[iponderous]

^ What in your opinion makes the highs of the TF10 "higher quality" compared to those of the UM3X?

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ What in your opinion makes the highs of the TF10 "higher quality" compared to those of the UM3X?

More clarity and detail vs. UM3X, but like I said UM3X treble is excellent too - just not quite at that ultimate level.

 

[Spyro]

I find the UM3X to have far better overall clarity than TFP10. The veiled midrange makes TFP10 sound cloudy to my ears.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find the UM3X to have far better overall clarity than TFP10. The veiled midrange makes TFP10 sound cloudy to my ears.

I agree. But I was just talking about the treble. Treble on Triple.fi is really great. Mids and bass - not so much. UM3X certainly has better defined mids and more accurate bass.

 

[iponderous]

^ I suppose it's a matter of semantics and of course how we hear. I'm a little reluctant to use terms such as "higher quality" when comparing the sound signatures of universal IEMs at this level. It's more a matter of how the sound is presented to me. The highs of the TF10 are more prominent and energetic in the mix, rather than better than the UM3X's to my ears. My recollection of the UM3X was that I found it's sound signature "lifeless" and I just couldn't engage with it at all. What I regard as lifeless, others may describe as "neutral".