Quote:
SM3 is faster than the IE8 and at least close to or on par with the 530s. What examples do you have to give? I have tested many IEMs and in general that is the trend, BAs are generally faster. Matter of fact, I haven't tested a slow BA as of yet (though the lowest tier ones I've tried are the PFE112/HF5 but the slowest have been the TF10s which will be considered fast by dynamic standards.). Component material and the type of BA/Dynamic driver being use is important but this changes the speed of the driver relative to it's nature which can be either dynamic or BA but my experience has revealed that BA are generally faster. The SM3s are a good example of being fast and yet carry some weight but the sound is "creamy" due to the midhigh deprival and warmth coming from the lower regions. If you have an idea of how the drivers work, it's easy to follow that BAs are more effortless in producing the sound (speed) but then give up that visceral feel of dynamics (due to the lack of air movement) though the use of multiple drivers has been the approach to do both well.
mvw2 and Joker lay out some measurements that coincide quite well with my experience when it comes to the speed of certain IEMs,
here (see posts #66&68). Speed: IE8[7]//SM3[10]//SE530[10]
It seems that what you're looking for is energy and dynamic range not just speed because most of the speedy IEMs won't give you that impact and explosiveness in contrast to softer passages. According to what I've read from mvw2 it seems that the UM3x has both outstanding speed and yet that dynamic range and energy.
Matter of
semantics, I suppose ...
mvw2's interpretation of speed [Well speed alone is a good measure of how clean or blurred an earphone will be when presented with complex information. A fast earphone will be able to effortlessly present a lot of information, separately, where everything heard is unique in source.] is -- I suppose --
one potentially valid interpretation of "speed". It's certainly not the first one that comes to my mind. I would call mvw2's acoustic event "congestion" (or lack of).
One can use
Stereophile's Glossary to
standardize audiophile-ese a bit.
To wit, then:
speed The apparent rapidity with which a reproducing system responds to steep wavefronts and overall musical pace. See "fast," "slow."
"Speed",
for me, is mostly about fast transients, pace n' rhythm and partly fast macro-dynamics. Can the transducers keep up to the signal? (in EE, this is also called the slew rate of an amplifier) See
my recent post in the FX700 thread for more on this.
The SM3, IMO, takes its time (maybe 'drags its heels') when transducing electrical to mechanical energy. In addition, it somewhat compress macro-dynamics. (Micros are rendered a bit better, tho')
The IE8s are leaner and quicker. And also more macro-dynamically real. They are simply,
more engaging. I think they are -- in many important ways -- more neutral and much more a true In-Ear-
Monitor. Most "IEM"s that I've heard, IMO of course, are In-Ear-
Phones.
All that said, I like the SM3s, they are simply not my go-to IEMs. Not by a long shot. IE8s OTOH are a different story. They are not simply my go-to IEMs, they are my
go-to transducers. I choose them even when I have K701s, HD-650 and bd 880s around.
You noted the UM3x as a possible IEM I may be after. I think Westones are too Shure-like (they share the same engineering heritage IIRC). My comments in the FX700 thread note: "With the 530s, as zippy as they are, I simply find their sound crude, glaring, rough -- all-round, and
relatively speaking of course,
low-fi and even offensive." I think (based only from what I've read) that what the/any Westones dish out won't be all that much more importantly different. And there are plenty of other (and upcoming -- e.g. AKG 3300s) interesting cans to choose from.
Very happy about that. The quality is top, I am impressed with the wiring.. great job. 
