Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › EarSonics SM3 Appreciation, Discussion, & Review Thread - Technically Best Universal? (see first post for reviews and info)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EarSonics SM3 Appreciation, Discussion, & Review Thread - Technically Best Universal? (see first... - Page 9  

post #121 of 2831
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanturkey View Post

what the heck are with those second set of tips..  also, why are W2s my avatar..


LOL!  Gratz on the W2's.    I don't even know what my avatar is but apparently I can take incoming calls.


Edited by Anaxilus - 5/7/10 at 3:12am
post #122 of 2831
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayaTlab View Post


I'm pretty sure custom earmolds would balance the sound of both the SM3 and UM3x nicely and give you back that nice treble sparkle. First, they're made out of acrylic, which is a much harder and denser material than foam and therefore likely to conduct higher frequencies better. Second, those two monitors were most likely designed with the custom tips in mind (and their frequency response adjusted accordingly).

 

This is why I don't think the Earsonics / UM3x sound signatures are very warm by nature, but more out of universal tips choice. My "prototype" SM2 (bought very early on, with a rough finish casing) came with other sillicone tips that make their sound more balanced and not lacking at all in the treble department. So to me the Earsonics "house sound" is brighter than what the stock foam tips might lead you to believe (still warm though !). I agree that my SM2 + foam tips require a bit of EQ (to my ears) to give them sufficient clarity.

 

This applies to the UM3x as well. In anyway, foam tips almost always reduce treble response, and headphones which might sound lacking in the trebles department might have simply been designed with custom tips in mind : after all, aren't the UM3x universal stage monitors ?


As always thanks for your informationbroken heart Will be going to an audiologist by the end of this month.

 

In my opinion, EarSonics really should include more choices of universal tips for SM2 and SM3 (according to @average_joe, EarSonics seems to be adding another pair of tips for SM3 though).
 

post #123 of 2831

Ahh, but what would be the point if we just had instant gratification? Like most things, a little anticipation only makes the treat sweeter.


Edited by JxK - 5/7/10 at 4:14am
post #124 of 2831
Thread Starter 

I just lost my post with an accidental back button press, and with the new forum, once you do that it is gone :(  Here is what I can remember.

 

@ SolidVictory: Congratulations, excellent choice that your ears won't regret, even if your wallet needs prozac!

 

@ Woody: Almost there and I am looking forward to your thoughts

 

About UM3X: I am with shigzeo, I don't recall the warmth specifically as I have only spent two sessions totaling about 1 hour with the UM3X.  I really didn't like it all that much due to the smallish soundstage, which stuck out to me like a sore thumb.  Not a problem with the SM3.  Even if they share the soundstage shape, the sheer size increase improves the instrument separation and ability to realistically portray instruments.

 

Ear Tips: More is always better!  I guess if you get custom sleeves, they are moot.  I bought the sensorcom ones to try, and I will drop Franck an email with my results (or he will just see them here). 

 

Treble: To me, the treble is just perfect.  Never overbearing, never recessed.  I guess perfectly machined is a nice way of putting it.  But, there is nothing 'machine' like about the actual sound, as it is smooth as glass yet crystal clear.  It makes me think midoo was spot on about the CK10 treble, and pretty much all the others I have heard are not as natural.

 

@ KLS: How would you compare the transparency of the e-Q7 and the SM3?  After extended listening, I thought the SM3 was a little more transparent than the e-Q7.

post #125 of 2831

I sometime see people saying transparency and clarity is not the sameblush

 

From this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary

 Quote:

 Transparent - Easy to hear into the music, detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise. A hear through quality that is akin to clarity and reveals all aspects of detail.

 

To my ears however, like we have discussed earlier, I still feel that midrange clarity is a tad better on e-Q7 than SM3 with stock foam tips. Maybe I have heard better midrange clarity from SM3 using Shure yellow foamies, or by eqing 2K several decibels louder, so I feel that SM3 with stock tips is not able to pull out the full potential of SM3.

 

@average_joe, what tips are you using now for SM3?


Edited by KLS - 5/7/10 at 6:10am
post #126 of 2831
Thread Starter 

I define transparency differently than clarity.  My definition of transparency is the headphones disappearing (or realizing they are there) and you are left with only the music.  To me the SM3 disappears more than the e-Q7.  As for clarity, the e-Q7 has better clarity on some tracks in the lower mids, but the SM3 has better bass and treble clarity.  Although I do think the tonal accuracy of the midrange on the SM3 is a bit better.

