[h1a8]

I miss my sm3 iems but I don't miss their veil.
They were perfect in every way except that. So I sold them
I have a few questions:

1. Are there any amps or eq settings that get rid of the veil of the sm3 without taking anything away and without adding sibilance?

2. Is the sm64 the same sq as the sm3 but with no veil (more clear)?

3. How about the um3x? Is it as musical as the sm3 and are they similar in most ways (like soundstage) but except being clearer?

4. I just ordered the tdk ie800. was thinking of ordering the tdk ba200 as well. How do these compare to the sm3 (which ways the sm3 may beat them)?

 

[xaddictionx]

I have only heard the UM3X in all the IEMs that you listed. IMO, the UM3X focus more on the mid range especially the vocals. Vocals are forward placing though both male and female vocals are lush and sweet. Instrument separation is amazing and you can distinguish different instruments layered on top each other. However the sound stage is pretty constricted hence I wouldn't say it's a very musical IEM. Though it does genres like rock very well. A more musical IEM, IMO, would be the W4. However, it has a slight veil in the lower mid region. But with the new star tips it should be non existent.

 

[h1a8]

bump

 

[Tom Yum Goong]

From what I have heard, the SM64 is a lot clearer sounding than the SM3. Somebody said that the SM3 sounds like an old telephone compared to the SM64.
So I think if you loved your SM3 and wanted them to sound a bit clearer and overall more refined, the SM64 seems to be the IEM you should go for.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/651654/earsonics-sm64-the-impressions-and-appreciation-thread

 

[TwinQY]

Quote:

1. Are there any amps or eq settings that get rid of the veil of the sm3 without taking anything away and without adding sibilance?

3. How about the um3x? Is it as musical as the sm3 and are they similar in most ways (like soundstage) but except being clearer?

4. I just ordered the tdk ie800. was thinking of ordering the tdk ba200 as well. How do these compare to the sm3 (which ways the sm3 may beat them)?

No idea about the SM64, but can help with 1, 3, and 4. Apparently it's worthy enough of an upgrade that you should definitely take a hard, closer look.
 
1. Veil is usually inherit in transient response/decay. You could try and EQ the upper-bass and lower-mids down, but they are level enough already.
 
3. In terms of sheer clarity, both are arguably on par. Stage is where you see most of the difference. The UM3X are 2-dimensional, separation monsters. The SM3 are enveloping, 3-dimensional. That is where the divide kicks in. Otherwise they are more alike than they are different. But the soundstage differences make a big..umm, difference. The extra separation on the Westones could make things easier to process, that would give it a sense of something akin to clarity. Or the positioning of the SM3 could be done in such a way that it makes it easier for you to point out where is where, and would give it a sense of something akin to clarity as well.
 
4. Soundstage has more height on the SM3, otherwise they are rather comparable/on par (BA200). Less treble on the IE800 than the SM3 (can't remember too much of other differences)

 

[Gilly87]

Maybe you should take the filters out. Gives better bass impact and clarity, shifts them over to a more forward and balanced sound overall with more treble quantity; not necessarily more detailed, but more aggressive in presenting it, and a slightly more analytical sound, although it doesn't lose the awesome lush mids.