[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilency /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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....

Yea but those highs should be much better than UM2 which says a lot. I think the mid-bass hump of W3 took away some of the highs yet at the same time those highs seemed too splashy at times.

 

[mchang227]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the mid-bass hump of W3 took away some of the highs yet at the same time those highs seemed too splashy at times.

I agree completely. W3 actually forced me to turn down the volume for rock songs with a lot of cymbals in the background.

 

[gilency]

Flavio just sent me an email saying he revised his review posted in earphone solutions. He really likes the UM3X he told me but did not say which one of the 2 he prefers. Here I go to re-read his review!

 

[zb0430]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I'm having a big issue adjusting to the sound signature of the 3G nano I've been using lately...

My 5G 80gb iPod sound signature is very much superior, in all regards, IMHO... But I need more time to adjust and give it a fighting chance.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zb0430 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm having a big issue adjusting to the sound signature of the 3G nano I've been using lately... My 5G 80gb iPod sound signature is very much superior, in all regards, IMHO... But I need more time to adjust and give it a fighting chance.

My 5.5G 80gb iPod video sounds better than the 2G Nano as well. It is a little rolled off in the highs to me, not as crisp and detailed as it should be. With my ES3X the 5.5G video sounds decent enough without an amp, but since mine is an iMod it rocks when using an LOD with amp.

To be honest, i did frequently use a Predator amp and Punnisher LOD with the 3G Nano. But headphone out didn't suck like the 2G Nano. It's the 4G Nano I am having a hard time adjusting to it's headphone out to now. I wish everything sounded as good as the iPhone 3G headphone out, so I wouldn't have to run down the phone's battery listening to music a lot (I want it for apps and surfing and mail, with occasional music).

 

[Spyro]

This is the first I ever heard this. I thought all Nano's SQ was virtually the same. Identical circuitry isn't it? I've heard 3 versions and could never tell a difference.

 

[PoP!]

hey guys i'm thinking of ordering the UM3x too, I used to have an IE8 before my dog chew on it. I love bass, just wondering would the UM3x fit me?
thanks.

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoP! /img/forum/go_quote.gif hey guys i'm thinking of ordering the UM3x too, I used to have an IE8 before my dog chew on it. I love bass, just wondering would the UM3x fit me? thanks.

NO! Bass will be adequate and accurate but lesser than W3 and IE8. If you are somewhat of a basshead I would avoid UM3X.

 

[sennmann]

Nope the UM3x will have an even stronger bass than the W3! and the W3 already have a very good bass, even too much so i thing the um3x will not be very good. More bass and less highs than the w3 oh my god

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sennmann /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope the UM3x will have an even stronger bass than the W3! and the W3 already have a very good bass, even too much so i thing the um3x will not be very good. More bass and less highs than the w3 oh my god

From Flavio's review: It’s basically a UM2 with even more detail but not so extended highs such as the Westone 3.

As a UM2 owner, yes, it has strong bass presence but it is no where near what W3 gives you, especially with the W3's dreaded mid-bass hump. Without even hearing UM3X I'd all but guarantee bassheads would prefer W3.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sennmann /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope the UM3x will have an even stronger bass than the W3! and the W3 already have a very good bass, even too much so i thing the um3x will not be very good. More bass and less highs than the w3 oh my god

I think your source of informations is defective.

 

[qusp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sennmann /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope the UM3x will have an even stronger bass than the W3! and the W3 already have a very good bass, even too much so i thing the um3x will not be very good. More bass and less highs than the w3 oh my god

LOL!!! you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?? just where are you getting this information said with such certainty :shakes head:

besides more bass and less highs than W3...sounds like IE8.

also W3 with right tips (custom) does not sound like that anyway. maybe a notch too much lower mids/upper bass, but really quite insignificant. the highs are just a touch hyped though, but nothing serious. i think you need to shoot your messenger.

 

[qusp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif From Flavio's review: It’s basically a UM2 with even more detail but not so extended highs such as the Westone 3. As a UM2 owner, yes, it has strong bass presence but it is no where near what W3 gives you, especially with the W3's dreaded mid-bass hump. Without even hearing UM3X I'd all but guarantee bassheads would prefer W3.

I also feel that with amping the UM3X will likely have better treble energy and bass control; as with the SE530 and UM2.

there thats my speculation over and done with. thats is not specific UM3X info; but more my general experience with IEms with these kind of specs and this kind of sig

 

[catscratch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif From Flavio's review: It’s basically a UM2 with even more detail but not so extended highs such as the Westone 3. As a UM2 owner, yes, it has strong bass presence but it is no where near what W3 gives you, especially with the W3's dreaded mid-bass hump. Without even hearing UM3X I'd all but guarantee bassheads would prefer W3.

W3 gives way less bass than the UM2 for me

The UM2's bass is loose and bloated while the W3's bass is only slightly bumped up in the upper bass but is otherwise pretty linear. Granted, only when it's fitting well.

I'd hold off on actual recommendations until the UM3x comes out. Then we'll see what there is to see. Or hear, rather.

 

[gilency]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yea but those highs should be much better than UM2 which says a lot. I think the mid-bass hump of W3 took away some of the highs yet at the same time those highs seemed too splashy at times.

If you are right, I am sold. I really liked the UM2's. If the signature is similar but more detailed with better highs, I would be happy. Flavio said they are not better than W3's but different. The question is which one sounds better to your ears. W3's are great but they add emphasis to certain areas. If UM3X's are more neutral, I would be a happy camper. Also, the UM2's always responded nicely to equalization (to my ears). Westone stated that they (UM3X) don't emphasize any part of the spectrum, which is something I would like.