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 175  

post #2611 of 2831

I think the e-Q7 does it better than most BA however I haven't heard my Coppers in a while to see how dynamics do it. I also don't know what the GR8 sounds like but maybe I'll go to AC Gears one day to finally audition them.

post #2612 of 2831

A question for SM3 owners who listen to rock music:

 

What is your perferred bass and treble settings

 

a) On your home or car stereo (when you are not using SM3 or other types of earphones, headphones etc...)?

 

b) When your listening to music with SM3?

 

Please indicate the Musician + album, too.

 

I'm asking this, because I am hoping to get a general idea about how bassy people in this forum prefer listening to their rock music and also a general idea about how bassy or not-bassy SM3's are for rock music.

 

I noticed many people in this forum listen to trance, hiphop and rap which (as far as I understand) comes alive with good thumping bass beats. However I am not very fond of thumping, boomy or bassy sound; I like the bass guitar, but not a bassy sound... So I'm trying to figure out in my own way if SM3 is for me, or not.

 

 


 

post #2613 of 2831

from memory,... ( i had defective sm3's so sent them back last week)

 

rage against the machine by rage against the machine.

 

EQ - flat

 

as you know the bass is the driving force in that band,... bass is wicked, no complaints here.

 

metal sounds different on sm3's, like the guitars dont have as much bite/crunch as some other headphones.

 

tool's 10,000 days, absolutely gorgeous, but again a slight lack of crunch/bite/grit,... 

 

it may or may not bug you,... to start with it bugged me, i was like wtf?

 

but for me the way the sm3's rendered the rest of the track so beautifully more than made up for the slight lack of crunch. and then as time went by, your ears adjust to the level of crunch that is there and some how it comes out and then all is well with the rock universe.

 

i would say that if rock was the main music you listen to and you like your distortion then i would try these first if you can, you may or may not like em, its gonna be a love or hate thing, not a not bad thing.

 

also, yeah old records i know, but nothing new has grabbed my attention since then, and alot of the new stuff sounds like its been engineered by hip hop producers with drum replacement samples etc,..

post #2614 of 2831

Here's my review of the Final Audio Design FI-BA-SS with comparisons to the SM3, FX700 and e-Q7. It may not exactly be what you're looking for, but maybe the listening notes can help you to get a better conception of sound signatures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meurglys0 View Post

A question for SM3 owners who listen to rock music:

 

What is your perferred bass and treble settings

 

a) On your home or car stereo (when you are not using SM3 or other types of earphones, headphones etc...)?

 

b) When your listening to music with SM3?

 

Please indicate the Musician + album, too.

 

I'm asking this, because I am hoping to get a general idea about how bassy people in this forum prefer listening to their rock music and also a general idea about how bassy or not-bassy SM3's are for rock music.

 

I noticed many people in this forum listen to trance, hiphop and rap which (as far as I understand) comes alive with good thumping bass beats. However I am not very fond of thumping, boomy or bassy sound; I like the bass guitar, but not a bassy sound... So I'm trying to figure out in my own way if SM3 is for me, or not.

 

 


 


 

post #2615 of 2831

Ok, I got my IE8 back from my friend, and whereas they sound good, they cannot touch the SM3!

 

It's official, I'm finally in love with them

post #2616 of 2831

Could someone please post (or point me in the direction of) the dimensions of the Earsonics SM3 Case? Would I be able to fit a Sansa Clip+ with the SM3? Would I be able to fit a Rio Karma with the SM3?

Thanks for any and all help!

post #2617 of 2831
Quote:
Originally Posted by violinvirtuoso View Post

Could someone please post (or point me in the direction of) the dimensions of the Earsonics SM3 Case? Would I be able to fit a Sansa Clip+ with the SM3? Would I be able to fit a Rio Karma with the SM3?

Thanks for any and all help!


Sorry I don't know the dimensions, it is not a rectangle, but you can definitely fit your Clip in there, usually i keep them separately, having sm3 in the case and clip in my pocket.

post #2618 of 2831
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurglys0 View Post

A question for SM3 owners who listen to rock music:

 

What is your perferred bass and treble settings

 

a) On your home or car stereo (when you are not using SM3 or other types of earphones, headphones etc...)?

 

b) When your listening to music with SM3?

 

Please indicate the Musician + album, too.

