[ericp10]

I have enough bass in my SM2 and SM3 to enjoy what the 535 offers even with its somewhat anemic bass. Actually, the 535 is the IEM I own that I don't mind eqing for extra bass, and yet still maintain those gorgeous mids and exciting highs. When I tap the bass up a few notches, the 535 is near perfect. Add to that the excellent build quality and it's a keeper for me. Glad the UM3X is doing for you though @ jaredalv. There's so many wonderful universal IEM flavors to choose from now with something to suit everyone's listening tastes. And one doesn't negate the excellence of the other.

 

[MacedonianHero]

^^^
 
The SE535s low end is as flat as a pancake and neutral. Now that may not be your cup of tea, but the graphs show that they are as flat under 1000Hz as the LCD-2s. So if the bass is lacking then that would be your recording.
 
No worries, not everybody enjoys that...I enjoy my W3s as well for an added change to pump up the bass.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

^^^
 
The SE535s low end is as flat as a pancake and neutral. Now that may not be your cup of tea, but the graphs show that they are as flat under 1000Hz as the LCD-2s. So if the bass is lacking then that would be your recording.
 

Well, in that case all of my 900+ CDs are poorly recorded and lack bass. Or... all the phones listed in my signature (except the CK10) are meant for bassheads, my home system is for bassheads, my car audio is for bassheads, what I've heard over the years in concerts (acoustic & amplified) in venues with good acoustics (sadly not even half of them) was only meant for bassheads too.
 
I have serious reservations about the graph you mention. I doubt it truly represents the sound coming out of the SE535s, and if it does, as it's so often said in these forums, graphs only tell part of the story - the validity of said graphs has been widely discussed/ debated.
 
You love your SE535s and that is great, honestly. But there's no need to come and say just how 'objectively' perfect the SE535s are every single time someone says they don't like a particular aspect of this IEM.
 
I insist that, in my view, if it was possible to do a proper blind test - where people didn't know which IEM was which and getting a good fit - the SE535 would not do very well. I'm convinced the UM3X & CK100 (and possibly other phones) would get a higher score.

 

[Onza]

I don't know, all this debate about the SE535s bass does make me chuckle. Everyone is entitled to their opinion for sure. However in my case I'd say the 535s have more than adequate bass, yes its not as substantive as some of the bass in my previous phones, but then again I won't have called those phones balanced.
 
To my ears the SE535 is balanced across the range, this means it may have too little bass for some people, but conversely it may also have too much for others (for example ER4 fans). Saying that the SE535 has anaemic bass implies that one like a generous (read north of neutral) helping of bass to their music, and why not, if that is your preference.
 
The only problem is that this opens up the circular argument of what a balanced headphone is - one mans balanced is another man's anaemic, and so on and so forth...

 

[goodvibes]

Freq response is up at Headroom. Different than 530 but not what's expected if correct.

 

[ericp10]

There's not argument from my standpoint. The 535's bass is a bit anemic to me, and I do enjoy my bass quite a bit north of neutral. It's that simple. With that said, I enjoy the 535s -  even on flat sometimes. Most times, however, I feel the need to increase the bass on these IEMs, and not on the others I own. I don't see why some get so out of sorts when someone refers to the 535 bass as being anemic? Of course, I am saying it's anemic to me, not anemic to you. It may be bloated to you. It's like these earphones can't receive any criticism. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. These are still pretty good top tier IEMs.
 
Now others saying they don't think the 535 would do well in a blindfold test is just those particular people's opinions. I think it depends on each individual's desired sound signature, I think the 535s would soar in many blindfold listening tests. Relax people.
 
Quote:

I don't know, all this debate about the SE535s bass does make me chuckle. Everyone is entitled to their opinion for sure. However in my case I'd say the 535s have more than adequate bass, yes its not as substantive as some of the bass in my previous phones, but then again I won't have called those phones balanced.
 
To my ears the SE535 is balanced across the range, this means it may have too little bass for some people, but conversely it may also have too much for others (for example ER4 fans). Saying that the SE535 has anaemic bass implies that one like a generous (read north of neutral) helping of bass to their music, and why not, if that is your preference.
 
The only problem is that this opens up the circular argument of what a balanced headphone is - one mans balanced is another man's anaemic, and so on and so forth...

 

[MacedonianHero]

So, I'm not one to say "I told you so", but here is The Absolute Sound's review of the SE535s match up mine and Sypro's first comments way back in May of improved treble and sound stage.
 
