EarSonics SM3 Appreciation, Discussion, & Review Thread - Technically Best Universal? (see first post for reviews and info)

[MayaTlab]

Quote:

I am seriously considering those!
At the moment, I have the IE8 and I am very happy with those. But I...am a Head-Fier

and would really like to hear something better. I am also considering e-Q7, CK10, MTPC...but I would really like to have an upgrade in most areas, and I'm a little afraid that some of those IEMs might give me better accuracy/speed/detail than my IE8, but would lose in other areas. From what I read here, the SM3 would be like a complete upgrade over IE8. That way, I could sell IE8 without any remorse. Question: is there something I could regret on IE8 if I buy SM3?
The only thing that holds me back is the price: holy cr@p, those thing cost 345€, whereas I only paid like 190€ for my IE8! But if they are really worth the price, I think I could make a last effort and then quit this forum...for a while

.
PS: I am not considering customs for the moment, as I've just finished my studies, and am still looking for a job

I personally think that my SM2 are technically better than my IE8 in most areas, except soundstage width. The SM3 are at least a little bit better than the SM2 in every single area of sound characterisitcs, if not frankly better in others. And their soundstage is at least as wide as the IE8 according to some reports.
 
The thing you might miss is the sound signature of the IE8, which is worlds apart from the Earsonics one. The main difference will be in the "texture" of the sound : Earsonics monitors are supremely liquid, while the IE8 are smooth but a little grainy, especially in the mids and treble. Of course the frequency response is different as well : more bass and slightly more treble with the IE8 (depending on fit), less mids than the SM3 (as a rule of thumb, but the SM3 seem to vary quite a lot depending on the recording - which is to me a good thing).

 

[Photofan1986]

Many thanks, monsieur By the way, did you already get your SM3?

 

[cn11]

Quote:

I personally think that my SM2 are technically better than my IE8 in most areas, except soundstage width. The SM3 are at least a little bit better than the SM2 in every single area of sound characterisitcs, if not frankly better in others. And their soundstage is at least as wide as the IE8 according to some reports.
 
The thing you might miss is the sound signature of the IE8, which is worlds apart from the Earsonics one. The main difference will be in the "texture" of the sound : Earsonics monitors are supremely liquid, while the IE8 are smooth but a little grainy, especially in the mids and treble. Of course the frequency response is different as well : more bass and slightly more treble with the IE8 (depending on fit), less mids than the SM3 (as a rule of thumb, but the SM3 seem to vary quite a lot depending on the recording - which is to me a good thing).

 
Wow, truly? Then I find this, taken with the other comments about the amazing level of detail, rather confusing. Nothing I've read so far has cleared up how they must sound, except perhaps dfkt's comments. I think his brief initial impressions are giving me the most solid perception so far. But if as you say they have less treble than the IE8, then I find that rather worrisome.... and I'm not a 'treblehead'. 
 

 

[MayaTlab]

 
 
Quote:

Many thanks, monsieur By the way, did you already get your SM3?





 

 
 
Nope. I'll wait for feedbacks on the Beyerdynamic T 50 p first and a comparison with the ATH ES10. Then I'll choose between portables or IEMs. I'm very tempted by those IEMs, but I might be also looking for a break from IEMs. And they cost 440 euros with earmolds - quite expensive.

 

[MayaTlab]

Quote:

 
Wow, truly? Then I find this, taken with the other comments about the amazing level of detail, rather confusing. Nothing I've read so far has cleared up how they must sound, except perhaps dfkt's comments. I think his brief initial impressions are giving me the most solid perception so far. But if as you say they have less treble than the IE8, then I find that rather worrisome.... and I'm not a 'treblehead'. 
 

It depends on the tips you use. I use my IE8 with the silicone biflanges, and I compared them to my SM2 with long complies and to reports of the SM3 + complies as well (they share a very close frequency response). If you used the IE8 with the foam tips, then they'll have similar trebles response I think.
 
However, treble quality has nothing to do with treble quantity. I find the IE8 trebles to be severely lacking in quality (except extension), while I largely prefer my SM2 trebles (better tonal distinctions, better details and wetter texture).
 
I'd probably use them with the EQ of my Cowon S9 on if I were to use them with complies and deep insertion (personal taste here !). However, they were most likely designed with Earsonics's own custom tips in mind - which is supposed to give them the true balance they were designed for, and a better trebles rendition (acrylic seems to be a very good material for trebles quality).

