Yes we disagree here, no harm. While some supersonic ears may think that mids are slightly better on UM3X or slightly better on EPH-100, the fact is they're both excellent in this area.
You want a marked mid difference? Please try SE535LTD, they're something else.
Regarding bass, my preference goes naturally to dynamic drivers IEMs, they can produce bass impact that I have yet to ear from BA-based IEMs, and I think a lot of people will relate to this. In this area, UM3X bass are uninspiring, although they're not light.
Regarding treble, I prefer UM3X treble (clearer and better separated) but to make them shine you have to EQ them up. EPH-100 treble are a bit peculiar, they seem very picky with instruments: cymbals for example are very forward while some other high-pitched instruments are a bit recessed. It can create some unnatural feeling when listening music with many instruments (ie orchestra music).
Separation-wise, slight avantage to UM3X in the treble area but for the rest of the spectrum, again I think they're close enough that you'll find both opinions here.
I could continue on and on, but to summarize: do I consider EPH-100 superior to UM3X? Certainly not. Do I consider UM3X to be significantly superior to EPH-100? No.
Actually, if it was not for the peculiar treble, I would prefer EPH-100 for their bass and more lively (=dynamic) sound.
This has everything to do with music genres, and even with each music track.
Although we all describe SQ with generic terms as bass, mids, treble for the sake of writing short reviews, many different instruments fit into bass, mids or treble, so it should not be a surprise that 2 IEMs having "good" mids still handle specific instruments differently and will please different crowds.
Your statement directly points to a behavior which shows in your last sentence:
Perhaps? Please guess.
Your preferences are not more universal than anyone else's.
To use your analogy, I was born in Dijon, in Burgundy (France), so I was raised with Burgundy wines, and came to appreciate them a lot.
Bordeaux wines are as famous, if not more, but for some reason, I just can't appreciate a fine Bordeaux wine as much as a fine Burgundy wine...
Does it make Bordeaux wines "universally not as good" because I decided that a fine wine should be from Burgundy?
Last point: this kind of comment doesn't exactly make you sound constructive (and friendly).
Please put back your review, I thought it was well written and certainly more useful to this thread than the kind of absolute statements quoted above...
I will stop posting in this thread since people are constantly quoting me to get at each other, which wasn't the intent of my review.
I don't want to take side because there's no need to, everything here is a matter of personal taste.