New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shure SE535 Special Edition - Page 12

post #166 of 235
First of all, its not a mismatch, there are no requirements, its the nature of the change. It doesn't increase distortion in any of the cases I've heard or seem in graphs. Matter of fact it can decrease distortion, see Rins ADDIEM analsys. Bandwidth is clearly improved as seen in the graph, you're underdamping the driver allow it to increase its air in this case. The driver is producing 17k now that's its underdamped with impedance instead of the previous 16k, its the driver that is doing this, not the impedance itself that doesn't even make sense
Edited by Inks - 4/16/13 at 1:42am
post #167 of 235

You are forcing the frequencies to deviate with impedance. With regards to distortion, there should be minimal if no difference unless the impedances are seriously imbalanced. I am still confused as to why you would go about achieving treble boost in your case by exchanging gear and picking high impedance sources hoping that higher frequencies will hopefully be exaggerated whilst also compromising other frequencies, when you can achieve this all simply by EQing. There is a pre-determined bandwidth that the drivers in an earphone can handle. EQing for emphasis in the higher frequencies will even out the frequency response and bring about the 16k to 17k frequencies to become more prominent. You don't need high impedance sources to maximise your bandwidth. So I find it a slightly pointless exercise to purchase a DAP as costly as an AK100 to drive just the Shures and maybe a handful of other IEMs that will hopefully turn out for the better thanks to the source's impedance. 


Edited by uchihaitachi - 4/16/13 at 7:25am
post #168 of 235

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks View Post

To get the best sound. Point being, listen to the SE535 with a bit more impedance by the source, don't be afraid of it as the result may be better.

If you're going to EQ why get a SE535? It's got limited bandwidth. Actually adding impedance may help bandwidth as it surely did to the SE425

I think the point is, why do either? Find a phone you like and something that can drive it and stop playing mad scientist. The 535 is also a 2 way (1.5 actually) by adding source impedance you change the crossover point as well. Because the high driver on  the 535 are actually run full range, you're only changing the low pass which will be more subtle but it will not be as the manufacturer intended. Results are more important than theory so individual results will vary but it's not something to promote.

 

535 is about 28 ohms in the bass and about 35 ohms at both 1k and 17K so no highs to gain {which is fine because they are fine, a bit of high frequency roll sounds more like free air than dead flat. (natural)}. It does drop to around 10 ohms at 5k so there should be a dip there. There may also be bass rolloff due tp the poor impedance match. It will only get less linear in this case depending on preference.

http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=7&graphID[]=2731


Edited by goodvibes - 4/16/13 at 7:51am
post #169 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post

You are forcing the frequencies to deviate with impedance. With regards to distortion, there should be minimal if no difference unless the impedances are seriously imbalanced. I am still confused as to why you would go about achieving treble boost in your case by exchanging gear and picking high impedance sources hoping that higher frequencies will hopefully be exaggerated whilst also compromising other frequencies, when you can achieve this all simply by EQing. There is a pre-determined bandwidth that the drivers in an earphone can handle. EQing for emphasis in the higher frequencies will even out the frequency response and bring about the 16k to 17k frequencies to become more prominent. You don't need high impedance sources to maximise your bandwidth. So I find it a slightly pointless exercise to purchase a DAP as costly as an AK100 to drive just the Shures and maybe a handful of other IEMs that will hopefully turn out for the better thanks to the source's impedance. 

No if anything the point is not to force a new source if the source is high OI just because of a rule that doesn't apply to it. The treble hasn't been shown to get "exaggerated" and the bass stays the same in practical terms. If one has a cheaper source, yup just stick to that I agree but if the user does not want to switch gears, having high OI isn't as bad as you were putting it. The impedance will help the severer drop off occurring stock. Now it is a marginal improvement if heavily EQing and may likely not be worth the extra adapter in such a case. I would personally get a W4 for heavy EQing as its got more potential with it and is actually more comfortable IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

I think the point is, why do either? Find a phone you like and something that can drive it and stop playing mad scientist. The 535 is also a 2 way (1.5 actually) by adding source impedance you change the crossover point as well. Because the high driver on  the 535 are actually run full range, you're only changing the low pass which will be more subtle but it will not be as the manufacturer intended. Results are more important than theory so individual results will vary but it's not something to promote.

