| | COMPARISON BETWEEN WESTONE 3 AND UM3X BY OUR CONTRIBUTORS ART ALTMAN AND ED NG![Comparison Between Westone 3 and UM3X by our contributors Art Altman and Ed Ng]() |
W3 versus UM3x: both excellent, but different types of sound
Westone Review W3 vs. UM3xBy Art A. from San Carlos, California on July 15, 2009
Bottom Line: I find the W3 and the UM3x both extraordinary in terms of sound quality and fit. They do sound very different though, and in this review I offer an overview of the differences. As for my preference, I HAD been planning to keep one pair and sell the other, but, well, I'm probably going to keep both and use them for different purposes.
Background: I use these earphones with my iPods and only with my iPods: shuffle 2nd generation, classic 80, and Nano 4th generation. I rip my music from cds, using lossless on the 80 gig Classic, and 256 bit rate compression for the nano and shuffle.
I have listened to virtually all the major brands of earphones under $500, and prefer Westone's sound signature and fit by a substantial margin. They just seem to have the most natural sound of the major brands to MY ear, and by happy coincidence, the best fit as well. I have owned the UM1 and continue to own the UM2 in addition to W3 and UM3x.
I know that a LOT of folks are fans of Westones like I am, but some probably do prefer the sound signature or fit of other brands. YMMV. For me, naturalness of sound is an extremely high priority. Shure comes in second - a definite second - on both naturalness of sound and quality of fit in my experience. Other brands were behind further on both sound and fit.
Caveats:
(1) Tightness of seal is essential for deep bass, and comfort is essential for extended listening. I have found that I get the best fit out of the Shure black foam tips on my Westones, and I use them exclusively. ($15 or $20 for a box of five pair.)
(2) I break-in every new pair of earphones for around 40 hours before trying them.
Tonal balance: W3 has slightly deeper bass and slightly more extended highs than the UM3x. However, the UM3x has PLENTY of deep bass and it is better controlled than on the W3, which sometimes seems loose and boomy by comparison. UM3x highs are plenty extended as well. Midrange is more prominent on the UM3x, whereas it seems a bit recessed on the W3.
I am tempted to say that the UM3x has a more natural tonal balance, but these two earphones simply emphasize different aspects of the music. For example, using the UM3x is like you are sitting closer to the singer or the sax or the piano. With W3 you feel like you are sitting closer to the drums or the violin.
UM3x has an overall slightly lighter tonal balance in direct comparison to the richer sounding W3. The richer balance of the W3 is slightly more pleasing but there is a price to pay in terms of loss of upper midrange presence and detail.
Refinement versus detail: W3 has a refined sound, more refined than the UM3x; that is. However, to my ear the UM3x is plenty refined, and also more revealing of detail and nuance, top to bottom. I think it simply gives you more detail of the recording, for better or worse. That is, W3's extra dollop of "refinement" might just be that it is designed to be more forgiving of potentially unpleasant sonic characteristics of MP3 and AAC compressed sound. If I am correct, this means that UM3x would be better on great recordings, but less forgiving on harsh recordings.
Pacing: The UM3x offers incredible pacing. This sound is punchy and lightning fast. This is great fun for music that moves your feet! W3 is no slouch in this area, not at all, but slower in a direct comparison to UM3x.
Build and fit: W3 seems to have better build quality of the ear piece, but the UM3x is fine in this regard. UM3x is more comfortable because it is a bit smaller. I think they use the same cords, which are thankfully very light and flexible.
My decision?
a. Continue to use the UM2 for the gym with my shuffle (YES it is worth pairing a $300 earphone to the shuffle provided you use at least 256 bit rate!). The UM2 has incredible bass and dynamic drive, very natural sound, and more than enough detail for the live rock concerts that I love to play while I work out.
b. Alternate the W3 and UM3x on my nano and the classic. I keep the nano in my briefcase for travel and coffee houses. The heavier Classic is kept home. Yeah maybe I'm nuts but I'm gonna keep both. These cans are different and have their own virtues. Audio is my hobby and passion, so why not?
If you held a gun to my head and made me pick one? I'd pick the UM3x for my purposes, but please bear in mind that I am a long time audiophile, and I love to hear the extra bit of detail that audiophile speakers offer - even that it makes poor or highly compressed recordings more difficult to enjoy. It makes the best recordings of great music sound all the better.
This is a VERY TOUGH CALL, comparing "apples versus oranges", because I would miss the strengths of the W3. For me, though, overall I value accuracy of reproduction, as long as the timber is very natural.
Also bear in mind that I never use 128 bit rate, which was the default until recently at the Apple iTunes store. The least I use is 256, and there are FAR fewer artifacts of compression at 256 than 128.
Finally, I find the UM3x is slightly more comfortable.
If I had an iPod filled with 128 bit rate recordings, or just wanted the most FUN sound - staggering bass and extended highs - or the smoothest and most relaxing sound over a wide range of quality of recordings - my choice might be different.
Pros:
UM3x: very comfortable, punchy, natural sound, very highly detailed, deep bass, prominent midrange, EXTREMELY ENJOYABLE
Cons:
No cons in absolute terms. W3 has slightly deeper bass, less controlled though.
