jay spec
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2007
- Posts
- 112
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
just goes to show how different interpretations can be, even though we're both hearing the same thing
i'll stand by my statement though. it's not like the 3 vs e500, where both have their own unique sound signature. the um2 and 3 share many more similarities than they do differences imo.
on the um2 vs 3:
is the bass the same?
no, not exactly. the bass on the 3 is tighter..not as boomy and loose as it is on the um2. some might get the impression the um2 has more bass because of this boominess, but from my listening session..both seem to have the same amount of bass as well as low end extension. the overall character of the bass is still the same.
how about the mids?
tighten up bass and reduce boominess, and details in the mids suddenly become easier to pick out
i do agree that the mids on the 3's are better than the um2's...they're quite good actually.
and the treble?
the treble is about the same. i think that bit of sibilance is also present on the um2's..but it is more noticable on the 3's, since the rest of the frequency response is more refined and does not mask it as well.
hopefully i'm not just adding to the confusion, and you're getting a clearer picture of the differences (or similarities, depending on how you look at it
).
| Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan /img/forum/go_quote.gif You've made that comment several times, and another reviewer stated the W3 was a more refined version of the UM2, with more similarities than differences. I thought I'd reference another review from Kugino, who attended MacWorld months ago and auditioned the W3, only to state quite the opposite. These are two seemingly different impressions, so I thought it appropriate to reference Kugino's opinion here. This was what he posted: "i've posted elsewhere, but i'll also post in this thread. i had a chance to listen to the 3 at macworld. i honestly was not expecting much since i am not a big UM2 fan... but the 3 is NOTHING like the UM2, as has been mentioned in this thread. so for those of you who like the UM2, you might not be that happy with the 3 because they sound very different. IMO, the UM2 has way overdone bass...boomy and not enjoyable. it also masks the detail and the midrange that i think is there, just not audible b/c of the bass. the 3, on the other hand, has a beautiful midrange and it sounds much more even across the frequency spectrum. nice slamming bass that goes low enough...if you want UM2 bass you'll have to bump up the EQ. i don't see the 3 as a "step up" from the UM2 in terms of being a more refined UM2...it's a totally different (thank goodness) IEM altogether, nothing like its sibling. yes, i know i'm being a bit harsh on the UM2...i'm just not a big fan. but i really really like the 3 and would seriously think about purchasing it had i not already bought a custom IEM. i just want to warn the UM2 fans out there that they could be disappointed with the 3 b/c it's not like the UM2...but for those of you who don't really like the UM2, the 3 is a westone you might really like." |
just goes to show how different interpretations can be, even though we're both hearing the same thing
on the um2 vs 3:
is the bass the same?
no, not exactly. the bass on the 3 is tighter..not as boomy and loose as it is on the um2. some might get the impression the um2 has more bass because of this boominess, but from my listening session..both seem to have the same amount of bass as well as low end extension. the overall character of the bass is still the same.
how about the mids?
tighten up bass and reduce boominess, and details in the mids suddenly become easier to pick out
and the treble?
the treble is about the same. i think that bit of sibilance is also present on the um2's..but it is more noticable on the 3's, since the rest of the frequency response is more refined and does not mask it as well.
hopefully i'm not just adding to the confusion, and you're getting a clearer picture of the differences (or similarities, depending on how you look at it
