Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › The All New Earsonics SM3 Appreciation, Discussion and Review Thread!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The All New Earsonics SM3 Appreciation, Discussion and Review Thread! - Page 87  

post #1291 of 1380



Yes, I think the tube is different diameter on the doubles. I dont think they're the same design.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by violinvirtuoso View Post





You could always just snip off the third flange. Is there any other difference?

post #1292 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post


Yes, I think the tube is different diameter on the doubles. I dont think they're the same design.



Interesting.

post #1293 of 1380

Maybe the guy actually wanted tripple flanges? wink.gif

post #1294 of 1380

After 2 weeks with the SM3s I would like to share my impressions and ask some questions.   

These are my first ever IEMs, so some of the issues I address might be true for all IEMs and not just the SM3s. That also means there's nothing I can compare them to except some cheap and mid-priced earphones I have used before.

Out of the box I was shocked by how trashy they sounded, but that opinion didn't last. In only half an hour I was excited about and amazed with the instrumental separation/3d presentation and accuracy etc. these phones offered. I realized I was not used to this kind of presentation and that was the reason behind my initial bewilderment. But it was nothing hard to get into. In a few hours I already knew I was experiencing something simply wonderful. After receiving the Sensorcom double flanges things got even better.

 

I have no fitting problems; both the stock doble-flanges and the Sensorcoms fit very nicely and are very comfortable. However the body of the SM3s that are left outside my ear canals (are they called "the housings"?) start hurting my ears after about an hour of usage and they hurt really well. That's something I can live with, though... Anyone else experiencing that problem?

However my real problem with the SM3s is... The Zune 120 I have is -now I realize- a bit mid-forward and warmish just like the SM3 and what's more, it has no EQ! Zune plus the SM3 worked quite fine with albums that I have always found thinny, making them sound richer. However, albums that are already thick and rich sounding, the zune-sm3 combo rendered them unlistenable for me: boomy, muddy, a thick mess of sounds overbearing my poor little brain. I had been using a discman with no EQ before I bought the Zune, so I didn't think it would matter so much to have an EQ, and it really didn't with the cheap earbuds I used. Someone told me the Zune has a warmish sound and pairing it up with the SM3 might not be a good idea, but I dismissed his claim/warning by saying the Zune never sounded warm to me. Well I guess I don't like my music to sound thin and the Zune served me well, so I mistakenly took its warmish sound as natural...

90 % of my music library consists of progressive rock albums made between 1970-1980. Compared to the record companies' current philosophy on sound, albums were made to sound richer back then. Most modern recordings are compressed and loud with the highs goosed to the point of earbleed. The vinyl rips that I prefered for their rich and open sound sounded like a boomy nightmare with the SM3-Zune 120 combo.

Then I got a friend's Ipod 6th gen and even with the EQ preset called "bass reducer" I started enjoying my music with the SM3. However I realized it's not only the overpowering bass but also the midrange that's brought upfront by the SM3 is also giving me hard time listening to music. I must sound as if I'm building up to say "I don't like the SM3s." No, I'm trying to say I love the SM3s but don't know how I can overcome the problems I'm encountering.

 

I tried experimenting with Foobar's EQ and still haven't found what I'm looking for. I observed that I'm inclined to push the frequencies below 500 Hz almost halfway below zero and the freqencies between 500-2000 Hz are pushed below zero, too, while the rest of the spectrum stay just above the zero line. (Of course, with each album the EQ settings are altered). I have to say this inclination can be observed partially on the EQ settings of my home and car stereos, too; only, with the SM3, I have to pull the low and midrange freqencies far more down.

Now I'm planning to sell my Zune 120 and get a 5.5 Generation Ipod that I will install Rockbox on to have a parametric EQ. But I still have doubts about whether the SM3s -as great as they are with many of my albums- are the right IEMs for me and whether the Rockbox EQ and the Ipod 5.5 G (reportedly better equipped and better sounding than later Ipod generations) will solve my problems. Because, especially after seeing the freq graph of the SM3, I'm asking myself "Don't all the arrangements I make on the EQ look like efforts to fix the shortcomings or exaggerations of the SM3 sound?" Because on the freq graph -if I'm interpreting it correctly- the SM3 seems to emphasize the mid and low frequencies while being a little bit cautious with the higher freqencies; and what my EQ settings show that I'm tring to reverse all that. Maybe I'm just trying to balance my preferences with what SM3 offers and that's what each IEM owner do (and have to do) naturally.

