Quote:
Thanks for your frank impressions. I'm quoting your post from the SE535 thread here, because my question concerns the SM3 vs. UM3X. Would you care to elaborate in which aspects the UM3X are clearly better than the SM3? I've never heard the UM3X and tbo never considered them seriously, because of their reportedly narrow soundstage (an absolute no-go for me), but frankly I'm quite surprised by your unambiguous assessment. The SM3 are a bit too mid-forward and warmish for me, but from what I've read about the UM3X I thought these two would share a similar sound signature.
You may want to wait a few more days for a fresh & fairer comparison.
Having said that, I've said a number of times already that the UM3X SQ-wise come close to my ES3X (85%-90%), and that although the ES3X has always sounded better, every time I tried my old UM3X, it was never a case of "God, what a difference, what a disappointment" as I've had just now when comparing both the 535s & SM3s.
I'm not prone to getting technical - perhaps I just lack the skills - but in a nutshell, the SM3s have a thick veil (is there such a thing a s a thick veil?) all over them.
I've said many times that with regards to tips being used, the only ones that have always worked for me with the SE530, W3, UM3X, IE8, SE535 & SM3 are the soft silicone tips - these have been the only ones that have come closest to my customs and provided the best seal, isolation and comfort.
With the UM3X I never heard the small (even called 'claustrophobic' by someone, I believe) soundstage reported by some.
A tendency I've also noticed -- and this is going back to the way these forums function -- is that the moment one or two 'respected' or popular posters make a claim, there's a considerable 'following' of such a view and then certain things soon become a given.
Everybody commented on the incredible instrument separation and details delivered by the UM3X; suddenly this seemingly excellent aspect became 'clinical' or 'cold' by a couple of people. My ears love such detail, find the sound even more exciting, and find an overall fuller enveloping sound, ie more involving & cohesive coming from the UM3X. Is that a big soundstage? Well, I hear all IEM's sound coming from within my head, but some rendering that sound in a fuller, more convincing way. It's my brain that paints a small theatre/ club picture, making this soundstage widen. That's, at least, how I think it works for me.
The W3, as far as I can remember, sounded even fuller and more involving, but only at first, the bass and treble being more prominent made them fatiguing relatively easily at higher volumes only after about an hour. But a couple of people did go back from the UM3X to the W3 and preferred the 'more exciting' sound of the W3 - not me.
The most astonishing thing for me was the incredible sound I was getting from the UM3X but never, ever being fatiguing. And even though I wasn't wowed at first, coming from the W3, 30 mins or so into my first listening session I was wowed in a very different kind of way -- no fatigue and great sound! I could just not put them down for 6 consecutive hours.
I then received my final ES3X re-fit and that's when I felt (high-end) customs were overrated, after what I was getting out of my UM3X.
Some people even complained about the lack of 'sparkle' in the high frequencies; well, they would absolutely loathe the SM3's treble, I think. This is what my ears keep telling me. Yet, others found the mids too forward, too "in your face". To me, the UM3X mids are the best I've come across. But for someone used to a more V-shaped type of sound, they'll find the mids forward.
Bass extended quite low without becoming boomy, it had impact and clarity. And the treble, again from memory, had all the detail I was looking for -- OK, not like my customs but better than any other universal I've heard.
