf speaker, and among the last there are many examples that are, indeed, very good. The $25K speaker therefore has a lot to prove for any sane man to write a check for it.
Sorry agb, I did misunderstand your post.
And I totally agree with this post.
Best regards,
-atul
Hey Icemakers,
I was worried that I'd been the only one who enjoyed this whole thread as it is progressing. May it never stop. I reckon Mr. Steven (MailRoom) Stone has already spanked me psychologically by imputing that the non Absolute Sound types have to use a substance other than their brain (a dubie), to invoke logic, albeit to no avail.
Mr Stone signature picture is a little fuzzy, but do not underestimate him, he uses misunderstanding in purely accusatory fashion, the self-improvement is out of question. So he will hurt you, or not..
While we are awaiting anxiously a comprehensive review of the packaging of the Ultimate Ears, let's not let him live it down, O.K.? One idiosyncrasy against the other ones.