Torula Yeast
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2006
- Posts
- 164
- Likes
- 10
Well, I've seen the debate, and I understand the consensus is that balanced armature IEMs do not have the burn-in period of dynamic drivers, but I'm here to argue otherwise -- at least in the case of the Shure e-line and albeit w/o any cite other than my own experience.
My story begins a while back with my purchase of the e2c's. Although I was not a neophyte w/r/t IEMs (previous models having been the Sony MDR 51 and 91), and despite the ton of hype I'd seen online about this model, my immediate reaction after obtaining a pair was stark disappointment. Only after gamely partaking in multiple listening sessions did I finally come to grudgingly appreciate the e2c's little niche they'd carved for themselves as being both accurate for the money and (well, somewhat) musical.
From there I found myself sampling the UE sf5 EB's and then sticking with a pair of UE sf5 pros, both of which sounded to me out of the carton as they did after further use; full-bodied and quite decently accurate. But still, I sought a warmer sound in a fully-sealed IEM.
Enter my big ol' jump back to the company that made the IEMs which had so disappointed me, and I put down 4+ Benjamins for the e500's, of which I'd read here and elsewhere offered a more resonant bass than the UE tf10 p's. But upon first sampling this pair after waiting for their arrival (as in, you know you're a Head-fi-er when . . . you spend three days tracking the FedEx shipment of your most recent IEM order by dedicating a browser to the shipping number all day at work and hitting refresh multiple times per hour), I was, again, disappointed in my lastest Shure acquisition.
To wit, the SQ struck me as thin and anemic despite their apparent accuracy, so lacking in their purported robust warmth that I was nigh tempted to throw the pair back in the box from which they'd come and returning to sender.
But I saw the advice offered here to keep with them, and so I did. Now, a week later, they strike me as pair of detailed monitors with - if you'll pardon my French - a pleasingly ballsy bass, as advertised.
Now, I've certainly seen the argument that sometimes it's one's brain that is the instrument that needs to burn in with a new pair of high-end IEMs. But I beg to differ. And I'm well aware that a good seal is needed for the best sound of universal IEMs, and I know when I've got that seal and when I don't. And to my ears, with the passing of a week of playing these new Shures, they sound fuller, richer, and emanently more worth their purchase price than when they first arrived.
Doubt me if you shall -- I'm certainly not above listening to reasoned argument. But I say that at least the Shure line seems to benefit in SQ from a few laps around the track.
My story begins a while back with my purchase of the e2c's. Although I was not a neophyte w/r/t IEMs (previous models having been the Sony MDR 51 and 91), and despite the ton of hype I'd seen online about this model, my immediate reaction after obtaining a pair was stark disappointment. Only after gamely partaking in multiple listening sessions did I finally come to grudgingly appreciate the e2c's little niche they'd carved for themselves as being both accurate for the money and (well, somewhat) musical.
From there I found myself sampling the UE sf5 EB's and then sticking with a pair of UE sf5 pros, both of which sounded to me out of the carton as they did after further use; full-bodied and quite decently accurate. But still, I sought a warmer sound in a fully-sealed IEM.
Enter my big ol' jump back to the company that made the IEMs which had so disappointed me, and I put down 4+ Benjamins for the e500's, of which I'd read here and elsewhere offered a more resonant bass than the UE tf10 p's. But upon first sampling this pair after waiting for their arrival (as in, you know you're a Head-fi-er when . . . you spend three days tracking the FedEx shipment of your most recent IEM order by dedicating a browser to the shipping number all day at work and hitting refresh multiple times per hour), I was, again, disappointed in my lastest Shure acquisition.
To wit, the SQ struck me as thin and anemic despite their apparent accuracy, so lacking in their purported robust warmth that I was nigh tempted to throw the pair back in the box from which they'd come and returning to sender.
But I saw the advice offered here to keep with them, and so I did. Now, a week later, they strike me as pair of detailed monitors with - if you'll pardon my French - a pleasingly ballsy bass, as advertised.
Now, I've certainly seen the argument that sometimes it's one's brain that is the instrument that needs to burn in with a new pair of high-end IEMs. But I beg to differ. And I'm well aware that a good seal is needed for the best sound of universal IEMs, and I know when I've got that seal and when I don't. And to my ears, with the passing of a week of playing these new Shures, they sound fuller, richer, and emanently more worth their purchase price than when they first arrived.
Doubt me if you shall -- I'm certainly not above listening to reasoned argument. But I say that at least the Shure line seems to benefit in SQ from a few laps around the track.
