[oddball5733]

Been wanting to invest in a pair of UM2's
has anyone had any experience with these as far as stage monitors running vocals and acoustic guitar?

-Thanks

 

[K_19]

I've never heard the UM2's, but from what I gather from reading it isn't really mid-centric (and that is where vocals and guitars predominantly lie in the frequency curve) and has a slight u-ish curve. So you may possibly have better choices out there for those particular needs.

 

[ClieOS]

Vocal will sound great on UM2, Acoustic guitar might not be as great since UM2 upper treble is a bit roll off. The good news is, the little treble roll off means UM2 is less fatiguing than most IEM out there.

I remember seeing Boyzone's reunion concert at new years and noticed all of them were using UM2 as stage monitor - quite cool actually.

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oddball5733 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Been wanting to invest in a pair of UM2's has anyone had any experience with these as far as stage monitors running vocals and acoustic guitar? -Thanks

Outside of spending 3 to 4x as much for customs, UM2 is probably the best choice you could make. Contrary to most IEM's that are currently made for "listening pleasure", UM2's were designed as stage monitors. The midrange is somewhat forward and fantastic so vocals and acoustic guitar will be well represented. Bass is also strong but highs are a little rolled off. UM2 has the best ergonomics and comfort of any IEM ever made.

 

[oddball5733]

definitely the um2 are great for their price as far as IEM's go
I wasn't bent on spending hundreds of dollars on IEM's so UM2's seem to be the ideal choice.

thanks guys

 

[oddball5733]

so after reading a bunch of threads about this IEM and that IEM....
I'm slightly leaning towards spending some more money and going with the W3's....

how comproble are the W3's as far as vocals and guitar is concerned?
has anyone had any good experience with these?

-thanks

 

[Saigon]

I would say W3 is better in every other aspect other than vocals and guitars. The midrange in W3 sounds more clean but also weaker in comparison to UM2.

I have no idea what is needed in stage listening, but if resolution and soundstage is important W3 is better. If pure midrange emphasis means more then I would say UM2 is your choice.

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saigon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would say W3 is better in every other aspect other than vocals and guitars. The midrange in W3 sounds more clean but also weaker in comparison to UM2. I have no idea what is needed in stage listening, but if resolution and soundstage is important W3 is better. If pure midrange emphasis means more then I would say UM2 is your choice.

Totally agree. Well put.

 

[fredman22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saigon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would say W3 is better in every other aspect other than vocals and guitars. The midrange in W3 sounds more clean but also weaker in comparison to UM2. I have no idea what is needed in stage listening, but if resolution and soundstage is important W3 is better. If pure midrange emphasis means more then I would say UM2 is your choice.

I also completely agree with this assessment, and will add that as a 2 1/2 year user of the UM2, I grew to appreciate/crave the forward mids and only considered upgrading to W3 - only to have its less emphasis somewhat stymie me for a bit - it actually is a more balanced presentation and in time I've acclimated to the better balance, fuller range, & wider soundstage of the W3s, but UM2s will always remain a bit more visceral & the stiffer cable & slightly lower design make them the absolute best overall fitting/wearing. As stage monitors I'd definitely start here. Good luck.