So to those holding on to your SE530s because you think the only differences are cosmetic, sorry your wallet had to hear this....it's not.
 
http://www.avguide.com/review/shure-se535-ear-headphone-playback-36?src=Playback
 
"The internal shape and layout of the SE535 earpiece housing, which Shure terms the “acoustic network,” has been substantially revised to allow noticeably more extended treble response and wider perceived soundstaging. On paper these might sound like small changes, but in reality they alter the entire character of the SE535’s midrange and treble response, giving the headphone a notably more spacious, open-sounding and detailed presentation overall. "
 
For me, the show stopper with the SE530s was the rolled off treble...no longer an issue with the SE535s.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Well, in that case all of my 900+ CDs are poorly recorded and lack bass.
 
 

Based on how you prefer your personal bass, yes. But based on the how it was intended by the recording, the SE535s show you exactly what is there.

 

[shane55]

Quote:

There's not argument from my standpoint. The 535's bass is a bit anemic to me, and I do enjoy my bass quite a bit north of neutral. It's that simple. With that said, I enjoy the 535s -  even on flat sometimes. Most times, however, I feel the need to increase the bass on these IEMs, and not on the others I own. I don't see why some get so out of sorts when someone refers to the 535 bass as being anemic? Of course, I am saying it's anemic to me, not anemic to you. It may be bloated to you. It's like these earphones can't receive any criticism. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. These are still pretty good top tier IEMs.
 
Now others saying they don't think the 535 would do well in a blindfold test is just those particular people's opinions. I think it depends on each individual's desired sound signature, I think the 535s would soar in many blindfold listening tests. Relax people.
 

 

[size=10pt]It's all personal preference, taste, experience, physiognomy, hearing, etc., but any way you look at it, it's all 'personal'. There are few absolutes in this world, and there are no absolutes when it comes to the way people will hear or interpret the sound. (And that, my friend is an absolute!

). Arguments over how IEM's sound, and the irritation (if not outright anger) that can erupt is futile and somewhere that these discussions should not go.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]One can disagree with how their ears and brain interpret sound, but what they say is for them and their experience only. It may jibe and agree with others, but either way it’s just for their ears and the person next to them may grab the exact IEM, with the same eartip and get good fit and hear / interpret it completely differently… using the same source, DAC, Amp, etc.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]Hearing is just one of the vast amount of variables out there. Mr. Thin-and-Anemic may be listening to 128k MP3’s through a POS DAC/Amp, and Mr. Rich-and-Lush could be going straight from LP’s through ultra-mega high-end equipment… Point being that it’s too varied out there for any consistency or constant.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]Now… all that being said, I really liked the SE535, but they were not for me. I had fit and comfort issues (insertion, cable thickness and wire, etc.). I also found that the sound was (to my ears) too mid-centric. Beautiful mids, to be sure, but lacking good highs and sparkle as well as having any sonority or fullness in the bass. But again… that’s just how I heard them.[/size]
[size=10pt]My points of reference are acoustic instruments and how they sound to me. The Sax, Violin, Cello, Piano, Horn, Guitar… whatever… didn’t sound as I know them to sound… to me. Real instruments, in real spaces making real sounds should sound a very particular way. It’s what I know, and unless an IEM can produce the sounds I know well… accurately… then they are not for me.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]If an IEM or full-sized can produces acoustic instruments ‘naturally’, but has other flaws (like flabby bass, or sibilant highs, for example), they obviously get sold as well.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]What winds up sticking around as the perfect can for me, has a 40% (just a guess) chance of being of equal value to anyone else.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]shane[/size]
 

 

 

[shane55]

Quote:

Based on how you prefer your personal bass, yes. But based on the how it was intended by the recording, the SE535s show you exactly what is there.

Actually, and not to argue or be semantically picky... but they show YOU exactly what is there. Maybe not for music_4321. It certainly was not the case for me.
As much as I liked the 535... I had issues with them (see above).
 
shane
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

 
Quote:

Actually, and not to argue or be semantically picky... but they show YOU exactly what is there. Maybe not for music_4321. It certainly was not the case for me.
As much as I liked the 535... I had issues with them (see above).
 
shane
 

Respectfully, the graph backs me up...that they show the user what is on the recording in terms of bass presence (which was my only point). Now that may not match the personal preferences of the user...I have no issue with that...Baskin Robbins just doesn't carry vanilla ice cream as we all like different things.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

OK - so again, this is my first foray into high-end (for me) IEM's.  The Shure 535's blew me away, as they were the first I'd ever heard.  Now that I've had the UM3X's for a bit, I have to agree with music_4321's hard-headedness

" width="" />" class="bbcode_smiley" height="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//smily_headphones1.gif" title="

" class="bbcode_smiley" height="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//smily_headphones1.gif" title="

" width="" />" width="" /> and say for my own preference that the low-end presence in the UM3X's is too big of a factor to not like these over the 535's.  I will say that the UM3X's may not be as bright as the 535's, just my impression, but that doesn't mean that they're lacking high-end.  It's just not as pronounced as the 535's.  The 535's sparkle in your ear, high-end crispness is everywhere - the UM3X mutes that a little, but not to the detriment of the music, it just doesn't bring it forward so much.
 
