[Pianist]

 
Quote:

Quote:

I got the ER4P/Ss right after I got rid of the UM3Xs; the Westones blow them t of the water on EVERY level, including detail and imaging. Granted they're double the price, but the ETys really aren't what they used to be.

That makes me want to try the UM3X now.

Anyway, sorry for bringing this topic off rail with the mention of the ER4. Currently I find that I wish the 425 has a bit more clarity in the upper spectrum. So, here is to hoping that the 535 is better at that to my ears.

SE535 is better than UM3X IMO - it has similar ergonomics (which are great in both IEMs), but wins in mids, lower treble and dynamics IMO. UM3X sounds flat and boring by comparison to my ears. SE530 is much more lively and natural sounding IMO.

 

[Burma Jones]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

That analysis is fundamentally flawed as it implies that a lofty bottom end is synonymous with an unnatural sound. I have never heard the SE535;s so most of what I state is conceptual but I can paint a pretty decent picture of its sound sig based on the reviews in this thread. 
 
For the sake of argument I will reluctantly agree that synths are 'unnatural' sounds. I will also assume any sound that requires electrical input as unnatural too. That being said, take a musical piece consisting of just a glockenspiel and double bassoon, two 'natural' instruments. I can safely state that while the SE535 may easily reproduce the glockenspiel it would no doubt struggle to reproduce the double bassoon in its lowest octaves. I say this because even the TF10 can't do it. It just is not able to dig deep enough with enough power to accurately manufacture what is heard in real life. Though, I can safely say it would fare better than the SE535 at doing so.
 
Now, if you mean 'natural' to stipulate sounds bereft of deep bass then by all means I would imagine the SE535 are as natural as they come but I actually do like listenning to orchestras were deep, powerful, sometimes chilling bass is present and I can assure you there will be many others too. So in essence, if most of your music, 'natural' or not, is geared towards mid and higher freqs or you just don't like deep bass then, of course, earphones like the 535 will be your cup of tea and dare I say, sound 'balanced'. If the SE535 had similar bass to, at the very least an UM3X, I would have bought it in a heartbeat as not many iems I have heard get close to pullingl off orchestras with deep bass instruments. Usually why I mostly use headphones with that type of music. 

Ok, I understand that my argument may be flawed in a way, because most of the real instruments I listen to do not contain low sub bass content. Fair enough. But how can you say SE535 can't reproduce low bass if you haven't hear it yourself? You can't analyze sound seriously just based on reviews - you also absolutely need to hear it for yourself IMO. Because everyone hears headphones and especially IEM differently for many reasons.

 
Very true. If it wasn't for its audacious price in the UK I would have pulled the trigger already; I got very close about two or so months back as along with the yet to be released Sleek SA7, it is the only iem I have any interest in purchasing currently. However, I do feel I can trust some of the reviews/musings in this thread to know that they most likely won't deliver on the deep bottom end. Coupled with my own experience that generally in iems, extension but moreso power is crucial to portray deep bass and thus far not many have been able to deliver in that respect. One of the two key reasons I prefer headphones; the other being soundstage.
 
When I'm feeling a little more reckless I am very likely to buy the 535's to hear what they bring to the table but it won't be until I've purchased the SA7 (unless I find one for around £200)!

 

Hey Communic, I have auditioned the SE535 recently and I totally agree with your hypothesis regarding their sound signature and presentation. However they do excel in the narrow genre selection that they are design for ( rock, pop, folk, and any music that do not require too much from the bass or the treble ). Their forward mids can be just as irritating in classical music as distorted bass. Due to the smoothness of the sound, complex musical passages becomes smeared . Never mind full symphonic works I didn't get any satisfaction with the SE535 listening to Bach Cello Suite or anything from Charles Mingus. They do sound very nice with vocals and any acoustic instrumentals that doesn't reach out to either ends of the frequency range. So in the end the SE535 is not balanced IMO, because any deficit in any part of the frequency range is as unbalanced as any emphasis on any part of the frequency range.

 

[elfary]

Guys you are messing up my mind. I had almost settled for the SE535 and now i'm again in doubt in between them and the UM3X (Those accurate but artificial phones)...
 
It seems that for the moment i'll stick to my good old SE420's.

 

[aangen]

I'm glad I did not allow anyone to talk me out of the 535s. I am so very happy with them. I loved my 530s as well, but the 535s are a nice upgrade.

 

[elfary]

I'm sure that Shure is my iem brand but i'm really curious about these Um3x clinical but unreal phones.
 
The SM3 also made it to the final pool but that awful build quality got them ditched. I just could not spend 400$ in something that looks as flimsy as SM3s do.
 
So i'm trying to make a purchase once and for all but i can't decide between SE535 and UM3X.

 

[ClieOS]

I don't think I'll describe UM3X as clinical. It is a word more for Etymotic, and UM3X is on the other side of what that word implies, kind of where SE535 will be.

 

[MaxwellDemon]

Alright, guys, I finally got the chance to try out SE535 and the UM3X.
 
The SE535, I have a feelin is one of the key sound signatures that I really like. Smooth mids, nice sparkle, tight bass. However, since I have already adapted to my SE425, I did feel a bit off at the sudden presence of bass and treble among the smooth mids. Not like that SE425 didn't have any, but it wasn't as prominent. However, I am sure that is because I spent an entire day listening to the SE425 before listening to the SE535.
 
