PEARS be likeA new challenger is approaching...
Funny how I sold SH3 in pursuit of a better reference monitor. One year+ later and I end up with the same thing but now in CIEM form
Toranku's Thoughts and Reviews (and target EQ filters!)
- Thread starter toranku
- Start date
OverlordRush
500+ Head-Fier
Do you think tribrid is still a gimmick? Given how much you value coherency. And how well does the FiR hybrid compare against some of the hybrids out there in terms of performance?
Pricklyears101
100+ Head-Fier
The Drop+JVC based on a modder's work on another forum really got me intrigued.Although graph doesn't tell the whole story, it looks super impressive. Surely another contender to unseat the ex800st on crin's list for competitive price to performance ratio
awww Pictures?
Looking forward to hearing your feddback on the Final Tuning!
I actually don't have pictures of gen 1 and 2. Only have a picture of gen 3 M5. Here's an example. Notice the bunny ears. Gen 2 won't have the bunny ears but instead the FiR company logo.
For now I think the sonion electret implementations has still been quite meh and sometimes even downright weird. Seems like companies haven't quite figured out how to tap into its potential or match the driver with more suitable types of BAs and DDs. Electret Tribrids can be good but I don't quite see the point of it when BA can do the same thing but more even and better imo. Piezoelectric is another one that has potential but not many are doing it. It's a bit peaky but it can extend if tuned for.
Coherency wise FiR is fine imo. Very little peaks or anything. But it is something that can never be fully coherent due to its tubeless tech. Still, they sound fine to me if not very slightly smeared with its midrange and highs transients. Guess that's the only real weakness but it's already better than 95% of the things out there.
How crinacle heard the FDX was quite different as to how I heard the FD01 modded. Maybe there were actual changes to the internals itself. Or maybe the dampening material I used weren't as competent or just different. Pretty excited to hear FDX for myself. Where I found it slower and thicker in transients, he found it lean and fast.
Last edited:
cables are the biggest determining factor to quality sound
First Impressions: Pears SH3 Custom
You may have seen my thoughts on the Pears SH3 in universal. More than a year ago I actually had the SH3 in universal form. I sold it away due to it having a bass too polite and the treble being too harsh since the resonance peak was occuring too early due to the shorter insertion depth.
From the UIEM to the CIEM version that I owned, pears now employs this "open port" design:
Pears told me that the port helped in getting rid of further peaks in the treble response. With custom version + this open port design, I found that the peaks heard in the UIEM are flattened out yet still boast decent treble extension capabilities. It's almost scary how free of peaks the SH3 sounds. Usually larger peaks help add definition to the notes but the SH3 manages a sharp attack despite this.
The overall sound profile of the SH3 I would describe as being slightly uppermid boosted. Due to this uppermid boost, the sound leans on the leaner side of things. Bass response is rather flat with perhaps lacking of a bit of subbass response. Tonally it is slightly warm which helps it sound a bit more natural. I'd still say though, it could use more warmth or lesser uppermids to provide a tone even closer to realism. Vocals are always well separated and are on the leaner, sweeter side.
Treble response is as mentioned, free of peaks and are very even. Perhaps the lower treble is a touch dark but it does help with that fatigue free experience. Transient response and imaging is great, has good spatial cues but still having transients hitting clear and fast with no bloat or unnatural peaks.
Pears seems to take coherency seriously with their 3BA. The music just flows and feels "together". Makes my 334SR actually sound disjointed and peaky.
Maybe it's just "new toy syndrome". Who knows. It's nice to reignite the old flame once again. Will take these for a few weeks and perhaps drop a review.
You may have seen my thoughts on the Pears SH3 in universal. More than a year ago I actually had the SH3 in universal form. I sold it away due to it having a bass too polite and the treble being too harsh since the resonance peak was occuring too early due to the shorter insertion depth.
From the UIEM to the CIEM version that I owned, pears now employs this "open port" design:
Pears told me that the port helped in getting rid of further peaks in the treble response. With custom version + this open port design, I found that the peaks heard in the UIEM are flattened out yet still boast decent treble extension capabilities. It's almost scary how free of peaks the SH3 sounds. Usually larger peaks help add definition to the notes but the SH3 manages a sharp attack despite this.
The overall sound profile of the SH3 I would describe as being slightly uppermid boosted. Due to this uppermid boost, the sound leans on the leaner side of things. Bass response is rather flat with perhaps lacking of a bit of subbass response. Tonally it is slightly warm which helps it sound a bit more natural. I'd still say though, it could use more warmth or lesser uppermids to provide a tone even closer to realism. Vocals are always well separated and are on the leaner, sweeter side.
Treble response is as mentioned, free of peaks and are very even. Perhaps the lower treble is a touch dark but it does help with that fatigue free experience. Transient response and imaging is great, has good spatial cues but still having transients hitting clear and fast with no bloat or unnatural peaks.
Pears seems to take coherency seriously with their 3BA. The music just flows and feels "together". Makes my 334SR actually sound disjointed and peaky.
Maybe it's just "new toy syndrome". Who knows. It's nice to reignite the old flame once again. Will take these for a few weeks and perhaps drop a review.
