Originally Posted by Motts /img/forum/go_quote.gif From what I understand, the Shure SE420s are supposed to be more accurate, meaning that they don't roll the highs like the SE530s. I know that the rolled highs is a "signature" Shure sound, but I think the SE420s would be less.
I've heard weak bass from the lower models and shoddy build quality on the cables which can't be replaced without sending them in.
Originally Posted by jinx20001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ok first things first balanced armature drivers do not benefit from burn in...ask ultimate ears, ask shure, ask etymotic research it dont exist so you cannot base your experiences on that because its a placebo effect
I don't intend for this to be an attack or to sound harsh, so I apologize it it does, but with that said...
You can ask and read all you want, but I have identical IEMs to prove that armature drivers change during burn in. I burn one in while leaving the other as it arrives from the factory, and then comparing the sound. Some of them are even from the same lot. I have done this time and time again, with ER-4P, ER-6i, E4, 2XS, UM2, Super.fi 5pro, SE530 (3 pairs for this one), Triple.fi. I even use the same cable for comparison when possible (as in UEs, and the same extension cable for the SE530s). They all change drastically in the first 2 or so hours, and then gradually the change becomes more subtle.
I've even discussed this topic over dinner with 2 presidents of IEM manufacturers whom I will not name, about the reality of burn-in and the feasibility of burning-in IEMs before delivery.
The diaphrams of armature drivers are made of steel. Steel fatigues. They lose their springiness over time and repeated flexing. And it has a threshold of how much it can bend before it stays bent and not spring back to original shape. This threshold changes as steel fatigues and ages and oxidizes. So even if you do not have the opportunity to compare 2 identical IEMs back to back, it is only logical to assume that sound resulting from the vibration of steel will also change.
Originally Posted by honda /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't intend for this to be an attack or to sound harsh, so I apologize it it does, but with that said...
You can ask and read all you want, but I have identical IEMs to prove that armature drivers change during burn in. I burn one in while leaving the other as it arrives from the factory, and then comparing the sound. Some of them are even from the same lot. I have done this time and time again, with ER-4P, ER-6i, E4, 2XS, UM2, Super.fi 5pro, SE530 (3 pairs for this one), Triple.fi. I even use the same cable for comparison when possible (as in UEs, and the same extension cable for the SE530s). They all change drastically in the first 2 or so hours, and then gradually the change becomes more subtle.
I've even discussed this topic over dinner with 2 presidents of IEM manufacturers whom I will not name, about the reality of burn-in and the feasibility of burning-in IEMs before delivery.
The diaphrams of armature drivers are made of steel. Steel fatigues. They lose their springiness over time and repeated flexing. And it has a threshold of how much it can bend before it stays bent and not spring back to original shape. This threshold changes as steel fatigues and ages and oxidizes. So even if you do not have the opportunity to compare 2 identical IEMs back to back, it is only logical to assume that sound resulting from the vibration of steel will also change.
no offence, its a nice explanation, but i think ill stick with what the pro's say, and that is there is no long term burn in period for balanced armatures, you have to get your information from somewhere so where is that?? i get mine off the engineers that build em.
ofcourse if theres a change to your ears then fair enough i dont mean offence by saying what you hear is wrong but many have reported the only change in sound is ears getting used to it
...one thing i would recommend is that no matter what you buy, i would buy them from a source that allows returns. You're not going to know what you don't like until you buy them. ...and getting stuck with 300-400$ headphones that you need to dump would suck. Headroom (no, i am not in anyway affiliated with them) provides such a service that i have frequently taken advantage of. Occasionally purchasing 3 or 4 sets of phones and keeping 1 or 2. (actually once i kept 3 pair )
Originally Posted by jinx20001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif no offence, its a nice explanation, but i think ill stick with what the pro's say, and that is there is no long term burn in period for balanced armatures, you have to get your information from somewhere so where is that?? i get mine off the engineers that build em.
This is why my signature says what it says. "Pros" use to tell people that the Earth was flat. Now we know better. Sure, the official story is that the drivers don't require burn-in, but if you have 2 pairs side by side for comparison and you do hear first hand that they do change after burn-in because you can compare it to a pair that has not been burnt-in yet, plus on top of that, the theory of why they would require burn-in is sound, you still trust the official story over your own ears?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx20001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ofcourse if theres a change to your ears then fair enough i dont mean offence by saying what you hear is wrong but many have reported the only change in sound is ears getting used to it
Like I said, I specifically stated that I have an unburnt-in pair as control, this elimates the idea that it's your ears adjusting to the souns signiture. This also something I was set out to disprove.
Originally Posted by jinx20001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif e500 > TFP period!
e500 have better mids and lows, triple fi have better highs, thats 2-1
Dude...can we stop it now. Even if your work for Shure, your 500+ posts in favor of the se530's, is a bit ridiculous.
The world does not stop and end at the se530's... There are alot of other IEM's which are just as good or better, especially depending the the sound preference a person desires. MANY people consider the Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10's a better IEM then the Shure se530. Personally, I have owned the se530's, and returned them.
