[olddude]

  Olddude - your situation doesn't seem as dramatic as mine; both the images you posted show the connector pointing out horizontally (BTW, these images both look like half shells, not full shells, like mine. Are your SCS half shells?). Of course, with a swivel connector, you can eventually make the wire go anywhere you want, but if you leave the memory wire in and the mmcx connector points down at a 45 degree angle, you have a big wire loop over your cheek, rather than behind your ear.  Removing the memory wire helps, but I'd still rather have a lower-profile SCS with connectors pointing up at 45 degrees as Shure intended them to (and as they would with any universal-fit tip).
 
Anyway, good luck Kapazza - I hope the re-made shells work out ok for you. Please let us know.

I have full shells- that's what Sensaphonics makes for the 846.  My picture (on the left) and the Sensaphonic picture (on the right) show where the 846 "points" and how the wires can be routed either up or down.  According to the above, the angle of the wire/connector may depend on the size of your ear canals.  
 
As to sound, like any tip the Sensaphonics depend on proper fit to work correctly.  Mine do.  As I have repeatedly stated, Sensaphonics has excellent customer service and the first step upon having issues with your new sleeves should be contacting them directly.  Posting here may get you some suggestions, but the way to get corrections is to contact them and let them follow through for you.  There are nineteen pages in this thread, and all but about three or four people have reported total satisfaction with their sleeves.  

 

[strooper]

 1. The SE846 is pretty big and bulbous to start with. Surrounding the IEM with full-shell silicone will not result in a low-profile look. If a low visual profile of your IEMs is important to you, the 846+SCS combination is not the right choice. Even the standard canal-style sleeves we do for the rest of the SE Series tends to be a bit bulky. Remember, you are adding significant physical coating to a product designed to be worn as a UIEM.

 

2. Cable direction -- (commentary from Jack) Let's not overstate the direction issue. Shure IEMs do not project 45 degrees upwards, nor do Sensaphonics sleeves rotate them to project 45 degrees downwards. That said, we do find it necessary to rotate the angle a bit; see our lab manager's notes.  (Commentary from the Sensaphonics lab manager) ....
 

Points 1 and 2 are issues that should be made clear to the purchaser prior to purchase.  Had I known how big the sleeves would be and that the cables would be routed straight down, I never (NEVER) would have made the purchase.  Showing a very low profile half sleeve as the ONLY photo of a Shure IEM SCS is misleading at best.  If the 846 doesn't lend itself to sleeves, don't make sleeves for it.  At the very least show pictures of what they are likely to look like.
 
I'm glad Sensaphonics will work with me to address my issues, but it sounds as if there is very little to nothing they can do.  More importantly, there is nothing I can do to recoup my $220 (molds and sleeves) for a giant pair of sleeves that don't sound as good as Shure's olive foam tips and can't have the cable over the ear without looking like I'm wearing hoop earrings.

 

[Kapazza]

  3. Blocked canals (again, commentary from the lab manager) -- When we lacquer the molds, we must clear the lacquer out of the canal bore before it sets. Often times we can’t get it all out.  After the lacquer has dried we rebore the canal. We check every single mold and usually catch any problem before it leaves the lab. Unfortunately, we are human, and every so often one of them is overlooked.  One possible solution to this problem would be to drill out a wider bore that is not as susceptible to the lacquer blockage. We will investigate this.
 
4. Sonic results. I understand the YMMV nature of any audio outcome, and that perception=reality to the individual. But I'm seeing some pretty incredible claims regarding the  effects of the SCS on sound quality, some of which are a bit eyebrow-raising for what is essentially a passive device. That suggests to me that the root cause of some of these results is not yet identified.

 
First of all, thanks for weighing in.  It's great to receive immediate, human feedback from any company in any sort of industry these days.  
 
I found it interesting that you broke these up into two separate points.  I'm no expert, but I think as you begin to investigate and correct #3, #4 will go away.  A SCS is technically a passive device.  But have you heard the difference between a concert hall and a warehouse?  Anything that shapes the sound waves will shape the sound.  As the sound waves leave the Shure nozzle and begin interacting with the bore of the canal, the sound is changed; minimizing that change, along with providing a good custom fit, should be priorities of the SCS design.
 