 

And I am using Monster Cable triple flange tips for now, which you can see in the pic in post #1.


Edited by average_joe - 5/7/10 at 6:28am
post #127 of 2831



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

I define transparency differently than clarity.  My definition of transparency is the headphones disappearing (or realizing they are there) and you are left with only the music.  To me the SM3 disappears more than the e-Q7.  As for clarity, the e-Q7 has better clarity on some tracks in the lower mids, but the SM3 has better bass and treble clarity.  Although I do think the tonal accuracy of the midrange on the SM3 is a bit better.

 

And I am using Monster Cable triple flange tips for now, which you can see in the pic in post #1.


The sound from SM3 is so close to things that I actually hear in real life Is this called tonality? While e-Q7 sounds magical with female vocal, I agree with you that the tonal accuracy of midrange on the SM3 is better. With SM3 female vocal is very natural.
 


Edited by KLS - 5/7/10 at 6:41am
post #128 of 2831
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

I define transparency differently than clarity.  My definition of transparency is the headphones disappearing (or realizing they are there) and you are left with only the music.  To me the SM3 disappears more than the e-Q7.  As for clarity, the e-Q7 has better clarity on some tracks in the lower mids, but the SM3 has better bass and treble clarity.  Although I do think the tonal accuracy of the midrange on the SM3 is a bit better.

 

And I am using Monster Cable triple flange tips for now, which you can see in the pic in post #1.


I forgot to add that the clarity difference IMO is due purely to warmth, as all the detail is there in spades with the SM3!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KLS View Post

The sound from SM3 is so close to things that I actually hear in real life Is this called tonality? While e-Q7 sounds magical with female vocal, I agree with you that the tonal accuracy of midrange on the SM3 is better. With SM3 female vocal is very natural.
 


Realistic and natural, which we both seem to like!

post #129 of 2831

Bummer. I was about to order the SM3s, but Frank told me they don't have PayPal account and only accept credit card or money transfer and I don't have a credit card nor any money on my bank account. Can somebody buy a pair for me? I will pay you the money through PayPal.

post #130 of 2831
Quote:
Originally Posted by KLS View Post

The sound from SM3 is so close to things that I actually hear in real life Is this called tonality? 
 


This is called accuracy to me.  People associate accuracy to flat response curves but I don't think that is necessarily true.  I too often hear 'flat' speakers, headphones, IEM's that sound nothing like LIFE!  Tonality doesn't have to be accurate as some may have a preferred sense of tonality which may or may not be accurate.  Even then accuracy can vary from the setting of a live rock concert vs. a small live jazz setting w/o electronics for example.  That's how I look at tonality and accuracy.

post #131 of 2831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post


This is called accuracy to me.  People associate accuracy to flat response curves but I don't think that is necessarily true.  I too often hear 'flat' speakers, headphones, IEM's that sound nothing like LIFE!  Tonality doesn't have to be accurate as some may have a preferred sense of tonality which may or may not be accurate.  Even then accuracy can vary from the setting of a live rock concert vs. a small live jazz setting w/o electronics for example.  That's how I look at tonality and accuracy.


Thanks for your explanation 
 

post #132 of 2831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




LOL!  Gratz on the W2's.    I don't even know what my avatar is but apparently I can take incoming calls.


It it's for me...........tell them I'm not here.  :)   I tend to agree with you on the accuarcy, does it sound like music?  The drums, guitars, voices etc. IMO, that is recreating accuracy. Not a perfectly flat response curve.
 


Edited by the search never ends - 5/7/10 at 4:57pm
post #133 of 2831

@ Average Joe, I am in almost full agreement with your take on transparency verses  clarity. 

I think much  it's a bit more complicated. But I really like how you try to keep you thoughts on these subjects, short and to the point.  Nice work, as always!

post #134 of 2831
Thread Starter 

@ search: Great minds think alike ;)  I think the overall presentation and accuracy plays into the transparency.  For example, many dynamic IEMs have exaggerated bass that can easily be pinpointed when bass heavy songs are played.  Grain, compressed soundstage, etc take away from the transparency.  The SM3's very realistic presentation results in the transparency!

post #135 of 2831

I think one of the 'exaggerated bass' items is that dynamics tend to move a lot more air than ba earphones. Even if the bass is pretty linear, they move a lot more. I tend to like both presentations, but for different reasons. Again, the Radius TWF11R is phenomenal. The SM3 is soundwise maybe my new bird - not sure yet. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › EarSonics SM3 Appreciation, Discussion, & Review Thread - Technically Best Universal? (see first post for reviews and info)