[natty135]

hmm but if anything, do you think it's possible to go from a sf5pro and 'get use' to the um3x? because i love separation. sf5v2's have a massive soundstage to me and i think that's one of the things i'll miss most going to the um3x.

i loved my friend's um2's before getting sf3 and being spoilt by the sparkle in the highs but has anyone gotten used to switching from a UE to a 'rolled off" westone? my friend's been telling me it's okay to get either because just use it and your ears will get used to them and love either. there's no going wrong. i guess it's true somewhat but like most people, i like to make the most bang per buck.

i wanted the um3x because i wanted to try out 'a real monitor' and have 'rolled off highs' because my ears do get fatigued after an hour or so on sf's. but i'm afraid it'll be too rolled off so i've been trying to EQ my sf5v2 to have more mids (it starts recessed so i can't do alot) and lowered highs. i'd say the lack of 'something whacking away' on top of both ears is something i can get used to especially if um3x are as neutral and are that great in separation, i'm sure things like voices and cymbals will sound the way they're supposed to, which is great since that's the way they were meant to be heard anyway.

"UM3X is thicker compare to etymotic hf5 that is for sure"

hf5's a single driver from ety if i'm not wrong? sorry i'm still pretty new (okay about 3 years into IEMs but i don't know alot) what exactly does 'thicker' mean because i'd imagine thicker to be muddier. even after auditioning um3x briefly quite a few times i can't picture amazing separation and thick at the same time though i have noticed the it sounding like the hair on the top of my head's been shaved off and i can't hear past that.

"W3 sounds quite close to an improved Super Fi Pro where UM3X sounds quite close to an improved UM2."

how does the w3 improve the sf5pro, if i may ask. also, does anyone know the price difference for both from stereo?

thanks alot guys!

 

[FYJX]

I think there's a misunderstanding. The Um3X doesn't really "roll-off", it does but it's so minor it can't even be considered it. What i would put it as is it's not a very put forward high presentation like Etymotics and Ultimate Ears. If you like soundstage and highs and the sound of the SF5P, Westone 3 is your best bet .

Thicker means it's got a richer, and sound with a greater depth. Doesn't mean it's muddy, it's just got a much richer presentation.

 

[jdc65]

So how accurately does the UMX3 reproduce natural instrument / vocal timbre? Like the wood resonance of a violin or guitar, the resonance of vocals, the clarity and depth of horns.

In terms a timbre accuracy of my current gear, I'd rate the JVC FX500 and HD650 as excellent, the K701 as pretty good except for the treble hump, the RE0 and 770/600 as unexceptional, and the Pro 750 as notably inaccurate. I'm not just meaning 'warm' or 'fun', I'm talking about a guitar sound like it's made out of real wood and string, and not plastic or tin!

I'm like a lot of what I've read about the UMX3, but afraid that being a stage monitor might conflict w/ natural timbre reproduction

And yes, all of this is completely subjective and I can only ask people's opinions.

Thanks!

 

[natty135]

hello everyone! i just got my um3x and i'm loving them. i guess the most noticable difference between w3 and um3x when auditioning is really the thickness of sound. the um3x might sound muddy when you first hear them but you'll realise that it's all details. every bit of it beneath is raw awesome details of the music and it's lovely. i actually found um3x's highs more precise than w3's. not sure if everyone feels the same but i found that um3x's highs were less present but way more clear than w3's. quick hi hats sounded like static on the w3 where they're more defined on the um3x. the bass is also more smooth and 'quality conscious' in the um3x than the w3s.

"I'm like a lot of what I've read about the UMX3, but afraid that being a stage monitor might conflict w/ natural timbre reproduction"

it's pretty natural sounding to me, treble boosting does push it closer to what we might perceive earphones to reproduce to the best of their ability but as a musician i can say they're just awesome at being natural

 

[Oomingmak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by natty135 /img/forum/go_quote.gif "UM3X is thicker compare to etymotic hf5 that is for sure" hf5's a single driver from ety if i'm not wrong? sorry i'm still pretty new (okay about 3 years into IEMs but i don't know alot) what exactly does 'thicker' mean because i'd imagine thicker to be muddier. even after auditioning um3x briefly quite a few times i can't picture amazing separation and thick at the same time though i have noticed the it sounding like the hair on the top of my head's been shaved off and i can't hear past that. thanks alot guys!

