[obsidyen]

Not sure how you are definitely going edm. Maybe vocal trance or dubstep is what you mean? Most electronic music, ime, responds best to headphones that are reasonably neutral. Lots of stuff going on in electronic music on top.

Thanks for your impressions.

Trance, house, electro... It's not that those are not enjoyable with ES3, it's just that Velvet which is v-shaped is so much more fun. You should definitely try it if you can. It might be the best full BA IEM for EDM.

 

[obsidyen]

   
Neutral (for the most part) yes - but it has extra sub-bass and lower treble presence, so in that vein I'd call it slightly coloured.  Natural I'd disagree.  The ES3 is measurably extremely flat through the mid-bass and mid-range, but it doesn't have the slight mid-bass gentle bump which is a sign of a more natural sounding signature.
 
I've also heard most of the AKG range (owned a few of them as well).  Personally I'd say the the ES3 sound quite a bit like the K701/K702/Q701, except they have more sub-bass and less mid-bass presence. And I'd personally say the AKGs sound more natural because of this.  If you were looking for something more toward the K812 sound, you'd either need an ES3 with more mid-bass and less sub-bass, or an ES2 with a little more bump in the lower treble.  personally I think you'd be safer to use the ES2 (more natural sounding), and tweak the lower treble to your liking.
 
Disclaimer : I have heard and spent time with (extensively) all of the above mentioned head/earphone.

Sorry but I disagree that AKGs are more natural. K/Q701 especially had a nasty treble peak that would make my eardrums hurt after 30 mins. I don't think natural sound is correlated solely with mid-bass presence, that is not the only factor. Timbre and realism is important as well, and I would say ES3 is better in those areas. I'm not saying ES3 is very natural sounding, it's not a K10, but it sounds natural compared to AKG's K/Q701 HP, at least that's how my ears perceive it. ES2 may indeed be more natural sounding (haven't heard it) but it is safe to say it's worse for monitoring based on frequency response.

 

[Brooko]

I think we're going to vehemently disagree so let's leave it there. Personally the ES3 is not an earphone I'd use for monitoring - unless you'd prefer the end result to be sub-bass light. And timbre/ realism when much of the overall fundamentals for timbre are in the 200hz - 1kHz range? This is precisely why the AKGs you mentioned were (and still are considered to be) reference headphones and were used for checking mixes post production.

 

[bavinck]

Sorry but I disagree that AKGs are more natural. K/Q701 especially had a nasty treble peak that would make my eardrums hurt after 30 mins. I don't think natural sound is correlated solely with mid-bass presence, that is not the only factor. Timbre and realism is important as well, and I would say ES3 is better in those areas. I'm not saying ES3 is very natural sounding, it's not a K10, but it sounds natural compared to AKG's K/Q701 HP, at least that's how my ears perceive it. ES2 may indeed be more natural sounding (haven't heard it) but it is safe to say it's worse for monitoring based on frequency response.

I'm with you on this one. To my ears a mid bass hump sounds boom almost all the time (nighthawk was a bit like this but not horrible). To my ears a flatter bass response sound more natural. I see brooko's point but don't agree either. Brooko and I have different tastes so natural will always be a perspective.

 

[obsidyen]

I think we're going to vehemently disagree so let's leave it there. Personally the ES3 is not an earphone I'd use for monitoring - unless you'd prefer the end result to be sub-bass light. And timbre/ realism when much of the overall fundamentals for timbre are in the 200hz - 1kHz range? This is precisely why the AKGs you mentioned were (and still are considered to be) reference headphones and were used for checking mixes post production.

Ok, just going to say one more thing. HD 650, the headphone that has one of the best, if not the best, timbre, right? Sounds nothing like Q701. Frequency response isn't everything. AKGs being good monitoring headphones is totally another topic.

 

[Brooko]

Personally I find the HD600 more realistic - but you'll notice that they share a common trait - slight mid bass hump (200 Hz to 1 kHz) as I pointed out earlier. And when you have a look at the K702 etc - you'll see the same slight mid-bass hump (smaller on the AKG). With the ES3 - it's pretty much dead flat through the upper bass and lower mid-range. There's the issue. But I'm just pointing it out. For electronic (which you were talking about earlier) the ES3 will be perfect - enhanced sub-bass, and upper mid-range. I just personally find they don't do realistic timbre and tone well as other earphones with real acoustic instruments (cello, violin, acoustic guitar) - which I've been around my whole life (musical family)

It's fine they meet your preferences - I really liked them too. But IMO natural sounding they are not. ES2 is though - you should see if you can get a listen to those at some stage.

 

[obsidyen]

It's fine they meet your preferences - I really liked them too. But IMO natural sounding they are not. ES2 is though - you should see if you can get a listen to those at some stage.

 
I was actually considering buying ES2 for a different flavour but even though I got a good fit with ES3, it was not very comfortable after a while. I have rather small ears. I wish ES line had S-EM9 shell in a smaller form.

 

[Brooko]

   
I was actually considering buying ES2 for a different flavour but even though I got a good fit with ES3, it was not very comfortable after a while. I have rather small ears. I wish ES line had S-EM9 shell in a smaller form.

 
I envy you having heard the 9's.

  What are they like?

 

[obsidyen]

   
I envy you having heard the 9's.

