[ericp10]

Hi @ Bennyboy. It's true that I haven't owned the 530s in almost half a year or so, but it wouldn't be true that I haven't heard them not so long ago. Have I heard them since I've owned the 535? Well, of course not, since I just received the 535 yesterday. It hasn't been that long ago though. So, you may be right Bennyboy, but again, Shure did say something in regards to the tuning and placement of drivers being different than it was in the 530s. So couldn't that affect sound? What about the seemingly way better cabling, or smaller housings? Couldn't all of those factors, in addition to the high end extension, change and affect the sound? I'm just throwing that out there. What are your opinions? Many of you are definitely more adapt than I am in explaining how we hear music from a technical standpoint. All I can state is how I hear the music; is it different or the same to me; and finally, do I like the sound sig or not.
 
I have asked my buddy, who I gave the 530s to, to loan it back to me soon so that I can A/B the old and the new.
 
Quote:

^ Eric, is it not true though that its been a while since you last heard the 530?  Could it not be that your ears (by which i mean their sensitivity and preference etc) have changed since then?  I daresay you're right and there is a noticeable difference between the two models but without you having them side by side, that kind of comparison is to be taken with more than  a pinch of brain salt, I'd say.
 

 

[Bennyboy71]

Well, as I have neither the 530 nor the 535, let alone both of them, its impossible for me to comment on whether they do indeed sound different. But I have my doubts as to the extent of that difference nonetheless. 
 
Audio memory is totally unreliable, so I'd tend to discount whatever anyone who hasn't got the 2 models side by side would say. Sorry, but there's no way you can remember the exact reproduction of music in your ear from a point in the past, as much as you might like to think you can.
 
This is where Shure's smoke and mirrors act comes in. Does anyone have anything solid in writing from them explaining how and why the 2 models sound different? What I find astonishing is that if it were indeed true that the 535s sound better and improved upon the 530s, nothing official has been made of that.  Not a word in the official marketing, no hyping of 'improved sound' at all. Lets face it, any self-respecting audio company would be going mental to make such claims, if they were true, in the hope of adding value to the new product. Instead, what we're left with is vague comments in emails and phone calls and the smoke of supposition fanned in fan forums. Hardly the stuff of cold fact.
 
I'd be much happier if more users with both the SE530 and the SE535 could sit down and talk about the difference in sound between the two, separating the placebo from the real.  Has anyone done a blind test, where they are literally blindfolded and someone puts the iems in their ears for them?
 

 
Quote:

Hi @ Bennyboy. It's true that I haven't owned the 530s in almost half a year or so, but it wouldn't be true that I haven't heard them not so long ago. Have I heard them since I've owned the 535? Well, of course not, since I just received the 535 yesterday. It hasn't been that long ago though. So, you may be right Bennyboy, but again, Shure did say something in regards to the tuning and placement of drivers being different than it was in the 530s. So couldn't that affect sound? What about the seemingly way better cabling, or smaller housings? Couldn't all of those factors, in addition to the high end extension, change and affect the sound? I'm just throwing that out there. What are your opinions? Many of you are definitely more adapt than I am in explaining how we hear music from a technical standpoint. All I can state is how I hear the music; is it different or the same to me; and finally, do I like the sound sig or not.
 
I have asked my buddy, who I gave the 530s to, to loan it back to me soon so that I can A/B the old and the new.
 

 

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

This is where Shure's smoke and mirrors act comes in. Does anyone have anything solid in writing from them explaining how and why the 2 models sound different? What I find astonishing is that if it were indeed true that the 535s sound better and improved upon the 530s, nothing official has been made of that.  Not a word in the official marketing, no hyping of 'improved sound' at all. Lets face it, any self-respecting audio company would be going mental to make such claims, if they were true, in the hope of adding value to the new product. Instead, what we're left with is vague comments in emails and phone calls and the smoke of supposition fanned in fan forums. Hardly the stuff of cold fact.

In my personal opinion, Shure is not the kind of company that like to hype things up. In fact, their marketing is more mature / traditional and toward printing media. After all, they know they are a big company and the brand already speaks for itself. Anyway, If you look deep enough, you will find this:
 
Quote:

	SE535 vs. SE530
	Question
	What are the sonic differences between the SE535 and the SE530?
	Answer
	The acoustical engine of the SE535 is almost the same as the engine in the SE530.  The engine creates the acoustic energy.  Sound leaves the engine, and then goes through an acoustic network between the engine and the ear.  This acoustic network shapes the high frequency response.     The SE535 has a refined acoustic network in the front section of the earphone.  This is a change from the SE530 design and high frequency shaping.  The result is a slight increase in clarity and a bit wider sound stage.  Similar changes were also made to the SE425 that replaces SE420, but the SE425 high frequency change is more apparent.  This is because the SE425 high frequency driver is paired only with one low frequency driver, while the SE535 high frequency driver is paired with two low frequency drivers.   We didn't change the sound quality of the SE530 too much, as it has been a customer favorite for the last three years.  The changes made to the SE535 acoustic network resulted in a slightly more defined high end, but the overall signature and balance is very close to its predecessor.

