Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM3 Appreciation Thread - Third Time is a Charm?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Earsonics SM3 Appreciation Thread - Third Time is a Charm? - Page 7

post #91 of 1664
Quote:
Originally Posted by hasanyuceer View Post

Using SM3s for two days, I found its spacing and soundstage amazing. Also that chameleon sound signature, yea, I liked it too. But I still couldnt fell in love with them, still using as a marriage of convenience. I feel like SM3s got no soul. I hope it turn out to love soon...



Do you mean that the SM3 changes with whatever you pair them up with? Which tips are you using with it btw? Sorry if its been asked before

post #92 of 1664

I feel like SM3s sound signature is changing with the songs. Like - at every other song, SM3 adjusts itself what song needs.. I didnt meant about the equipment, meant about the music.

 

I am using them with the SM3's grey double flanges and I took out the filters. I tried Westone's and Ety's tips but turned to grey double flanges again..
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by B[van] View Post

Do you mean that the SM3 changes with whatever you pair them up with? Which tips are you using with it btw? Sorry if its been asked before

post #93 of 1664

I had a brief comparison with the SM3 and the UM3X today. I still personally like the sound signature of the SM3. The UM3X has very nice bass and detail as well. But the difference in soundstage is fairly obvious. The UM3X feels like a more in your face type of sound, while the SM3 is wider, warmer without the accompanying nice imaging. The sensorcom tips helped a lot as well, even with the UM3X. I guess I better stock up on those tips now. smily_headphones1.gif

post #94 of 1664

Nice! I've auditioned the UM3X some time before and I feel the same way too, that the UM3X can sound a bit narrow, almost to the point of claustrophobic but I may be exaggerating things. That, and I feel the UM3X can be excessively analytical and thus, sounds boring sometimes.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by airwax View Post

I had a brief comparison with the SM3 and the UM3X today. I still personally like the sound signature of the SM3. The UM3X has very nice bass and detail as well. But the difference in soundstage is fairly obvious. The UM3X feels like a more in your face type of sound, while the SM3 is wider, warmer without the accompanying nice imaging. The sensorcom tips helped a lot as well, even with the UM3X. I guess I better stock up on those tips now. smily_headphones1.gif

post #95 of 1664


Ah ok that certainly cleared my misunderstanding. Seems pretty cool going by what most people have commented - the soundstage and versatility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hasanyuceer View Post

I feel like SM3s sound signature is changing with the songs. Like - at every other song, SM3 adjusts itself what song needs.. I didnt meant about the equipment, meant about the music.

 

I am using them with the SM3's grey double flanges and I took out the filters. I tried Westone's and Ety's tips but turned to grey double flanges again..
 



Which sensorcomm tip are you using it with?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by airwax View Post

I had a brief comparison with the SM3 and the UM3X today. I still personally like the sound signature of the SM3. The UM3X has very nice bass and detail as well. But the difference in soundstage is fairly obvious. The UM3X feels like a more in your face type of sound, while the SM3 is wider, warmer without the accompanying nice imaging. The sensorcom tips helped a lot as well, even with the UM3X. I guess I better stock up on those tips now. smily_headphones1.gif

post #96 of 1664

^ The white double flange sensorcom (alpine as per dfkt) tips. I agree that the SM3 reveals what the music gives. If it doesn't have it, the SM3 doesn't show it. I'm finally getting used to the fit now, and I find them very comfortable with the sensorcom tips. The shure olives are also very comfortable to use with the SM3, which I also tried awhile ago.

post #97 of 1664
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by B[van] View Post

Do you mean that the SM3 changes with whatever you pair them up with? Which tips are you using with it btw? Sorry if its been asked before

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hasanyuceer View Post

I feel like SM3s sound signature is changing with the songs. Like - at every other song, SM3 adjusts itself what song needs.. I didnt meant about the equipment, meant about the music.

 

I am using them with the SM3's grey double flanges and I took out the filters. I tried Westone's and Ety's tips but turned to grey double flanges again..


Yes, the SM3 also changes with the source quite a bit more than any other IEM I have used and even changes more than the EM3 Pro. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by asphyxiation View Post

Nice! I've auditioned the UM3X some time before and I feel the same way too, that the UM3X can sound a bit narrow, almost to the point of claustrophobic but I may be exaggerating things. That, and I feel the UM3X can be excessively analytical and thus, sounds boring sometimes.