I believe the few of us who aren't happy with our products simply received defective sleeves.  I can get over the appearance of the sleeves as long as they sound and feel great.

 

[csglinux]

Thanks for the reply, Jack. I appreciate the time you've spent to listen to our concerns and post such a detailed response.  I am actually a fan of Sensaphonics (I own your custom mold sleep plugs and 25 dB noise-reducing custom mold plugs and I love both of those products). I understand the issue with the size of the SE846 shells and I can live with looking a bit dorky(er). My 846 mmcx sockets definitely DO protrude downward at a 45-degree angle with the sleeves on (what your lab manager says about this fits exactly with my experience), but this is also a first-world problem that I can easily live with by removing any cable memory wire. The major issue for me was the partially-blocked nozzles. I don't think this would be a surprising or eyebrow-raising reason for problems with sound quality (a very common issue with foam tips is where they fold over at the end, partially blocking the end of the nozzle - this often goes unnoticed as it just tends to cause a treble roll-off). A wider bore hole seems like the obvious thing to do, to avoid any risk of those nozzles being obstructed. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have much wider bore holes on my 25 dB plugs, and I presume a slightly wider bore wouldn't be a problem for the SE846 sleeves?
 
I didn't contact Sensaphonics about my issue, as my SCS were made about 6 months ago. I was/am well past the return window. But as I mentioned, I've resurrected them by widening the bore holes myself with my Dremel so that they now align with the holes for the nozzles. I would still want to swap my SCS out for foam tips on an airplane, but otherwise, I'm basically happy with my 846 sleeves now.

 

[olddude]

Sound issues notwithstanding, the "size" of the Sensaphonics, even in half-sleeve, is quite apparent from the picture I posted (from Sensaphonics' website) and from all of the photos posted on page one of this thread by Moedawg.  There is clearly a bulbous quality to them, as the iem is plugged into them and then it is plugged into your ear.  Due diligence would necessitate that anyone ordering them would have looked at the photo(s) BEFORE ordering them.  Just from the manner of their operation it would seem clear that they wouldn't be flush with the ear, as a "true" ciem would.  Not trying to start trouble here, but size was the first thing I noticed when deciding whether to purchase these, and I ordered them in "no" color so as to minimize their obviousness.  

 

[JackKontney]

   
Points 1 and 2 are issues that should be made clear to the purchaser prior to purchase.  Had I known how big the sleeves would be and that the cables would be routed straight down, I never (NEVER) would have made the purchase.  Showing a very low profile half sleeve as the ONLY photo of a Shure IEM SCS is misleading at best.  If the 846 doesn't lend itself to sleeves, don't make sleeves for it.  At the very least show pictures of what they are likely to look like.
 
I'm glad Sensaphonics will work with me to address my issues, but it sounds as if there is very little to nothing they can do.  More importantly, there is nothing I can do to recoup my $220 (molds and sleeves) for a giant pair of sleeves that don't sound as good as Shure's olive foam tips and can't have the cable over the ear without looking like I'm wearing hoop earrings.

 
I agree that a photo of the 846 full-shell sleeve should be added. We will try to get that done shortly.
 
The reason we make this product is market demand. When the SE846 was introduced, our normal Shure sleeves, as pictured on our website, proved inadequate in terms of stability with the bulky body of the IEMs. At the urging of our customers, we attempted an alternate solution - full-shell sleeves - that were enthusiastically accepted despite their relative bulk.
 
We made it a point to let people know about this (physical size) issue, especially at first. But  over the course of time, it seemed to be well understood. Especially on Head-fi, where moedawg 140 and jelt2359 both posted detailed reviews with photos that seemed to make things clear.  After all, you're starting with a fairly bulky IEM and surrounding it with more material. Seems obvious that anyone desiring a "low profile" look would not choose such a solution.
 
But while discussion of the bulk of the 846, photos of our sleeves, and the use of words like "ginormous" in reviews on this site seemed to address any potential issues, it is still our job to offer customers the relevant facts.
 