 

[cn11]

Quote:

It depends on the tips you use. I use my IE8 with the silicone biflanges, and I compared them to my SM2 with long complies and to reports of the SM3 + complies as well (they share a very close frequency response). If you used the IE8 with the foam tips, then they'll have similar trebles response I think.
 
However, treble quality has nothing to do with treble quantity. I find the IE8 trebles to be severely lacking in quality (except extension), while I largely prefer my SM2 trebles (better tonal distinctions, better details and wetter texture).
 
I'd probably use them with the EQ of my Cowon S9 on if I were to use them with complies and deep insertion (personal taste here !). However, they were most likely designed with Earsonics's own custom tips in mind - which is supposed to give them the true balance they were designed for, and a better trebles rendition (acrylic seems to be a very good material for trebles quality).

Wait, were you talking about the SM2 all along? I wish that would have been more clear in your previous post. I gathered you were comparing the SM3's treble directly to the IE8. Please for future reference be a little more clear as to which earphone you do own. 
 
And I agree about using foam tips with the IE8, it does decrease their treble. I've always used UE single flange silicones to give the best results, and I'm confident that I've heard the best they have to offer throughout the frequency band. Now compared to the FX700's, the treble is incredibly dull and murky. Which is why it took me by surprise when I thought you were making that statement about the SM3's treble.

 

[MayaTlab]

Quote:

Wait, were you talking about the SM2 all along? I wish that would have been more clear in your previous post. I gathered you were comparing the SM3's treble directly to the IE8. Please for future reference be a little more clear as to which earphone you do own. 
 
And I agree about using foam tips with the IE8, it does decrease their treble. I've always used UE single flange silicones to give the best results, and I'm confident that I've heard the best they have to offer throughout the frequency band. Now compared to the FX700's, the treble is incredibly dull and murky. Which is why it took me by surprise when I thought you were making that statement about the SM3's treble.

I never said the SM2 and SM3 trebles are dull. I just said they're most likely to have less trebles quantity relative to the IE8 with stock tips. But I actually find them much less dull than the IE8 ones. Dullness to me has nothing to do with quantity.
 
What I was saying is that IMHO the SM2 treble quality is already a step above the IE8 one - so the SM3 can only do better.

 

[MayaTlab]

Quote:

I never said the SM2 and SM3 trebles are dull. I just said they're most likely to have less trebles quantity relative to the IE8 with stock tips. But I actually find them much less dull than the IE8 ones. Dullness to me has nothing to do with quantity.
 
What I was saying is that the SM2 trebles quality is already better, IMHO, than the IE8 one, so the SM3 can only have better quality as well.

 

[MayaTlab]

Sorry, double post.

 

[MayaTlab]

Sorry, double post. Lost in the new head-fi .

 

[MayaTlab]

Sorry, double post.

 

[MayaTlab]

I'm awfully sorry for that frenetic double posting, but I've tried all along to edit the second post in the series and it keeps posting new posts. My apologies. Could that be a bug ?

 

[shigzeo]

Funny, I got into Depeche Mode after going to their Toronto concert in 1998. Amazing. Bought every album since!

 

[dfkt]

Quote:

Wow, truly? Then I find this, taken with the other comments about the amazing level of detail, rather confusing. Nothing I've read so far has cleared up how they must sound, except perhaps dfkt's comments. I think his brief initial impressions are giving me the most solid perception so far. But if as you say they have less treble than the IE8, then I find that rather worrisome.... and I'm not a 'treblehead'. 
 

Indeed, the SM3 have some of the most recessed treble I've heard so far in IEMs. Probably equal to or even more recessed than the Atrio (can't say for sure, sold my Atrio a long time ago), definitely more recessed than the SE530. The paradox part however is, the SM3 do not lack any details and precision up there, it's just a very weird frequency response - they are more resolving than the aforementioned SE530. EQing the treble up 4-6dB makes them sound flat to my ears, and almost "sparkly" (which I like in IEMs like the PFE and e-Q7). EQed SM3 treble sounds better than similarly EQed IE8 treble to my ears. But both are not really my first choice un-EQed, personally.

 

[cn11]

Thanks dfkt... that really helps me understand more in depth.