535 is about 28 ohms in the bass and about 35 ohms at both 1k and 17K so no highs to gain {which is fine because they are fine, a bit of high frequency roll sounds more like free air than dead flat. (natural)}. It does drop to around 10 ohms at 5k so there should be a dip there. There may also be bass rolloff due tp the poor impedance match. It will only get less linear in this case depending on preference.
http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=7&graphID[]=2731

In terms of impedance we don't know what the manufacture intended or was limited to, many IEMs may have had been forced with low impedance to maximize its driving power or bass, high impedance scares buyers into thinking they'll need an amp. In the case of the W4 and ADDIEMs there is a clear, blatant improvement, so may be worthwhile if such a change is pleasing to the user for the 535s. The SE535 would have to be tested by ear or graphs to see if such a change is desirable. Simply stating that it may be worthwhile to try the 535 this way via adapter or a source of OI of ones preference, its not necessarily detrimental as was implied earlier.
post #170 of 235

For clarification, by exaggerated treble I meant a boost in the treble. 

What do you mean by 'heavy' EQing? EQing the aforementioned output to a flat frequency response would be pretty simple and a lot more effective than relying on impedance disparity to the job. If your graph is anything to go by, the higher frequencies are uneven in the first place and so getting it boosted through impedance disparity is doing a rather sub-par job at its best and will require further EQing to even out the frequency...

 

Speaking of which, you mention a W4. How does it hold up against the SE535 LTD? Also are its nozzles and tips the same shape/size/material as the Shures?

post #171 of 235

I believe the manufacurer intended it to be what it is. We're talking the sort of volume orders where they can get anything they want. In the case of the ADDIEM, Ipods at the time were near 10 ohm output impedance so fits their intent.


Edited by goodvibes - 4/16/13 at 10:42am
post #172 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post

For clarification, by exaggerated treble I meant a boost in the treble. 

What do you mean by 'heavy' EQing? EQing the aforementioned output to a flat frequency response would be pretty simple and a lot more effective than relying on impedance disparity to the job. If your graph is anything to go by, the higher frequencies are uneven in the first place and so getting it boosted through impedance disparity is doing a rather sub-par job at its best and will require further EQing to even out the frequency...

 

Speaking of which, you mention a W4. How does it hold up against the SE535 LTD? Also are its nozzles and tips the same shape/size/material as the Shures?

 

 

Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post

For clarification, by exaggerated treble I meant a boost in the treble. 

What do you mean by 'heavy' EQing? EQing the aforementioned output to a flat frequency response would be pretty simple and a lot more effective than relying on impedance disparity to the job. If your graph is anything to go by, the higher frequencies are uneven in the first place and so getting it boosted through impedance disparity is doing a rather sub-par job at its best and will require further EQing to even out the frequency...

 

Speaking of which, you mention a W4. How does it hold up against the SE535 LTD? Also are its nozzles and tips the same shape/size/material as the Shures?

Heavy EQing the roll off will maximize it's perceived bandwidth due to the heavy roll-off, leaving the bandwid increase via impedance to be very marginal was my point. The impedance increase does leave the nature of the treble, if one doesn't like that, one can change it with EQ, the impedance change isn't going to do magic and  make it dead flat. 

 

Have only heard the regular 535s. W4 has more midbass, slightly more laiddback midghigh and much better treble bandwidth [easily reaching 20k], but a 10k region that may be a little hot stock. Nozzle and tip compability are the same from what I recall, just the W4's nozzle is shorter. The W4 does like short, tapered wide bore tips the best though, it maximizes it's bandwith greatly. IME, it's very comfortable and sounds great with Phonak silicone tips and shallow insertion.

 

Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

I believe the manufacurer intended it to be what it is. In the case of the ADDIEM, Ipods at the time were near 10 ohm output impedance so fits their imtent.

Well we are both essentially guessing. I would say that the W4's improvement is great IME listening, becomes more airy and has more midrange energy. We don't know if Westone used a high OI source to tune or whether they simply wanted to compromise with high sensitivy and the most bass they could put out. Even then, I wouldn't always assume a manufacturer leaves you with the best options. The old stock tips of the W4 were all detriminal to it's sound, can't speak for the newer star tips though. 


