Brainwavz B2 Impressions & Discussion Thread
Jul 22, 2012 at 12:55 PM Post #931 of 1,431
Well, have you thought about Florence and the Machine? For instance, the acoustic version of Shake It is really good for testing and I use it all the time and it's also good for finding sibilance or too agressive rendering because of some of the peaks (for instance at around 0:07 and 0:15), which can sound great with proper headphones but really harsh or just plain and boring with bad ones http://dox.bg/files/dw?a=f69603ddda
 
You can also watch the video on youtube but the flac that I uploaded has better detail. Anyway, still a good listen with the B2

 
Thanks, live music always sounds good. I've also been using Gentle Giant's first abum, it's probably the most recorded album I have. These seem to extend up to the top of my hearing.
 
Quote:
What tips are everyone using?
 
How do they affect the sound?

 
Included silicone tips in large, they're the only ones that can give me a good seal, otherwise these sound shrill. I need to get some authentic Hybrids, mine are gone.
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM Post #933 of 1,431
Quote:
They don't sound alike, but the sound quality, which is the discussion here, is very similar. Joker has it about right in my opinion.

 
You're going to have to define SQ then, because I don't quite understand what you are saying.
 
I'm saying that the SM3 and B2 sound nothing alike. They have no tonally similar characteristics. One is dead flat, and the other has a severe roll-off in the highs and a boosted upper bass.
One is bright and clear and fast (nearly sterile), the other is dull, slow and masks highs and detail (uber warm).
There is nothing similar in the sound 'quality' or the sound itself.
 
So how is the SQ similar?
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM Post #934 of 1,431
Quote:
 
You're going to have to define SQ then, because I don't quite understand what you are saying.
 
I'm saying that the SM3 and B2 sound nothing alike. They have no tonally similar characteristics. One is dead flat, and the other has a severe roll-off in the highs and a boosted upper bass.
One is bright and clear and fast (nearly sterile), the other is dull, slow and masks highs and detail (uber warm).
There is nothing similar in the sound 'quality' or the sound itself.
 
So how is the SQ similar?

The sound type is not similar, the quality of sound is similar. One is 9.4 and the other is 9.2, as Joker put it. He doesn't have one sound characteristic that is better - he's rating on how good the sound is, and then describing the tone for the readers. A 9.4 and a 9.2 don't have to sound anything alike, they just have to be comparatively great at what they do. Which, in my opinion (and Joker's), they are. Quality here means just that - quality. Not signature. 
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 2:34 PM Post #935 of 1,431
but what is quality? There's no definition, it's up in the air, perhaps the price and the fact that it uses 3 drivers all of a sudden gives one the impression that it's a better performer.. Certain sound characteristics make more compromises, that's what makes them sound worse, I wouldn't take a high SQ rating for a bass heavy IEM seriously,  to give an extreme example. 
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM Post #936 of 1,431
Quote:
but what is quality? There's no definition, it's up in the air, perhaps the price and the fact that it uses 3 drivers all of a sudden gives one the impression that it's a better performer.. Certain sound characteristics make more compromises, that's what makes them sound worse, I wouldn't take a high SQ rating for a bass heavy IEM seriously,  to give an extreme example. 

 
This is actually a very good question for Head-Fi in general.  Quality hasn't truly been defined...  Is it an accuracy in the curve?  Is it a certain signature?  How do we quantify quality, and what is it specifically?  
 
My definition when I talk about quality: a headphone's ability to reproduce aspects of the original recording (colored or uncolored) without overdoing them to an extent where it doesn't intrude upon any other aspect.  Aspects can include, but not limited to: bass texture, bass body, bass punch, bass impact, clarity, detailing of midrange and highs, vocal depth (lushness), vocal energy (sweetness), vocal dynamics, instrumental dynamics, high end separation, high end splash, high end detailing and clarity, etc.  
 
All of these aspects can be found in any pair of headphones with any signature (bass heavy, analytical, etc.).  So I can trust that a bass heavy IEM can have good SQ as I don't take signature into consideration when dealing with SQ. Again, my definition, IDK what everyone else's is...  It would be interesting to find out.  
 
Please note that I'm not saying this is the best definition, but it is one that I use.  It still does have some room for subjectivity, but does fare well.  
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM Post #937 of 1,431
But a bass heavy IEM is going to intrude into the other frequencies, kind of contradicting. To have quality bass you need some sort of restraint on it's overall presence. 
 
