Been experimenting with the SM3 today vs. the FX700. The FX700 has several hundred hours of burn in now and has come into it's own quite a bit now. Today, for the first time, I used the UE clear silicon tips on the FX700 (I usually use the Monster foam/silicon hybrids). And while I lost a little bass (not much), the mids and treble really shined with the UEs. I finally see somewhat of James point in the highs not being as recessed in the FX700 as in the SM3 (although I also think the recess part is simply because the SM3's mids are so forward).
Well, here it is, I am beginning to think the FX700 is even closer than I thought before in sonic and technical quality to the SM3. The big rub is just different sound sigs, but some things the FX700 does better than the SM3 and vice versa. The reason I decided to look into this now is because I have been receiving a lot of emails from new headfiesr wanting to know is it worth it to buy the SM3, the FX700 or DDM. The DDM is great, but I'll leave it out of the equation for now, because it's not on the level technically as the FX700 and SM3 in my opinion (fun-wise, yes, but technically, no).
So, I basically used select songs from Lenny Kravitz, Sting's new symphonic album, and a couple of Ben Harper tracks in comparing the SM3 and FX700. Yes, the SM3 gives a more fuller sound in some of the tracks and greater headstage, but the FX700 beat the SM3 in space on just about all of the Sting symphonic tracks (space and airiness). The SM3 handles acoustic guitar better than the FX700 on Kravitz' and Harper's tracks, but electric guitars seem to have more natural sizzle and space between notes in the FX700s. Bass is a toss up, because both are nice and detailed, but this is where sound sigs. really take over in both. The FX700 sounds richer and more natural, but there tend to be more sonic qualities and details in the SM3. But James is right for the most part (I was wrong); there seems to be more clarity of sound in the FX700 in most songs I sampled today - not all but most. Treble is also more sparkly in the FX700 than the SM3, but I think there are more micro details in the Earsonics (not a runaway train amount of micro details however).
Vocals-wise, hands down the SM3 wins. When it comes to vocals, the SM3 is approaching almost analytical quality. The FX700's vocal are very good, but can't compete with the SM3. Ironically, the DDM's vocals comes closer to competing with the SM3 than the FX700. This is the magical part of the DDM's unique layered sound.
So if I had to think of a dynamic driver that pretty much matches up with the BA of the SM3, I would have to say hands down the FX700 matches up the best out of all the ones I've heard. To answer those who have asked is the FX700 worth getting over DDM at about $160 more, I say yes. But if $160 is really all your budget will allow, get the DDM. You won't be disappointed.
Now, the harder question is whether the SM3 is worth paying more than FX700? Now if you live in the USA, this question becomes even more complex because the Earsonics and JVC IEMs are virtually the same price thanks to a new U.S. Earsonics distributor.
Hmmmm? To me it comes down to sound sig. and whether you are a dynamic driver or BA driver lover. The all wood driver in the FX700 just has a natural timbre to me that can't be duplicated in a BA. The SM3 comes close but not quite there. On the other hand, the SM3 does some things technically brilliantly (such as its surround sound-like qualities) that the FX700 can't touch. Oh I just thought of something: in the Lenny Kravitz song "Are You Gonna Go My Way," various Lenny verses feed into the right channel, then the left channel and so on and so on. The FX700 does a better job of allowing my ears to hear which channel the vocals are being fed into - with lots of space - than the SM3 does. Just a sidenote of something I thought was interesting. Anyway, I would say get both if you can afford it. If not, and you can only afford one: well, I can't wholeheartedly endorse the SM3 over the FX700 anymore at this stage of the JVC's burn in. Let me make it clear, however, that my opinion about the SM3 hasn't changed. If anything, I appreciate the FX700 more and raise it almost even with the SM3. If I add build quality in as a factor, however, I would have to deduct points from the SM3. The FX700 is built like a tank compared to the SM3, but I do believe Earsonics will address these issues in the near future. So, technically, the SM3 has a little edge over the FX700, but if you're a dynamic driver lover it really doesn't matter.