 

[DaEMoNteNTAcLe]

^ i think the problem here is that everyone dismiss the se535 as being a minor upgrade to the older model, especially since a lot of people (including those that dont even have shures) and even shure themselves claims the se535 to have retained the mids and slightly improve the top end. Probably shure was being very conservative about their claims, and wanted the user themselves to experience the difference.
 
anyways.. it seems a general consensus was already made by most people that the se535 is the same as the older model, and that it only provides superb mids with a 'meh' sounding treble and bass. Like it or not, a lot of people here do not believe that improvement can be made since se535 is using the same driver as se530. Acoustic tuning like open back, closed back, sound dampening, filters, etc. has been thrown out of window.. funny how just changing the tuning filter in pfe has been accepted as change / improvement in sound, just like changing the sm3's eartips, dba-02 tips, etc., but shure's effort to redesign the whole iem has been considered a waste of good money and worthless improvement on the sound.
 
at least that's what i came to understand here.

 

[Bennyboy71]

Fair enough all round, and I'm not about to argue.
 
As for Shure being understated, I dunno.  Good on them if thats the case, but I'm guessing the only reason they're downplaying the difference is because its actually pretty small, hence adding a 5 to the end of the name rather than making it a full on upgrade number job.

 

[ericp10]

ClieOS, thank you for that quote from Shure. That is exactly what the Shure rep was explaining to me - in more detail - over the phone. And yes, to me, those enhancements (no matter how minute they seem) makes the SE535 sound better than the SE530.
 
Bennyboy, my friend, it's obvious we don't agree on your thoughts about audio memory, which is quite okay. I still value your opinions for the most part, but i recently gave my memory to someone about the e-Q7, which I haven't owned for a few months now. Then I had the chance to listen to a friend's e-Q7 not long ago and it was exactly how I remembered it and how I described it to someone else considering a purchase of that IEM.
 
And I'm sorry, but there is just no way I would hype the SE535 (and I said I like the Earsonics better, don't forget this) when I have repeatedly said that the SE530 was just okay to me, but it never blew me away. I know me, and I know if the SE535 sounded exactly like the SE530, I would have packed it up yesterday and sent it back, or it would be up for sale now. I don't keep IEMs if its sound sigs don't resonate with me. But then again, Shure and Earsonics sound nothing alike, Yes, they share some similar aspects, but for the most part both are very different in the way they present music. So it's not going to be a fair assessment if you're one bent on the Shure sound sig, or if you're stuck on the Earsonics sound sig (which it appears you are stuck on Bennyboy, my friend).
 
I, on the other hand, can appreciate various sound sigs, which I have been consistent in stating that fact here. So, I love the SM3/2 sound sigs just as much as I love the FX700 and  DDM sound sigs. None or those three makes of earphones sound anything like the other. I never liked the TF10 sound sig. The Copper was decent to me, but I loved the MD sound sig. The IE8 had nice bass but was always too veiled sounding to me (I actually liked the IE7 better).
 
And now, here we are with the SE535, and yes, I am saying - based on memory - the new top of the line Shure sounds waaaaaaaay better to my ears than the old top of the line Shure. That doesn't mean I won't A/B them as  soon as I can, but I know what my ears like.
 
Quote:

Quote:

In my personal opinion, Shure is not the kind of company that like to hype things up. In fact, their marketing is more mature / traditional and toward printing media. After all, they know they are a big company and the brand already speaks for itself. Anyway, If you look deep enough, you will find this:
 

 

[ericp10]

Excellent points @ DaEMoNteNTAcle. Even more amazing is that i never thought I would be one defending Shure. That within itself is mind-boggling to me!! LOL. Then again, I thought the Monster Pros were just hype - especially the Miles Davis - and I was proven wrong there too. I can admit when I am wrong, Fortunately, I'm usually right (LOL)...

 
Quote:

^ i think the problem here is that everyone dismiss the se535 as being a minor upgrade to the older model, especially since a lot of people (including those that dont even have shures) and even shure themselves claims the se535 to have retained the mids and slightly improve the top end. Probably shure was being very conservative about their claims, and wanted the user themselves to experience the difference.
 
anyways.. it seems a general consensus was already made by most people that the se535 is the same as the older model, and that it only provides superb mids with a 'meh' sounding treble and bass. Like it or not, a lot of people here do not believe that improvement can be made since se535 is using the same driver as se530. Acoustic tuning like open back, closed back, sound dampening, filters, etc. has been thrown out of window.. funny how just changing the tuning filter in pfe has been accepted as change / improvement in sound, just like changing the sm3's eartips, dba-02 tips, etc., but shure's effort to redesign the whole iem has been considered a waste of good money and worthless improvement on the sound.
 
at least that's what i came to understand here.

