[Pianist]

Quote:

The more I a/b the sm3 with my sm3eq, the more I feel a hybrid of the sm3 and re0 (having the re0's frequency response and sm3's technical capabilities) would be very close to my ideal sound. The sm3 has much better speed and separation, but sounds veiled and more sibilant compared to the re0. As it stands, I think I would actually enjoy the re0 more than the stock sm3 which is bjillion times the price. I have a feeling the w4 might be closer to the sm3eq in terms of frequency response than the stock sm3. Will have to save up... again.

Do you use your RE0 amped? When amped properly RE0 is also very technically capable. It has better treble than SM3 and just about matches SM3 in most other aspects IMO. SM3, on the other hand, doesn't seem to benefit from better sources anywhere near as much.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Okay after reading this thread and the reviews from average joe dfkt and the other one on TMA over and over, I've decided I'm going to give the SM3's a go, though couple questions before I finally commit, and to Inks that means I'm no longer interested in your MD's but thanks.
 
Can anyone give me some brief comparisons of the TF10 to the SM3's in terms of it's mids and lows.
 
i.e. the bass's "impact" I'm scared that the impact will be so little that I'd hate them, I currently turn off EQ for R&B/hip -hop /rap when listening out of my iPhone 4 with my TF10s though when listening to more intense genres like heavy metal/screamo bands like Parkway Drive, August burns red I put it on Bass Reducer and on my Sony X series I've pretty much boosted the mids all the way up for all genres. The bass is enough on bass reducer for those genres, though is the sm3's impact much less than the TF10s? Thanks guys.

Dude, if the sm3 doesn't have enough bass and mids* for ya, I doubt any iem does. Without eq you can expect a lot of bass and warmth. To make that even better, bass transients is super tight and fast - it punches with both weight and power.
 
edit: lower mids*

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

No offense, just throwing in my 2c...
 
First of all, if you have more sibilance with the SM3 than with the RE0, I'd seriously question your tips. I wasn't all that fond of the SM3's sound signature when I had them, but they were among the least sibilant phones I've ever heard.
 
Second, I'm quite supportive of EQing and it works great with the IE8 that are warmish from too much bass. But I don't think the same thing applies to the SM3. These have a distinctive richness/thickness to their lower mids that's IMO caused by attack/decay transients and not by excessive bass. To my ears the frequency response in bass and mids is pretty balanced (not so sure about treble though). Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that they sound less bassy with your settings, but there's only so much you can do with an EQ and you can't do anything about attack/decay transients that make notes sound thicker or thinner.

I use the stock double flange which I find has decent comfort and fit. I find the foam ones harder to insert and haven't put them back in since I'd last used them. Maybe it's the stock double flange that is giving problems with sibilance. With regard to the sm3eq's balance, yes the bass and mids are somewhat level and much higher in quantity than treble. However, it's pretty obvious that after 200Hz or so it slopes downward, given the sm3 its warm signature (which is almost universal in headphones); compounding this warmth is the comparatively small quantity of upper-mids and treble energy, giving the illusion that there is a huge amount of bass, since I would tend to turn up the volume to hear vocals and cymbals more clearly - that doesn't quite work out, obviously. Low vocal notes sound very big and close, while high notes sound airier and further away - that's an artifact of this warmth slope, not attack or decay. No, I don't think it has anything to do with attack or decay - the re0 was not exactly a lightweight in those areas in comarison, and still remained very clear.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Can anyone give me some brief comparisons of the TF10 to the SM3's in terms of it's mids and lows.
 

I'd take the SM3 on both accounts, especially the Mids.  As for the the UM3X being the most 'neutral' Westone product and the SM3 being sibilant I'll have to humbly disagree.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Do you use your RE0 amped? When amped properly RE0 is also very technically capable. It has better treble than SM3 and just about matches SM3 in most other aspects IMO. SM3, on the other hand, doesn't seem to benefit from better sources anywhere near as much.

