| Originally Posted by A_Dying_Wren /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wouldn't trust the AMP3 though. |
| Originally Posted by fatko /img/forum/go_quote.gif Today i bought two different pairs of Shure Olive (medium) and Shure Grey Bullet tips for my UM3x. The Shure Olive just give me the best sound out of the rest of the tips i own. The Bullet Tips are great too and they are more durable ! |
| Originally Posted by jc9394 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have the same experience on the Shure Olive, but the UM56 kills it by the mile... |
| Originally Posted by fatko /img/forum/go_quote.gif Today i bought two different pairs of Shure Olive (medium) and Shure Grey Bullet tips for my UM3x. The Shure Olive just give me the best sound out of the rest of the tips i own. The Bullet Tips are great too and they are more durable ! |
| Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif what are grey bullet tips? is that the soft flex silicone? |
| Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif Originally Posted by tigon_ridge "I respectfully disagree. This thread ought to serve as an informative thread, not just an "appreciation" thread as its title dictates. Thus, I welcome all critical comments, just as long as they are backed up with some substantial descriptions, rather than just "dead" or "dull" - likewise, when people praise these phones; although, I don't really mind these vague descriptions at all. I just don't give them much, if any, consideration." Although I do wonder how specific one's descriptions must be to satisfy tygon_ridge's requirements. This is a public forum, not a rarified academic discussion. We are attempting to convey our experiences of a shared interest with others. Sometimes we might endeavour to provide very specific descriptions and at other times not. These discussions can range from uninformed to knowledgeable, general to technical, moderate to extreme, clumsy to eloquent and naff to almost profound. I find tygon_ridge's expectations a little unrealistic and a tad condescending. Frankly, I think he should keep his critiques about how people choose to express themselves in their posts to himself. I certainly don't post here in the hope of meeting the minimum standard that warrants his consideration. There is also a common language and glossary of terms that are in regular use throughout the forum threads. Many of these terms are analogous and imprecise in nature. These are open to varying interpretation but by and large, most people seem to get the gist. Are the examples of vague descriptions that tygon_ridge cites indicative of the stringent standards that he applies to the use of descriptive language or does it suggest a level of obtuseness on his part? |
| Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif i empathize with your frustration. there are obviously valid criticisms which can be made of the UM3X (and just about any other can out there). specifically, i can understand why someone would think:
i think, and this is just educated speculation on my part, the last point is where the "dull" and "lifeless" comments from. there are a lot of people who like big bass, whether it's really there or not. most consumer audio products these days is tweaked to make the bass bigger: from recording and mastering to speakers. there's nothing wrong with this, but it's not an accurate presentation of music. i personally find the UM3X really fun, engaging and groovy, especially when amped. i think the bass is really tight with good slam for an IEM, and there's no way i'd want it any louder or more emphasized. but that's just my taste; overdone bass is just not my thing. i can totally understand why the UM3X isn't everyone's cup of tea, and this is my translation of what some of the general criticisms are supposed to mean. |
| Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif You misunderstood my intended message by such a wide margin I don't even know where to start. To address your accusations, which I bolded: "I find tygon_ridge's expectations a little unrealistic and a tad condescending." I specifically said that I do not mind any posted impressions of any products on these boards. I said that these are no my standards, but rather, anyone would understand that when people go into these forums looking for clues as to which very expensive audio purchase to make next, they'd naturally give more weight to the opinions that are more descriptive. That doesn't mean that the less descriptive opinions don't deserve to have their place on these forums, nor that the people who post them are somehow doing a disservice to others. "stringent standards" I said before, but since you somehow missed it, I'll repeat: I have no problem with anything you post about the UM3X or whatnot. All I did was ask you to specify some specific differences that you heard. Now, being the incredibly wise and mature person that you seem to be, you somehow reacted by giving, in your own words, a "stern lecture." Now, who's "condescending?" "his critiques about how people choose to