I totally agree with you on the ergonomics. I have nothing to compare my W3 with besides my M50, which I don't like as much. Maybe I have a preference for the W3's sound, but I think it sounds awesome. If you really wanted a neutral sound, why didn't you get the um3x?
Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org
budgetboy
Lunatique
The UM3X wasn't even announced yet when I got the W3.
MrScary
I always wanted to try these
calipilot227
Great review! I'm tempted to get the UM3X now, since that should be more neutral
White Lotus
This review is a joke. Surely, it has to be trolling. I know it's a few years old, but as it's the top review on such a popular product, I'm going to have to address it.
"In pro audio, audio reproduction has to be as transparent as possible"
In the studio? When live mixing? When monitoring is in dire need of absolute accuracy? Absolutely. 100%. However, when the song is coming out of Front of house, or when the listener is listening at home? Nope, not true. What you're basically saying here, is that every live PA system is flawed, because it doesn't have a flat EQ.
"This is not a subjective statement--it is totally objective, because I'm judging from the perspective of pro audio neutrality,"
Actually, I'm from a "Pro audio" perspective as well. And I still believe the Westone 3 to be the best universal IEM for what it's marketed for.
Actually, on that note - lets have a look about what Westone says the W3 is for, on the back of the packaging:
"You miss a lot using cheap earphones with your expensive audio, video and gaming devices. Now hear all the sonic excitement they were made to deliver."
"In pro audio, audio reproduction has to be as transparent as possible"
In the studio? When live mixing? When monitoring is in dire need of absolute accuracy? Absolutely. 100%. However, when the song is coming out of Front of house, or when the listener is listening at home? Nope, not true. What you're basically saying here, is that every live PA system is flawed, because it doesn't have a flat EQ.
"This is not a subjective statement--it is totally objective, because I'm judging from the perspective of pro audio neutrality,"
Actually, I'm from a "Pro audio" perspective as well. And I still believe the Westone 3 to be the best universal IEM for what it's marketed for.
Actually, on that note - lets have a look about what Westone says the W3 is for, on the back of the packaging:
"You miss a lot using cheap earphones with your expensive audio, video and gaming devices. Now hear all the sonic excitement they were made to deliver."
White Lotus
They were made for a home and consumer based demographic - Not for pro audio use.
"In general, the W3's bass is very bloated and muddy, blah blah blah more subjective opinions"
That's the spirit. Head-fi encourages opinions like this - based on your thoughts. THIS is what your review should have been. More thoughts about what YOU felt about its sound signature. Not about it's stance in the market, not about it being "wrong" by your standards because you can't use it for mixing. Just your thoughts on the product itself. Not what you thought it "should" have been.
Basically you have bought a big, comfortable luxury car, and complained that it's that it's not going quickly around your racetrack. The luxury car wasn't built for that. It has many strengths that the race cars do not have.
Why didn't you look for the Westone UM3X?
"The UM3X wasn't even announced yet when I got the W3."
Actually buddy, your review was 3/26/11. The UM3X was announced in 2009.
I work in the "Pro audio" industry. I have for years. Not going to get into a big Epeen contest with you over who is more professional/successful, just know that I am a qualified sound engineer (if you would like me to PM you some proof of my industry experience, I'm happy to do so.)
I use my customs when I'm on gigs. And that's mainly for hearing protection, or if I need to monitor in loud environments for a long time. Otherwise, I'll use my DT770 250ohm, as they can withstand a decent beating in my tool bag, are comfy, and have a flat (enough) EQ for me to mix accurately with.
When I get home, on my days off; I don't WANT to be listening to flat response, clinical, dry IEMs. I want fun sounding. I want the music to be listened to, as the producer would have wanted ME to listen to it. Not how they hear it themselves when creating it. That's boring. I want it to be fun, and exciting.
Basically, if you were looking for something to mix/master with, you should have looked at other offerings from Westone (they specialise in musician monitors) instead of ranting about how "inaccurate" an audiophile-marketed product is.
"In general, the W3's bass is very bloated and muddy, blah blah blah more subjective opinions"
That's the spirit. Head-fi encourages opinions like this - based on your thoughts. THIS is what your review should have been. More thoughts about what YOU felt about its sound signature. Not about it's stance in the market, not about it being "wrong" by your standards because you can't use it for mixing. Just your thoughts on the product itself. Not what you thought it "should" have been.
Basically you have bought a big, comfortable luxury car, and complained that it's that it's not going quickly around your racetrack. The luxury car wasn't built for that. It has many strengths that the race cars do not have.
Why didn't you look for the Westone UM3X?
"The UM3X wasn't even announced yet when I got the W3."
Actually buddy, your review was 3/26/11. The UM3X was announced in 2009.
I work in the "Pro audio" industry. I have for years. Not going to get into a big Epeen contest with you over who is more professional/successful, just know that I am a qualified sound engineer (if you would like me to PM you some proof of my industry experience, I'm happy to do so.)
I use my customs when I'm on gigs. And that's mainly for hearing protection, or if I need to monitor in loud environments for a long time. Otherwise, I'll use my DT770 250ohm, as they can withstand a decent beating in my tool bag, are comfy, and have a flat (enough) EQ for me to mix accurately with.
When I get home, on my days off; I don't WANT to be listening to flat response, clinical, dry IEMs. I want fun sounding. I want the music to be listened to, as the producer would have wanted ME to listen to it. Not how they hear it themselves when creating it. That's boring. I want it to be fun, and exciting.
Basically, if you were looking for something to mix/master with, you should have looked at other offerings from Westone (they specialise in musician monitors) instead of ranting about how "inaccurate" an audiophile-marketed product is.
Lunatique
@jensy - I currently use the Westone 4 as my IEM, and it's much better than the Westone 3. It's still a bit bass-heavy, but it's not nearly as overwhelmingly so as the Westone 3.
And as far as me judging a consumer product by pro audio standards, I hold the belief that the pro audio standard should be a universal standard for sound quality, and excessive coloration is never a good thing, because it distorts the sound too much. To me, it's the same thing as how image quality has only one universal standard for quality. It makes no sense to have one standard for professional imaging, and then have excessive coloration for consumer imaging, where you get excessively skewed results like having too much green, or too bright so the highlights are blown out, or too blurry so the details are lost, and so on. Our eyes aren't identical from person to person too, just like our ears, but why is it that we want an accurate imaging standard but then think having all kinds colorations for audio is a good thing?
Anyway, that's my way of thinking. I hold all audio products to just one standard, regardless what market segment it's for.
And as far as me judging a consumer product by pro audio standards, I hold the belief that the pro audio standard should be a universal standard for sound quality, and excessive coloration is never a good thing, because it distorts the sound too much. To me, it's the same thing as how image quality has only one universal standard for quality. It makes no sense to have one standard for professional imaging, and then have excessive coloration for consumer imaging, where you get excessively skewed results like having too much green, or too bright so the highlights are blown out, or too blurry so the details are lost, and so on. Our eyes aren't identical from person to person too, just like our ears, but why is it that we want an accurate imaging standard but then think having all kinds colorations for audio is a good thing?
Anyway, that's my way of thinking. I hold all audio products to just one standard, regardless what market segment it's for.
White Lotus
@Lunatique - Movies are edited on 22-24" monitors, with headphones and/or studio monitors. Does that mean that movie cinemas are incorrect, because they use different "standards"?