On the UM3X... I actually feel the SE535 is better too. As Pianist said, UM3X came off as bland to me. Sparkle is almost a necessity to me and the UM3X has none of it. It is... detailed. But boy, it sounded kinda bland. I felt kind of sad that I couldn't appreciate the sound signature that UM3X has.

 

[elfary]

So where to go from SE420's ?. SE535 or UM3x is what i'm trying to decide. Mainly cause i think that the SE535 would not be a dramatic departure from the 420 that i enjoy now. But loving Shure i would hate to fork out money for a pairUM3x just to find a sound that's accurate but artficial (As i've learned over here).
 
 

 

[MaxwellDemon]

I can't say for anyone else. But for me, when I am adapted to the Shure IEMs, I honestly can't stand UM3X's sound signature. I can see why some people would like it, but coming from the 425, I really can't. I can't go from the smooth-buttery 425 to the... rather unique-sounding UM3X. However, like I previously mentioned, the sparkle is really essential toward me. So, maybe it is just me (and Pianist).

 

[elfary]

Could you elaborate on your opinion of the UM3X vs Shure?. I'd stay with my 420's if it wasn't for 500 Bucks that i won on a bet at the office. Since it is a not expected money i wanted so spend it on a 3 way IEM which is something i would not have bought with hard earned money. Was i more patient i would sit on the money till the 2011 iPhone popped out (To upgrade my 3GS) but patience and myself don't mix well

 

[MaxwellDemon]

I think it is the lack of the sparkle in general.
 
In order to explain this, it is better to use the ER4P against the UM3X. They are both extremely detailed earphones. So, I understood why someone said that it felt like ER4P was being unnecessarily bright for details, because the UM3X is detailed without that brightness. In fact, they are very full earphones. However, there is something about their sound signature that seems to suck all the sort of liveliness out of music. This is especially the case if you are used to the intimate mids that Shure offers at 425/535. It probably doesn't help that 535 has more of a treble compared to 425, so that just makes the UM3X even... more... "flat".
 
Maybe if I psychologically burn in the UM3X, I will like it, because there are quite a few likable properties. I just find it hard to find those properties lovable because I am still thinking of the intimate-ness I got from the Shure's sound signature. In audiophilic jargon, clinical isn't really the word to describe it, but non-audiophilically, I can only think how clinical they sound because they sound superbly analytical. It really felt like if I was doing a surgery on my music instead of enjoying it. Like if I was in the hospital with my music track and about to dissect it. That kind of clinical.

 

[elfary]

Thanks a lot for your input. Really appreciated. There is quite a few people that deem the UM3x the way you do. That's why i'm really curious about them. But on the other hand i kind of know that Shure understated signature is what really suits me in the long run.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

I think it is the lack of the sparkle in general.
 
In order to explain this, it is better to use the ER4P against the UM3X. They are both extremely detailed earphones. So, I understood why someone said that it felt like ER4P was being unnecessarily bright for details, because the UM3X is detailed without that brightness. In fact, they are very full earphones. However, there is something about their sound signature that seems to suck all the sort of liveliness out of music. This is especially the case if you are used to the intimate mids that Shure offers at 425/535. It probably doesn't help that 535 has more of a treble compared to 425, so that just makes the UM3X even... more... "flat".
 
Maybe if I psychologically burn in the UM3X, I will like it, because there are quite a few likable properties. I just find it hard to find those properties lovable because I am still thinking of the intimate-ness I got from the Shure's sound signature. In audiophilic jargon, clinical isn't really the word to describe it, but non-audiophilically, I can only think how clinical they sound because they sound superbly analytical. It really felt like if I was doing a surgery on my music instead of enjoying it. Like if I was in the hospital with my music track and about to dissect it. That kind of clinical.

Great description. I agree completely. The Shures sound warm, open and natural with great dynamics and excellent texture - quite unbelievable for BA based IEMs IMO. UM3X sounds warm alright, but dull in the treble, compressed in comparison to Shures, lacking texture and also with this subtle, but really annoying "plasticy" coloration that I found. I don't know, maybe it's just part of its sound signature, but I suspect it has to do with resonances from the cheap plastic housing creeping into the sound.
 
Now regarding the Etymotic: For some reason I am always extremely impressed with them every time I audition them. They actually remind me a lot of the Shure SE530 in its sound signature. Maybe it's because I was using them coupled with the deep inserting tri flange tips, but I found that they are not bright at all, but actually quite soft and polite in the treble and very natural sounding. Much more fun than UM3X and don't suffer from the weird "plasticy" coloration and the terribly annoying, dull treble of the UM3X IMO.

 

[moseboy]

I don't want to rant, and I'm not going to (right now at least). But I've listened to my SE535s for many, many hours now and I can't understand how people can consider them unbalanced.... I just don't hear it....
 
*shrugs*

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

I don't want to rant, and I'm not going to (right now at least). But I've listened to my SE535s for many, many hours now and I can't understand how people can consider them unbalanced.... I just don't hear it....
 
*shrugs*

Becuase everyone's ear canals are different, so some people get a better fit than others. Preferences also come into play of course, but to a much lesser extent IMO.