So my questions are:

1. What's the next best IEM according to you? I love how SM3 puts you in the middle of the stage; I love the instrumental separation and accuracy and speed... you already know it's strengths. I just wish the low and mid frequencies were just a bit less emphasized.

2. Does anyone know how a Rockboxed Ipod 5.5 G + SM3 combo works? (I believe the music taste also affects the result. I know most people here listen to trance. I mainly listen to Symphonic Progressive Rock; Genesis, Yes, King Crimson etc.)

 

Thanks in advance for your replies.
  

post #1295 of 1380

Hi!

Great read by the way wink.gif

 

You could try one thing: remove the green filters that sit in the nozzle and try replacing them with some porous foam. Me, as well as other members, got the best results by letting the metal part of the filter in the nozzle, but I would advise you not to break the filter in the first instance, so that if you don't like the sound, you can still go back. If you simply remove the filters and do not put any foam in the nozzle, the sound will be harsh, however.

The filter mod, discovered by me and improved by dweaver, will bring the upper mids forward (around 4-5 khz) and as you'll have to reduce the overall volume to get a comfortable volume, the bass will be slightly lowered as well. I think it's exactly what you are looking for, no need to buy new iems wink.gif

 

For the mod, search through this thread, I posted a picture of the filter removed and explained how to remove it.

You can read my impressions here: 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/504607/the-all-new-earsonics-sm3-appreciation-discussion-and-review-thread/1020#post_6898936

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/504607/the-all-new-earsonics-sm3-appreciation-discussion-and-review-thread/1080#post_6903131

 

My second impressions are not as good as the first, but I finally found a golden medium, with the metal part of the filter in the nozzle with some porous foam (you have to fiddle a bit to find the right amount of foam you need).

post #1296 of 1380

My advice: ditch the iPod idea and get a Cowon J3.  You can then tweak the EQ to your heart's content. 

 

With the SM3s, I (and others) have found a slight uplift in the upper mids and treble can do wonders.  Thats easy peasy with the J3's parametric equaliser, plus you get lots of other little options for further tinkering, meaning you really are able to get the best from most headphones.

 

As for other iems -  I've now sold my SM3s and am grooving to the lovely clarity and natural weight of the Ety HF5s, using a tweaked EQ on my J3 that enhances the soundstage and dimensionality of the Etys beautifully.

 

Your mileage my vary of course and most people here think I'm mental, so take what I say with a pinch of the proverbial.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by meurglys0 View Post

After 2 weeks with the SM3s I would like to share my impressions and ask some questions.   

These are my first ever IEMs, so some of the issues I address might be true for all IEMs and not just the SM3s. That also means there's nothing I can compare them to except some cheap and mid-priced earphones I have used before.

Out of the box I was shocked by how trashy they sounded, but that opinion didn't last. In only half an hour I was excited about and amazed with the instrumental separation/3d presentation and accuracy etc. these phones offered. I realized I was not used to this kind of presentation and that was the reason behind my initial bewilderment. But it was nothing hard to get into. In a few hours I already knew I was experiencing something simply wonderful. After receiving the Sensorcom double flanges things got even better.

 

I have no fitting problems; both the stock doble-flanges and the Sensorcoms fit very nicely and are very comfortable. However the body of the SM3s that are left outside my ear canals (are they called "the housings"?) start hurting my ears after about an hour of usage and they hurt really well. That's something I can live with, though... Anyone else experiencing that problem?

