[midget]

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0wderh0und23 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The cables are working their way though the entire product line. The new jack will only be on the Westone line, not the UM's.

if someone's um3x cable unraveled itself and the said person sent his/her um3x back to westone, would you replace the cable with the new cable?

 

[repcom]

Uh... yeah, way to make a first impression but what's the difference with this "new" cable that everyone's talking about?

 

[IpodHappy]

mvw2 makes mentions the seeming compression that the Triple.Fi 10s give to their reproduction in comparison to the expansion which seems to be present in the UM3Xs. I totally agree. The UM3Xs seem to expand the the dynamic range, making quite sounds oh so quiet. This is one of the reasons I feel sound stage and reproduction of the recorded ambiance suffers on the UM3X compared to the Triple.Fi 10s. The room ambiance and reverberation ques are so recessed that they don't come out in the mix on the UM3Xs compared to the Triple.Fi 10s. One or both of these have a non-linear output power for the input power, perhaps due to a non linear spring constant in the drivers or non-linear absorption in the filter material.

Since my ears strain to hear the room accoustic around the music, I tend to turn up the volume too loud on the UM3X to bring out this aspect of the music. (I'm one of those people who hear refrigerators, the AC, buzzing in light fixtures, and the neighbor's dog barking two doors down, as well as the TV running in the room.)

 

[IpodHappy]

Deleted

 

[dissembled]

Quote:

Originally Posted by midget /img/forum/go_quote.gif if someone's um3x cable unraveled itself and the said person sent his/her um3x back to westone, would you replace the cable with the new cable?

I'd like to know this as well.

 

[mvw2]

Yeah Ipodhappy, I do feel the UM3X is slightly in the other direction. Both the TF10 and UM3X aren't quite natural. However, I do pick up on little details better with the UM3X. A slide of a finger on a guitar string, a breadth, tap of the foot on the stage floor, or some odd noise in the background kind of shows through a little better with the UM3X. I do think it is someone overly quiet though. However, I sort of changed my mind on this after I properly EQed the set, and things come across more evenly.

I agree the TF10 will show things more readily. Quiet noises are more present and not so quiet. However, the TF10 also lacks dynamic energy, and I feel I do actually hear a little less information with the TF10 in the sense that I don't notice the slide of the finger on the string, toe tap, odd noise in the background. I hear these little things with the UM3X but not the TF10. This isn't to say they aren't there, but they may just sort of mix in with everything else more readily. I don't know. I just notice these little details with the UM3X more.

Non-linearity in a driver's motor/spring force would lead to compression that's dependent upon loudness and frequency. A highly non-linear driver would brighten quite readily as you increase volume level due to it stepping into the non-linear range. There will be limits in dynamic range due to compression of range of motion too, maybe mechanical, maybe power. If you want 20dB of dynamic range, you need to be able to recreate 20dB of range with relative linearity. If you're listening at 70dB, this will be easier to do. If you're listening at 90dB, it gets a bit harder. Noise floor will also play a roll as you will need to stay above the noise floor. This is the great thing about IEMs and high isolation. They don't have to fight over a high noise floor.

I do find the TF10 more mechanically limited then the UM3X. In terms of maxing output on the TF10 and starting to get compression, it actually occurs sort of early at a high moderate level. The UM3X will get quite loud on the other hand before showing limitations. I tend to find the more dynamic drivers are the ones that are also capable of high volumes. The Phonak Audio PFE is a good example of this, very dynamic, capable of getting very loud. The UM3X is similar. The TF10 tops out a lot sooner.

 

[bakhtiar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 The UM3X will get quite loud on the other hand before showing limitations. I tend to find the more dynamic drivers are the ones that are also capable of high volumes. The Phonak Audio PFE is a good example of this, very dynamic, cable of getting very loud. The UM3X is similar.

Totally agreed

. Both UM3Xs and PFEs can produce very 'good' loud sound. At higher SPL, UM3Xs, the high may improves. Eventhough the PFEs are bright IEMs, but, at high SPL, it sound much flatter, and not getting too bright. Their sound signature do seem to follow the loudness curves, relatively to the SPL. I can assume the PFEs are an accurate IEMs.

Here is how it looks like when I pullout the tube from the sleeve.

As I mention earlier, I inserted the nozzle in the tube carefully and slowly, to let the tube expands. Also make sure the tube did not extruding from the tip or longer than the sleeve, because it is quite painful if it touched the ear canal. I learned that in painful way.

Thank you.

 

[windrider]

Got a pair of um3x from gregeas and they arrived today.

Loving them to bits - I prefer their sound signature to the westone 3 by a long way.

"Son of a preacher man" was the first song i played on them when i got them today, and i was totally blown away.

I heard new details which i totally did not notice before in "Sunshine of your love" too. (some ringing/tingling sound around the 1:42 mark)

Awesome.

 

[VicAjax]

UM3X arrived on Saturday... I've only had a few sporadic minutes to listen so far, but there's a lot going on here, for a couple of reasons: 1) i'm a loooong time Ety ER4 user-lover, and 2) the tips/insertion have a relatively huge impact on the sound.

this is a very different beast than the ER4.

a few early thoughts, with both of the above factors always kept in mind:

- large, but not overlarge soundstage, that exists outside my head but without diffusing the imaging. very nice.

- good 3D imaging... puts the musicians in their proper places very easily.

- excellent midrange detail. the way people always rave about the remarkable treble detail in the ER4... that was my first reaction to the UM3X midrange and upper-mid detail. it's quite impressive.

