Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM3 vs UE TF 10 vs Westone 4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Earsonics SM3 vs UE TF 10 vs Westone 4 - Page 5

post #61 of 87

Enjoy your music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guhmo View Post

 

Exactly, I respect your preferences and I hope you will respect everyone else's.  

post #62 of 87

Okay, what we all have to realize is that in the end we purchase headphones in the pursuit of better MUSIC.  Sure, there is an added perk to buying new items, but in the end we all just want to appreciate music better.

 

You may state that a dynamic driver will provide a more detailed bass, although I believe that if a technical explanation was set-up it would show that the JH16 more detailed bass; however, as I stated earlier as shown by the McGurk effect, sound is highly effected by our other senses.  Sound is what is perceived, and perception is personal.  I'd rather not waste more time here.

 

Music is music and music is meant to be enjoyed not fought over.  This ain't religion.

post #63 of 87

Yep the JH16 has more detailed bass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassadian View Post

Okay, what we all have to realize is that in the end we purchase headphones in the pursuit of better MUSIC.  Sure, there is an added perk to buying new items, but in the end we all just want to appreciate music better.

 

You may state that a dynamic driver will provide a more detailed bass, although I believe that if a technical explanation was set-up it would show that the JH16 more detailed bass; however, as I stated earlier as shown by the McGurk effect, sound is highly effected by our other senses.  Sound is what is perceived, and perception is personal.  I'd rather not waste more time here.

 

Music is music and music is meant to be enjoyed not fought over.  This ain't religion.

post #64 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassadian View Post

 

If you ever listened to a genre like trance, you would realize that speed is actually needed so maybe you should stop trying to portray a point that is false.  Furthermore, it isn't a marketing scheme.  More balanced armatures is not necessarily better a distinct difference from your "more does not mean better."  You are completely wrong, the usage of more balanced armatures distributes the burden of taking care of the entire spectrum allowing each to specialize in a certain area allowing for a more detailed and in the end result if done properly (key) a better sounding in ear monitor overall.  

 

You are completely wrong, "anyone knows that a well tuned3-4 drivers can easily be on par if not better."  Again, if done properly a multitude of drivers allows for greater potential of a better sounding ear phone.  The reason this isn't always true is execution, difference in sound signatures by different companies, and as you get deeper into audiophilia the concept of diminishing marginal returns applies so the differences aren't always as distinctly discernible.  At least, not by someone as ignorant as you.  


I think you're completely wrong at that point. A Final Audio FI-BA-SS has only a single balanced armature and it's able to cover the whole frequency range very well, I would say it sounds more accurate, neutral and detailed than a JH16. The ER-4 too, it has only a single driver, yet cover the frequency range pretty well. And do we need to dwell anymore into multiple ones? Customs like the UM Mage and Aero have only 3 and 4 drivers respectively, yet is able to cover the frequency range so well, in no way lacking compared to a JH16, 13 or Miracle. I can agree that more drivers can cover a wider frequency range? But seriously? 6-8 drivers for that? There are only the most discernible frequency we can hear which is highs, mids and lows, which means we only need 3 or 4 in the maximum. 

The word you used hear "if done properly" applies on what you have said. Having 6-8 drivers even if done properly can't sound as accurate or neutral as compared to a ER-4 or UERM. I think you're the one ignorant here, unless you heard those IEMs yourself and compared, I don't think you have the right to speak based on factual science, because sound is subjective. 

post #65 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassadian View Post

Okay, what we all have to realize is that in the end we purchase headphones in the pursuit of better MUSIC.  Sure, there is an added perk to buying new items, but in the end we all just want to appreciate music better.

 

You may state that a dynamic driver will provide a more detailed bass, although I believe that if a technical explanation was set-up it would show that the JH16 more detailed bass; however, as I stated earlier as shown by the McGurk effect, sound is highly effected by our other senses.  Sound is what is perceived, and perception is personal.  I'd rather not waste more time here.

