Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Westone 4R vs Shure E535 vs UE900
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Westone 4R vs Shure E535 vs UE900 - Page 2

post #16 of 25
no idea about ue900

but as to w4r and 535, they both are not transparent and lack resolution which make them dry and dull.

I personally do not recommend them
post #17 of 25

W4R dry and dull?  Hmm.  Which headphones do you think have more transparency and resolution? 

post #18 of 25

ok dry and dull? what source/dac/amp/cables/interconnects are you using? this IMO is far from the truth, right now im using the ibasso p4 and with the opamps im using the w4r sound quality is simular to the se535ltdJ on steroids. which is a feat considering alot of people say they sound veiled,

 

this dry and dull must come only from coming straight out of a ipod or iphone. for 1 the w4 or w4r are slightly harder to drive then say the se535 they arent as sensitive. so you arent going to get the kinda volume you might expect.

post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooses9 View Post

ok dry and dull? what source/dac/amp/cables/interconnects are you using? this IMO is far from the truth, right now im using the ibasso p4 and with the opamps im using the w4r sound quality is simular to the se535ltdJ on steroids. which is a feat considering alot of people say they sound veiled,

 

this dry and dull must come only from coming straight out of a ipod or iphone. for 1 the w4 or w4r are slightly harder to drive then say the se535 they arent as sensitive. so you arent going to get the kinda volume you might expect.

 

Hmm, my accusation of w4r being not transparent has caused some uproar :).

Therefore I borrowed my girlfriend's w4r last night and listened to it punctiliously again and I have to apologize for calling it lack of tranparency.

In my defence though, I did not like w4r on my first impression. Now looking back, my bad feeling resulted from listening to Emile Sande. Its smeared treble disappointed me hugely which is the reason I bought AKG3003 instead.

But my opinion against 535 stays unchanged. Its transparency falls below average. It is dull and dry.

I have read quite a few people claiming that 535ltd is better in this regard by not just a morsel, is it true? If it is, I seriously considering getting one for it is on sale now.
Edited by gzeminem - 8/20/13 at 4:19pm
post #20 of 25

You are always welcome to your opinion, I was just trying to understand which phones you like, since you said no to 2 headphones and said you hadn't hear one.

 

I really like the W4R and think it sounds great just from an iPod, but others don't.  That's what makes it interesting.

post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzeminem View Post

Hmm, my accusation of w4r being not transparent has caused some uproar smily_headphones1.gif.


Therefore I borrowed my girlfriend's w4r last night and listened to it punctiliously again and I have to apologize for calling it lack of tranparency.


In my defence though, I did not like w4r on my first impression. Now looking back, my bad feeling resulted from listening to Emile Sande. Its smeared treble disappointed me hugely which is the reason I bought AKG3003 instead.


But my opinion against 535 stays unchanged. Its transparency falls below average. It is dull and dry.


I have read quite a few people claiming that 535ltd is better in this regard by not just a morsel, is it true? If it is, I seriously considering getting one for it is on sale now.

Wow, that's still very expensive man: http://www.ebay.com/itm/AKG-K3003i-Reference-Class-3-Way-Earphones-with-MIC-SAVE-BIG-/310722590605

$1000, with just two BA and one dynamic driver... :-/
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzeminem View Post

Hmm, my accusation of w4r being not transparent has caused some uproar :).


Therefore I borrowed my girlfriend's w4r last night and listened to it punctiliously again and I have to apologize for calling it lack of tranparency.

In my defence though, I did not like w4r on my first impression. Now looking back, my bad feeling resulted from listening to Emile Sande. Its smeared treble disappointed me hugely which is the reason I bought AKG3003 instead.

But my opinion against 535 stays unchanged. Its transparency falls below average. It is dull and dry.

I have read quite a few people claiming that 535ltd is better in this regard by not just a morsel, is it true? If it is, I seriously considering getting one for it is on sale now.

 

You're definitely entitled to you opinion - but some of us obviously have different interpretations / expectations.

 

I'm a bit of a Shure fan - have always loved the Shure IEM mid-range, and it's this that confuses me re your comments.  I can understand the 'dull' comment - as the standard 535 does have a roll-off in the treble.  But "dry"?  The one comment that almost everyone talks about with the Shure 'house sound' is the forward, lush (= opposite of dry) midrange.

