Thanks for the pics! Looks awesome.
post #46 of 4091
5/1/09 at 2:30am
|
Thanks for the response, passionamy. From the pics, they look to be the kind without a stalk below the bottom flange -- Is that the case, or are you just an expert stalk-trimmer?
|




|
I know your question was directed at Surrealsky, but I thought the vocals were pretty smooth for being in your face. I haven't had any problems with sibilance yet, and that was one of my main concerns and things I tested for once I received them. I think it may have a lot to do with the Comply tips but I haven't done extensive tip testing yet.
|
|
Thanks for jumping in with that, Zalithian. I'm definitely curious to know what effects various silicone tips will have with the UM3x once you get some time to cycle through them. I can render my W3 non-sibilant with carefully inserted Comply tips, but they end up robbing the highs of sparkle and moreover feel just plain icky to me...so I'd only be using silicone sleeves if the UM3x ever winds up on my doorstep...
|
|
I had the w3 for a couple of months and they give zero sibilance for me if you could get the correct seal(after numerous tips) and no the um3x are smooth like butter to me with the mids more forward compared to the w3's. I can safely say the um3x are like an improved version of the w3's, same braided cables, so much better fit(um2 shell), better isolation, NO mid bass hump, tighter bass across the spectrum, cleaner and clearer mids. It's really a no brainer to me comparing them with the w3's. But it has slightly less extended highs compared to w3's and i do believed the sibilance issues with some of w3's users are from incorrect fit or seal(tips) and it's totally not a problem with the um3x.
|