For that failing, mea culpa.

 

[strooper]

If my sleeves looked simply close to the many photos here I would be satisfied. They dont. Saying that they extend further out is an understatement. The entire iem is visible from the front. The i in iem is lost. They are a headband short of on ear phones.

 

[JackKontney]

  Thanks for the reply, Jack. I appreciate the time you've spent to listen to our concerns and post such a detailed response.  I am actually a fan of Sensaphonics (I own your custom mold sleep plugs and 25 dB noise-reducing custom mold plugs and I love both of those products). I understand the issue with the size of the SE846 shells and I can live with looking a bit dorky(er). My 846 mmcx sockets definitely DO protrude downward at a 45-degree angle with the sleeves on (what your lab manager says about this fits exactly with my experience), but this is also a first-world problem that I can easily live with by removing any cable memory wire. The major issue for me was the partially-blocked nozzles. I don't think this would be a surprising or eyebrow-raising reason for problems with sound quality (a very common issue with foam tips is where they fold over at the end, partially blocking the end of the nozzle - this often goes unnoticed as it just tends to cause a treble roll-off). A wider bore hole seems like the obvious thing to do, to avoid any risk of those nozzles being obstructed. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have much wider bore holes on my 25 dB plugs, and I presume a slightly wider bore wouldn't be a problem for the SE846 sleeves?
 
I didn't contact Sensaphonics about my issue, as my SCS were made about 6 months ago. I was/am well past the return window. But as I mentioned, I've resurrected them by widening the bore holes myself with my Dremel so that they now align with the holes for the nozzles. I would still want to swap my SCS out for foam tips on an airplane, but otherwise, I'm basically happy with my 846 sleeves now.

Acknowledged and understood.
 
I'll talk with the lab manager about the size of the bore hole, but my suspicion is that it is deliberately snug so that it "grabs" the nozzle of the IEM. Perhaps yours were misaligned. But all that is just my assumption at this point. The lab manager has stated he will investigate a wider bore, so we shall see. I'm quite sure it won't ever approach the diameter of the bore holes in custom earplugs, which are considerably bigger than any IEM nozzle.
 
In general, Sensaphonics just wants to encourage our customers to communicate with us directly. We are solution providers, but we can't address issues that aren't brought to our attention.
 
Thanks to all for keeping this conversation civil and fact-based.

 

[JackKontney]

If my sleeves looked simply close to the many photos here I would be satisfied. They dont. Saying that they extend further out is an understatement. The entire iem is visible from the front. The i in iem is lost. They are a headband short of on ear phones.

If the entire IEM is visible when viewed from the front, I too would be unhappy. But we can't change the size of your ears, nor the thickness of the silicone needed to create a stable home for your $1000 IEMs. The photos you posted don't show a head-on shot, but in the look from the front, it appears that the inside of the sleeve/shell isn't even touching your ear. The shot is out of focus, but to me, it looks like there's a gap. If so, that's wrong.
 
If you'd like to address this issue, contact Sensaphonics directly.

 

[fzr100098]

Thanks to fzr100098 for the tip on the canal re-working issue. One polite request though. Everybody's experiences with audio and audio equipment are different. It sounds as though strooper has a bad mold. Whether that's the fault of Sensaphonics or that of a bad audiologist's impression - that doesn't make him/her an idiot. Sharing our experiences (good and bad) is what helps us all reach a consensus on these issues. I'm not sure why the internet solicits such vitriol from reviews that aren't 100% positive. Although I'm now happy with the sound from my SE846+SCS, I still get a lower-profile IEM and better isolation from foam. With my SCS, I too, have the issue of the cable now pointing down at a 45-degree angle (rather than up at 45). This is the main reason you see a modded Westone cable in the images above.

Sometimes my constructive criticism could be delivered with a little more tact - glad it worked out for you.  As you get used to them, I suspect you will use the foamies progressively less, that was the case for me
 
Cable should always wrap around your ear, that will effect seal (negatively) as well.
 
I honestly can't work out without these things now and would never go back to foam.