However my real problem with the SM3s is... The Zune 120 I have is -now I realize- a bit mid-forward and warmish just like the SM3 and what's more, it has no EQ! Zune plus the SM3 worked quite fine with albums that I have always found thinny, making them sound richer. However, albums that are already thick and rich sounding, the zune-sm3 combo rendered them unlistenable for me: boomy, muddy, a thick mess of sounds overbearing my poor little brain. I had been using a discman with no EQ before I bought the Zune, so I didn't think it would matter so much to have an EQ, and it really didn't with the cheap earbuds I used. Someone told me the Zune has a warmish sound and pairing it up with the SM3 might not be a good idea, but I dismissed his claim/warning by saying the Zune never sounded warm to me. Well I guess I don't like my music to sound thin and the Zune served me well, so I mistakenly took its warmish sound as natural...

90 % of my music library consists of progressive rock albums made between 1970-1980. Compared to the record companies' current philosophy on sound, albums were made to sound richer back then. Most modern recordings are compressed and loud with the highs goosed to the point of earbleed. The vinyl rips that I prefered for their rich and open sound sounded like a boomy nightmare with the SM3-Zune 120 combo.

Then I got a friend's Ipod 6th gen and even with the EQ preset called "bass reducer" I started enjoying my music with the SM3. However I realized it's not only the overpowering bass but also the midrange that's brought upfront by the SM3 is also giving me hard time listening to music. I must sound as if I'm building up to say "I don't like the SM3s." No, I'm trying to say I love the SM3s but don't know how I can overcome the problems I'm encountering.

 

I tried experimenting with Foobar's EQ and still haven't found what I'm looking for. I observed that I'm inclined to push the frequencies below 500 Hz almost halfway below zero and the freqencies between 500-2000 Hz are pushed below zero, too, while the rest of the spectrum stay just above the zero line. (Of course, with each album the EQ settings are altered). I have to say this inclination can be observed partially on the EQ settings of my home and car stereos, too; only, with the SM3, I have to pull the low and midrange freqencies far more down.

Now I'm planning to sell my Zune 120 and get a 5.5 Generation Ipod that I will install Rockbox on to have a parametric EQ. But I still have doubts about whether the SM3s -as great as they are with many of my albums- are the right IEMs for me and whether the Rockbox EQ and the Ipod 5.5 G (reportedly better equipped and better sounding than later Ipod generations) will solve my problems. Because, especially after seeing the freq graph of the SM3, I'm asking myself "Don't all the arrangements I make on the EQ look like efforts to fix the shortcomings or exaggerations of the SM3 sound?" Because on the freq graph -if I'm interpreting it correctly- the SM3 seems to emphasize the mid and low frequencies while being a little bit cautious with the higher freqencies; and what my EQ settings show that I'm tring to reverse all that. Maybe I'm just trying to balance my preferences with what SM3 offers and that's what each IEM owner do (and have to do) naturally.

So my questions are:

1. What's the next best IEM according to you? I love how SM3 puts you in the middle of the stage; I love the instrumental separation and accuracy and speed... you already know it's strengths. I just wish the low and mid frequencies were just a bit less emphasized.

2. Does anyone know how a Rockboxed Ipod 5.5 G + SM3 combo works? (I believe the music taste also affects the result. I know most people here listen to trance. I mainly listen to Symphonic Progressive Rock; Genesis, Yes, King Crimson etc.)

 

Thanks in advance for your replies.
  

post #1297 of 1380

 

Quote:
"most people here think I'm mental"

LOL 

 

Benny, did you receive your RE-252 already?

post #1298 of 1380

No, they're on the way from Martin in Austria, so should be with me soon.  For some reason Paypal decided to send my payment as an e-cheque - which seems to be like a normal cheque but takes 100 times longer to clear and is 12 times more annoying.

 

As soon as i get them, I will prepare a massive War & Peace review comparison between the 252s, the HF5s and what I remember of the SM3s. If I can be bothered, that is.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photofan1986 View Post

 

LOL 

 

Benny, did you receive your RE-252 already?

post #1299 of 1380


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photofan1986 View Post

Hi!

Great read by the way wink.gif

 

You could try one thing: remove the green filters that sit in the nozzle and try replacing them with some porous foam. Me, as well as other members, got the best results by letting the metal part of the filter in the nozzle, but I would advise you not to break the filter in the first instance, so that if you don't like the sound, you can still go back. If you simply remove the filters and do not put any foam in the nozzle, the sound will be harsh, however.