There are some people that prefer the qualities of the sound other than soundstage as we don't all hear the same.  I completely agree with your assessment and know the UM3X isn't for me, but then I am a space junkie as I feel the wider the space, the better the sense of realism that is portrayed.  Both have great soundstage ratios (front to back, side to side, top to bottom), but the SM3 takes the actual size of that presentation to another level to my ears.  I would say the SM3 can sound thick in the mids and warm in the mid-bass depending on how the track is recorded (mastered), changing greatly where as the UM3X will retain better clarity in warm, thick songs (although the space sounds constricted in comparison to me).

post #98 of 1664

Been using my Sm3 today with shure olives instead of my usual ortos tips and these things sound  just amazing to my ears after not using them for quite a while .Been listening to my Richtie Blackmore's Rainbow albums on my Sm3 all day today , sounds so smooth and detailed and totally engrossing ,the sound coming out of these things today has me totally captivated in there sonic soundscape and presentation .

post #99 of 1664


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by airwax View Post

I agree that the SM3 reveals what the music gives. If it doesn't have it, the SM3 doesn't show it.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

Yes, the SM3 also changes with the source quite a bit more than any other IEM I have used and even changes more than the EM3 Pro. 

 

In my opinion, the reason for the content of the two statements quoted above being true is that the SM3 has unnaturally boosted mids and bass, which -in my opinion again- is a flaw in design. Somehow I still wouldn't classify the SM3 as a bassy or mid-centered iem and that's the miracle phenomenon about it. When the source is designed to sound a bit boosted on the same part of the spectrum -like the Zune- the sound coming from the SM3 becomes unnaturally thick and unpleasant. Likewise, thick sounding albums such as vinyl rips played on the computer with the EQ being neutral (close to flat) sound very thick when the SM3 is used. If I unplug the SM3 the sound coming from the speakers are quite neutral, but to obtain such "normal" sound from the SM3 when listening to that same album, I have to tame the SM3 by equilizing it down to neutrality. When the source and the album both have neutral sound to begin with, that's when the SM3 takes the music to a level that is simply breathtaking. Thin sounding albums become corrected by the SM3 and acquire an enriched sound that you always wished they had.

 

To summarize: the SM3 doesn't show what's not in the music, but what it shows is always richer than the original content. The SM3 doesn't like leaving the job of enriching the sound to the source or the album; instead it wants to do the job itself. To me this unbalance is a flaw, yet the SM3 is still superb, but only after balancing it back by the help of an EQ.

 

I used to listen to different pressings of a certain album, determine which sounds better and then keep the winner. With the SM3 I haven't been able devise a way to do such a thing yet, because I can never tell if it's that particular pressing of the album that sounds good/bad or its the SM3's contribution to its sound. Nevertheless I love the SM3. With each album I have to spend some time on the EQ, but after capturing the "right" sound for that particular album, the pleasure I get from listening to music becomes uncomparable to my previous 30 years of music experience.

 

To conclude: as much as I love the SM3, I'd really like the SM4 to have the same level of richness, soundstage, accuracy, strength on all ends of the spectrum that the SM3 has, but be more neutral or in other words, less mid-forward.

 


EDIT: One other possibility is that my SM3 is a defected unit.


Edited by meurglys0 - 10/24/10 at 12:21pm
post #100 of 1664

 

Quote:

EDIT: One other possibility is that my SM3 is a defected unit.

I don't think so as that's exactly what I heard before doing the filter mod. Now, the highs and higher mids are brought forward, with the bass and the lower mids being a little tamed. I could live with slightly more bass, but it's still better than stock imo.

post #101 of 1664

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by meurglys0 View Post

EDIT: One other possibility is that my SM3 is a defected unit.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photofan1986 View Post

I don't think so as that's exactly what I heard before doing the filter mod.


x3.

post #102 of 1664
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurglys0 View Post


 

 

In my opinion, the reason for the content of the two statements quoted above being true is that the SM3 has unnaturally boosted mids and bass, which -in my opinion again- is a flaw in design. Somehow I still wouldn't classify the SM3 as a bassy or mid-centered iem and that's the miracle phenomenon about it. When the source is designed to sound a bit boosted on the same part of the spectrum -like the Zune- the sound coming from the SM3 becomes unnaturally thick and unpleasant. Likewise, thick sounding albums such as vinyl rips played on the computer with the EQ being neutral (close to flat) sound very thick when the SM3 is used. If I unplug the SM3 the sound coming from the speakers are quite neutral, but to obtain such "normal" sound from the SM3 when listening to that same album, I have to tame the SM3 by equilizing it down to neutrality. When the source and the album both have neutral sound to begin with, that's when the SM3 takes the music to a level that is simply breathtaking. Thin sounding albums become corrected by the SM3 and acquire an enriched sound that you always wished they had.