  What are they like?

It's been 2 months since I've heard them, a friend loaned them to me for a few days. 

 From memory: They have the same basic sound signature as ES3 but S-EM9 does everything better, as it should for the price. It might have the highest resolution I've ever heard from any headphone. It is amazingly fast as well (what they call PRaT I guess) so does very good with fast genres. It is much more technical than K10UA I had. I believe it really is worth paying S-EM9 price if you want a true TOTL. However, I would have added 1 more bass driver (it only has 1) and have more bass than neutral. 

 

[Salvatore]

Good conversation I like it. And thanks for the input guys, appreciated!
 
Quote:

  Only AKG headphone I like more than the ES3 is the 812.

 
I have tested 812 few times in different expos. I think they are great headphones, but for me the treble/upper mids were a bit too harsh. Tested them with solid state so I guess tube amp would have better overall synergy with 812. The same was with RHA Cl1's with the new RHA dac/amp combo.
 

  Sorry but I disagree that AKGs are more natural. K/Q701 especially had a nasty treble peak that would make my eardrums hurt after 30 mins. I don't think natural sound is correlated solely with mid-bass presence, that is not the only factor. Timbre and realism is important as well, and I would say ES3 is better in those areas. I'm not saying ES3 is very natural sounding, it's not a K10, but it sounds natural compared to AKG's K/Q701 HP, at least that's how my ears perceive it. ES2 may indeed be more natural sounding (haven't heard it) but it is safe to say it's worse for monitoring based on frequency response.

 

I think we're going to vehemently disagree so let's leave it there. Personally the ES3 is not an earphone I'd use for monitoring - unless you'd prefer the end result to be sub-bass light. And timbre/ realism when much of the overall fundamentals for timbre are in the 200hz - 1kHz range? This is precisely why the AKGs you mentioned were (and still are considered to be) reference headphones and were used for checking mixes post production.

 
I must emphasize that I wouldn't be using these IEM's for mixing or mastering. I'll definitely use my K702 and Focal Solo6 Be's for those. Only monitoring would be the band live setting and because I play drums it is important that I get good sound from drums. Of course the full mix should be balanced too. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that these IEMs I'm looking for should be both musical and accurate so that I can hear what I'm playing but still be able to enjoy the music we create. Only thing I'm concerned about the ES3 is their bass. If ES3 produce bass like insufficiently amplified AKG product, then I need to consider something else.
 

  Ok, just going to say one more thing. HD 650, the headphone that has one of the best, if not the best, timbre, right? Sounds nothing like Q701. Frequency response isn't everything. AKGs being good monitoring headphones is totally another topic.

 
I have done some extensive testing between HD650 and K702 anniversaries (i prefer the standard K702 pads if paired with good amp) with Jotunheim and I must say that K702 are definitely the better headphones when you have one of those high end amps with plenty of power (for me anyways). I think the K702 have better soundstage, separation and even the bass quality is better just to mention few. Maybe I just tend to like headphones that have bigger soundstage and better separation. For the IEM's I guess I'd be looking 1) Good isolation 2) No microphonics 3) Good drum sound (good bass) 4) Clear mids (not veiled or recessed). The main thing why I've been leaning towards Earsonics is the universally approved fit and isolation. Also the sound signature, at least in paper and graphs, seems to be good for my needs.
 
It's quite hard to find the perfect IEM's, because if you buy the product you can't usually send them back for full refund in case its not the thing you've been looking for. At least here in Finland you can't. I'm not sure about Thomann policy on IEM's though? If they allow full 30 day refund on IEM's I could order several pairs to test.

 

[ifunes39]

For what type Of Music aré perfects?

 

[WhiskeyJacks]

I have reas through this thread a couple times here and there, i am a happy owner of the earsonics sm64, which is one of the best sub 600 $iems i have used and let alone owned. I am looking for an upgrade to something that has more mid range detail and extension up top without being being bright or too harsh. I have looked at the used 1 plus 2, um 50 from westone, and this earphone.

 

[karloil]

to ES3 users - how's the build quality of your IEMs? I'm asking because I used to have an SM3 v2 and the shell just split right into 2 just a few months of use.

the retailer in Singapore doesn't carry the ES3. if I purchase online and issues arise regarding build quality, I'm afraid shipping cost would quickly take its toll.

  
 
I always love how the SM3 sounded but quite hesitant of this build issues.

 

[Tom Yum Goong]

  to ES3 users - how's the build quality of your IEMs? I'm asking because I used to have an SM3 v2 and the shell just split right into 2 just a few months of use.

the retailer in Singapore doesn't carry the ES3. if I purchase online and issues arise regarding build quality, I'm afraid shipping cost would quickly take its toll.

  
 
I always love how the SM3 sounded but quite hesitant of this build issues.

ES3 is far better built quality-wise than their older models.
You'll have a hard time to get these shells to split since they are now screwed together instead of just glued.
Does make the whole housing bigger, but hey, it's really worth it.

 

[karloil]

  ES3 is far better built quality-wise than their older models.
You'll have a hard time to get these shells to split since they are now screwed together instead of just glued.
Does make the whole housing bigger, but hey, it's really worth it.

 
Thanks! This is actually one of my finalist

  its between the ES3 and UM Martian.....