 

[esteboune]

Dear Maurice,
 
i know, it was a long time ago but thank you very much for this complete and highly appreciated review.
 
I just received my custom sleeves today (full shell), and i can't be happier!
 
great products, so confortable.
 
Stan from Sensaphonics has been very helpful.
 
I have a very long flight this Friday, (13h + 7h), i believe i will have plenty of time to notice all the improvements!
 

 

 

[moedawg140]

  Dear Maurice,
 
i know, it was a long time ago but thank you very much for this complete and highly appreciated review.
 
I just received my custom sleeves today (full shell), and i can't be happier!
 
great products, so confortable.
 
Stan from Sensaphonics has been very helpful.
 
I have a very long flight this Friday, (13h + 7h), i believe i will have plenty of time to notice all the improvements!

 

Spoiler: Some sweet-looking SCS pictures!

 

 

 
I appreciate your kind words!
 
I'm glad that Sensaphonics (Stan) was very helpful.  Sensaphonics has been nothing but very professional and helpful to me as well.  An exemplary product and exemplary company.
 
I would like to know how the SCS fares for those long flights of yours when you have the chance, if you don't mind.
 
It's been over a year that I have owned my SCS, and it is still the most comfortable and best fitting tip or customs out of everything I have auditioned or own.
 
What's great is if anyone has issues with theirs, they have time (30 days) to contact Sensaphonics and have them create a refit, free of charge. 
 
Enjoy your entire combo, and congrats to you!

 

[csglinux]

I wanted to post a quick update on the status of my SCSs. They're working out great now with widened and aligned bores!  No more issues with the sound.  Sorry for the negativity, panic, mayhem, etc., but (selfishly) I'm glad I posted my experiences here. Without feedback from you folks, I would never have even thought to look at those bore holes. Thanks again for the feedback, or for at least tolerating my posts

 

[Kapazza]

  I wanted to post a quick update on the status of my SCSs. They're working out great now with widened and aligned bores!  No more issues with the sound.  Sorry for the negativity, panic, mayhem, etc., but (selfishly) I'm glad I posted my experiences here. Without feedback from you folks, I would never have even thought to look at those bore holes. Thanks again for the feedback, or for at least tolerating my posts

 
Thanks for the update!  In case my 2nd attempts have the same borehole problem, could you please post how you did it?  Bit size, RPM, etc.  I have a feeling drilling silicon is more difficult than it sounds.

 

[csglinux]

Thanks for the update!  In case my 2nd attempts have the same borehole problem, could you please post how you did it?  Bit size, RPM, etc.  I have a feeling drilling silicon is more difficult than it sounds.

Hi Kapazza, Apologies in advance for my lack of photography skills. I hope you can make out the two Dremel bits in the photo below.


The bit on the left has a series of sharp, rounded cutter blades around the shaft; the bit on the right is actually a tile cutter. The folks at Sensaphonics are probably already laughing at my choice of equipment. (It would be interesting to know what tools/bits you Sensaphonics folks use to machine these shells?) Step 1 was to use the bit on the left. I used a Dremel 4000, keeping the RPMs pretty low (certainly below 10,000), because it will get a bit hot and you don't want anything to melt or catch fire. Step 2 was to use the tile cutter bit on the right to smooth and remove any little nubs of silicon left behind in step 1 (a good lens or magnifying glasses can help inspect for this). For both steps you'll need to bend the eartip slightly with one hand to hold the bore hole nice and straight (it'll be angled, on account of the bend in your ear canal). I applied a little pressure to widen the bore more on one side, where my IEM nozzle tips were partially blocked.

It really wasn't that difficult. As long as you take it slow and stop periodically to check your progress (and flush the debris out with water), I think it would be hard to mess up. All you really want to do is make sure the tip of the nozzle is fully exposed to that canal bore. You don't need to go down any further than the tip of the SE846 nozzle, so you're not in any way loosening the grip that the shell has on the SE846 or its nozzle. Hopefully you have clear silicon molds like mine? If yours are opaque/colored, you're just going to have to use the force

P.S. This is probably obvious, but make sure the SE846 is not in the shell when you start drilling!