I think the analogy pretty accurate. I am someone who sees those pictures through effort and not all the time. I know others who just see the picture with no effort and others who don't see it all or just can't be bothered. I think the SM3 is just like that and I fall into the work at camp with them but do have days where I do just get "it". I have considered selling them several times but do find they work well for alot of my needs so keep listening.
I also agree with others about there presentation being unique in placing a person in the middle but not always appropriate for all music. For some this would make the SM3 to expensive and inappropriate for their needs if their main music choices fall into those categories.
As for Joker's review I have no problem with it follows his methodology.
Thanks for sharing, I guess it is closer than I actually thought (with a large enough sampling of people). The SM3 will give some people enjoyment and others it won't; for those that enjoy it, great!
Autostereogram? Abstract painting? I don't think so. Why should anyone who's able to recreate a 3D soundstage with other IEMs not be able to do the same with the SM3? The one thing that's different with the Earsonics though, they lack forward projection:
Here's my humble take on the matter, I agree with those who've said (back in the SM3 threads) that soundstaging depends widely on the mix. But IMO forward projection is a feature of the headphone, not the mix. We don't need it when listening to music from stereo speakers, because speakers are already located in front of us. Yet listening to the same recordings from our headphones, most folks would desire some kind of forward projection (tricking the brain into believing that the source is in front of us) to recreate the same feeling we get from speakers or from a live venue. Just think of Ultrasone making millions off their S-Logic and you'll see what I mean.
Well, there's one group of listeners that presumably don't want forward projection and that would be live musicians on stage, because they need to recreate the feeling of being among their fellow musicians. This is where Earsonics are coming from and I guess they simply didn't consider those different needs between professionals and non-professionals when they designed the SM3. Now that doesn't make the Earsonics bad IEMs at all, but IMO it is something to consider before deciding on these phones.
I couldn't agree more with those who've said, (if possible) try before you buy the SM3.
Excellent post! Only thing I would have to add is I do have some recordings that change the SM3 presentation to one of the other drawings, but not very many whereas other IEMs in the price range I have heard don't really change much with those tracks.
I think I understood what you meant. I just don't see why there would be any special complexity to the SM3 or any dots that some can see and others can't. In my book they follow the same acoustic principles as any other IEMs. I've tried to explain their unusual spatial presentation and the way I see it leaves far less room for interpretation than an abstract painting. Of course that's just my 2c, no offense meant.
I thought the analogy involved the soundstage presentation but wasn't limited to it. I never connected the dots or cared to so can't speak to what the entire prized picture looks like. Also, if the point is to be part of the music as a musician wouldn't you want to swap channels as well? Or is that just more crazy than being under the stage?
My initial thoughts of the SM3 included seeing something, but it didn't come into full view until around 2 weeks later, with the initial problem being warmth and thickness.