[average_joe]

Quote:

I think the analogy pretty accurate. I am someone who sees those pictures through effort and not all the time. I know others who just see the picture with no effort and others who don't see it all or just can't be bothered. I think the SM3 is just like that and I fall into the work at camp with them but do have days where I do just get "it". I have considered selling them several times but do find they work well for alot of my needs so keep listening.

I also agree with others about there presentation being unique in placing a person in the middle but not always appropriate for all music. For some this would make the SM3 to expensive and inappropriate for their needs if their main music choices fall into those categories.

As for Joker's review I have no problem with it follows his methodology.

Thanks for sharing, I guess it is closer than I actually thought (with a large enough sampling of people).  The SM3 will give some people enjoyment and others it won't; for those that enjoy it, great! 
 
Quote:

Autostereogram? Abstract painting? I don't think so. Why should anyone who's able to recreate a 3D soundstage with other IEMs not be able to do the same with the SM3? The one thing that's different with the Earsonics though, they lack forward projection:
 

 
Here's my humble take on the matter, I agree with those who've said (back in the SM3 threads) that soundstaging depends widely on the mix. But IMO forward projection is a feature of the headphone, not the mix. We don't need it when listening to music from stereo speakers, because speakers are already located in front of us. Yet listening to the same recordings from our headphones, most folks would desire some kind of forward projection (tricking the brain into believing that the source is in front of us) to recreate the same feeling we get from speakers or from a live venue. Just think of Ultrasone making millions off their S-Logic and you'll see what I mean.
 
Well, there's one group of listeners that presumably don't want forward projection and that would be live musicians on stage, because they need to recreate the feeling of being among their fellow musicians. This is where Earsonics are coming from and I guess they simply didn't consider those different needs between professionals and non-professionals when they designed the SM3. Now that doesn't make the Earsonics bad IEMs at all, but IMO it is something to consider before deciding on these phones.
 
I couldn't agree more with those who've said, (if possible) try before you buy the SM3.

Excellent post!  Only thing I would have to add is I do have some recordings that change the SM3 presentation to one of the other drawings, but not very many whereas other IEMs in the price range I have heard don't really change much with those tracks.
 
Quote:

Quote:

I think I understood what you meant. I just don't see why there would be any special complexity to the SM3 or any dots that some can see and others can't. In my book they follow the same acoustic principles as any other IEMs. I've tried to explain their unusual spatial presentation and the way I see it leaves far less room for interpretation than an abstract painting. Of course that's just my 2c, no offense meant.

I thought the analogy involved the soundstage presentation but wasn't limited to it.  I never connected the dots or cared to so can't speak to what the entire prized picture looks like.  Also, if the point is to be part of the music as a musician wouldn't you want to swap channels as well?  Or is that just more crazy than being under the stage?

My initial thoughts of the SM3 included seeing something, but it didn't come into full view until around 2 weeks later, with the initial problem being warmth and thickness.

 

[shane55]

"Under the stage..."
Perfect analogy for all that it implies.

 

[Bennyboy71]

 
Quote:

 
My initial thoughts of the SM3 included seeing something, but it didn't come into full view until around 2 weeks later, with the initial problem being warmth and thickness.

I think the burn in concept with SM3 is fallacy, at least as far as the hardware goes.  That thinning of the warmth and thickness, that lifting of the veil over the upper mids, is more than likely just the ear and brain compensating over time to a new sound signature.  I remember thinking out of the box that they sounded pretty thick and muddy, and after a while that view changed to one of increased clarity, but I still had the nagging suspicion there was a thin blanket in front of some of the detailing,  What makes me think physical burn in is dubious is that when I decided to sell them, I sent them to Mark and he ultimately decided they were not for him and sent them back.  Trying them again, that veil seemed much more apparent to me than it was before I shipped them out - which I can only conclude was a result of psycho-acoustic burn-in rebooting itself.

 

[playingwithfire]

A couple questions for joker or anybody that can answer it after reading the review for DBA-02, if you don't mind.
 
If the over ear comfort of Westone UM3x/Westone 3 is a 9.5, how would you rate the DBA?
 
If the mid detail level of UM3x is a 9, how would you rate the DBA?
 
If the soundstage size(just the size, not talking about location accuracy) of Westone 2 is an 8, how would you rate the DBA?
 
Lastly, if the soundstage positioning of the Um3x is a 9, how would you rate the DBA?
 
Thanks in advance!

 

[ljokerl]

 
Quote:

A couple questions for joker or anybody that can answer it after reading the review for DBA-02, if you don't mind.
 
If the over ear comfort of Westone UM3x/Westone 3 is a 9.5, how would you rate the DBA?
 
If the mid detail level of UM3x is a 9, how would you rate the DBA?
 
If the soundstage size(just the size, not talking about location accuracy) of Westone 2 is an 8, how would you rate the DBA?
 
