Quote:
I compared my M2s (yes M2) with my friends Sennheiser IE8 (definitely genuine; he bought them from Sennheiser directly) a few days ago. I found them to sound rather bland, unlively and boring. Much more balanced than M2, yes, but I want to enjoy my music, not analyse it. I didn't believe my ears as I expected them to be A LOT better than M2. I listened them on my M6 TS with flat EQ, everything turned off except Spatializer (PCE level3), but I compared them without Spatializer as well. Maybe I prefered M2 because of lower impedance, but even when I turned on the volume on IE8, they didn't impress me much. Bass was more interesting on M2, although IE8's bass knob was turned to max.
I guess that this is due to the silicone tips my friend had on his IE8 not perfectly fitting my ears (it were those tiny bi-flanges). I'll try them again with other tips, maybe they just require a good seal to show their strengths.
So yeah, I guess the M3s must be awesome, considering I'm already really amazed by the M2s.
Oh yeah. I definitely feel you on that. Personally, I've tried all the famous Sennheiser models and I don't see the hype. At this point I'm actually kind of mad because I couldn't imagine what I'm about to say being the way it is.
The Sennheiser HD 595's were on sale on Amazon recently for $150 and I was just furious when I heard them. Expecting something godly for the price they're originally at, especially considering their size, not even a wow - rather, instantaneous notations of flaws. I must say, in the end, I was satisfied IN GENERAL with the sound, but with no complaints maybe if at $100 as the ORIGINAL price. I STRONGLY prefer my $60 Brainwavz M2 IEM's in almost every regard, and that's just absurd...
These 595's have this interesting (what I see as) gimmick where it has speakers on the outsides for "more effect" I'm guessing and to increase the soundstage which output the sound that's meant to sound distant/relatively more distant, like the effect that's often used with harmonized voices or whatever. Separate from comparison and just in its own right, I don't like it. I call it a gimmick because it's interesting and fun, especially from the outside where it sounds like I'm listening through significantly loud speakers, but in terms of the actual sound, the EQ is different to that of everything else and it makes it a bit too distant to be honest.. Not everyone would notice something like that of course but obviously those aren't the people that would discuss these things in the first place. In conclusion, I actually prefer the soundstage of the M2's to these, which technically have a larger one.
Don't even get me started on the bass. Honestly, yes, it is significantly extended, but overall, very weak sounding - pathetic even. There's absolutely no thump in any song regardless, techno or otherwise, nor is there any "buzz" for any bass parts that are supposed to "woo" which is pretty much in most songs of Rock. You simply just hear it all with no sort of expression... And no, it doesn't have what's called an analytical sounding lower EQ, e.g., the whole point of bass in Techno or Dance music is to thump which as I've mentioned is nonexistent. Max bass amplification on my Onkyo receiver gets it to the power/tone level necessary but that obviously really screws up the EQ.
Overall the sound is very distant. My surround system feels like it has a closer sound than them. This is possibly because I'm used to IEMs which have the sound go directly in you, but regardless, for the price, especially in relation to a $60 pair of small IEM's, nobody should have any complaints. Treble is a bit more accurate maybe, mids are less powerful, and overall it requires more volume. So what's left?... And this comparison was done with the Sennheiser's through my receiver whereas the M2's simply through my Cowon PMP. With a 3.5mm converter connected to a PMP or just the computer, they completely suck for their value in my opinion - barely acceptable for even half that...
Anyway, actually to why I'm posting specifically here aside from the above response: firstly I'm wondering how treble of the M3's compares to the M2's. From the review it sounds about the same which I'm okay with; even slightly better would be great. Also, even though the mids on the M2's were astounding, that was mainly with instruments. I found that in most case, vocals were buried under everything ever so slightly, compared almost to anything else. It was perfectly audible, just slightly buried. That'd probably be my biggest, if not only complaint. I like to here every last breath out of Freddie Mercury's vocals Anybody would be able to give me a hint as to how the M3's compare in that regard? Thanks.
In general, I find the level of warmth on the M2's perfect and I'm hoping that remains with the M3's even with the seeming slightly more analytical sound approach.