Westone UM3X announced!
Apr 23, 2009 at 4:35 AM Post #377 of 557
Earphone solutions just posted their review. UM3X Review Sorry if this is a repost.
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 5:04 AM Post #378 of 557
Definitely not a repost since they just posted it
smily_headphones1.gif


Nice find!
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 5:12 AM Post #379 of 557
Quote:

Originally Posted by silverknit3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Earphone solutions just posted their review. UM3X Review Sorry if this is a repost.


Based on what they're saying, it seems that the UM3X might sound similar to the Shure SE530, which is a direction that I would prefer avoiding.
tongue.gif


Next step for me will likely be into the world of customs (though I'm quite content with how my Westone 3 is sounding).
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 5:18 AM Post #381 of 557
Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterDLai /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Based on what they're saying, it seems that the UM3X might sound similar to the Shure SE530, which is a direction that I would prefer avoiding.
tongue.gif



X2. "For some reason I still can’t explain why the Scott Stapp songs I listened to, the vocals came out a bit muddy and not so forward as I would expect. " This line had me the most concern.
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 6:11 AM Post #382 of 557
I lost my Westone 3s yesterday and I've been researching um3x all day to see if it might be the replacement. My W3s were the first cans I've enjoyed since my shure e5 (didn't really care for the se530) and if the um3x turns out to be se530 sounding, I might end up just buying another w3.

That being said...the earphonesolution review was kind of...generic...for my taste and I guess it's still too early to tell.
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 6:16 AM Post #383 of 557
Oh Man! sounds like I may request the W3's again. Actually I don't mind the "slightly brighter presentation" of the W3 and had no problem with sibilance; my main concern with the W3 is the slight bump in the mid-lows. Now I am not sure which one I would be happier with. I am certain I want a Westone: UM3X or W3?
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 6:43 AM Post #384 of 557
But, the reviewer's source was iPod Nano, which has a bit lacking of the bass and treble extensions, but the mids is nice. I hope another reviews (second opinions) with better source
smily_headphones1.gif


TQ
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 7:45 AM Post #385 of 557
Quote:

Originally Posted by bakhtiar /img/forum/go_quote.gif
But, the reviewer's source was iPod Nano, which has a bit lacking of the bass and treble extensions, but the mids is nice. I hope another reviews (second opinions) with better source
smily_headphones1.gif


TQ


I personally think the 3rd & 4th Gen Nano's sound great.
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 7:48 AM Post #386 of 557
Well, the UM2 certainly has far less extended highs than the ES2, so it would make sense that the UM3x would have less treble extension than the ES3x. I'm also not surprised about the similarity to the UM2. The ES3x has been described as an updated ES2 sound though better in nearly every way, so I would expect the UM3x to be an updated UM2. This, by the way, is a good thing in my books.

Still pointless to speculate until, and if, I get my hands on a pair.
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 2:27 PM Post #387 of 557
Yea, a pretty generic review. A little more midrage but less highs seems like the theme. No mention of soundstage. He doesn't say if he prefers it over W3 though.

Flavio does great reviews but I must be careful reading into his opinion because I know he dislikes TFPro altogether but I really like them and they carry that non-fatiguing buttery smooth presentation.

I'll just throw this out there....I think W3 is the type of IEM that really "wow's" you out of the box and is exciting, big bass, big soundstage, big treble...but can fatigue the ears over time. Perhaps UM3X take a while longer to appreciate. I am looking for a smoother sound with more midrange and this sounds like it's it. If it's clearly superior to UM2 and even rivals ES2, I'm sold!
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM Post #388 of 557
Quote:

Originally Posted by gilency /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Oh Man! sounds like I may request the W3's again. Actually I don't mind the "slightly brighter presentation" of the W3 and had no problem with sibilance; my main concern with the W3 is the slight bump in the mid-lows. Now I am not sure which one I would be happier with. I am certain I want a Westone: UM3X or W3?


Based on my experience with W3 and ES3X, and lack of experience with UM3X, you want the ES3X.
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM Post #389 of 557
Quote:

Originally Posted by music_4321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I personally think the 3rd & 4th Gen Nano's sound great.


Yeah, the 2G Nano sucked in treble and bass extension, but the 3G is a noticeable upgrade. The 4G headphone out seems a little brighter than the 3G Nano, so I use an iBasso T4 with the 4G Nano, but the 3G was good by itself.
 
Apr 23, 2009 at 5:53 PM Post #390 of 557
Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Based on my experience with W3 and ES3X, and lack of experience with UM3X, you want the ES3X.


problem is I am not really that interested on custom headphones....so my choices are still between the UM3X and W3....I returned the W3 (which I liked) thinking the UM3X would be more neutral, but if they toned down the highs (to less than neutral), I am not so sure I would like them....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top