The filter mod, discovered by me and improved by dweaver, will bring the upper mids forward (around 4-5 khz) and as you'll have to reduce the overall volume to get a comfortable volume, the bass will be slightly lowered as well. I think it's exactly what you are looking for, no need to buy new iems wink.gif

 

For the mod, search through this thread, I posted a picture of the filter removed and explained how to remove it.

You can read my impressions here: 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/504607/the-all-new-earsonics-sm3-appreciation-discussion-and-review-thread/1020#post_6898936

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/504607/the-all-new-earsonics-sm3-appreciation-discussion-and-review-thread/1080#post_6903131

 

My second impressions are not as good as the first, but I finally found a golden medium, with the metal part of the filter in the nozzle with some porous foam (you have to fiddle a bit to find the right amount of foam you need).


I am aware of the filter mod, but I'm aware that I'm a clumsy person, too. Indeed I've been made aware of that since I was a kid that I'm a person with no skills at stuff like that. I am afraid of breaking the SM3 altogether. I guess I'm going to get an Ipod 5.5 G, so I will wait an see the result before venturing into trying your mod. Thanks for reminding me of the mod, though.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

My advice: ditch the iPod idea and get a Cowon J3.  You can then tweak the EQ to your heart's content. 

 

With the SM3s, I (and others) have found a slight uplift in the upper mids and treble can do wonders.  Thats easy peasy with the J3's parametric equaliser, plus you get lots of other little options for further tinkering, meaning you really are able to get the best from most headphones.

 

As for other iems -  I've now sold my SM3s and am grooving to the lovely clarity and natural weight of the Ety HF5s, using a tweaked EQ on my J3 that enhances the soundstage and dimensionality of the Etys beautifully.

 

Your mileage my vary of course and most people here think I'm mental, so take what I say with a pinch of the proverbial.


 


 

 

I've been reading your posts praising the Cowon J3 and I'm intrigued about it, but I need a very high capacity player. Among my plans is getting a 240 gb refurbished IPod 5.5.

 

In the reviews Zune 120 were said be miles ahead of Ipod in means of sound quality, but after listening to the same tracks back to back, all the difference I can find is a negligble one. Plus, I compared the Zune 120 sound to Ipod's EQ Off setting and they sound quite alike. So I think Ipod is an equally good player. However do you think a 5 band parametric EQ plus a set of separate bass and treble options that the Rockbox offers would be enough to tweak the sound to one's liking?

 

Any SM3 owners who had experience with Rockbox EQ?
 

post #1300 of 1380

why do you need such high capacity? I used to have a 120gb Classic myself, but downsizing to 32gb (with sd card facility for more) hasn't affected me in the slightest.  Does anyone really need 240gb of music in their pocket?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by meurglys0 View Post


 


I am aware of the filter mod, but I'm aware that I'm a clumsy person, too. Indeed I've been made aware of that since I was a kid that I'm a person with no skills at stuff like that. I am afraid of breaking the SM3 altogether. I guess I'm going to get an Ipod 5.5 G, so I will wait an see the result before venturing into trying your mod. Thanks for reminding me of the mod, though.

 

Quote:

 

I've been reading your posts praising the Cowon J3 and I'm intrigued about it, but I need a very high capacity player. Among my plans is getting a 240 gb refurbished IPod 5.5.

 

In the reviews Zune 120 were said be miles ahead of Ipod in means of sound quality, but after listening to the same tracks back to back, all the difference I can find is a negligble one. Plus, I compared the Zune 120 sound to Ipod's EQ Off setting and they sound quite alike. So I think Ipod is an equally good player. However do you think a 5 band parametric EQ plus a set of separate bass and treble options that the Rockbox offers would be enough to tweak the sound to one's liking?

 

Any SM3 owners who had experience with Rockbox EQ?
 

post #1301 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post
Does anyone really need 240gb of music in their pocket?

 

Of course not! Does anyone even need music at all in their pocket, at all?

The appeal in a 240gb iPod for me is all those yummy 24bit vynil rips, and by all I mean a crap load.