Edited by Inks - 4/16/13 at 10:44am
post #173 of 235

Point is that those manufacturers weren't guessing.

post #174 of 235

I have no interest in the SE535 special edition.  The SE530 certainly had rolled off highs.  This was fixed with SE535.  The Shure treble tends to be a tad metalicky so any MORE revealing treble would be overkill and fatiguing.

post #175 of 235

SE535 only sounds metallic with a bad fit, otherwise, it's too conservative. Being revealing and extension are two different things, an IEM can be revealing yet rolled off, vice-versa

 

never said manufactuers were guessing, but they have limiations and sometimes have to make compromises. The UE900 is prime example, can't help but feel the UE900 went through beta testing that lead to bad changes of the original sound designed, that pinhole and low impedance are just too detriminal...

post #176 of 235

The pin hole was by choice because they wanted more bass. You don't. That doesn't make it detrimental. I still strongly question the idea of a Helmholtz resonator being the pinhole's mode of adding bass. The low impedance has the effect of adding source impedance by keeping the ratio under damped with higher output impedance devices. Something you said made the 900 more linear.


Edited by goodvibes - 4/17/13 at 5:53am
post #177 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

SE535 only sounds metallic with a bad fit, otherwise, it's too conservative. Being revealing and extension are two different things, an IEM can be revealing yet rolled off, vice-versa

 

never said manufactuers were guessing, but they have limiations and sometimes have to make compromises. The UE900 is prime example, can't help but feel the UE900 went through beta testing that lead to bad changes of the original sound designed, that pinhole and low impedance are just too detriminal...

Uh...NO, it should not be metalicky with foam tips that fit perfect.  That is Shure's treble.  SE535 is anything BUT conservative.  Aggressive, forward and far more treble extension than  UE900, W4, UM3X.  But no, not like an ER4 which is far too hyped and unrealistic along with the bass which is reverse U-shaped and unrealistic.  But the ER4 midrange is nice...


Edited by Spyro - 4/17/13 at 10:53am
post #178 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyro View Post

Uh...NO, it should not be metalicky with foam tips that fit perfect.  That is Shure's treble.  SE535 is anything BUT conservative.  Aggressive, forward and far more treble extension than  UE900, W4, UM3X.  But no, not like an ER4 which is far too hyped and unrealistic along with the bass which is reverse U-shaped and unrealistic.  But the ER4 midrange is nice...

 

Which SE535 version are you talking about? Hmmm..I have both UE900 and SE535 (not the special version) and IMHO treble is much better in the UE900 and thats the reason I'm selling the Shure, didn't like at all the absence of treble.

post #179 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyro View Post

Uh...NO, it should not be metalicky with foam tips that fit perfect.  That is Shure's treble.  SE535 is anything BUT conservative.  Aggressive, forward and far more treble extension than  UE900, W4, UM3X.  But no, not like an ER4 which is far too hyped and unrealistic along with the bass which is reverse U-shaped and unrealistic.  But the ER4 midrange is nice...

I don't think you're using the definition of "extension" properly honestly, in terms of sheer treble extension UE900=W4[wide bore tips]>ER4>SE535>GR10. Only the UE900 and W4 can reach 20k, tested via freq sweep and confirmed by FR graphs. I actually wish I had both to do a sine-wave comparison as to see which can reach 24k [yes I can hear that high]. 

 

Sounds like a poor fit on those SE535s, I think if I remember correctly, the SE535s 10k region makes it sound aggressive and forward when the insertion depth isn't right. 

 

If the ER4 sounded aggressive on the treble, bad fit as well....it's smoother than GR10 and W4. ER4's subbass is horrid yes, midbass is fine. 


Edited by Inks - 4/17/13 at 6:39pm
post #180 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by sect44 View Post

 

Which SE535 version are you talking about? Hmmm..I have both UE900 and SE535 (not the special version) and IMHO treble is much better in the UE900 and thats the reason I'm selling the Shure, didn't like at all the absence of treble.

Regular.  I found the UE900 pretty much like cotton in my ears...then putting the tips in.  Zero shimmer, zero crispness.  Might just be me.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: