Westone 3 impressions?

[GPH]

I don't need it to be an O2 killer in terms of SQ, it just has to not make me want to wince every time I listen... as the UM2 does (and the ER-4P, the E500, and just about any canalphone short of the ES2).

I think some of my previous comments in this thread were a little bit harsh because I was expecting way more than what they can do. I've been out of the IEM "game" for some time and most of my recent headphone encounters were with high-end full-size cans so perhaps my expectations were placed too high. My previous observations are still true, but I have to admit I'm starting to like these phones and decided not to sell them too fast.

I've been using them a little bit more tonight in a crowded environment and I have to say they do a good job of making me enjoy my music on the road. For home listening, I maintain that the bass is overkill, but it works well for noisy places. Also, I kind of like the fact that everything sounds good with the W3 compared to my Etys which make half of my collection sound like garbage. I'd say these two IEMs are polar opposites in the way they present music, one is all about detail and relative accuracy and the other is all about musicality and fun.

[MaloS]

Musicality/Fun just about says it.

I don't see the bass as overblown, but the rolled-off treblepast 14-15khz does push it to sound darker.

[ZephyrSapphire]

GPH. Exactly what I was thinking.

[Fungi]

Check out these frequency measurements on the Westone 3, as well as the ATH-CK100 and ER-4S.

[url=http://fuchinove.chillout.jp/]

[Torpedo]

Check out these frequency measurements on the Westone 3, as well as the ATH-CK100 and ER-4S.

[url=http://fuchinove.chillout.jp/]

[Dreadhead]

For me accurate means accurate response (highs included). I prefer my headphones to give as close to ideal response as possible and if I need to equalize them to get rid of highs because the recording has issues (for example most internet radio has noise in the upper register) then so be it.

Anyway I listened to the phones for about 45 minutes before I packed them up for my wife to wrap and they are bass heavy and rolled off much like the SE500s though not as bad. They do sound nice though. Things may improve after burn in so I will withhold final judgment until then.

[guzziguy]

Musicality/Fun just about says it.

I don't see the bass as overblown, but the rolled-off treblepast 14-15khz does push it to sound darker.

What "music" are you trying to listen to at 14-15khz? Here is a musical note/frequency chart. As you can see, it goes up to a D# that is 4 octaves above middle C. The frequency of this D# is 4978.03HZ, way below 14-15kHZ.

[Dusty Chalk]

What, you've never heard of overtones?

[n_maher]

What "music" are you trying to listen to at 14-15khz? Here is a musical note/frequency chart. As you can see, it goes up to a D# that is 4 octaves above middle C. The frequency of this D# is 4978.03HZ, way below 14-15kHZ.

From what I understand Ken to say that a musical note is a single frequency is overly simplistic. There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz

[guzziguy]

What, you've never heard of overtones?

I've heard of overtones.

From what I understand Ken to say that a musical note is a single frequency is overly simplistic. There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz

I'd feel better about this if it was peer reviewed. However, except for cymbals the overtones above 20KHZ make up very little of the instrument's sound. What I was trying to say is that I doubt many people could tell a 14-15KHZ roll-off by listening to the vast majority of music. I am curious to know which music was used to detect the roll-off.

[grawk]

It'd help if there was some description of the scale for that chart...

[n_maher]

It'd help if there was some description of the scale for that chart...

Could you be more specific, there have been a few charts posted.

[Dusty Chalk]

However, except for cymbals the overtones above 20KHZ make up very little of the instrument's sound. What I was trying to say is that I doubt many people could tell a 14-15KHZ roll-off by listening to the vast majority of music.

I think you're wrong -- with a roll-off at 14-15kHz, I think most people who read this forum would be able to tell the difference even with CD's, and it would be audibly darker.

[Dusty Chalk]

It'd help if there was some description of the scale for that chart...

You mean, like where it says right across the bottom that it's the log frequency?

[grawk]

So we know the peak dB level, but not if it's a flat scale, logarythmic, etc.

[n_maher]

Doesn't it pretty clearly ID itself as "12.5dB / div" which makes it a linear scale on the side showing up to 93.5db?

[Dusty Chalk]

12.5 db/div implies to me that it's linear in decibels, since the divisions are linearly placed. As to whether decibels are linearly correlated to loudness is another discussion entirely, but that's the premise many make.

EDIT: Nate beat me to it.

EDIT #2: Maybe he can't read sideways.

[grawk]

except that my math doesn't work out with that scale. It'd end at 87.5...

[grawk]

That said, I'm not arguing music doesn't have information above 15khz, or that it's useful. I even used HF emphasized microphones to make my best recordings back when I used to do such things. Helped offset the rolloff distance caused.

[n_maher]

except that my math doesn't work out with that scale. It'd end at 87.5...

Does it say it starts at 0?

[Dusty Chalk]

Loudness is usually measured relative, not absolute.