Dude, you really need to slow down with your repetitive supportive posts. We all know how you feel by now
Originally Posted by oak3x /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dude...can we stop it now. Even if your work for Shure, your 500+ posts in favor of the se530's, is a bit ridiculous.
The world does not stop and end at the se530's... There are alot of other IEM's which are just as good or better, especially depending the the sound preference a person desires. MANY people consider the Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10's a better IEM then the Shure se530. Personally, I have owned the se530's, and returned them.
Dude, you really need to slow down with your repetitive supportive posts. We all know how you feel by now
read the damn thread name son, why do you think i am going on about shures, instead of slagging you either dissagree or agree so dissapear
everything i say about the shures is to my ears and my impressions, i have reccomended ety's, triple fi's and ultimate ears products it just so happens i pop in and out of shure posts so get a life and go look at other posts that dont involve the shures if u dont like em
I must say, I too have owned both the triple.fi's and the shure e500's at the same time. In MY opinion and to MY ears, the triple.fi's are far and a way a better sounding headphone. The shure's are fantastic (I bought them first) and they were definitely the best iem's I had ever tried when I got them, but I did immediately notice and get annoyed by the rolled off highs. The cymbals just weren't there even like they were on lower priced iems (er4p's and super.fi 5 pros are my references here).
The mids on the shures are sweet, no doubt. And the bass is ample. But once I got the triple.fi's, I realized that I preferred the tighter (and in my opinion) more articulate bass of the triple.fi's.
The mids I do prefer on the shures. The presentation of the mids on the shures are much more forward. The best way I can describe it is by describing the difference in the sound spatially. With the shures, it sounds like the singer is up front with the guitarists and bassist a few steps behind and the drums in the back about 25 feet further back. With the triple.fi's it seems like the whole band is in semi circle around you (as if you are the microphone) with the singer in front (at 12 o'clock) and the rest of the band branching off around your (going to say 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock). The result of this presentation is that you notice the instrumentation almost as much as the singer, which can be good and bad. If you are really into the vocals, the singer can at times seem like he's not up front (the detail in the vocals is all there, but the presentation a little farther back). Basically the net result is that you feel like you are the microphone in the recording session with the triple.fi's.
I also find the soundstage on the triple.fi's to be much more expansive than with the e500's (in fact the trip's have the biggest soundstage of any iem I have heard).
I hope that little spacial explanation is somewhat helpful to those of you who are thinking about both and haven't heard them. For those entrenched in one camp or another, I am not trying to sway your opinion, only stating mine and describing as clearly as I can how I hear the differences...
I agree with the sound stage, like on Aphex Twin, Bucephalus Bouncing Ball, the range of distance between the sounds and how specific the location is is astounding.
Originally Posted by sorrick /img/forum/go_quote.gif With the triple.fi's it seems like the whole band is in semi circle around you (as if you are the microphone) with the singer in front (at 12 o'clock) and the rest of the band branching off around your (going to say 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock). The result of this presentation is that you notice the instrumentation almost as much as the singer, which can be good and bad. If you are really into the vocals, the singer can at times seem like he's not up front (the detail in the vocals is all there, but the presentation a little farther back). Basically the net result is that you feel like you are the microphone in the recording session with the triple.fi's.
I also find the soundstage on the triple.fi's to be much more expansive than with the e500's (in fact the trip's have the biggest soundstage of any iem I have heard).
Nice post Sorrick, and very accurate description of the sound presentation.
Originally Posted by sorrick /img/forum/go_quote.gif I must say, I too have owned both the triple.fi's and the shure e500's at the same time. In MY opinion and to MY ears, the triple.fi's are far and a way a better sounding headphone. The shure's are fantastic (I bought them first) and they were definitely the best iem's I had ever tried when I got them, but I did immediately notice and get annoyed by the rolled off highs. The cymbals just weren't there even like they were on lower priced iems (er4p's and super.fi 5 pros are my references here).
The mids on the shures are sweet, no doubt. And the bass is ample. But once I got the triple.fi's, I realized that I preferred the tighter (and in my opinion) more articulate bass of the triple.fi's.
The mids I do prefer on the shures. The presentation of the mids on the shures are much more forward. The best way I can describe it is by describing the difference in the sound spatially. With the shures, it sounds like the singer is up front with the guitarists and bassist a few steps behind and the drums in the back about 25 feet further back. With the triple.fi's it seems like the whole band is in semi circle around you (as if you are the microphone) with the singer in front (at 12 o'clock) and the rest of the band branching off around your (going to say 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock). The result of this presentation is that you notice the instrumentation almost as much as the singer, which can be good and bad. If you are really into the vocals, the singer can at times seem like he's not up front (the detail in the vocals is all there, but the presentation a little farther back). Basically the net result is that you feel like you are the microphone in the recording session with the triple.fi's.
I also find the soundstage on the triple.fi's to be much more expansive than with the e500's (in fact the trip's have the biggest soundstage of any iem I have heard).
I hope that little spacial explanation is somewhat helpful to those of you who are thinking about both and haven't heard them. For those entrenched in one camp or another, I am not trying to sway your opinion, only stating mine and describing as clearly as I can how I hear the differences...
I'll have to subscribe to this thread for a great post like this.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
