soozieq
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Posts
- 3,210
- Likes
- 20
I can't get the hang of quoting parts of the same post, so I'm posting my responses in blue
Quote:
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,
That's interesting eric. Do you mean the SM3 handles all acoustic guitar better, or specifically on the tracks you mentioned? I listened to "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl" from Muddy Waters "Folk Singer". It's a truly excellent acoustic blues recording (well, the MFSL version is) and the one thing that jumped out was that the acoustic guitars with the SM3 sounded like they were being played with nylon strings. On the FX700's, it sounded like steel strings were used.
Nylon strings have a warmer and fuller sound, most often used for Classical guitar - and steel strings have a sharper and colder tone. It's the difference between soft and edgy. I have no idea what was used, but I'd imagine Muddy and Buddy (Muddy and Buddy??) used steel strings, in which case the FX700 portrayed the guitars more realistically. The SM3 softened the guitars somewhat and took the edge off. But I like the edge.
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.
The SM3 definitely portrays more vocal detail, but I really don't miss the odd intake of breath when I listen to the FX700's. And I prefer the clearer vocals with the FX700 by quite a margin. I agree with james that clarity and detail are not the same thing. For example, I thought the IE8 had good treble detail, but there was a slight fog over it which reduced the clarity. The SM3 vocals had a fog over them which irritated me - so much so that I gave them to my cat to drag round the garden for a while - but don't tell Chris
Quote:
Time and time again, whenever I hear acoustic guitar or similar instruments on FX, it always gives me that intense feeling of satisfaction, coined eargasm. Now, the SM3 is great with its speed and accuracy, but I prefer the timbre of the FX. That reverberation of string instrument out of that tiny 10mm wooden driven....it's just the ooooh feeling. I tried to look for that sound of acoustic instrument on the SM3, but it's nowhere to be found.
Yes yes yes! That's exactly how I felt.
The treble is more forward on the FX, but never sounding harsh to my ear. Weirdly, it's less fatiguing on the FX than the SM3, as there are times where I notice that slightly metallic sibilance. Whereas on the FX it's smoother, at least, to my ears. Perhaps since it's vented.
I hear it as more forward too with a lot more sparkle. And it's never harsh to me either, just beautifully twinkly
Chris, a big thanks for parting with them long enough to let me demo them. I managed to get in several consecutive hours of quality time with them (while pressed into my ears....) and I can see why you want to sleep with them
They have great bass, smooth treble and a huge vocal presence. But.... for me, they just didn't have enough edge to make me sit up and take notice.
Also, they suffered the same fate as the CK10 when I turned them up loud. I'd get hit by a wall of sound that got tiring after a while. The trouble was that I liked them a lot better at louder volumes, but my ears couldn't take the ringing!!
ipondypoo, yes I do think they sound similar to the UM3x, in that they share the same warm sound, and can sound a little flat depending on the recording. But the SM3 soundstage is a lot bigger and more airy, and the vocals (while forward) don't scream at you as much as the UM3X.
Build quality is not that great for the money. I liked the braided cable, it felt very secure and sturdy (like the W3) - but the plastic earpieces felt flimsy and cheap to me, like something out of a Christmas cracker.
Also, the SM3 fit is about the most annoying I've encountered since the e-Q7. With the FX's it's just a case of 'shove in and go', something that I've really learned to appreciate after all the earphones I've had.