 

To summarize: the SM3 doesn't show what's not in the music, but what it shows is always richer than the original content. The SM3 doesn't like leaving the job of enriching the sound to the source or the album; instead it wants to do the job itself. To me this unbalance is a flaw, yet the SM3 is still superb, but only after balancing it back by the help of an EQ.

 

I used to listen to different pressings of a certain album, determine which sounds better and then keep the winner. With the SM3 I haven't been able devise a way to do such a thing yet, because I can never tell if it's that particular pressing of the album that sounds good/bad or its the SM3's contribution to its sound. Nevertheless I love the SM3. With each album I have to spend some time on the EQ, but after capturing the "right" sound for that particular album, the pleasure I get from listening to music becomes uncomparable to my previous 30 years of music experience.

 

To conclude: as much as I love the SM3, I'd really like the SM4 to have the same level of richness, soundstage, accuracy, strength on all ends of the spectrum that the SM3 has, but be more neutral or in other words, less mid-forward.

 


EDIT: One other possibility is that my SM3 is a defected unit.


Interesting and informative post , but i would suggest  the sound coming from your speakers when you unplug the sm3 is quite neutral to your ears as they are what your used to, that does not make it so or the sm3 not neutral , i find the sm3 the most neutral of all the iem's i have, almost invisible meaning it adds no colour to the recording that is being played through it .

post #103 of 1664
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucozade View Post




Interesting and informative post , but i would suggest  the sound coming from your speakers when you unplug the sm3 is quite neutral to your ears as they are what your used to, that does not make it so or the sm3 not neutral , i find the sm3 the most neutral of all the iem's i have, almost invisible meaning it adds no colour to the recording that is being played through it .

 

I would like to rephrase my main theme then: it adds no color to the recordings, it just enriches/exaggerates the colors already present in the recording (that's how I understand the phrase "chameleon sound") and in my opinion the result is not always great. Yet you could always decrease the level of those (native but exaggerated) colors to your preferred level by the help of an EQ as best as you can.   
 


Edited by meurglys0 - 10/24/10 at 1:01pm
post #104 of 1664

I've noticed some weird channel imbalance recently, I normally have to increase something like +5~8% volume to my left ear, it's fine.

But I realized that as I turn up the volume, the balance also changes, could this be a bug of the Rockbox or Fuze failing to drive the SM3?

I'll try some further testing later.

post #105 of 1664

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post


There are some people that prefer the qualities of the sound other than soundstage as we don't all hear the same.  I completely agree with your assessment and know the UM3X isn't for me, but then I am a space junkie as I feel the wider the space, the better the sense of realism that is portrayed.  Both have great soundstage ratios (front to back, side to side, top to bottom), but the SM3 takes the actual size of that presentation to another level to my ears.  I would say the SM3 can sound thick in the mids and warm in the mid-bass depending on how the track is recorded (mastered), changing greatly where as the UM3X will retain better clarity in warm, thick songs (although the space sounds constricted in comparison to me).


I agree with you smily_headphones1.gif

 

I bought a pair of UM3X last month, since then I have been using the UM3X daily. I prefer UM3X to SM3, for its more present high mids, consistent perfomance on all type music, and the friendly Y-split of UM3X ^^

 

What meurglys0 said seems to make sense to me. The lower midrange bump and the dip in the high mids are, in my opinion the reason of inconsistent performance of SM3. Like you have stated, in some tracks the SM3 does infact can sound too thick and warm in the mids, and I also find that sometimes vocal doesn't sound as forward. So does SM3 actually able to present music in the way they are recorded, without adding any colour, or is it just simply because there is a graph behind to tell her to do so? Just some of my silly thoughts tongue.gif

 

However when I switch from UM3X to SM3, I appreciate the airiness. I think I should try photofan's mod.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tehort View Post

I've noticed some weird channel imbalance recently, I normally have to increase something like +5~8% volume to my left ear, it's fine.

But I realized that as I turn up the volume, the balance also changes, could this be a bug of the Rockbox or Fuze failing to drive the SM3?

I'll try some further testing later.


I had similar problem. I sent my SM3 to EarSonics and they found that there was some problem in the drivers. I think you should try other sources to see if the same thing happens, and sent a mail to EarSonics, or the shop you bought your SM3.


Edited by KLS - 10/25/10 at 8:31am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM3 Appreciation Thread - Third Time is a Charm?