 

I'm asking this, because I am hoping to get a general idea about how bassy people in this forum prefer listening to their rock music and also a general idea about how bassy or not-bassy SM3's are for rock music.

 

I noticed many people in this forum listen to trance, hiphop and rap which (as far as I understand) comes alive with good thumping bass beats. However I am not very fond of thumping, boomy or bassy sound; I like the bass guitar, but not a bassy sound... So I'm trying to figure out in my own way if SM3 is for me, or not.

 

 

I can see you're into Van der Graaf Generator (and possibly King Crimson). I saw VdGG live twice in London in 2005, on 6th May (yes, at the reunion after nearly 30 years) and on 8th July (the day after the London bombings). KC is my favourite band. And, BTW, I'm not into Yes or ELP, but love KC, Robert Fripp, Brian Eno, VdGG (& P Hammill solo), Henry Cow and early Genesis (& PG solo) and David Sylvian.

 

Now, I have the custom ES3X, which is an improved version of the universal UM3X. Some people here have stated the SM3 is an improved version of the UM3X. If that is the case, you won't go wrong getting the former. The recent 40th Anniversary KC remasters (ItCotCK, Lizard & Red) sound absolutely superb with my ES3X. And so do the 1970-1974 Genesis remasters. I have all VdGG remasters from a few years back and they all sound pretty damn fine with my ES3X. My guess is they would sound as good with the SM3 or very close to my customs. I have the Sony X 1061, no amp and mostly use 192/256 kbps aac files.
 


Edited by music_4321 - 7/25/10 at 3:38pm
post #2619 of 2831

So lately I've been giving the FX700 and DDM a lot more attention, and on some days about equal amount of attention as I've usually give my SM3. And now I can understand what James444 stated several posts back when he gave his first impressions about the SM3. I'm afraid the SM3 is losing some of its luster for me. Hmmmm? Let me think about that  more. Perhaps losing its luster isn't the proper phrase. I still find the SM3 an outstanding IEM and the best BA I've ever heard. But what I'm finding is that it can be a bit too much on some tunes - as James stated. I love the forward mids, don't get me wrong, but the DDM has just as forward mids too (if not as refined) and still gives space and a greater soundstage. The SM3s are seem constantly like in you face, which is wonderful for sonic imaginative music from Radiohead, but not necessarily Al Green or Phil Collins. As and example, the music of the SM3 is so in your face that when Phil Collins is singing on "Easy Lover" he sound fantastic, but in the chorus it's basically Phil and Philip Bailey singing in duet. In the dynamic drivers I can clearly separate the voices in the duet, but not so much with the SM3. The voices, while detailed and clear, seem to smear into each other. 

 

In addition, whereas the highs details and quality may be better in the SM3 than the DDM (a lot better) and FX700 (a tad bit better), I can hear the highs better in the latter two than in the former. I never thought the highs were recessed sounding, but now I see it. This is disappointing because the SM3 (along with the Monsters) got me into enjoying highs more. Now, I use to the hear the highs better in the SM3, but I don't know what has happened. I'm speculating that I'm not getting the same great seals I got initially. The stock double flanges are the best, but as you wear them for a great length of time, they seem to shrink some from the heat of the ear and bunch up a little. I am not certain about the fit, but I'm still experimenting to see if this is the culprit. 

 

With that said, the SM3 is still great. I don't want to discourage new SM3 buyers or send them into worrying about what have they done in purchasing this product, but these are just some concerns I have. Please remember that although I jumped on the SM3 bandwagon (after a long time of refusing to hear it), I never called it the end all universal IEM. I didn't think so then, and I don't think so now. I still do think it's one of the best universal out there, and the best BA I've heard. That may change if I hear the SE535 anytime soon, or it may not. Hands down, to me, the SM3 is way better than the SE530 or TF10, but it's interesting that I'm enjoying the FX700 (and to some extent the DDM) just as much. It may be that those dynamics just possess more of the sound sig. that resonates with me. I have never, however, considered myself a lover of dynamics over balanced armatures.  Again - because I know someone is going to read this wrong - I AM NOT SAYING I HATE THE SM3 NOW!! I'M NOT SAYING THAT...LOL.  Happy listening.

post #2620 of 2831


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post



 

I can see you're into Van der Graaf Generator (and possibly King Crimson). I saw VdGG live twice in London in 2005, on 6th May (yes, at the reunion after nearly 30 years) and on 8th July (the day after the London bombings). KC is my favourite band. And, BTW, I'm not into Yes or ELP, but love KC, Robert Fripp, Brian Eno, VdGG (& P Hammill solo), Henry Cow and early Genesis (& PG solo) and David Sylvian.