My criteria is based on transparency to the recording. I do believe you can have different signatures that are still transparent, flat on the curve, there just aren't that many in the IEM world, yet. 
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM Post #938 of 1,431
Quote:
They don't sound alike, but the sound quality, which is the discussion here, is very similar. Joker has it about right in my opinion.

 
I see where you're coming from.  The SM3 has an overall resolution that I would put above the B2 if only for it's superior separation and for having a stage with breathing room.  I find both similar in speed, except one doesn't have great separation, and one sounds "thick."
 
Quote:
 
You're going to have to define SQ then, because I don't quite understand what you are saying.
 
I'm saying that the SM3 and B2 sound nothing alike. They have no tonally similar characteristics. One is dead flat, and the other has a severe roll-off in the highs and a boosted upper bass.
One is bright and clear and fast (nearly sterile), the other is dull, slow and masks highs and detail (uber warm).
There is nothing similar in the sound 'quality' or the sound itself.
 
So how is the SQ similar?

 
I think what he's saying is they don't have to sound alike. One has a warmer tilt, and one has a brighter tilt.  I went back and forth between my HD800s and B2s on a few songs today and the B2 definitely has a significant bass roll-off.  
 
(Before I'm thrown newb advice, let me come out and say I have these shoved good and deep in my ears.)
 
Quote:
but what is quality? There's no definition, it's up in the air, perhaps the price and the fact that it uses 3 drivers all of a sudden gives one the impression that it's a better performer.. Certain sound characteristics make more compromises, that's what makes them sound worse, I wouldn't take a high SQ rating for a bass heavy IEM seriously,  to give an extreme example. 

 
I see your point...and..that is an extreme example.  Joker's scores probably come from a mixture of how well IEMs meet technical benchmarks + his own subjective preferences.  Thankfully he's objective (or.."varied in tastes") enough to score IEMs like SM3s where they belong.  
 
There are a lot of posters on head-fi who have a strong preference for treble-tilted phones but seem to be in the closet.  Taking a look at their profiles usually confirms it.  Treble-tilted phones and bass-tilted phones are not neutral; nothing to be shy about.
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 3:10 PM Post #939 of 1,431
Let me add to the "speed" comment that I appreciate the resolution each phone brings to it's chosen "tilt."  You won't get SM3 bass detail (depth, timbre, as well as speed) from the B2.  You won't get B2 type transients in the highs from the SM3.  
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM Post #940 of 1,431

I see where you're coming from.  The SM3 has an overall resolution that I would put above the B2 if only for it's superior separation and for having a stage with breathing room.  I find both similar in speed, except one doesn't have great separation, and one sounds "thick."
 
I see your point...and..that is an extreme example.  Joker's scores probably come from a mixture of how well IEMs meet technical benchmarks + his own subjective preferences.  Thankfully he's objective (or.."varied in tastes") enough to score IEMs like SM3s where they belong.  
Where they belong, why? There's still a failure to make these things tangible, resolution? Lack of specifics

The B2's bass is tighter and cleaner than the SM3s, the SM3's bass puts a veil on the mids, making them thicker than what they are (I hope that's not what you mean by timbre, though this error is common)
 
The SM3's bass does have better depth, speed should be very similar, do frequency bursts. 
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 3:18 PM Post #941 of 1,431
No need to reinvent the wheel:
 
 
Sound (9.4/10) – The Earsonics SM3 is a high-end three-way triple-driver stage monitor designed to compete directly with the Westone UM3X, an earphone that, while technically proficient, never really appealed to me on a personal level with its intimate presentation and viscous sound. Expectedly, the general signature of the SM3 is not too far off from the UM3X but it is the differences that make it a better consumer-class earphone in my view.

The bass of the SM3 isn’t all that different from that of the UM3X. It is generally deep and well-controlled – not as tight as with some of the leaner, more analytical earphones (e.g. CK10 & DBA-2) but definitely not loose. It is quick and well-weighted but always remains a bit soft in character. Across the range, but especially at the low end, the SM3 retains a roundness of note that reminds me of some of the higher-end dynamic-driver earphones I’ve heard as opposed to bass-happy armatures like the W3 and TF10, which generally have more immediate bass impact. The bass of the SM3 is not ruler-flat, rolling off slightly at the lowest of lows, and won’t satisfy a true basshead, but for me it is plentiful in quantity. Compared, for example, to the Westone 2, the low end of the SM3 manages to be crisper and more impactful at the same time – an impressive feat that shows off the optimization of the bass driver.