Lastly, if the soundstage positioning of the Um3x is a 9, how would you rate the DBA?

Specific qualities like that are very difficult to quantify so accurately - I doubt anyone will be able to give you meaningful numbers.
 
Comfort is very user-specific. I find the UM3X slightly more comfortable than the DBA-02 and the Westone 3 slightly less so. All three are pretty good in the grand scheme of things.
 
Mid detail is high among all three but it's about how it's presented. The UM3X is softer with its detailing but more forward as well. I would say the DBA-02 makes detail a tad easier to discern on the whole, being clearer and quicker.
 
Soundstage size is similar between the W2 and DBA-02 but the DBA-02 is a little more aggressive and a touch more forward than the W2 on the whole. 
 
Positioning - I can't tell from memory. I didn't like the presentation of the UM3X very much but the positioning is good; it's good with the DBA-02, also. Can't say much more without a direct comparison. 

 

[chinesekiwi]

so joker, I got some EQ7's atm but however I am rather tempted by the Audio Technica CK10? How would they compare?

 

[rawrster]

I may not be joker but I did once own them both at the same time. IMO they don't compare since they both sound quite different as the fit is also very different. The CK10 is the most comfortable earphone with possibly the best build quality in an earphone (tied with the CK100) and has a much smaller housing while the e-Q7 is much larger and has that nylon cloth cable under the Y split which I am no fan of.
 
Sound wise while them both having similar bass quantity the e-Q7 has much better textured bass and a slight bass rumble. I can't remember which goes lower but they both had similar extension iirc but it has been a long time since I owned them. Midrange the e-Q7 is more forward and is more exciting with vocals esp with female vocals. The treble on the e-Q7 is slightly rolled off which is completely different than the CK10. The treble on the CK10 has much better extension and can be borderline sibilant and it did have sibilance until I decided to use Shure triflanges and then later on Monster triflanges so I didn't have to stretch the tips. There's also a good spike in the upper mids area in the CK10 which is why it can be borderline sibilant depending on how you handle treble. Also with cymbals such as the crash they do not sound very natural.
 
The CK10 is flatter and the e-Q7 is a much safer earphone to own since I suspect more would enjoy the e-Q7 than the CK10. Sound stage the CK10 is pretty impressive and has very good imaging. The e-Q7 while being good did not quite have the same stage or imaging as the CK10. In terms of speed both are fast but I felt the CK10 was a hair faster and is definitely the fastest universals I've owned.
 
I enjoyed them both while I had them but they do sound quite different from each other. The CK10 also is not cheap and last I checked it was a bit under $300 shipped from accessoryjack

 

[soozieq]

I demo'ed cn11's SM3's which were well burned in by the time I got them, and they sounded very warm (way too warm) from the start. And they didn't have enough treble sparkle for my own preferences. But they're like so many other phones, in that some people really like them, while others can't see what the fuss is all about. For me, they weren't bright enough to satsify my lust for sparkly treble, but I can see how people who have an intolerance to bright highs would love the smoothness overall, since they're very mellow and laid back, at least, that's how I heard them.
 
rawrster, I hated that nylon cable on the e-Q7. It was horribly rigid and annoyed the hell out of me. The fit was terrible for my ears, too big, and they would never stay put.

 

[james444]

I agree with most of what rawrster said about the CK10 vs. e-Q7. I have no fit issues with the Ortofons and prefer them because of their better timbre with voices and acoustic instruments. The CK10's timbre was a tad off to my ears (though not as badly as the CK100's). If you want to try a slightly less mid centric variant of the e-Q7 with better treble I'd go for the Final Audio FI-BA-A1. Or maybe the e-Q5, but that would only be a very small difference.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Ok thanks, that was good. I prefer bass texture and timbre over treble tbh (if I had to choose; I realise the limitations of any sort of BA tech in terms of timbre reproduction). Yeah the eq-7 cable is :/ tbh but something I can live with.

 

[ljokerl]

Added Monster Lil' Jamz & Dr. Dre Beats Tour
 
@chinesekiwi: I agree with the other posters; if bass texture (or texture in general) and timbre are ahead of treble presence, speed, detail, etc on your priorities list, stick with the Ortofons.

 

[average_joe]

Geez |jolker|, you have created a masterpiece!  Amazing!

 

[ljokerl]

Quote:

Geez |joker|, you have created a masterpiece!  Amazing!

Or a monster, depending on how you look at it 

 

[Jackquelegs]

Oh man I completely agree with the Beats Tour review. I bought a pair out of interest..and returned it a week later due to the harsh treble. Almost made listening without EQ impossible.

 

[jason2087]

Still interested to see where HF5 places compared to ER4P in your standings  since HF5 is cheaper it could place higher on the chart than the ER4P due to value, the sound is similar to ER4P. I didn't wait for the review I purchased them anyway, but I'd still like to see where you place them. I see you have it on your list along with MC5 to be reviewed.