And the 535 bass is pretty anemic in comparison.  I'm really surprised at the gap between these two.  Low-end definitely goes to UM3X.
 
Mids are a push.
 
>>>
 
As to build-quality, I'm also beginning to enjoy the more portable/compact feel of the UM3X's.  The cord is indeed non-microphonic, and it stays out of the way a little better than the Shure cord.  I'm still undecided on whether or not I prefer the Shure olives or the Westone foamies - in fact I may have to try the Large Westone foamies because the fit's not as snug as with the olives.  Or I might just try the olives on the UM3X - do they fit?  I haven't yet tried.
 
The Shure's feel and look like the higher-end equipment.  They just LOOK expensive.  The UM3X gives the impression, side-by-side, of being cheaper.  But once you get past the packaging and the feel of everything and just sit with your eyes closed and listen - the UM3X's win for me.
 
>>>
 
Hard-core audio-philes ignore this next part.  

" width="" />" class="bbcode_smiley" height="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//smily_headphones1.gif" title="

" class="bbcode_smiley" height="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//smily_headphones1.gif" title="

" width="" />" width="" />
 
I do find that I prefer to choose a slightly toned-down bass EQ setting on my iPhone for acoustic jazz pieces - 'Acoustic' in particular.  And that in both IEM's I prefer the sound of either the 'Electronic' or 'Classical' EQ setting depending on the genre I'm listening to.  As stated before, portability is pretty much item #1 with me as I'm always on the go, so don't hate on me for using an iPhone without an amp.  

" width="" />" class="bbcode_smiley" height="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//smily_headphones1.gif" title="

" class="bbcode_smiley" height="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//smily_headphones1.gif" title="

" width="" />" width="" />  Anyway, the EQ settings lend a slightly more refined sound to my ear.  The EQ off is a little flat to me.
 
>>>
 
The 535's are brilliant - but they're missing too much low-end for me.  I'm going to return the 535's and keep the UM3X's.  And they're $100 cheaper.  

" width="" />" class="bbcode_smiley" height="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//smily_headphones1.gif" title="

" class="bbcode_smiley" height="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//smily_headphones1.gif" title="

" width="" />" width="" />
 
Thanks again music_4321 for insisting.  Too bad again that it took me to a 3rd pair of these before I heard their true richness.
 
 
jaredalv

Thank you (again) for your comments. After you comments on the differences in SQ from the different UM3X sets you've had I wanted to wait to try my UM3X replacement, which I received today, before my reply. I have noticed differences too in the 2 sets I've tried in these last few days. More comments on this here: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511135/ck100-um3x-se535-sm3-ie8-a-journey/75#post_6947832

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Respectfully, the graph backs me up...that they show the user what is on the recording in terms of bass presence (which was my only point). Now that may not match the personal preferences of the user...I have no issue with that...Baskin Robbins just doesn't carry vanilla ice cream as we all like different things.

It also shows the 530 having better mids and more extended treble than the 535.  Shane never said the bass was lacking in FR but in body and texture which correlates to my hearing of the 530.  The curve shows you what exists and where, it doesn't show you what it looks or sounds like.  I may know that a Monet is showing at the Getty, doesn't mean I'll like what I see when I get there.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

Respectfully, the graph backs me up...that they show the user what is on the recording in terms of bass presence (which was my only point). Now that may not match the personal preferences of the user...I have no issue with that...Baskin Robbins just doesn't carry vanilla ice cream as we all like different things.

Respectfully, though no smiley:
 
McDonald's says its products contain "100% pure USDA inspected beef; no additives, no fillers, no extenders." -- I wonder why I'm not too keen on their burgers.

 

[Spyro]

I absolutely love the bass, balance and clarity of SE535.  While I know the most-preferred tip are the medium shure olives, I do notice a bit more bass using the large T-100 comply tips instead which are my preferred tip.  They are slightly larger than the medium olives but not as large as the olive larges.  Perfect for me (sound and fit).
 
And I am using some EQ as well.  "Rock" setting on the Nano.