The uDAC has an internal amp that is supposedly pretty good. RE0 is very technically capable, definitely agree there. It definitely does have better treble... I don't think it matches my sm3eq in most other aspects LOL. However, I would need to hear it again to be more certain, as I'm basing off of auditory memory. Imaging, transients, instrument separation, and detail resolution pretty much are all better in my sm3eq. RE0 sounded very narrow, in comparison, but still almost just as detailed and speedy. Finally, re0 doesn't have sm3's bass extension and control. The re0 has the downward warmth slope that I talked about in the previous post, just like almost every other headphone does, except it's a very gentle slope. I loved my re0 and after hearing the stock sm3 I wondered if I had just wasted $360 when I could havve just bought any pair of re0. After sprinkling the magical eq dust onto the sm3, I'm now very happy with its sound. In hindsight, if I knew how good the sm3eq sounds, would I still have bought a new pair of re0 instead? Yes, but only because I would enough money left over to buy a w4! -big grin-

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

I'd take the SM3 on both accounts, especially the Mids.  As for the the UM3X being the most 'neutral' Westone product and the SM3 being sibilant I'll have to humbly disagree.

I think someone, perhaps shigzeo, mentioned in their review that the w4 has less bass than both the um3x an W. That was very good news for me, being the self-proclaimed neutralhead that I am. For now, I'll just attribute the sibilance I hear to the stock double flange tips.

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

@confispect That applies to you, also. Since you asked, here it is, through foobar2k's equalizer:
 
[size=7.5pt]-4 55 Hz
-4 77 Hz
-4 110 Hz
-4 156 Hz
-4 220 Hz
-3 311 Hz
-2 440 Hz
-1 622 Hz
-0 880 Hz
-0 1.2 kHz
-0 1.8 kHz
-0 2.5 kHz
-0 3.5 kHz
-0 5 kHz
-0 7 kHz
-3 10 kHz (sibilance reduction)
-0 14 kHz
-0 20 kHz[/size]
 
 
Congrats I'll have to try it all though I doubt it's for me. As far as the preferring to attenuating more than accentuating, I agree I've tried both as well as use both.
 
 
 
 

 

[james444]

Quote:

However, it's pretty obvious that after 200Hz or so it slopes downward, given the sm3 its warm signature (which is almost universal in headphones); compounding this warmth is the comparatively small quantity of upper-mids and treble energy, giving the illusion that there is a huge amount of bass, since I would tend to turn up the volume to hear vocals and cymbals more clearly - that doesn't quite work out, obviously. Low vocal notes sound very big and close, while high notes sound airier and further away - that's an artifact of this warmth slope, not attack or decay. No, I don't think it has anything to do with attack or decay - the re0 was not exactly a lightweight in those areas in comarison, and still remained very clear.

Well, I heard them similar to you (big/thick/chesty low vocals), but respectfully disagree about the cause.
 

Quote:

/img/forum/go_quote.gif

Well, I prefer to talk more in terms of frequency response as well as aspects like note thickness, dynamics, energy, etc.  A lot of this will translate to the warm, bright, dark, neutral, natural, etc.  Things like natural, realistic, life-like are a bit dependent on how the driver presents the notes.  In some ways it requires certain amounts of transparency, dynamic range, articulation of note, natural decay, and so on.  For example, high transparency, cleanliness of note, good dynamic range, and a decent amount of texture/articulation of note will let the earphone accurately reproduce sound as long as these aspects are decently linear in range.  Some level of detail, sound stage, and separation will come out from these abilities too.  Coloration comes about when an earphone is lacking or has non-linear traits that over or under emphasize sounds in certain ways.  For example, a thick note with a long decay time would naturally produce a warmer, thicker sound.  This can often times exaggerate the low end, especially if the driver isn't quick and clean enough up top.  I tend to like to talk about note thickness and decay and other traits because it indicates in a lot of ways how an earphone will sound.  Frequency response alone is only one, small part  of the entire presentation.  I EQ every earphone I own, and I EQ all of them (ear) flat, well at least my perception of flat.  Despite all having the same end frequency response, the sound of each earphone varies drastically.  Things like neutral, natural, balanced, etc. come about in part by frequency response but also with heavy dependence on the linearity and range of other traits like a broad and linear dynamic range, having a natural amount of note build up and decay which would include texture/articulation and the resulting thickness and presence of the note, and having a natural sense of energy/power behind the note, not being too laid back/soft or overly aggressive/punchy.  Just reading through this it sort of becomes obvious that frequency response alone is a small part.  It is a driving force of the earphone as the same product EQed two different ways will have almost as much variation in sound as comparing two different earphones completely.  In the end, everything has influence, and we are always looking at the total package.