The midrange is most definitely the meat of the SM3’s sound signature. The earphones are slightly mid-forward but, unlike the UM3X, the SM3 doesn’t really ‘push’ its midrange on the listener. It has an uncanny ability to ‘center’ the vocalist in its headstage, seemingly escaping stereo separation almost completely, but at the same time avoids the somewhat excessive intimacy of the UM3X. The SM3 is generally only slightly warm in tone but can lean towards greater warmth, depending on source and track. The mids are smooth, sweet, lush, and full, with the same roundness of note as the low end. Transparency is good but not the best I’ve heard, and the same goes for the clarity – the SM3 simply isn’t lean enough to compete with the CK10 or DBA-02 on that front. Even the UE TF10 has slightly better clarity in the midrange than the SM3, though it sounds somewhat hollow and nasal next to the full and forward SM3. Detail retrieval is great but the microdetailing is again not as good as with the CK10 or DBA-02 because the SM3 just isn’t aggressive enough with presenting detail, occasionally requiring conscious effort to hear the minute details. Vocal timbre is excellent, however, even next to the Westone 2, which has some of the better vocal representation among the IEMs I own, with both earphones making the ATH-CK10 sound slightly metallic in comparison.

At the high end the SM3 is laid back and very smooth, again not unlike the UM3X. I do hear a bit more extension out of the SM3 but the difference isn’t great. The treble is neither particularly prominent nor notably deficient - there really is no frequency range in which the SM3 lacks presence - but could definitely use a bit more emphasis for my tastes. Don’t get me wrong - the treble of the SM3 is neither rolled off nor recessed – just not particularly aggressive. With a slightly different overall sound signature the treble would be perfectly adequate - there is even some sparkle to be had - but it’s quite easy to lose next to the buttery mids and healthy low end of the Earsonics. It should be noted that the detail of the SM3 is made all the more impressive by the lack of aggression in presenting it but critical listening with the SM3 will require some effort on the part of the listener, at least initially. As an aside, using Comply tips with the SM3 is not recommended as the tips seem to soak up what little sparkle and energy there is. Other than that there was little need to bother with tips, at least for me – the SM3 is not nearly as sensitive to tip selection as, say, the Westone 3 or UE TF10, which may be one of the reasons for the Earsonics being generally well-received.

Aside from a sound signature without any definite flaws, the biggest strength of the SM3 is undoubtedly its presentation. It is a fairly wide-sounding earphone – not the largest I’ve heard but clearly above average. I think that for a BA setup the soundstage of the SM3 is very close to being the perfect size, though it has taken me a while to figure out why. A massive stage works (more or less) for something like the Sennheiser IE8, with its huge bass and immense dynamic presence, but an armature-based earphone would sound thinner trying to fill all of that space. In addition, the soundstage of the IE8 has an ‘inner limit’, meaning that it seems to start some distance away from the listener, while the ability to accurately portray intimacy is one of the necessary hallmarks of good stage monitors like the SM3 and UM3X. The ‘front-and-center’ vocal presentation that the SM3 does so well simply wouldn’t work with a soundstage like that of the Sennheisers. The stage of the SM3 also has good depth and, surprisingly, decent height, though it is conceivable that the SM3 will sound too 3-dimensional to some. Indeed, the SM3 is almost artificially enveloping for an IEM and as a result acclimating to it can take longer than with most IEMs (the same is true for the Radius DDM, though for slightly different reasons). Personally, I feel that the soundstage of the SM3 would be easier to get accustomed to for those with minimal experience with higher-end earphones and more perplexing for those used to the presentation of other high-end IEMs.

Moving on, there are definitely earphones with more air than the SM3 but usually as a result of brighter and/or thinner sound. Separation is very good without seeming exaggerated as it can be with the Westone UM3X. Layering and imaging are both quite good – instruments take on the proper distance and direction cues and there is ample air around each. Within the confines of the SM3’s overly-enveloping soundstage the imaging is quite realistic. The dynamics are good as well – a necessity for proper presentation – but not the best I’ve heard. Compared head-to-head with the Monster MD, for example, the SM3 struggles to sound as soft or as powerful at the limits but comes respectably close.

