Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/
I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:
5 stars: The product is
very good and received the "
highly recommended" award from me.
4 stars: The product is
very good and received the "
recommended" award from me.
3 stars: The product is
good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]
2 stars: The product is
only about average or even somewhat below that and
somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]
1 star: The product is
bad/severely flawed to
outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]
Shure SE215m+SPE
Source:
Personal unit.
Miscellaneous:
One could definitely call the Shure SE215 true modern classics when it comes to single dynamic driver in-ears.
Honestly, the white shell colour was definitely a major factor for why I bought the SE215m+SPE.
Decent unboxing experience but rather simple compared to my SE425 and SE846.
Carrying case included and protective against moisture and dirt as well as dust, but quite soft and therefore not nearly as protective as that of my SE425.
I love the white shell colour with grey logos.
Typical Shure design and ergonomics.
Shells flatter than those of my SE425 and more rounded in the front.
Build quality seems decent although the finish is somewhat below that of the SE425.
Removable cable with MMCX connectors.
The cable is quite a disappointment – it is clearly of lesser quality than the SE425s’ and doesn’t feel nearly as robust; the only thing they have in common is the y-splitter. The SE215m+SPEs’ cable is definitely thinner, the 3.5 mm plug is straight instead of angled and has got a minimalistic, fragile appearing strain relief.
At least a chin-slider is still present despite the three-button remote control unit. Speaking of which, the mic-remote unit is fairly large, nonetheless the buttons are unnecessarily close to each other, although easy to distinguish from each other; the accentuation force is a tad too high.
As the shells are closed, noise isolation is very high.
Sound:
Largest included silicone ear tips.
Tonality:
Very warm with strong bass boost; relaxed treble.
At about 800 Hz, the bass’ level begins to rise slowly and reaches its climax at about 60 Hz and can be maintained practically down to 20 Hz without any roll-off. The strongest emphasis here is about 11 dB compared to in-ears like the Etymotic ER-4S/SR which are tuned close to the diffuse-field target in the bass.
Since the upper bass is already not really all that much less emphasised, however, it gives the in-ears a powerful, punchy upper bass character.
Even though the SE215m+SPEs’ bass is undoubtedly quite prominent, it doesn’t tend to bloom too much and the sound isn’t too bass-heavy (in the price range around 100€, where the Shure fit in, there are definitely many in-ears with an even stronger bass focus). Nonetheless the lows have got an ample amount of warmth, and undeniably radiate into the lower mids, although the midrange is not overshadowed by the lows.
As voices are not masked too much by the bass despite being clearly warm, the midrange tuning is done quite well, with a correct to just slightly recessed/dark upper midrange, which is the reason for the mids still having enough presence and proximity in the mix without drowning in the ample warmth and bass.
Above 3 kHz, the level is slightly in the background just to form a peak at 5 kHz when listening to sine sweeps, but to my ears it just barely, if even at all, crosses the neutral baseline wherefore it is neither annoying nor does it lead to any sort of metallicness/reduced realism, although it ultimately leads to cymbals gaining a minimally metallic impact/edge, wherefore they are ultimately not 100% accurately reproduced in timbre.
Above that, the highs are in the background and therefore inoffensively relaxed and sloping down, wherefore hi-hats/cymbals are actually softened and never sharp, but not lacking either.
Thankfully the SE215m+SPE don’t really appear muffled, although one could argue that they perhaps lack some “air”/”snap”.
Frequency Response:
ER-4S-Compensation
To my ears, the 5 kHz lift is less present even to the point of being pretty much somewhere around neutral in quantity, wherefore the actually perceived treble response is darker than on the graph.
ProPhile 8-Compensation
Resolution:
In terms of resolution/details, the Shures’ delivery is definitely solid and worth the price for single dynamic driver in-ears, although they are not the “best” in their field and ultimately outperformed by offerings such as the Etymotic ER2XR, Moondrop Starfield, Fidue A65 and iBasso IT01/IT01v2, especially when it comes to midrange and treble micro details, while the SE215m+SPEs’ bass quality is ultimately among the better/best for similarly-priced dynamic driver and hybrid in-ears.
The bass is quite a positive surprise – it is, despite the strong elevation, nicely fast, tight, punchy and maintains high control. Softness is avoided nicely. While the lows surely don’t reach the speed and tightness of the iBasso IT03, IT02, Fostex TE-02 or most in-ears with Balanced Armature woofers, the Shure don’t appear stressed in most situations, and especially avoid muddiness. Solely very fast material leads to single bass notes’ being reproduced mushier, although they still distinguishable from each other.
Midrange resolution and speech intelligibility are decent, but one shouldn’t expect the performance of higher-priced dynamic driver or single-BA in-ears, as there is a bit of grain in the mids’ details.
Basically the same as for the midrange also applies to the highs.