 

Music is music and music is meant to be enjoyed not fought over.  This ain't religion.


Pardon me, but I didn't find the JH16 better than the JH13 or UM miracle, and they have less drivers. The added bass just sounds overpowering and uncalled for. A dynamic can do bass not being overpowering but natural at the same time with right amounts. 

I think you're highly influenced by this word "technical", to a common consumer, more driver would seem better. But I would like you to provide evidence as to which IEMs with more drivers is better than less. JH16? I already found the JH13, JH10X3, UM miracle and UM mage better. 

post #66 of 87
Thread Starter 

So which one would be the best for hip hop, pop, drum and bass?

post #67 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneaglebob View Post

So which one would be the best for hip hop, pop, drum and bass?

TF10.

post #68 of 87

The TF10 were not made for bass at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

post #69 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by guhmo View Post

TF10.
No.
An already V-shaped signature only makes things more un-balanced and fatiguing.
Plus, the tf-10 lacks in clarity and imaging next to the sm3 and w4. Doesn't matter what music genre.

Change the mindset now. For all of you people out there who think "more bass, bass-emphasis, or bass impactful" = best for hip hop/rap
Edited by Sil3nce - 5/16/12 at 8:03pm
post #70 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmiamihk View Post

The TF10 were not made for bass at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They were made as a professional solution to universals geared towards performers and audiophiles alike.
However, the ergonomics and overall signature is less suitable.
They are bassy and fun, no doubt about that. But it can be ultimately unsatisfying.
post #71 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremypsp View Post


Pardon me, but I didn't find the JH16 better than the JH13 or UM miracle, and they have less drivers. The added bass just sounds overpowering and uncalled for. A dynamic can do bass not being overpowering but natural at the same time with right amounts. 


I think you're highly influenced by this word "technical", to a common consumer, more driver would seem better. But I would like you to provide evidence as to which IEMs with more drivers is better than less. JH16? I already found the JH13, JH10X3, UM miracle and UM mage better. 

Agree.
Dual armatures like the ck-10 and ck90 mk2 compare much more favorably than triple or quad drivers.
Why don't you see headphones using multi drivers? There's no need. The best "recognized" cans in the world use a thin film and a simple static current flow. One diaphragm is enough to cover all frequencies. Anything else is arguable and controversial.
You get to a point where the headphones or iem is technically proficient enough. It becomes a matter of preference from then on. I prefer my ck-10's presentation over the jh-13 demo. Does that mean I'm crazy? Not at all.
Edited by Sil3nce - 5/16/12 at 8:12pm
post #72 of 87

Bassy compared to? W3?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil3nce View Post


Agree.
Dual armatures like the ck-10 and ck90 mk2 compare much more favorably than triple or quad drivers.
Why don't you see headphones using multi drivers? There's no need. The best "recognized" cans in the world use a thin film and a simple static current flow. One diaphragm is enough to cover all frequencies. Anything else is arguable and controversial.
You get to a point where the headphones or iem is technically proficient enough. It becomes a matter of preference from then on. I prefer my ck-10's presentation over the jh-13 demo. Does that mean I'm crazy? Not at all.
post #73 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmiamihk View Post

Bassy compared to? W3?

Sorry. Wut?
post #74 of 87

You stated the the TF10 were bassy but compared to which eaphones. I felt they were to flat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil3nce View Post


Sorry. Wut?
post #75 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmiamihk View Post

You stated the the TF10 were bassy but compared to which eaphones. I felt they were to flat.

Wrong quote?

It definitely wouldn't be the w3 as the subject of comparison. (unless you consider that a medium of "flatness")
In general, the tf-10 out of my clip+ and hm602 is noticeably rich and full in the nether regions. There is a hump in the upper and mid ranges of the bass.
I don't know why you would think they're flat? Wrong or in-adequate fit?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM3 vs UE TF 10 vs Westone 4