Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › WESTONE 3 vs SHURE530 COMPARISON
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WESTONE 3 vs SHURE530 COMPARISON - Page 7

post #91 of 110
hockeyb, glad u received W3.

Now for 3 corners triple drivers battle!
post #92 of 110
hahahahaha will be something to see "The 3 driver royal rumble"
post #93 of 110
There's nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion. Back before the E500's were released, a number of Head-Fier's touted them as UE-10 killers, LOL. I received the E500 soon after release, and I preferred the UM2. It's all different strokes for different folks around here, and to pronounce one headphone "better" than another is virtually meaningless except to the individual making the pronouncement.
post #94 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete7 View Post
There's nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion. Back before the E500's were released, a number of Head-Fier's touted them as UE-10 killers, LOL. I received the E500 soon after release, and I preferred the UM2. It's all different strokes for different folks around here, and to pronounce one headphone "better" than another is virtually meaningless except to the individual making the pronouncement.



X3
post #95 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete7 View Post
There's nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion. Back before the E500's were released, a number of Head-Fier's touted them as UE-10 killers, LOL. I received the E500 soon after release, and I preferred the UM2. It's all different strokes for different folks around here, and to pronounce one headphone "better" than another is virtually meaningless except to the individual making the pronouncement.


x13

And i never understood people who get offended....about earphones....
(except for ones that made them or promote them of course)
post #96 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by catscratch View Post
I don't agree with this review AT ALL. I also own both of these IEMs (well, E500 instead of SE530 but it's exactly the same thing), and a great many others besides.

To my ears, the W3 has a fuller, more punchy bass with upper bass emphasis. The E500 has a more detailed bass but it's less full, with more midbass emphasis and paradoxically less bass control. It's a bit like bad electrostatic bass - detailed and textured but still fuzzy, and not quite kicking hard enough.

The mids are a problem for both headphones. The W3 has recessed mids with a warm but artificial tone and a lack of clarity and texture. The mids are easily this IEMs Achilles' heel. The E500 is better but still not quite there - the mids have more clarity, but are very plasticky and textureless. They're lush but in an artificial way.

The highs are a bit spiky on both headphones, though the E500 is more detailed. Both headphones are lacking treble extension.

The W3 I'd say is more muscular and dynamic, while the E500 is more detailed and has better clarity. Both are laid-back sounding, and both have very wide soundstages (for IEMs).

I'd say the E500 is better for jazz, vocal, and slower rock genres, while the W3 is better for electronica, dance music, faster rock, and anything that stresses dynamics over detail. Neither headphone is very good for classical music since their tones are off and their highs aren't very extended.

Which one is better? It's a close call but the W3 may nudge out a narrow win here.
Having listened to both IEMs, I come to the same conclusion.
post #97 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete7 View Post
...to pronounce one headphone "better" than another is virtually meaningless except to the individual making the pronouncement.
I disagree, and quite strongly at that. What you're talking about is audio relativism - i.e. that there are no objective standards in audio and it is all a matter of preference.

I think this is wrong, and dangerous. This kind of thinking allows unscrupulous vendors and manufacturers to make gear to a lower standard and then pass it off as subjective preference.

I think that, because headphones and especially IEMs ignore HRTFs, there are always bound to be differences in frequency response that are hard-wired into whoever is doing the listening. However, in other respects, objective standards have to exist, and have to rule. In order to be high-end, a headphone has to be resolving. It has to be as linear as differences in perception will allow. It has to have a certain quickness of impulse response, a certain extension at both ends, soundstage, imaging, tactile impact, dynamic range, tone, texture, and so on. These things aren't a matter of preference but a matter of necessity when you're dealing with the high end. Otherwise, if a headphone simply doesn't meet enough of these criteria, it's not high end, and preferences have nothing to do with it.

In the speaker world, this is easy, since we can simply accurately measure the FR of a speaker, and that, as they say, is that. There are other measurements that we can make too, all of which can give a very good idea as to the speaker's performance. But when it comes to headphones, FR measurements are much more difficult if not impossible to accurately make for every set of ears that will be listening. That, unfortunately, gives a lot of manufacturers a lot of room to basically slack off and underperform.

The O2 Mk2 is a perfect example. A lot of people that own just the Mk2 and don't want to chance it with getting a used Mk1 will make the excuse that it's only a matter of preference. It isn't. The vast majority of people that have owned both and compared them back-to-back feel that the Mk1 is superior, including Yours Truly that's been yelling about this across several forums and has taken a lot of flak from people that haven't compared both. In fact, from what I've read, a few German Stax retailers have gone so far as to stop selling the O2 Mk2 altogether until Stax gets their act straight. Now, the O2 Mk2 is still a very good headphone, but IMO taking a definite step backwards and then passing it off as subjective preference is unethical.

This isn't meant to be an "I'm right and you're all wrong" kind of post even if it comes off that way. This is just my opinion and I always admit the possibility of being wrong. There may very well be something wrong with my W3, and I will be sending it off to Westone themselves to have it checked.
post #98 of 110
Since I've agreed with Pete7's post I'll post my opinion on yours.

I don't think that you're wrong too, just misunderstood IMO. Experienced user will most likely notice if the audio equipment is high-end or not (or do some testing if he doesn't believe his ears enough), but that doesn't mean that he'll automatically like it. There are high-end speakers and headphones all over the place but again that doesn't mean that we all like them on the same level, or at all.