express themselves in their posts to himself" My critiques? All I said was that the less descriptive posts are cool and all, but that the more descriptive posts are even better. Mind explaining why you think this is a critique? Please be advised: Although I do not intend to create distractions and arguments in this thread, I will not sit still while you slander me with baseless accusations. I believe my messages were very clear, and quite frankly, common sense. I do not see them as critiques of how anyone posts their opinions. I only described their relative values. I never said that your statements about the UM3X bear no value, but you yourself must admit: if you were a head-fier wandering the threads looking for information about these IEMs, you probably give much more consideration to opinions that are built upon solid concrete observations. Concrete descriptions is where we head-fiers get the most value. I've read some great posts, many of which even have determined where I'm leaning towards in my future purchase decisions. The lesser-detailed posts like your own, also intrigue me at best; and intrigued me they did, which was why I wanted to know more, which was why I asked you for a simple comparison that shouldn't take more than 2 minutes of your time - imagine my surprise when my request for your further (respected) opinions was met with something like "haven't you already read enough? go get yourself some iem's already." |
| Originally Posted by mark2410 /img/forum/go_quote.gif erm i hope you arent suggesting those reasons are why i made dull and lifeless comments (actually i usually refer to it as a dead sound) for me it has more than enough bass, too much really they can make a very "lively" sound but they always have a dark, deadness to them. everything is precise but there is no decay on anything that gives the impression of air and life. hence why ive said it fools like being in an acoustic chamber as no sound lingers in anyway. in particular i feel the treble has to hard an attack and no delicate decay like it should and no real extension either. it feels digital, its there then its gone and thats just unnatural. i have similar issue with the tf10 too. nether are bad but neither are they perfect and of course the 530 gets around the treble issue by rolling it off early so you cant really hear its failings unless you eq it back in. really my biggest issue with the um3x the hype i feel it gets claiming its perfect when it just isnt. it is generally excellent and deserves to be seated at the top table and for some it will be the best option. it is the most even or best compromise on the top tier but in no way shape or form is it "better" than the others. its not got better treble than the tf10, it doesnt have better mids than the 530 and it doest have better bass than the ie8. |
| Originally Posted by mark2410 /img/forum/go_quote.gif erm i hope you arent suggesting those reasons are why i made dull and lifeless comments (actually i usually refer to it as a dead sound) |
| for me it has more than enough bass, too much really they can make a very "lively" sound but they always have a dark, deadness to them. everything is precise but there is no decay on anything that gives the impression of air and life. hence why ive said it fools like being in an acoustic chamber as no sound lingers in anyway. in particular i feel the treble has to hard an attack and no delicate decay like it should and no real extension either. it feels digital, its there then its gone and thats just unnatural. i have similar issue with the tf10 too. nether are bad but neither are they perfect and of course the 530 gets around the treble issue by rolling it off early so you cant really hear its failings unless you eq it back in. |
| really my biggest issue with the um3x the hype i feel it gets claiming its perfect when it just isnt. it is generally excellent and deserves to be seated at the top table and for some it will be the best option. |
| it is the most even or best compromise on the top tier but in no way shape or form is it "better" than the others. its not got better treble than the tf10, it doesnt have better mids than the 530 and it doest have better bass than the ie8. |
| Originally Posted by tstarn06 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Take it easy, the great majority of owners find the UM3X to be perfectly fantastic IEMs. A few don't, but unfortunately they seem to be dominating this thread more and more. |
| Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey, Mark, this is exactly what I was talking about!
"its not got better treble than the tf10, it doesnt have better mids than the 530 and it doest have better bass than the ie8." This is very interesting. HeadphoneAddict felt that his ES3X was considerably better than his custom-shelled se530. I wonder if, HPA, do you find the mids of the ES3X less appealing than that of your custom se530? Also, it's intriguing that HPA described his ES3X's bass as being better than his sr-007, while you feel that the IE8's bass sounds better than the UM3X bass. Hmm... |
