- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Posts
- 17,452
- Likes
- 839
Quote:
But interestingly, IN MY EARS when using either the W3 or the UM3X, with my UM56 custom tips the sound signatures get closer to each other and the family resemblance is unmistakable. I posted my impression after CanJam that the UM3X sit between the W3 and the ES3X customs in sound signature and sound quality, but that they are not as close to the ES3X as they are to the W3.
To the group in general, I am glad to see it calming down some.
The differences between W3 and UM3X may be much different when using a variety of universal fit tips, but not huge when used with the same custom tips. With the UM56 tips the W3 are a phenomenal IEM, with similar bass and treble to the UM3X; and the main difference being that the W3 has a less rich sounding midrange with a 10th row listening position in the soundstage rather than the 1st row UM3X. It makes the W3 great for music appreciation, but not so much for monitoring a performance on stage or in a studio. Those differences do not make the W3 a bad IEM, as it was the best universal that I'd heard before the UM3X came out. It's just that the UM3X now edges it out in midrange clarity detail and presence. (for new people, see my big W3 review linked in my public profile).
The other area of improvement in the UM3X then must be in the UM3X improved response to a variety of tips and ear canal positions. One thing I notice from all the feedback here is that the UM3X are not as sensitive to what tips and ear position a person uses, so it is harder to make them sound bad. The W3 could more easily be make to sound bad depending on what tip and how deep they were placed in the ear canal. That is probably the biggest plus going for UM3X right now, and one area I would like to explore more when I get a pair for long term use. I am still planning to get a pair to review, and will likely update my Westone 3 review at that time.
With the right tips and ear canal position, I still find the W3 to still be superior to just about any other universal IEM out there, at least up until the point that the UM3X came on stage and I got to listen to them as well. The fact that the W3 are controversial (because of many people's initial difficulty in wringing the best sound out of them) does not make them a FOTM as iponderous implied. Numerous people posted that they didn't like the W3, and then recanted that after they had been able to find the right tips and ear canal position. tstarn06 was one of those people, and W3 lovers didn't blast him for posting that his Phonak Audeo PFE were better - we sympathised with his dilemma and tried to find ways that he could begin to hear the W3 sound as good as it did to ourselves. He finally did find the right tips that gave him an epiphany. Soozie, you knew there was something about the W3 that you liked and had multiple failed attempts to get them to sound right to you. We didn't blast you for that, just encouraged you along the path.
You have found the UM3X to fix the flaws that you heard in the W3, but the flaw you heard was not the same one other people complained about. Catscratch could not get midrange detail, you heard sibilance, others heard oppressive midbass humps. It wasn't the same flaw or problem for everyone - meaning there was a human factor there. I and many others have NEVER heard them to be sibilant. Other's have never found them to have an over-bearing midbass or lack detail. That makes it clear to me that it is an individual personal issue that changes the sound for some people, depending on the tips/position.
iponderous comes along and and he hasn't even heard them, yet makes statements as if they were fact, about FOTM status and such - and that sometimes irritates people who have put a great amount of effort into discovering and sharing the truth here. The negative connotation about FOTM is that people act like lemmings and buy them without using their judgement, and then act like it's the emperors new clothes and pretend they are great when they are not (or are naked).
With the W3 I think people are pretty vocal about how they like them, and interestingly it is more of a love it or hate it kind of thing than an FOTM thing. If they work well for you, they tend to work spectacularly and you have "seen the light". That makes it more frustrating because you hear exactly what they are capable of, and know that if they can sound this good for you then there must be a way to make them sound good for everyone. Well, that will never happen no matter how good a headphone is. Look at the HD600 vs HD650 crowd, or HD650 vs K701 crowd, or K1000 vs Stax O2 crowd, etc.... I think FOTM is more of a, "I will continue to pretend these are the best out there because I raved about them so much at the start that I can't say anything bad now."
| Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif The UM3X are sooooooooo different to the W3. I think maybe it was Spyro who said that the UM2/UM3X were 'related'... and that the W3 was quite a departure from that sound signature, and I have to agree, it really is. P.S I also love trying new things... as if that wasn't obvious 
|
But interestingly, IN MY EARS when using either the W3 or the UM3X, with my UM56 custom tips the sound signatures get closer to each other and the family resemblance is unmistakable. I posted my impression after CanJam that the UM3X sit between the W3 and the ES3X customs in sound signature and sound quality, but that they are not as close to the ES3X as they are to the W3.