 

[Bennyboy71]

Quote:

Bennyboy, my friend, it's obvious we don't agree on your thoughts about audio memory, which is quite okay. I still value your opinions for the most part, but i recently gave my memory to someone about the e-Q7, which I haven't owned for a few months now. Then I had the chance to listen to a friend's e-Q7 not long ago and it was exactly how I remembered it and how I described it to someone else considering a purchase of that IEM.
 

Sorry mate, I just want to check - who is the 'we' you refer to in that first sentence?
 
Here's the thing - it is impossible for you to recall exactly the way you heard a piece of music. Your brain will have an impression of it but you cannot replay it note for note again, no matter how hard you try. Unless you are very 'special', shall we say. By which I mean you probably can't function within everyday human interactivity.
 
I've no doubt you remember an overview of the Orto's sound - as do I - but that memory is at best a sketch. There's no way in the world you could accurately recall the soundstage, for example, or how deep the bass went, etc.  You only think you do.
 
 
 

 

[TheJudge]

Quote:

^ Eric, is it not true though that its been a while since you last heard the 530?  Could it not be that your ears (by which i mean their sensitivity and preference etc) have changed since then?  I daresay you're right and there is a noticeable difference between the two models but without you having them side by side, that kind of comparison is to be taken with more than  a pinch of brain salt, I'd say.
 

Yes, aural memory can be as unreliable as our memory of events.

 

[ericp10]

We = you and I don't agree on your point about remembering sound from an earphone.....
 
But again, that is your opinion and I respect it.

 

[Bennyboy71]

Aha, sorry, was being a tad over sensitive there for a moment - you know what they say: just cos you're not paranoid, doesnt mean they're not out to get ya.....
 
I do wish I could agree with you on auditory memory, but I simply can't.  Anyway, as we're constantly changing all the time, its impossible to even hear the same song via the same iems in the same way, over time. Listen in the morning and it'll sound different than in the evening. This much I do know.
 

 
Quote:

We = you and I don't agree on your point about remembering sound from an earphone.....
 
But again, that is your opinion and I respect it.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

^ Eric, is it not true though that its been a while since you last heard the 530?  Could it not be that your ears (by which i mean their sensitivity and preference etc) have changed since then?  I daresay you're right and there is a noticeable difference between the two models but without you having them side by side, that kind of comparison is to be taken with more than  a pinch of brain salt, I'd say.
 

I listened to my SE530 and SE535s on the same day and I've got to totally agree with Spyro.

 

[shane55]

[size=10pt]SE535 being 'true to the music'? Not to my ears.[/size]
[size=10pt]Are they 'balanced'? No.[/size]
[size=10pt]SM3's 'true or balanced'? Hell no.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]These are both good IEM's, but they both suffer from particular sonic issues.[/size]
[size=10pt]For the most part the SE535 is more open, airy, clear and clinical sounding. The SM3 is more closed, warm, 'acoustic' and slightly muted (muffled).[/size]
 
[size=10pt]That's the difference (to my ears) in a nutshell. The SE535's biggest drawback to me is the lack of warmth, bass and sonorous 'acoustic' quality. If you take the basic sonic signature of the DT880 and chop it off at the top and bottom end, you'll have the SE535 which does not extend as far (or maybe as well) at either end of the spectrum. But in the middle of the frequency curve, from 100hz to 7khz, I would rate the SE535 and DT880 somewhat similar, with DT880 being the winner in terms of overall tone and spatial characteristics, and the SE535 being too constricted.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]The SM3's biggest drawback is it's recessed mids and underwhelming highs. It's highlights are it's powerful bass and sonorous warmth. Acoustic instruments actually can sound slightly more 'realistic' than with the SE535, because of it's lower-mid emphasis, but there is no presence to these instruments because there is no 'air' to put them into. Yeah, that sounds like a violin, but where is it? It's all body without the strings. It's all resonance without the air. The tone seems right, but it has no life.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]SE535. Lots of life to the music, but little body.[/size]
[size=10pt]SM3. Lots of body, but no breath or life.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]In sum. Both are good at some things and not so good at others. Neither is true to the recordings, let alone to the music.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]At this point, my UM2 is a superior IEM to both of these. It has much better overall tonal qualities, better extension, more neutral - across the spectrum and sonic character, open, airy, but with good impact. To my ears, the UM2 represents the recording with more fidelity than either of these two 'upper tier' IEM's. If I were to take the sonic character of the DT880, shave off some of the extreme highs, boost the bass a bit, I'd have the UM2.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]All this may change with the Sensorcom tips that are due here soon. I doubt it, but I'm open minded to that possibility.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]My mileage has varied.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]shane[/size]
 

 

[Bennyboy71]

Quote:

 
[size=10pt]All this may change with the Sensorcom tips that are due here soon. I doubt it, but I'm open minded to that possibility.[/size]
 
 
 

 

 

[ericp10]

So, you've done an A/B comparison @ MacedonianHero? If so, no matter how minute the changes do you agree that the SE535 sounds quite a bit better than the SE530? That's all I'm saying really.
Quote:

I listened to my SE530 and SE535s on the same day and I've got to totally agree with Spyro.