Thicker just means that the sound is more colorful. What you perceive as "muddy" and not detailed becomes "colorful" once you get used to the sound signature of an IEM. At that point going back to anything less colorful would sound lifeless and tiny. Compared to the hf5's the UM3X's sound would have more overall body and it is very detailed once you realize that what sounds muddy is just the bass presence that you were previously lacking. Some IEM's do have muddy bass, though what I consider muddy is bass that splashes and masks the flaws of the mids and highs. The UM3X's bass is not muddy at all, it's very controlled, meaning that it doesn't interfere with the other sound spectrums yet it's very present. This is why many say that the UM3X has exceptional instrument separation.

 

[JamestheRipper]

are variable bitrate files good enough for the UM3x?

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamestheRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif are variable bitrate files good enough for the UM3x?

I have started using 256K VBR for ripping my kids CD's and some stuff of mine for iPods, and enjoy them with W3; but I wont use anything less than ALAC for reviewing gear or listening to my high end rigs. Most of what is in the higher resolution CD rips is the micro-detail, air ambience and space that 256K VBR doesn't capture as well. If you are archiving your CD collection, I wouldn't use anything less than lossless, but if you are just making copies for the iPod/UM3X then 256K VBR should be fine. I actually have a lot of new age music in eMusic's 192K VBR and it isn't bad with my iPod and W3 either, so the same should go with the UM3X. The W3 and UM3X are good at revealing compression artifacts in 128K iTunes music (or streaming music), but increasing the bit rate 50-100% helps a lot.

PS: I have both the Westone 3 Limited Edition and a normal pair from October 09, and I'd be willing to trade the regular W3 for a UM3X so that I have both for comparisons (both W3 sound the same). Will only consider UM3X and nothing else. If anyone wants to make me more useful in this thread let me know.

 

[natty135]

anyone interested on a tips discussion? i think my right ear's either partially deaf or the earphone's bass driver on the right's screwed or there's a cavity somewhere in my right ear and it isn't sealing properly. yes long complys don't seal all the time their LOL. left side's perfect though.

i love the sound through flex sleeves but the isolation's the deal breaker for me. anyone has had similar problems or their favourite tips?

 

[natty135]

anyone interested on a tips discussion? i think my right ear's either partially deaf or the earphone's bass driver on the right's screwed or there's a cavity somewhere in my right ear and it isn't sealing properly. yes long complys don't seal all the time their LOL. left side's perfect though.

i love the sound through flex sleeves but the isolation's the deal breaker for me. anyone has had similar problems or their favourite tips?

 

[stang]

I use the comply short. They fit my right ear perfectly but my left canal is terrible, I can wiggle the UM3X around easily and do not get a good seal at all. I am guessing I need to try Shure olives. I would love a pair or at least one of each size: Small, Medium and Large. I just do not want to spend $60 on getting the full set of each size

Apparently comply's suck out the high's and add more bass, I really need to try these Shure Olive's now

 

[Cosmic Fool]

I am loving my UM3X even more now that I have the Sony X1060 DAP. They have a great synergy imo. The soundstage is bigger, the bass is a lot tighter and there are lots of details. The sound is very musical and smooth.

FYI, my previous DAP was a Cowon i7.

 

[stang]

Yes the X1060 is great with the UM3X. I find them a tad too less detailed and bassy though compared to my 3rd gen Touch and P-51 Mustang amp. Best DAP out there IMO. Playback buttons are extremely useful. It looks simply stunning and has a great OLED screen and is very powerful. It drives my Ultrasone ALO-780 to normal listening level for me at 17/30 volume. I use 12/30 with the UM3X.

 

[Cosmic Fool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stang /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes the X1060 is great with the UM3X. I find them a tad too less detailed and bassy though compared to my 3rd gen Touch and P-51 Mustang amp. Best DAP out there IMO. Playback buttons are extremely useful. It looks simply stunning and has a great OLED screen and is very powerful. It drives my Ultrasone ALO-780 to normal listening level for me at 17/30 volume. I use 12/30 with the UM3X.

I feel they sound too detailed and even a bit harsh with the Touch - without an head amp I mean. But I am very sensitive to peaky highs. With the right amp I do believe the Touch can be a good DAP for the UM3X.

 

[stang]

I love detail but it needs to sound warm at the same time, hence I love my touch with p-51 amp. But when I can't be bothered bring around an amp with me, I use the Walkman. SO i cannot sell either to fund future purchases as much as I need the cash

 

[Cosmic Fool]

Than you have the best of both worlds.

I can't see myself dragging a headphone amp with me though. The X is so thin and elegant. It fits right into any pocket.