Last edited:
helljudgement
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Posts
- 913
- Likes
- 1,201
First Impressions: Pears SH3 Custom
You may have seen my thoughts on the Pears SH3 in universal. More than a year ago I actually had the SH3 in universal form. I sold it away due to it having a bass too polite and the treble being too harsh since the resonance peak was occuring too early due to the shorter insertion depth.
From the UIEM to the CIEM version that I owned, pears now employs this "open port" design:
Pears told me that the port helped in getting rid of further peaks in the treble response. With custom version + this open port design, I found that the peaks heard in the UIEM are flattened out yet still boast decent treble extension capabilities. It's almost scary how free of peaks the SH3 sounds. Usually larger peaks help add definition to the notes but the SH3 manages a sharp attack despite this.
The overall sound profile of the SH3 I would describe as being slightly uppermid boosted. Due to this uppermid boost, the sound leans on the leaner side of things. Bass response is rather flat with perhaps lacking of a bit of subbass response. Tonally it is slightly warm which helps it sound a bit more natural. I'd still say though, it could use more warmth or lesser uppermids to provide a tone even closer to realism. Vocals are always well separated and are on the leaner, sweeter side.
Treble response is as mentioned, free of peaks and are very even. Perhaps the lower treble is a touch dark but it does help with that fatigue free experience. Transient response and imaging is great, has good spatial cues but still having transients hitting clear and fast with no bloat or unnatural peaks.
Pears seems to take coherency seriously with their 3BA. The music just flows and feels "together". Makes my 334SR actually sound disjointed and peaky.
Maybe it's just "new toy syndrome". Who knows. It's nice to reignite the old flame once again. Will take these for a few weeks and perhaps drop a review.
Glad to hear the custom solves the issue with treble. How is the fit compared to your fitear custom? Contemplating getting the 334sr custom partially due to fitear's reputation on build quality and comfort even amongst other custom manufacturers .
Sound wise I am quite drawn to the 334sr but the Pears seems like a totally different signature.
@toranku it's been 3 days, any update on your sh3 impression or it could be a mini review considering 3-day listening time 
how's the technicalities and vocals
how's the technicalities and vocals
Mine isnt an original/reshell 334sr. Can't comment about one straight from fitear. Soundwise the 334sr has nice vocals and thats about it. Resolution and timbre are subpar. Sounds hazy.
@toranku it's been 3 days, any update on your sh3 impression or it could be a mini review considering 3-day listening time
Impressions didn't change much in these few days of listening. I'd describe the SH3 as being warm with uppermids boosted. To be frank I actually expected something more similar to the SH3 universal I had (graphed on crinacle's graphtool). That was my neutral target. The new SH3 (with different acoustics) compared to the old universal, has more warmth as well as more gain at 1-4kHz. Lesser, but much more extended treble was also achieved. Fantastic technical ability really albeit its leaner signature. Very easy listening experience due to the gain at 1-4kHz. Its colored for sure, but still serves as a nice reference for me. Vocal range is emphasized and on the leaner side. I still have to say the old universal SH3 I had had better vocals since they were thicker and sweeter.
On one hand I do want the neutral tonality of the old SH3 but the trade off I got was a more technical iem with a better treble. Listening to this CIEM is quite an intense listen in terms of its uppermids. The uppermids isn't harsh or anything but it reminds me of how the Utopia does it. There's a good lift which feels like its hurling detail and all its intensity at you. I guess we can call my version the Mk 2 as well. I'll be listening more then drop my first review on headfi,
Update about FiR:
Turns out that the DTR1 doesnt play well with FiR in general. FiR changes quickly with output impedance. The FiR M5 out of my M5S and out of my DTR1 sounded like 2 totally different monitors. Out of my DTR it sounded bloated and a bit hollow. I'll need to write new things about the final tunings with M5S as source.
Updating my list as a result. I also will not include previous tunings in case I confuse or mislead.
Turns out that the DTR1 doesnt play well with FiR in general. FiR changes quickly with output impedance. The FiR M5 out of my M5S and out of my DTR1 sounded like 2 totally different monitors. Out of my DTR it sounded bloated and a bit hollow. I'll need to write new things about the final tunings with M5S as source.
Updating my list as a result. I also will not include previous tunings in case I confuse or mislead.
Last edited:
florence
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Posts
- 194
- Likes
- 68
@toranku would you say any etymotic model might be better than sh3 or vice versa?
@florence i would say, i love er2 tonality than er4
florence
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Posts
- 194
- Likes
- 68
I've had er4xr earlier this year but returned it. It doesn't mean I didn't like and returned it, just lots of iems I had at that time, that was the reason. Also, I've ordered er2se from Amazon today but after 30mins I cancelled it. I thought for a second what if it's not on par er4xr and rather flat sound character etc. Must be as good as er4xr for me to use on daily commute. Otherwise another iem to be collected dust potentially. However, I read some people prefer er2se to any etymotic iem sonically. To sum up I didn't find er4xr bass monster but also it wasn't bass shy at all. I see that er2xr too bloated unfortunately that's why I picked er2se at the first place.
Users who are viewing this thread
