Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Top Tier Showdown (Top Pick Announced)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Top Tier Showdown (Top Pick Announced) - Page 17  

post #241 of 366
Thread Starter 

The Tributes are fine as is, but on a a significant number of occassions, the SM3's have been reported to sound drastically different post burn-in. My only aim is to hear the difference (if any) for myself, strictly with the SM3's. Both my IE8's and SM3's were purchased brand new, while the rest have been used prior to purchase, for a substaitial period of time, and don't concern me in that regard. I previously owned the IE8's for nearly 2 years however, so I'm well accustomed to their sound. It's the EarSonics that I've never experienced beforehand. Besides, I'm already very fond of the SM3's, and have personally recommended them twice before, to which I received no complaints. biggrin.gif

post #242 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by i2ehan View Post

The Tributes are fine as is, but on a a significant number of occassions, the SM3's have been reported to sound drastically different post burn-in. My only aim is to hear the difference (if any) for myself, strictly with the SM3's. Both my IE8's and SM3's were purchased brand new, while the rest have been used prior to purchase, for a substaitial period of time, and don't concern me in that regard. I previously owned the IE8's for nearly 2 years however, so I'm well accustomed to their sound. It's the EarSonics that I've never experienced beforehand. Besides, I'm already very fond of the SM3's, and have personally recommended them twice before, to which I received no complaints. biggrin.gif


True I've heard from several people that for some reason or other, the Sm3's get much better with time (Burn in) From so many people documenting this, it appears to be much more than Brain Burn in, or even crossovers for that matter. Cool Impressions my friend. For some reason, I never even wanted to give the Monsters a shot. Now someday maybe I will

 

post #243 of 366
Thread Starter 

I'd like to apologize to everyone here for a slight miscommunication on my part. Earlier, whenever I'd refer to the UM3X as having a drastically wide soundstage, I was completely off to say the least. Instead, what I meant to say was that the seperation was excessively wide! In other words, the instrument seperation is beyond the scope of all other IEM's I've come to listen to. The soundstage isn't at all excessively wide, and I just now realized it when listening once again to the whole lot of em'! My apologies to anyone who may have been misled to believe that the UM3X's soundstage was excessively stretched out, in truth, it isn't. I now understand why when asked to listen to a few rock/metal tracks with the UM3X, the instruments sounded so unimaginably brilliant! The UM3X practically gives every instrument it's own respective area in the spectrum, and THAT'S the quality I was trying to pinpoint earlier, but completely miscommunicated! As I said before, I'm all too new to this, but I've gone ahead and fixed the error under the impressions. redface.gif

post #244 of 366

I don't know, while some burn in may help, specifically with the crossovers, I don't think they drastically change too much from actual physical burn in.  It's more of a brain burn in, imho, where after listening to a bunch of different signatures, you find yourself after listening to the SM3 after awhile and then things just start to come together and gel to where it hits you and then you're like "damn, these are sweet sounding".

 

To be honest, the SM3 are true to the fact, very thick and dark sounding compared to the others, but I personally think they are very clean and represent and portray everything well across the spectrum.  Yes, even the higher frequencies.  In fact, despite my other two in rotation, which are known for their sparkling and crystal trebles, it's ironically with the SM3's that I hear the minute details of recordings (in the treble among other regions) that you seldom hear unless your monitors are detailed and good enough to pick them out.

post #245 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkyballz View Post

I don't know, while some burn in may help, specifically with the crossovers, I don't think they drastically change too much from actual physical burn in.  It's more of a brain burn in, imho, where after listening to a bunch of different signatures, you find yourself after listening to the SM3 after awhile and then things just start to come together and gel to where it hits you and then you're like "damn, these are sweet sounding".

 

To be honest, the SM3 are true to the fact, very thick and dark sounding compared to the others, but I personally think they are very clean and represent and portray everything well across the spectrum.  Yes, even the higher frequencies.  In fact, despite my other two in rotation, which are known for their sparkling and crystal trebles, it's ironically with the SM3's that I hear the minute details of recordings (in the treble among other regions) that you seldom hear unless your monitors are detailed and good enough to pick them out.


Well said there Portland Man. You mean Maine right?? lol  Seems as if there is some kind of Voodoo Magic in the Sm3's. I read so much about them, and they seem to be all over the place (in a good way)

 

post #246 of 366


It's called imaging though separation also works well. The glossary of terms will help you and it's quite enlightening to read.  

Originally Posted by i2ehan View Post

I'd like to apologize to everyone here for a slight miscommunication on my part. Earlier, whenever I'd refer to the UM3X as having a drastically wide soundstage, I was completely off to say the least. Instead, what I meant to say was that the seperation was excessively wide! In other words, the instrument seperation is beyond the scope of all other IEM's I've come to listen to. The soundstage isn't at all excessively wide, and I just now realized it when listening once again to the whole lot of em'! My apologies to anyone who may have been misled to believe that the UM3X's soundstage was excessively stretched out, in truth, it isn't. I now understand why when asked to listen to a few rock/metal tracks with the UM3X, the instruments sounded so unimaginably brilliant! The UM3X practically gives every instrument it's own respective area in the spectrum, and THAT'S the quality I was trying to pinpoint earlier, but completely miscommunicated! As I said before, I'm all too new to this, but I've gone ahead and fixed the error under the impressions. redface.gif

I want to also state once again that occurrences of burn-in occurring in BA drivers isn't as highly backed up as the occurrences that happen in dynamics. Certain manufacturers even claim that no burn-in is required at all and if there somehow is, it will minimally occur in the crossover/cable. All in all it wouldn't take that many hours for the burn-in process of BAs. Mental burn-in on the other hand is always overlooked despite being a factor that can change an IEM a lot more than one thinks. Mental burn-in is also hard to measure and detect so I wouldn't always attribute changes to the drivers. 
 