To the group in general, I am glad to see it calming down some.
The differences between W3 and UM3X may be much different when using a variety of universal fit tips, but not huge when used with the same custom tips. With the UM56 tips the W3 are a phenomenal IEM, with similar bass and treble to the UM3X; and the main difference being that the W3 has a less rich sounding midrange with a 10th row listening position in the soundstage rather than the 1st row UM3X. It makes the W3 great for music appreciation, but not so much for monitoring a performance on stage or in a studio. Those differences do not make the W3 a bad IEM, as it was the best universal that I'd heard before the UM3X came out. It's just that the UM3X now edges it out in midrange clarity detail and presence. (for new people, see my big W3 review linked in my public profile).
The other area of improvement in the UM3X then must be in the UM3X improved response to a variety of tips and ear canal positions. One thing I notice from all the feedback here is that the UM3X are not as sensitive to what tips and ear position a person uses, so it is harder to make them sound bad. The W3 could more easily be make to sound bad depending on what tip and how deep they were placed in the ear canal. That is probably the biggest plus going for UM3X right now, and one area I would like to explore more when I get a pair for long term use. I am still planning to get a pair to review, and will likely update my Westone 3 review at that time.
With the right tips and ear canal position, I still find the W3 to still be superior to just about any other universal IEM out there, at least up until the point that the UM3X came on stage and I got to listen to them as well. The fact that the W3 are controversial (because of many people's initial difficulty in wringing the best sound out of them) does not make them a FOTM as iponderous implied. Numerous people posted that they didn't like the W3, and then recanted that after they had been able to find the right tips and ear canal position. tstarn06 was one of those people, and W3 lovers didn't blast him for posting that his Phonak Audeo PFE were better - we sympathised with his dilemma and tried to find ways that he could begin to hear the W3 sound as good as it did to ourselves. He finally did find the right tips that gave him an epiphany. Soozie, you knew there was something about the W3 that you liked and had multiple failed attempts to get them to sound right to you. We didn't blast you for that, just encouraged you along the path.
You have found the UM3X to fix the flaws that you heard in the W3, but the flaw you heard was not the same one other people complained about. Catscratch could not get midrange detail, you heard sibilance, others heard oppressive midbass humps. It wasn't the same flaw or problem for everyone - meaning there was a human factor there. I and many others have NEVER heard them to be sibilant. Other's have never found them to have an over-bearing midbass or lack detail. That makes it clear to me that it is an individual personal issue that changes the sound for some people, depending on the tips/position.
iponderous comes along and and he hasn't even heard them, yet makes statements as if they were fact, about FOTM status and such - and that sometimes irritates people who have put a great amount of effort into discovering and sharing the truth here. The negative connotation about FOTM is that people act like lemmings and buy them without using their judgement, and then act like it's the emperors new clothes and pretend they are great when they are not (or are naked).
With the W3 I think people are pretty vocal about how they like them, and interestingly it is more of a love it or hate it kind of thing than an FOTM thing. If they work well for you, they tend to work spectacularly and you have "seen the light". That makes it more frustrating because you hear exactly what they are capable of, and know that if they can sound this good for you then there must be a way to make them sound good for everyone. Well, that will never happen no matter how good a headphone is. Look at the HD600 vs HD650 crowd, or HD650 vs K701 crowd, or K1000 vs Stax O2 crowd, etc.... I think FOTM is more of a, "I will continue to pretend these are the best out there because I raved about them so much at the start that I can't say anything bad now."