[JBLoudG20]

Loudness is usually measured relative, not absolute.

I fart louder than Nate'e loud listening volume.

[MaloS]

I've heard of overtones.

I'd feel better about this if it was peer reviewed. However, except for cymbals the overtones above 20KHZ make up very little of the instrument's sound. What I was trying to say is that I doubt many people could tell a 14-15KHZ roll-off by listening to the vast majority of music. I am curious to know which music was used to detect the roll-off.

Very bad type of music. Tone generator.

Just in case you thought I was trying to analyze individual notes. And lets not take bets on what kind of frequencies I can put out using a strat and Vox ac30cc...all this is still ignoring the fact that instruments, as stated above, have overtones in addition to fundamental frequencies.

[catscratch]

Whoa, that was fast. I thought the W3 would ship this friday according to the Earphone Solutions site, but I have it here right now. Not bad.

Currently am listening with the Kenwood HD20GA9 player, which is pretty good on its own but isn't a good match for these earphones I think. It's way too warm. The Cowon players I have charging up are going to be a better match since they're colder. Eartips are the clear plastic ones in medium size. They always worked best fit-wise on every Westone and Shure headphone I've used.

First impressions: close, but no cigar. I was hoping that this would be the first really high-end universal-fit canalphone, but while it's the best one I've heard thus far, it still has serious issues.

Not going to go into detail just now, but with the Kenwood the sound is basically that of a much better E500. Tone is better - less plasticky and artificial, bass control is a bit better, the treble is less peaky, but there also seems to be a bit less detail. Things are very warm and fuzzy, with leading and trailing edges rounded off. I guess they tried to make the sound more refined, but this is fake refinement, not real refinement. Detail seems to be pretty good, not at the level of an ES2 or ER-4 but much better than the UM2. Treble extension sucks though, royally. I was expecting much better with a dedicated tweeter. I have a feeling that this is exactly what's masking a lot of the detail, and what's making things feel more rounded-off. Overtones/harmonics are being lost.

But, that's about it until I've had more time to listen.

Oh yeah, the bass is a bit overblown. Not much, but it's there.

Westone made a lot of noise about this fitting in with the Westone house sound, but I don't hear it. It's much closer to the Shure sound than anything else. Westones always had a forward sound with neutral mids, but this is warm and laid-back. Nothing like the ES2 at all, and I've heard some people make parallels. The ES2 sounds more neutral, way more forward, and definitely more detailed. The W3 does have a much bigger soundstage though, but the ES2 is pretty lacking in that regard.

I do like the W3 thus far though. There's no feeling of "ugh" or immediate urge to rip earphones out of ears. Though there's no feeling of "wow" either.

[GPH]

Whoa, that was fast. I thought the W3 would ship this friday according to the Earphone Solutions site, but I have it here right now. Not bad.

Currently am listening with the Kenwood HD20GA9 player, which is pretty good on its own but isn't a good match for these earphones I think. It's way too warm. The Cowon players I have charging up are going to be a better match since they're colder.

First impressions: close, but no cigar. I was hoping that this would be the first really high-end universal-fit canalphone, but while it's the best one I've heard thus far, it still has serious issues.

Not going to go into detail just now, but with the Kenwood the sound is basically that of a much better E500. Tone is better - less plasticky and artificial, bass control is a bit better, the treble is less peaky, but there also seems to be a bit less detail. Things are very warm and fuzzy, with leading and trailing edges rounded off. I guess they tried to make the sound more refined, but this is fake refinement, not real refinement. Detail seems to be pretty good, not at the level of an ES2 or ER-4 but much better than the UM2. Treble extension sucks though, royally. I was expecting much better with a dedicated tweeter. I have a feeling that this is exactly what's masking a lot of the detail, and what's making things feel more rounded-off. Overtones/harmonics are being lost.

But, that's about it until I've had more time to listen.

Oh yeah, the bass is a bit overblown. Not much, but it's there.

Westone made a lot of noise about this fitting in with the Westone house sound, but I don't hear it. It's much closer to the Shure sound than anything else. Westones always had a forward sound with neutral mids, but this is warm and laid-back. Nothing like the ES2 at all, and I've heard some people make parallels. The ES2 sounds more neutral, way more forward, and definitely more detailed. The W3 does have a much bigger soundstage though, but the ES2 is pretty lacking in that regard.

I do like the W3 thus far though. There's no feeling of "ugh" or immediate urge to rip earphones out of ears. Though there's no feeling of "wow" either.

Thanks for sharing your impressions catscratch, they concur with what I'm hearing. What do you think of the vocals presentation? That's the main reason why I finally decided to sell the W3, I think the reproduction of human voice is not natural at all and there's not enough emphasis put on the mids in general for my tastes. I'd even say the mids are pretty recessed compared to what I'm used to and it really hurts my enjoyment of these phones.