Quote:

davidmahler said:

In what sense? Just curious

Click to expand...

The mids on the Shure are much fuller and forward but lacks the bass punches, etc. W4 is very balanced across the whole spectrum. 

Forward and fuller mids doesn't necessarily mean it is better though. It will ultimately come down to personal preference but I do agree that the mids on Shures are hard to beat in  terms of musicality and liveliness

W4 mids are more lively than 535.
SE535 has more coloured and more warm sound.

I hope I didn't do a mistake ordering the SE535, people don't seem to like them so much :S

535s are a fine IEM. They just have a forward mid and like all other IEMs, they have their own unique sound signatures. If you don't like them, you can always return, sell, or trade them fairly easily. 

Quote:

rangerid said:

Forward and fuller mids doesn't necessarily mean it is better though. It will ultimately come down to personal preference but I do agree that the mids on Shures are hard to beat in  terms of musicality and liveliness

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say lively but the quality of the mids IMO is far superior to the W4. When I sold my W4, I can't say I miss its mids. I missed their balanced signature.
 

I am probably in the minority but I personally doesn't like the W3. I'll take UM2, W2, UM3X or W4 over W3.

Here is my first impression of the w3.
 
I got the w3s today, and surprisingly, I can't hear any sibilance at all, even with stock silicone tips. (I'm normally ultra sensitive to sibilance, and I'm selling my ex1000 because my recordings sound too sibilant on it). The treble is very  nice down and quickly became my favourite. 
 
 
The bass is emphasized, but not as much as some of the bassier iems like the fx700. I would prefer less bass on certain genres such as vocal and instruments, but overall it's nicely done. Does not extend as deep as the ex1000 but has more weight and more of a punch.
 
The mids are very recessed in comparison to the ck100 and um3x, which are among my favourite iems to date however it doesn't bother me as much. I usually prefer forward mids but the nice presentation, huge sound stage and superb instrument separation totally makes up for the recessed mids. It sound like the mids are indeed far away, but it''s presented in an enveloping and airy way. In comparison, the um3x sounds dull and claustrophobic. 
 
 
 

The W3 is so tempting especially @ 25% off!

Is there a big difference in sound quality between umx3 vs w4.
 
thanks

In terms of sound quality, they are about on par with um3x having better instrument separation and bass quantity, however, in terms of style they are quite different. The um3x has forward mids, less treble and slightly emphasized bass, while the w4 is more balanced. I personally found the w4 very 'correct' sounding yet less engaging to listen to. The um3x on the other hand is more intimate and exciting when it came to vocal. It can be a bit too intimate though if you're not used to the forward mids
 
Quote:

jbusuego said:

Is there a big difference in sound quality between umx3 vs w4.
 
thanks

Click to expand...

 

Do W3 scale up a lot with good amp? Or iphone power is enough to drive them to ear-splitting level?

Teclast T51 + W3 = FANTASTIC!
CCE121 you should try something.

I use and Ipod Classic and have paired with an Ibasso T3 (decent portable amp) and it adds virtually nothing.  I may even prefer it without as it may sound more "open."

I've had my W3's now for almost a year, and while I've always liked them, I never could get over the sibilance on certain tracks. Today, I tried the tri-to-bi-flange mod on the white tips, and the sibilance is not completely gone, but more tamed. It was completely gone with no mod on the tri-flange, but it made the housings stick way too far out of my ear canal. The mod is a good compromise. The W3's are now back to being the near-perfect combo of hard bass with super-detail that my soul craves. My itch to upgrade has been tamed (for now). I love my W3's and highly recommend experimenting with all the tips!