 

You don't show it in your profile - so curious ...... do you actually own the 535s, or simply demoed them?

 

I've owned every one of the current SExx5 series (except the 215 and new flagship 846), and currently own the Asian Limited Edition 535.  Compared to the std 535 it does have a slight bump in the upper mids / lower treble - which gives it some needed sparkle.  Mid-range is the usual (forward and lush), and bass is relatively flat - but quite detailed.

 

Personally I like just a little more bass impact (bass quality is fine) - but an EQ bump solves that, and they respond really well to EQ.  Bets thing about them is that they are sensitive enough not to need amping.

post #23 of 25
I definirly feel like everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I think opinions differ with your own equipment. And what you hear with the iem is going to differ from person to person depending on their equipment. Dacs amps interconnects ect different ewuipment are going to yeild different opinions in sound.

But I feel alot of time ppl listen to the w4.r out of a ipod and come to a conclusion. Where as when you listen to the w4.r with a amp cable dac interconnects ect the sound quality and signature is far from what you hear out of a ipod.

The w4/r are very very capable. And imo one of the best universal iem.
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

You're definitely entitled to you opinion - but some of us obviously have different interpretations / expectations.

 

I'm a bit of a Shure fan - have always loved the Shure IEM mid-range, and it's this that confuses me re your comments.  I can understand the 'dull' comment - as the standard 535 does have a roll-off in the treble.  But "dry"?  The one comment that almost everyone talks about with the Shure 'house sound' is the forward, lush (= opposite of dry) midrange.

 

You don't show it in your profile - so curious ...... do you actually own the 535s, or simply demoed them?

 

I've owned every one of the current SExx5 series (except the 215 and new flagship 846), and currently own the Asian Limited Edition 535.  Compared to the std 535 it does have a slight bump in the upper mids / lower treble - which gives it some needed sparkle.  Mid-range is the usual (forward and lush), and bass is relatively flat - but quite detailed.

 

Personally I like just a little more bass impact (bass quality is fine) - but an EQ bump solves that, and they respond really well to EQ.  Bets thing about them is that they are sensitive enough not to need amping.

 

No I have never owned any 535 by far my friend. But I have always wanted one for SHURE is known to me even when I was in primary school and was far from being an earphone hoarder. We have a small audiophile community here and we meet regularly to compare gears and exchange opinions. This is the main source for me to get listening experience on gears I do not own. .

 

My impression of 535 was formed on having compared it with my T5p, T70p and AKG3003 on multiple occassions. Transparency is No.1 characteristic I am after (although I do admit "look" sometimes plays a bigger role). To my ears, in this regard AKG3003>T70p>T5p, but the differeces are not substantial and sometimes not even perceptible.

 

High resolution is the second most important characteristic. In this aspect, I would say I could not hear any difference among T5p, T70p and AKG3003 and "Vivid" is the what I should describe how they sound.<.

 

Having said my listening preferences I would like to explain what I meant by dull and dry by using two songs as example (both are FLAC 16/44.1). .

 

Birdy - 1901 and Skinny Love: This is the song I use to test transparency of earphones. On 535, it is not crystal clear anymore, and I was a bit shocked that her voice sounded 10 years older and she probably got a thoat infection that made it dry. .

 

Emile Sande - Read all about it(part III): this song is ruined by t70p. The treble texture is so sharp that it hurts my ears. On 535, its soft treble texture makes her voice a lot smoother and enjoyable to listen to. However, it is not clear . It improves SQ in one regard but loses some in another. To my ears, the sound is not exciting anymore. "Dry" in this particular song means I feel like I have lost connection with the singer. Her voice does not touch any chord in my heart. .

 

Hope what I wrote makes sense to you.
post #25 of 25

In terms of "dull", it would go UE900>W4>SE535

 

While all 3 are relatively neutral and reference level sounding IEM's, SE535 is the most colorful making it a bit more fun sounding.  It also goes the loudest and the bass hits hardest among the 3.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Westone 4R vs Shure E535 vs UE900