The smooth and thick presentation, complete with slightly ‘rounded’ notes compared to many other BA-based earphones, is effortless, polished, and refined. The SM3 is non-fatiguing but accurate. It sounds less like a musician’s tool (a-la UM3X) and more like a consumer listening device that nevertheless remains true to source. I can’t call the SM3 exciting but at the same time it’s not an analytical earphone. I don’t consider the UM3X analytical, either, but its ‘dissection kit’ presentation can be too boring for much of my music. The SM3 takes the comfortable middle ground between the UM3X and uncompromisingly ‘fun’ earphones such as the TF10 and Westone 3. Like all of the other top-tier IEMs, the SM3 is still far from being all things to all people. However, it is much more difficult to hate than it is to like, helped in part by its consistency with different tips and sources. Overall, the SM3 is an extremely efficient earphone with just enough sensitivity headroom to avoid hissing like a snake with a poorly matched source. In my experience, experimenting with tips and amps brings about improvements that are marginal at best.

Value (8.5/10) – While the SM3 is by no means the perfect IEM for every listener, I have a hard time imagining someone absolutely detesting it. Unlike some of the other top-tier models – CK100, W3, IE8, etc – the signature of the SM3 just isn’t very polarizing. As an earphone that does very few things wrong, it is not unique – other top-tiers such as the Ortofon e-Q7 and HiFiMan RE252 have no empirical flaws either – but they also do few things outstandingly well while the SM3 seduces with its enveloping soundstage and thick, creamy midrange. Even those who do not value the flavour of the SM3 will find it (at worst) to be a very solid top-tier universal while those who do like the signature will be in sonic paradise. On a personal note, while I belong to the former category, I have to say this in closing: there are songs in my music collection that I always skip – songs kept mostly for sentimental or nostalgic value – but with the SM3 I just couldn’t do it. More than almost any other, the SM3 is an earphone that allows the listener to hear the music as a whole without drawing unnecessary attention to itself, the source, or the recording. It’s not the end of the road for me, but it may just be for many others.
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM Post #942 of 1,431
Quote:
But a bass heavy IEM is going to intrude into the other frequencies, kind of contradicting. To have quality bass you need some sort of restraint on it's overall presence. 
 
My criteria is based on transparency to the recording. I do believe you can have different signatures that are still transparent, flat on the curve, there just aren't that many in the IEM world, yet. 

 
That means that the sound quality can be reduced by too much bass iff it intrudes.  What if they tuned it in a way where it doesn't?  
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 3:22 PM Post #943 of 1,431
Don't take his ratings to heart, they're mostly subjective. It also gives less weight to his much more meaningful and practical, sound descriptions. 
 
Tinyman, it's just the physics of overall frequency results, it's holistic. The more bass boost, the more compromises, so you either minimize the coloration with a minimal boost or aim for accuracy. A lot of reviews here, don't understand how much a bass actually colors the sound, no-bleed doesn't mean it isn't changing anything, bleed is an extreme case. Thicker notes are a usual consequence, too thick, once you know the real nature of a recording and can make the distinction, it becomes clear. 
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM Post #944 of 1,431
Quote:
Don't take his ratings to heart, they're mostly subjective. It also gives less weight to his much more meaningful and practical, sound descriptions. 

 
Add to that, don't take any ratings to heart...  They all come with a grain of salt...  A bias...  Many try to reduce the bias to a minimum, but it's impossible to have no bias.  
 
Regarding transparancy, there are IEMs that aren't that transparent (IMO) but still high in quality.  The Aurisonics ASG-1 for example (1.2 revision) aren't transparent (actually, more veiled than transparent) but still high on my quality scale.  V-Moda M80s are kind of the same way.  They aren't the most transparent, but still great quality.
 
Jul 22, 2012 at 3:25 PM Post #945 of 1,431
Quote:
The B2's bass is tighter and cleaner than the SM3s, the SM3's bass puts a veil on the mids, making them thicker than what they are (I hope that's not what you mean by timbre, though this error is common)
 
The SM3's bass does have better depth, speed should be very similar, do frequency bursts. 

 
Replying to the edits:  The B2's bass is fast, sure, but it doesn't resolve the depth, nor the timbre (yes, timbre) necessary.  Different low-freq sounds carry different weights and for the tone to be believable that dimension of timbre must be part of the equation.  And the SM3 does it...timbre, check.  Depth, check.  Speed, check.  Extended and well presented highs?  Not so much.  
 
Just compromises.  There...that should qualify for a "specific" example.  And I don't mean to paint the SM3 as a "great" transducer for bass.  It's not.  Something like the HD800 is.  But it's a good example to set the B2 against here.
 
[edited to fix horrendous grammar]
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top