[Uchiya]

It's also important not to forget your source, as I have the SM3 with a CLAS and Pico-Slim setup.  The sm3 is very capable of scaling up with equipment that produce a higher resolution.  I find myself more than not, drifting into space with this combo at all times during the day.

 

[ib1dance]

Quote:

It's also important not to forget your source, as I have the SM3 with a CLAS and Pico-Slim setup.  The sm3 is very capable of scaling up with equipment that produce a higher resolution.  I find myself more than not, drifting into space with this combo at all times during the day.

You should move! the moon is no place to keep your SM3's! they may get dust in them

.
 
 

 

[dogears]

Was browsing thru Westone 4's thread when I bumped into earsonics site and noticed this V2 of the SM3...

 

[dfkt]

Your popcorn will not suffice.

 

[Heret1c]

Quote:

I think the SM3 is fighting its way into becoming the most controversial iem of all time (dethroning the TF10). I really did like the SM3, but enjoyed it's baby brother more, the SM2 (a little bit more space to stretch out my listening legs)

I'd have to agree with this one. There's so much love/hate for it, it really does echo what the TF10 went thru.
 
You know, i never even bothered to try out the SM2 (non-DLX) while at Jaben. Didnt even think of it. Now i'm curious to do so....ahhh...it never ends, does it?
 
 

 

[Heret1c]

Quote:

Nice comparison, ericp10, I totally agree with you. The SM2 are well suited for jazz, more than SM3 (I own both). Different presentation, |joker| did a nice review of them. SM3 V1 are better than SM2 V1, but the SM2 have a special touch... and I like it. SM3 aren´t much veiled with the large stock tips.


 

I never found the Sm3 to be veiled with the previous narrow-bore stock tips. Then again, i am not sure what veiled really means and probably just didnt realise it was since I'm not sure what to listen out for when determining if there's a veil or not.
 
But I do concur that the Sm3 sounds better / clearer / opened up / better treble with the large bore stock tips. So does that mean the veil was the treble / highs being somewhat 'muted' or soft in comparision to the mids / lows? Sorry to ask if this has already been answered. Just need to be sure. Thanks in advance.

 
 

 

[Heret1c]

Quote:

Your popcorn will not suffice.

Ahh dfkt...I must admit I owe a debt of gratitude to your for turning me onto the Headstage Arrow and SM3s. I was curious (and eventually bought both) after reading your reviews of them on ABI. The Headstage was a leap of faith as there was no way to audition them, but i just went ahead and contacted Robert and ordered it. Was a pretty long wait to get them tho but boy was it worth it! Did compare it with other amps at Jaben and still preferred Arrow. Dunno if that just bias but I'm happy and thats all that matters. Luckily with the SM3 I could audition it alongside other IEMs at Jaben before taking the plunge.
 
PS: Have been a long time lurker on Head-fii and ABI, only recently started posting here. Sorry if I've gone OT. Just needed to thank dfkt

 

 

[Heret1c]

Wow...gotten awfully quiet round these here parts.....

 

[dogears]

Yeah, I'm hoping to get impressions of the SM2 V2(?) as well. TIA

 

[LarsHP]

Quote:

I never found the Sm3 to be veiled with the previous narrow-bore stock tips. Then again, i am not sure what veiled really means and probably just didnt realise it was since I'm not sure what to listen out for when determining if there's a veil or not.  
But I do concur that the Sm3 sounds better / clearer / opened up / better treble with the large bore stock tips. So does that mean the veil was the treble / highs being somewhat 'muted' or soft in comparision to the mids / lows? Sorry to ask if this has already been answered. Just need to be sure. Thanks in advance.

I just received my SM3's a few days ago, and I don't find them veiled as such - even though they are far from being as transparent as my HiFiMan HE-6.
I do however find the SM3 a little "veiled" in the first of the below two general types of veil (when talking about a headphone or loudspeaker) that I describe below:
 
The first type is caused by excess bass and lower mids, and the "veil" is in other words gone or lessened considerably when you equalise this away. This is a common experience when you put a loudspeaker too close to the wall behind it (this boosts the bass), and it disappears when you pull the speaker away from the wall. In terms of universal iem's a misfit might produce a smilar effect. In other words this is a subjective "veil", that is caused by too much of some frequencies, and not due to bad driver quality. This kind of "veil" is (theoretically) seen in a frequency response chart (which shows the quantity of the different frequencies).
 
The second type is veiled as opposed to transparent ("a real veil"): This is due to low(er) quality of the driver(s). When I say quality here I mean the ability of the driver to respond precisely to the electrical audio signal it receives. This is f.i. shown in square "wave" response charts and shows the speed of driver (how fast it starts and stops). It is also shown in the amount of harmonic distortion the driver produces. This type of veil is heard as if there is a thin curtain between you and the music. This "real" veil is best heard on quality recordings and using quality audio gear.
 

 

[Inks]

The smooth upper mids is what really makes it sound veiled imo.

 

[LarsHP]

The smooth upper mids is what really makes it sound veiled imo.

Hmmm. Doesn't make sense to me.
When I lower the 300Hz band in the equaliser the "veil" disappears.

 

[Inks]

That would also help as that's lowering the lower mids and thus balances it better with the upper mids. 

 

[LarsHP]

Quote:

That would also help as that's lowering the lower mids and thus balances it better with the upper mids. 

Okay - now it seems like we agree.
When you wrote "smooth upper mids", I understood that as an apperciation of the qualities of the upper mids (which I find very good), and not that you were indicating it has a lower output in the upper mids.
 

 

[Heret1c]

Quote:

I just received my SM3's a few days ago, and I don't find them veiled as such - even though they are far from being as transparent as my HiFiMan HE-6.
I do however find the SM3 a little "veiled" in the first of the below two general types of veil (when talking about a headphone or loudspeaker) that I describe below:
 
The first type is caused by excess bass and lower mids, and the "veil" is in other words gone or lessened considerably when you equalise this away. This is a common experience when you put a loudspeaker too close to the wall behind it (this boosts the bass), and it disappears when you pull the speaker away from the wall. In terms of universal iem's a misfit might produce a smilar effect. In other words this is a subjective "veil", that is caused by too much of some frequencies, and not due to bad driver quality. This kind of "veil" is (theoretically) seen in a frequency response chart (which shows the quantity of the different frequencies).
 
The second type is veiled as opposed to transparent ("a real veil"): This is due to low(er) quality of the driver(s). When I say quality here I mean the ability of the driver to respond precisely to the electrical audio signal it receives. This is f.i. shown in square "wave" response charts and shows the speed of driver (how fast it starts and stops). It is also shown in the amount of harmonic distortion the driver produces. This type of veil is heard as if there is a thin curtain between you and the music. This "real" veil is best heard on quality recordings and using quality audio gear.
 

Thank you, kind sir for that explanation on 'veil'. Very informative and much appreciated!