 

Now, I have the custom ES3X, which is an improved version of the universal UM3X. Some people here have stated the SM3 is an improved version of the UM3X. If that is the case, you won't go wrong getting the former. The recent 40th Anniversary KC remasters (ItCotCK, Lizard & Red) sound absolutely superb with my ES3X. And so do the 1970-1974 Genesis remasters. I have all VdGG remasters from a few years back and they all sound pretty damn fine with my ES3X. My guess is they would sound as good with the SM3 or very close to my customs. I have the Sony X 1061, no amp and mostly use 192/256 kbps aac files.
 

 

Thanks for your reply. Indeed I would really appreciate it if you could comment on how the regular (not remastered) albums of KC, Genesis and VDGG sound with UM3X... Because the mentioned remasters of these three groups are all compressed to death and loud as hell: all the dynamics of the orginal music is gone. They are also very bright. VDGG remasters are the worst of the bunch for me. Don't get me wrong; it might be your preference. Many people like that type of remastered sound. I prefer a more relaxed sound with the dynamics of the albums preserved. Most modern remasters just hurt my ears and give me headaches. Plus the latest Genesis and King Crimson releases are not only compressed but they are also remixes of the orginal albums, which is not acceptable for me... 40th anniversary edition of ItCotCK is better than the others though, but still not my cup of tea.

 

This is the waveform of Cirkus from the orginal release of Lizard (EG Records EGCD 4):

 

URL]


And this is what they have done to it in the 40th Anniversary edition of Lizard:

 

Cirkus 2009.jpg

 

The result is a loud mess, IMHO.

 

I strongly recommend you to give the uncompressed versions of these great albums a listen with that high-end IEM you've got. I'm sure it will shine even more!

 

You might want to check out these links for further information about what compression does to music:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

 

Also this forum is one of the headquarters of those favoring the audiophile quality sound over the modern compressed music:

 

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/index.php

 

I would like to hear your comments on how the regular albums of KC, Genesis and VDGG sound with your UM3X, since they have more balanced sound and surely are not as bright as the remasters, so they will reveal the potential weaknesses of UM3X if the highs are also a bit recessed on it, like they are supposedly on the SM3...

 

 

post #2621 of 2831

I tried to search, but could't find comparison between the DBA-02 and the SM3. I mean, looking at the price difference, you'd definitely expect sm3 to sound better, but how much better is it? I know Eric heard both before, so does slaters70. Guys, any opinion on this?

post #2622 of 2831

Well price isn't relative to quality but you probably knew that. I don't think many can offer an opinion since very few have heard both side to side. Both don't have many owners so someone many owning both is very low. I'll be glad to do so if you send me your SM3 lol :)

post #2623 of 2831
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post

Well price isn't relative to quality but you probably knew that. I don't think many can offer an opinion since very few have heard both side to side. Both don't have many owners so someone many owning both is very low. I'll be glad to do so if you send me your SM3 lol :)


I'd gladly send you if you pay me a $300 or so . Well I do know a few who has heard both. I know price isn't relative to quality, but that is the general consensus/perception. A $20 earphone is probably not going to sound better than a $300 earphone. For me, sm3 is great, but just not that clean sounding, and fx is great, but the vocal is a tad recessed/polite. It's all about finding the balance...

post #2624 of 2831

Hmm, Eric and James find the vocals and mids forward, Koonhua finds them recessed.  Tip issues?  As for the DBA v. SM3 my reading leads me to believe the Fishers are more analytical and Earsonics more engaging.  Could be wrong.

post #2625 of 2831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

Hmm, Eric and James find the vocals and mids forward, Koonhua finds them recessed.  Tip issues?  As for the DBA v. SM3 my reading leads me to believe the Fishers are more analytical and Earsonics more engaging.  Could be wrong.


I find that the vocal and mids on sm3 is forward, and on the fx it is slightly polite/recessed. Instead of saying recessed, I'd say that it places you further away, so what you get is the whole presentation. And if you read James' impression, you should see 'atmosphere' being mentioned in the classical music part of fx. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am using the custom tips on sm3, and there is no tips that provides what it provides. 

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)