At least i understood it that way.

EDIT: Very good point of yours too
post #99 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by catscratch View Post
I disagree, and quite strongly at that. What you're talking about is audio relativism - i.e. that there are no objective standards in audio and it is all a matter of preference.

I think this is wrong, and dangerous. This kind of thinking allows unscrupulous vendors and manufacturers to make gear to a lower standard and then pass it off as subjective preference.

I think that, because headphones and especially IEMs ignore HRTFs, there are always bound to be differences in frequency response that are hard-wired into whoever is doing the listening. However, in other respects, objective standards have to exist, and have to rule. In order to be high-end, a headphone has to be resolving. It has to be as linear as differences in perception will allow. It has to have a certain quickness of impulse response, a certain extension at both ends, soundstage, imaging, tactile impact, dynamic range, tone, texture, and so on. These things aren't a matter of preference but a matter of necessity when you're dealing with the high end. Otherwise, if a headphone simply doesn't meet enough of these criteria, it's not high end, and preferences have nothing to do with it.

In the speaker world, this is easy, since we can simply accurately measure the FR of a speaker, and that, as they say, is that. There are other measurements that we can make too, all of which can give a very good idea as to the speaker's performance. But when it comes to headphones, FR measurements are much more difficult if not impossible to accurately make for every set of ears that will be listening. That, unfortunately, gives a lot of manufacturers a lot of room to basically slack off and underperform.

The O2 Mk2 is a perfect example. A lot of people that own just the Mk2 and don't want to chance it with getting a used Mk1 will make the excuse that it's only a matter of preference. It isn't. The vast majority of people that have owned both and compared them back-to-back feel that the Mk1 is superior, including Yours Truly that's been yelling about this across several forums and has taken a lot of flak from people that haven't compared both. In fact, from what I've read, a few German Stax retailers have gone so far as to stop selling the O2 Mk2 altogether until Stax gets their act straight. Now, the O2 Mk2 is still a very good headphone, but IMO taking a definite step backwards and then passing it off as subjective preference is unethical.

This isn't meant to be an "I'm right and you're all wrong" kind of post even if it comes off that way. This is just my opinion and I always admit the possibility of being wrong. There may very well be something wrong with my W3, and I will be sending it off to Westone themselves to have it checked.
Well said.
post #100 of 110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by catscratch View Post
However, in other respects, objective standards have to exist, and have to rule. In order to be high-end, a headphone has to be resolving. It has to be as linear as differences in perception will allow. It has to have a certain quickness of impulse response, a certain extension at both ends, soundstage, imaging, tactile impact, dynamic range, tone, texture, and so on. These things aren't a matter of preference but a matter of necessity when you're dealing with the high end. Otherwise, if a headphone simply doesn't meet enough of these criteria, it's not high end, and preferences have nothing to do with it.
well for me that sibilant thin sound like if its coming out of radio or bad filtering....just doesnt qualify these iems as high-end to me....thats why i said 10€ earbud

maybe i had a defective pair,who knows..
it was factory sealed btw.
post #101 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by prscustom View Post
well for me that sibilant thin sound like if its coming out of radio or bad filtering....just doesnt qualify these iems as high-end to me....thats why i said 10€ earbud

maybe i had a defective pair,who knows..
it was factory sealed btw.
I think it had to be defective, or a bad fit - even the people who don't like the W3 very much say it isn't half bad but just doesn't blow away the SE530 or Triple.fi or ER4. I can understand that from some people, but to sound as bad as you describe just doesn't make any sense. I have have $30 earbuds that sound decent, but they still can't even come close to sounding as good as my Westone 3. I'm not trying to be a W3 fan boy, but it is impossible for me to make mine sound like $10-20 earbuds unless I put them in with small tips and no seal. If yours have a good seal they must be defective to sound as bad as you describe.
post #102 of 110
Thread Starter 
well i tried countless times to describe the sound....its hard

theres lots of separation and detail...but it sounds some how "off" to me..and the sound signature is like
if..
tf10: white or light blue
se530: brown or chocolate
then
w3: grey, black&white, lifeless, dead

and 1 more thing, it sounds like a dynamic iem..which is actually very good if they had the sound right.
post #103 of 110
Could it be possible that the OP is describing music that is recorded badly on the W3s? The Shures have the benefit of rolling off the highs, so that music with harsh highs are pretty much dealt with.

Ety's sound like cheap earbuds on badly mastered heavy metal with nasty highs too. Hell, my K-1000s and GS-1000s both can sound disasterous with thin sounding music, while the HD600s/650 sound just fine with those kinds of recordings. But put on well recorded music and the K-1000s/GS-1000s become top tier headphones again.



Just wondering if this has anything to do with it...
post #104 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by prscustom View Post
tf10: white or light blue
se530: brown or chocolate
then
w3: grey, black&white, lifeless, dead
Funny but I completely understand this.

Sounds like the W3s maybe sound like the K701s, maybe analytical but more detailed and accurate (although fake sounding in a way)

While the Shure E500/530s sound like the HD650, more lush, edges not so defined

If you will

????????
post #105 of 110
Rob, why don't you get a pair and decide for yourself? I know many of us don't have your depth of knowledge and appreciation for "top" phones, so it seems you owe it to yourself and Head-Fi'ers "on the fence" to try the W3s so you can post your informed view. It could be very helpful.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › WESTONE 3 vs SHURE530 COMPARISON