 

[svyr]

Does anyone know where to get the SM3 recabled (pref with a removable cable) and reshelled (if possible).

Mine finally died only after 1/2 year, with the cable at the bottom of the Y split breaking inside and distorting when disturbed. hmph.

 

[shigzeo]

Earsonics can do that for you!

 

[PolishedLake]

Quick question about SM3 and PFE Phonak silicon eartips.
 
Q: Do these eartips fit onto the SM3 without the need for modification?
 
Thank you!
-PolishedLake

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Well, I heard them similar to you (big/thick/chesty low vocals), but respectfully disagree about the cause.
 

Thanks for the graph. Where'd you get it?
 
Very interesting post by mvw2. If it is the case with the sm3 that it sounds the way it does because of extra long decay, then I'll have to definitely look elsewhere as this thing sounds so thick as hell. It doesn't allow vocals to truly stand out, as well as making them sound muddy and unnatural. So I'm getting frustrated with the stock sm3 as I can't get used to it. On a slightly more positive note, everything I dislike about the sm3 out of the uDAC hp out is much better on my dap. However, the level of sibilance out of the nwz-s544 threatens to slice through my eardrums.

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

Does anyone know where to get the SM3 recabled (pref with a removable cable) and reshelled (if possible).

Mine finally died only after 1/2 year, with the cable at the bottom of the Y split breaking inside and distorting when disturbed. hmph.

 
Quote:

Earsonics can do that for you!

For cable replacement, yes, but I didn't think they would reshell the SM3.  There are several places that do reshelling, but none that I know of that are close to you.  Kozee could probably reshell them for you and add a detachable cable if you wanted to send them to the states, or UM could do it also.
 


Quote:

Thanks for the graph. Where'd you get it?
 
Very interesting post by mvw2. If it is the case with the sm3 that it sounds the way it does because of extra long decay, then I'll have to definitely look elsewhere as this thing sounds so thick as hell. It doesn't allow vocals to truly stand out, as well as making them sound muddy and unnatural. So I'm getting frustrated with the stock sm3 as I can't get used to it. On a slightly more positive note, everything I dislike about the sm3 out of the uDAC hp out is much better on my dap. However, the level of sibilance out of the nwz-s544 threatens to slice through my eardrums.

Frequency response charts can be misleading.  For example, the CK10 and FX500 have nearly the same frequency response charts but no one would confuse the two!  And it sounds like you need to move on to another IEM as there are many most that aren't as thick as the SM3.  Luckily you have lots of options including the DBA-02, CK10, FX700, W4, Fabs, JH5, etc. that aren't as thick as the SM3 and might be a better fit.  I would say go for a custom...

 

[Inks]

It's thick but not that much imo and the decay can be quick when called for. 

 

[james444]

Quote:

Thanks for the graph. Where'd you get it?

 
It's the same that dfkt posted earlier in one of the SM3 threads. You'd have to ask him for the original source.
 
Quote:

/img/forum/go_quote.gif

... this thing sounds so thick as hell ...

 
Quote:

It's thick but not that much imo ...

 
As always, mileages vary. I found them too thick for my taste, because certain vocals that I'm very familiar with just sounded too chesty.
 
Speaking of which, @tigon_ridge since you dislike both thickness and warmth I second Joe's recommendation to move on to something like the DBA-02 or CK10. FX700 would again be somewhat warmish IMO, I'd rule these out.