Soundstage:
To my ears, the stage is rather wide, which is somewhat of a surprise compared to Shure’s multi-BA in-ears.
Expansion is quite exactly from my left ear to my right one, without really exceeding that base; there is not much spatial depth and the soundstage appears fairly flat to minimally elliptical.
Instrument separation is fairly precise for this price range and doesn’t suffer too much even when more demanding tracks are played, although the “empty” room between tonal elements isn’t perceived as fully but with a little bit of bleed instead.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Comparisons:
ORIVETI BASIC:
The BASICs’ bass is slightly more lifted in the sub-bass whereas their fundamental range and upper bass are elevated slightly less wherefore their lows radiate somewhat less into the lower midrange.
The Shures’ vocal reproduction is warmer whereas the ORIVETIs’ is darker due to somewhat less level in the presence range.
The reble response is fairly similar with the BASIC only being slightly brighter. Above 10 kHz, though, the ORIVETI are more present wherefore they appear “airier” and offer more subtle sparbke.
The BASIC are somewhat softer and slower in the lows.
Resolution, on the other hand is a little higher on the ORIVETI.
The BASICs’ stage is somewhat larger to my ears (slightly wider but especially somewhat deeper). Both are about even when it comes to imaging precision.
ADVANCED Model 3 (wired Use):
The Model 3s’ bass boost is even stronger and they feature an even warmer fundamental range that radiates more into the midrange than the Shures’.
The ADVANCEDs’ mids are brighter and consequently more “balanced” sounding due to the upper midrange boost compensating for the lower midrange warmth.
Their upper treble is also clearly brighter, with cymbals not being dampened, while extension past 10 kHz is about the same.
The Model 3 are clearly slower and softer in the lows and audibly muddier. When it comes to midrange and treble resolution, the Shure are ahead as well.
The ADVANCEDs’ stage is narrower but deeper.
Instrument separation is somewhat better on the Shure.
iBasso IT01:
The Shure sound warmer, thicker and darker whereas sub-bass quantity is comparable.
Mids are closer in the mix on the SE215m+SPE.
Their treble response is also noticeably darer and more relaxed.
In terms of resolution, the iBasso are ahead, and are one of those rare cases that outperform the Shure when it comes to bass quality.
Even though the Shure have got a nicely tight, fast and punchy bass for dynamic driver in-ears, the IT01 manage to be even a bit tighter and faster in the lows. But it definitely doesn’t stop here, since their definition and details are also on a higher level in the lows.
Generally, separation and resolution are cleaner on the IT01.
When it comes to soundstage, the Shures’ is slightly wider while depth is comparable (perhaps a tad deeper on the iBasso, but the difference is fairly negligible). Instrument separation and imaging precision are somewhat superior on the iBasso.
NuForce HEM Dynamic:
Below 400 Hz, the Dynamic rise stronger towards the sub-bass and have no less than around 8 dB more quantity in the true sub-bass than the Shure.
Otherwise, their midrange and lower midrange is fairly close, although due to their stronger lower fundamental range and midbass, the NuForce appear to be more bloated.
Treble response is remarkably comparable, with the exception being that the HEM Dyamic do not cross the border of neutrality around 5 kHz but are relaxed here, wherefore their treble response is ultimately smoother and more realistic than the Shures’.
When it comes to technical presentation, though, the NuForce are a fair bit below the Shure and sound much softer, boomier and slower, and not even remotely close when it comes to control – in fact, they seem to reach their limit very early, even with rather slow to normally-paced music, and become muddy very soon.
Westone UM Pro 10:
The Shure are tuned considerably bassier and warmer, with the fuller presentation in comparison.
Vocals on the SE215m+SPE are more intimate.
The Shure sound a bit darker in the upper highs (cymbals) but extend a bit further above 10 kHz.
While the Shure have got a quite tight and quick bass for dynamic driver standards and are among the better models in this regard, the single-BA driver used in the Westone is nonetheless a bit superior when it comes to tightness, and also slightly when it comes to speed. Therefore the Shure have got more of the typically recognisable dynamic driver slam and texture in comparison, while being ultimately not as controlled or detailed in the bass as the Westone when more complex and faster tracks are being played.
Overall the UM Pro 10 sound just a bit cleaner than the Shure, but not by that much, however they definitely remain better controlled with more complex music material; altogether they are the slightly more refined appearing in-ears when it comes to technical presentation.
The Shures’ soundstage is overall somewhat wider and sounds a bit more open.
Conclusion:
Recommended.
Bassy-warm, inoffensively dark tuning that is executed well. Punchy, fast and tight bass response. Resolution decent for dynamic driver in-ears in this price range, and while not among the very best, still reasonably good.
The cable doesn’t seem very durable, though, and should be treated with care.
Photos:
