Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Shure SE846: A New In-Ear Flagship From Shure. Finally! (Impressions p26-28)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shure SE846: A New In-Ear Flagship From Shure. Finally! (Impressions p26-28) - Page 26

post #376 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Since I have to sit and wait while I get ear impressions I can type a bit. I had a listen to the version with the "balanced" filter with my Pico Power rig and they are very good. The bass amount is fairly typical of IEMs but doesn't bleed at all into the mids or treble. Everything is detailed and clean, like a better 535. They don't have a wide soundstage though, at least as much as I can remember experiencing with some BAs, for example. The FR was close to the JH16 demo I tried after -- fairly flat but with a bit of a bass boost. Very enjoyable and closer to my "perfect" IEM.


Thanks for your first impressions, how about depth vs width in the sound stage. Even though the soundstage isn't wide would you say they become muddled with intricate sounding music due to lack of deoth. Since I'm begging for further info how about note decay? Do they have enough speed for blistering fast rock?


Edited by DigitalFreak - 5/10/13 at 8:26pm
post #377 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Since I have to sit and wait while I get ear impressions I can type a bit. I had a listen to the version with the "balanced" filter with my Pico Power rig and they are very good. The bass amount is fairly typical of IEMs but doesn't bleed at all into the mids or treble. Everything is detailed and clean, like a better 535. They don't have a wide soundstage though, at least as much as I can remember experiencing with some BAs, for example. The FR was close to the JH16 demo I tried after -- fairly flat but with a bit of a bass boost. Very enjoyable and closer to my "perfect" IEM.

For someone who doesn't use earphones, how does the soundstage compare to something like, say, the LCD-2 (a headphone I know that doesn't have a particularly large soundstage)?

post #378 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Since I have to sit and wait while I get ear impressions I can type a bit. I had a listen to the version with the "balanced" filter with my Pico Power rig and they are very good. The bass amount is fairly typical of IEMs but doesn't bleed at all into the mids or treble. Everything is detailed and clean, like a better 535. They don't have a wide soundstage though, at least as much as I can remember experiencing with some BAs, for example. The FR was close to the JH16 demo I tried after -- fairly flat but with a bit of a bass boost. Very enjoyable and closer to my "perfect" IEM.

Thank you for your first impressions. You say it sounds like an improved 535. As an owner of the 535 SE, my question is whether it is worth the $1k to upgrade.
post #379 of 3042

The whole world is looking out for Currawong and Shigzeo's words of wisdom. biggrin.gif

post #380 of 3042

I'm intrigued! If I ever have a spare grand lying around these may well become my forced guilty pleasure IEMs. will be looking out for these

post #381 of 3042
That is up to you of course. The improvements to the SE535 are both visceral (gets you in your guts) and technological.

Again, Shure play a different game. They are not a boutique retailer. Nor are they on the ex-custom train.

Tech improvements meted out in audible tummies (that's yummies, iPhone) are their game. Currently the cost for such improvements - and Shure's obvious commitment to moving forward no matter the cost - is substantial. You'll have to test it out when it comes to town.
Edited by shigzeo - 5/10/13 at 8:35pm
post #382 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame21x View Post

 

Shure is charging $1000 for the 846 not because they can't sell it at $600 and make the money back in volume but because they don't want to. Just like eke2k6's example of the iPhone that costs $207 to make but retails for $649 and up, Apple could charge far less than that and still make a great deal of money on the sale of each iPhone but they don't because they know carriers will pay that price (and then subsidize the cost to us to get us on the hook for 2 years) and individuals who want an unlocked phone will pay those prices. Even if the 846 costs Shure $400 per pair (and this is a very generous estimate) to manufacture, package and sell, a $600 price would still net them a nice profit on each sale. But they know there are those among us who are willing to pay upwards of a grand for them, so that's what they're doing.

 

Personally, this is way too far out of my budget to even be in consideration so I'll stick with my GR07 BEs, TF10s and others and wait for the reviews. tongue_smile.gif

When people say the iPhone costs $207 to make and thus imply that there is $442 pure profit in it, it makes me crazy. It is as short sighted and narrow a vision of the world as could exist. I suppose they should charge just enough so that everyone could afford a ramen dinner and drive a used Corolla.

post #383 of 3042

Lets rename head-fi to head-fight.

post #384 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivabign View Post

When people say the iPhone costs $207 to make and thus imply that there is $442 pure profit in it, it makes me crazy. It is as short sighted and narrow a vision of the world as could exist. I suppose they should charge just enough so that everyone could afford a ramen dinner and drive a used Corolla.

 

Good thing I didn't imply anything by what I said. All I did was report a commonly known fact within the tech community.

 

And please, Apple is the second richest company on the planet (used to be number one until Exxon passed them last month) so spare me the nonsense about ramen and Corollas. I'm neither a stockholder nor an Apple employee so I gain nothing from their massive profits. If one of those things were to change, then I would begin to care about their corporate welfare. And the same could be applied to any corporation, frankly.

post #385 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

Have you not been reading my posts?!! tongue.gif

 

This is exactly what I'm saying. Shure is banking on their name to move their product. Next thing you know, Westone will be doing the same. They'll take the drivers from the W4, engrave some stuff on it, add in a few steel plates, and bam, $1K.

 

FitEar is a tiny company. They need to charge that much to keep up their profit margins.They can only produce a limited number of sets at a time, and it is a human resource intensive process. Hence, the prices.

 

I realize I'm being slightly facetious, but I hope this finally gets what I'm saying across. I'm done.

I'm sorry, but just because FitEar has more to lose because it's a small company and therefore strives for flawless results; it doesn't mean Shure can't do better. I for one preferred the AKG K3003i's to the TG!334 and I was never a fan of AKG besides the k1000. AKG never struck me as a specialist in in-ears either, ever; but these are fantastic.

 

You're being too assertive in saying that Shure is doing wrong and that it will flop and not be competitive. Hardly anyone knows yet, but I think the fact that it's a big manufacturer producing this iem is a good thing. I was never a fan of Shure either, but they definitely have what it takes to make fantastic product, and if they're charging a grand; it may very well be an iem that impresses me. What they do outside the portable audio world is truly top notch product; something companies like FitEar cannot and probably will never touch. Also, Shure's customer service is top notch, and servicing is in North America; that's a huge plus.

 

Moral of the story? Let's be patient and wait. These will be good, there's no doubt about it. Will it be for everyone? Nope. Is it overpriced? That's up to the buyer.


Edited by dleblanc343 - 5/10/13 at 10:54pm
post #386 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleblanc343 View Post

I'm sorry, but just because FitEar has more to lose because it's a small company and therefore strives for flawless results; it doesn't mean Shure can't do better.

That's not remotely what he said.

 

He's saying FitEar costs more because they're a small outfit and therefore don't have the buying power or production capabilities of a larger company.  Therefore, the extra price is a result of the increased manual labor required.  This isn't a quality judgement.


Edited by sethsez - 5/10/13 at 11:17pm
post #387 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy1969 View Post

Shures main income is from microphones and studio stuff, they've been doing it since 1940's or 1950's, Sennheisser were there back then but moved into headphones and less microphones.

 

Er, I've got more microphones from Sennheiser than from any other company. They're still very present in this market segment. Plus, they own Neumann. tongue.gif

post #388 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez View Post

That's not remotely what he said.

 

He's saying FitEar costs more because they're a small outfit and therefore don't have the buying power or production capabilities of a larger company.  Therefore, the extra price is a result of the increased manual labor required.  This isn't a quality judgement.

It's also in response of his prior arguments that 1000$ is too much of an asking price from Shure. If FitEar can, Shure can as well. It's as simple as that.

post #389 of 3042
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleblanc343 View Post

It's also in response of his prior arguments that 1000$ is too much of an asking price from Shure. If FitEar can, Shure can as well. It's as simple as that.

Who knows, but it might be the case where Fitear needs to and Shure just can.
post #390 of 3042

Fantastic read Shigzeo, thank you for your efforts.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Shure SE846: A New In-Ear Flagship From Shure. Finally! (Impressions p26-28)