- bass tactility. i use tactility instead of 'slam' because i tend to associate the latter word with more of a pounding impact. so Vic, What are you talking about then? take, for instance, Herbie Hancock's tune "Chameleon," off of Head Hunters. i can almost feel the fingers pluck the wrapped strings of the electric bass, or Hancock pecking out the clipped groove on his keyboard.

- bass extension. deep, with no-rolloff. i am one who believes that the ER4 does not lack deep, musical bass... but it does lack impact. and the UM3X has it, giving it fullness the ER4 lacks.


OK, now for the tricky part:

the highs. i'm still trying to figure out the upper register of the UM3X. at first, the highs came off as disappointingly muffled. and when i heard that, i realized this was going to be a trickier transition than i expected, and potentially unsuccessful. however, i think i'm over the hump and on my way to solving this mystery:

first of all, this is where the tips are incredibly important.
- the large Comply sleeves totally swallowed the highs for me, and muddied up the bass. at first (i'll get back to that).
- the Ety triple flange sleeves leave an entire flange unsupported by the shorter nozzle, so while they tightened up the bass significantly, the highs were still too muffled.
- i snipped off the smallest front flange, cut a little ring off and inserted that ring on the nozzle, then slid on the modified bi-flange. this brought the nozzle and the end of the tip almost flush with each other. the highs are there now! yay! except that this tip is not very comfortable for me. boo. sad face.

then i had another revelation... i said to myself, "self, i think as an Ety old-timer, you're jamming these things half-way into your gray matter." so i pulled out the large Comply sleeves one more time, and slid them into my ear just to the point where they met resistance with the wall of my ear canal...much (much) shallower than i'm used to. holy mother of ******! the treble...it's ALIVE!

now so far, the upper frequency still doesn't have that same magical sparkle that the ER4 has, but i wasn't really expecting that. not to mention, the UM3X does so many other things brilliantly that it's a worthy trade-off.

in addition, i have a Shure fit kit on order and i'm going to keep experimenting with tips to find the perfect combination of comfort and sound, and perhaps coax forth a bit more top-end shimmer.

 

[tnmike1]

VicAjax: Interesting review. Now the big query: are you using an amp?? If so which one? I'm using MiniboxE+ with my Ety4p and synergy is perfect So wondering if you're listening amped or unamped

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tnmike1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif VicAjax: Interesting review. Now the big query: are you using an amp?? If so which one? I'm using MiniboxE+ with my Ety4p and synergy is perfect So wondering if you're listening amped or unamped

I have done some listening with a supermini i had that was designed for the ER4... With the impedence and bass boost dip switches. It was great helping the Ety fill out and tighten up that bottom end.

With the UM3X there was an improvement, but not significant enough to bother using the amp regularly. If I had a dedicated home headphone setup, I would definitely amp them, though.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...then i had another revelation... i said to myself, "self, i think as an Ety old-timer, you're jamming these things half-way into your gray matter." so i pulled out the large Comply sleeves one more time, and slid them into my ear just to the point where they met resistance with the wall of my ear canal...much (much) shallower than i'm used to. holy mother of ******! the treble...it's ALIVE! now so far, the upper frequency still doesn't have that same magical sparkle that the ER4 has, but i wasn't really expecting that. not to mention, the UM3X does so many other things brilliantly that it's a worthy trade-off. in addition, i have a Shure fit kit on order and i'm going to keep experimenting with tips to find the perfect combination of comfort and sound, and perhaps coax forth a bit more top-end shimmer.

I have noted many times that the Westone earphones sound duller when jammed deeply into my ears, and better with a shallow insertion. It looks like you discovered that for yourself. I think that is a great approach to a new IEM fit for which you should be commended - i.e. trying different tips and ear depth positioning before writing off the IEM as bad sounding.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have noted many times that the Westone earphones sound duller when jammed deeply into my ears, and better with a shallow insertion. It looks like you discovered that for yourself. I think that is a great approach to a new IEM fit for which you should be commended - i.e. trying different tips and ear depth positioning before writing off the IEM as bad sounding.

why thank you. i think my experience going deep with the ER4 is what kept me from floundering for longer.

i had an interesting experiment with the Comply sleeves yesterday evening. not only did i insert them shallower than i'm used to, but i rolled the foam in such a way that it was flush with the mouth of the plastic tip before inserting. this completely solved the muffled highs. however, i don't think the foam was able to expand properly, so the isolation and bass suffered.

then i went back to my Ety tri-flange tips to play with insertion depth. sure enough, the shallower they are, the better the high-end...but the more anemic the bass. as i slowly moved them further into my canal, the bass would improve...but of course the highs would get slightly more muffled. i did find a sweet spot where both the bass and treble play relatively nicely together, but this is a little tweaky for long term use.

i think a better solution will ultimately lie with tips that aren't as long, but wide enough to provide a firm seal with shallow insertion. fingers crossed on the shure soft flex in the mail.

i feel like i just wrote a Penthouse letter. i'm going to take a shower now.

 

[the_dong146]

So.... I'm thinking about picking up my UM3X, and as you guys are the experts: from my thread asking for recs:

"
So what I'm looking for in terms of sound sig. A balanced headphone. I do really like my mids, smooth and well defined, maybe slightly forward. In terms of bass good extension, and nice and punchy, definitely not looking for something bass light either. Highs, less concerned with, but again, looking for balance, and as my trial of the PFEs taught me, they can definitely help.

Music tastes: Pretty much rock: Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Led Zeppelin, Black Keys, Muse etc."

Also any input on how these would directly compare/transition from the IE7 would be great

 

[Spyro]

You must ALWAYS compress the foams in a way not to block the exit hole of the nozzle. If you do this I have never found foams to roll off the highs.