It's not hard to fill up a player if you are using 24bit FLAC files (or 16bit for that matter). Also not having to swap music (have everything there at once) can hardly be a bad thing - perhaps unnecessary but certainly not bad.

post #1302 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

why do you need such high capacity? I used to have a 120gb Classic myself, but downsizing to 32gb (with sd card facility for more) hasn't affected me in the slightest.  Does anyone really need 240gb of music in their pocket?
 


 

 

I have about 80 gb of lossless music on my Zune now and there's a lot more waiting to be synced. In the previous months I have not neglected any single album on that machine. I like having a large library with me wherever I go. 240 gb might be unnecessarily big, but 16 gb is quite small for me. I don't want to start downconverting my lossless files to mp3 to fit my music in there. One of the benefits of Rockbox is that you can drag and drop files of many formats (including FLAC, APE, WMA lossless etc.) directly into the player. No conversion, no effort. With 16 gb space I will have to put more effort and time into this... etc... Thanks for the advice... 
 

post #1303 of 1380

Well, there's the upcoming Cowon X7. Big capacity with good EQ. If he can wait. smily_headphones1.gif

post #1304 of 1380

32gb on my J3, not 16gb. Plus you can add as many sd cards as you like. 

 

As airwax says (you beat me to it mate), If you want HDD memory, the Cowon X7 is shortly to be released, with 160gb memory and some pretty hefty specs (including weight!).

 

Scroll down to post #114 here: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/238428/cowon-x7-this-summer/105

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by meurglys0 View Post



 

I have about 80 gb of lossless music on my Zune now and there's a lot more waiting to be synced. In the previous months I have not neglected any single album on that machine. I like having a large library with me wherever I go. 240 gb might be unnecessarily big, but 16 gb is quite small for me. I don't want to start downconverting my lossless files to mp3 to fit my music in there. One of the benefits of Rockbox is that you can drag and drop files of many formats (including FLAC, APE, WMA lossless etc.) directly into the player. No conversion, no effort. With 16 gb space I will have to put more effort and time into this... etc... Thanks for the advice... 
 

post #1305 of 1380

Ok, so I got the Sensorcom tips by mail today.

I have to say they fit better then the original bi-flange that Earsonic provided, that's just my personal opinion of course.

 

At first these Sensorcom tips pop out my ears (I had the same with the Earsonics bi-flange tips). Strange thing is, just as the Earsonics bi-flange tips, the tips in my left ear pops out way faster. Now I took a pair of scissors and cut a part off (tube of the nostrils?). After that I still have difficulties, basically jamming them into my ears untill they will fit. However, this also hurts my ears. They now have slide a bit more back from the core of my ear canal and the sound has become better. I will look if they remain 'unpopped' and if my ears will stop hurting. 

 

If someone has any suggestions/ experiences with above and what worked for you, please do tell me. If what I've done now doesn't work I might try to put them in hot water or in the worst case, order another set of tips. Are there any good normal tips (not bi-flangle) for this in-ears? I'd rather not take a minute for each time I want to put them into my ears. 

 

About the xx GB discussion, I think more then 32GB isn't that strange if you have your music in Apple losless files or FLAC. I first had everything in the standard AAC format from iTunes and could put all my music on my iPod Touch (32 GB). Now when I re-imported all my CDs (Apple Losless files) onto the computer I could only put half of the albums at my iPod Touch. 

 

PS: If you think your Earsonics SM3 sound really weird with your mp3/mp4 players and you have a protection case on it it might be that there is no good fit from the 3.5 mm plug with your mp3/mp4 player. This was my problem with my iPod Touch case. 

 

Edit: Here are some pictures, maybe it helps for better advice? 

 

Earsonics SM3 - Left Ear

 

Earsonics SM3 - left ear 

 

Earsonics SM3 - Right Ear

 

Earsonics SM3 - Right Ear 

 

Left Ear

 

Left Ear

 

Earsonics SM3 close up 003.JPG

 

Right Ear


Edited by latent - 10/8/10 at 12:14pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › The All New Earsonics SM3 Appreciation, Discussion and Review Thread!