Art Altman
July 2009
Comparison: Westone 3 and Westone UM3X, using Westone UM-56 custom tips
Let me preface this comparison by saying that the UM-56 tips are the best tips I've ever used on the Westone IEMs, bar none. By far the best for comfort and sound quality. Isolation is just as good as the best universal tips I've used (though not necessarily better). Additionally, I'd like to preface this comparison by stating that I have not read anyone else's comparisons between these two so as to avoid my impressions being affected by other reviewers' results.
Okay, first off, I'll state the setup specifications for this first test/comparison event (there will be more tests with other equipment I own later on).
Source: My PC, playing back max bitrate VBR MP3s and lossless FLAC/ALAC files, via foobar2000's WASAPI output mode to my Nuforce Icon Mobile DAC/amp. I chose this as my initial testing setup because of the Nuforce Icon Mobile's dual headphone outs.
My pair of Westone 3 have something like 500 hours of listening on them. My Westone UM3X have maybe 25 hours on them at most (probably less). Balanced armature IEMs should not need break in, so make what you will of this discrepancy. I apologize that I don't have comparably new Westone 3s on hand, but I was a pre-order customer for both IEMs from Earphone Solutions.
We'll start with the products themselves. The cable for both IEMs is identical in every way imaginable, so there's nothing to compare (not even length). However, I would like to note that the Westone 3 comes very nicely wound up in the retail container, whilst the Westone UM3X was tightly bound and as a result came from the factory with a crease/kink in the cable where the threads are splitting just slightly--not an issue for my pair of Westone 3s.
As far as build quality of the monitors themselves, I have to definitely give the nod here to the Westone 3s. The casing design and quality of moulding has a clean, high-quality, high-precision commercial look and feel to it, smooth and refined. I feel that this is far less the case for the UM3Xs, which appear much less refined and like a lower-volume, almost hand-made product (paying particular attention to the forming of the base of the nozzle, where it leads away from the body of the monitor). I rather think that professionals care less about this sort of thing so long as they are durable and perform well, whereas at a consumer level, the Westone 3s need to show excellent polish to compete with the Sennheisers and Shures of the world, so in a way this makes plenty of sense. Aesthetically speaking (this is obviously a subjective opinion here), I prefer the clean and simple, smooth look of the 3s over the UM3X, particularly when paired with universal tips. I must admit that there is a harmony to the clear outside shell of the UM3Xs when pairs with translucent custom tips though, like my UM-56s.
For fitment, I give the win to UM3Xs over the 3s; the smaller bodies and the angles of the nozzles allow the UM3Xs to nestle more flush in the ears. Because there's a flare out at the base of the nozzles on the UM3Xs compared to the flat base of the 3s' nozzles, I find that different tips will have better fit on one or the other. For the UM-56 tips, they happen to work just as well on either one because my UM-56 tips came with a rather wide bore at the nozzle end; they wouldn't even really attach to the Westone IEMs until I came up with the solution of using de-flanged triflange tip cores to gap the space. As such, when I mount the UM-56 tips to my UM3Xs, I can nestle the flare at the nozzle base into the wide bore opening on the back side of the tips. For the 3s, they sit flat against the body, flush. Comfort is pretty much the same when using the UM-56 tips between the two, as they tend to push both IEMs out farther than flush compared to universal tips (though not as far out as the ACS tips do to my IE8s). With universal tips, I definitely give the nod to the UM3Xs as far as comfort is concerned, though.
Okay, the meat of this experiment, the comparison of sound. First thing I must note is that while the differences between the two are noticible, they are fairly subtle and the fact of the matter is that it's very easy for the sound of one to be preferable to one person and the other one to be preferable for the next person--basically speaking, I really don't think I can specifically say that one sounds better than the other all the time, it depends on the taste of the listener and the genre of music.
That being said, I so far have come to the conclusion that for my ears, which are particularly sensitive to high frequencies, both of these IEMs are on the very slightly bright side. It's not bad enough to cause listening fatigue for me, but it is definitely anything but dark sound coming from either of these IEMs. Now, as far as the highs themselves, I feel that the UM3Xs have better air and extension than the 3s; however, they (the UM3Xs) also seem brighter than the 3s for that reason. From a detail standpoint, the UM3Xs produce the more convincing cymbals. When it comes to sharp consonants in vocals, the UM3X is sharper and more airy. I feel that it is in the high frequency range where the biggest difference is perceivable between the two.
In the mids, the UM3X presents a more up-front presentation, particularly in vocals. It's not in-your-face, just more forward than 3.
On the bass end of the spectrum, the Westone 3 presents a slightly warmer sound as a whole, a somewhat bolder bass presence with a bit more oomph. Extension downward seems pretty even between the two, both being fairly substantial at the bottom end, with the 3s being only slightly more so than the UM3X.
This concludes my observations for now...I'll follow up next time with specific listening comparisons on several of my personal reference tracks, and then after that I'll chime back in with tests done using my P-51 Mustang and after that probably some final comparisons being fed by my Benchmark DAC1.
-Ed |
|