 


Edited by Inks - 5/25/11 at 8:47pm
post #247 of 366
Thread Starter 

Trust me my friend, I agree with you exclusively. wink.gif I've been personally asked to listen for it, almost as though it's undeniable. We'll see... smile.gif

post #248 of 366

Whoops, edited my post. My first reply was to your UM3X soundstage description. 


Edited by Inks - 5/25/11 at 8:48pm
post #249 of 366
Thread Starter 

Ah, thank you for the clarification my friend!

post #250 of 366

i2ehan, your thread is a very entertaining read as you discover more and more about your IEMs and post a changing spectrum of impressions.  With each IEM, the music takes on a different character.  Sometimes, it's difficult to describe what's particularly special about the musical representation of an IEM until you critically compare it to others.  Some are lush but not particularly revealing, some are revealing, but clinical, some are neutral but boring.

 

I'm with you regarding your favorite so far.  Since I got them in February, my W4s have logged more ear time than any other IEM.  They're remarkable, and are about ready to displace my W3s as my favorites in my signature.  Then again, my sound signature preference changes from time to time, as does my listening preference, and my dietary preference, clothes, books, etc., etc.  Go figure.  wink.gif

 

Keep up the good work and tell us when you have found Nirvana.


Edited by IpodHappy - 5/25/11 at 9:18pm
post #251 of 366

That's is a nice thread of Glossary of Terms @Inks! Now I can complete my description of my iems fully but I still need to study them further. Hope I'll set a full thread of my impressions for all my iems soon. wink.gif

 

Now for SM3: I checked the term of 'veiled' in the glossary: "Veiled - Like a silk veil is over the speakers. Slight noise or distortion or slightly weak high frequencies. Loss of detail due to limited transparency".

 

And I may think, the term veiled is not a word that I can describe for the high frequencies for SM3, as veil is coherent with the term transparency and associated with muddy sound which is a very negative term for me. Because if you EQ them at high mids(4.1K) to Highs (6k Above), they are pretty much detailed and the transparency is like with the DBA-02s. Maybe I can call them recessed highs on that regard. Although I cannot EQ them further to get the full detail of the mids as I can hear with DBA-02/CK10. As the 2 are pretty much the most detailed iems that I heard so far, though they are more thin and airy sounding than the fuller sound of SM3.

post #252 of 366
Thread Starter 

Indeed, I've found the SM3's to be a mix of both; with some tracks, the highs were veiled only in the sense that they sounded as though there was a veil over the speakers (I wouldn't at all call them distorted or short of detail), while with some other tracks, the highs sounded recessed. I try to listen to a good variety before passing my final judgement, though each listener will surely experience something unique based on his/her music collection, and the mastering/recording pertaining to the each track.

 

I tend to not use glossary terms quite literally, just as they are written, and instead try to get my point across plain and simple. There's one too many words there that I find I partially agree and disagree with at the same time; sometimes what I'm trying to express only holds true to the first half of the definition, while the rest is quite the opposite of what I meant to say. I don't think it's set in stone, however, and I try to make my point across as best as I'm able to. Needless to say, it's an excellent resource of course! smile.gif


Edited by i2ehan - 5/25/11 at 10:10pm
post #253 of 366

Compared to my Ortofon's everything else I have is "veiled". Very sharp treble response. I am a bit sensitive to higher frequency response, goes back to the titanium versus silk dome tweeter days for me. The treble clarity in these is unlike any other I've heard. Compared to those the SM3 are veiled indeed. But as far as the soundstage conversation, I already assumed it was being used as an alternative meaning. UM3's do not have a wide soundstage in the accepted definition. 

 

Funny how the "pinnacle" or best at any one category (or even many) is not necessarily the one that wins out to the individual listener. 

post #254 of 366

Oh!  I just remembered another top tier that should be included some time - the Grado GR10.

post #255 of 366

Been following your thread since the previous week. I must say great work with these and much love for the Monster IEMs :) I love the Coppers that I got BNIB instead of refurbed when they sent a late delivery.

 

As for SM3s, I seriously think they are overrated. Yes I have heard them multiple times and I have been impressed when I listened to them longer but they are very choosy with tracks and don't work well with Metal because of the lush and thick sound signature. I just don't get the fanboyism with these. I listen to almost everything and I find these to work only well with slower tracks or simpler tracks. Therefore they only work well with half of my library which doesnt work well for me. They are a fine pair of IEMs but they 're not the end all be all like most people would want you to believe. They are amazing with the proper music but they sound kind of congested when given faster paced tracks where the notes need to come out feel alive.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Top Tier Showdown (Top Pick Announced)