[JessJackson]

I understand, but even then were talking about a difference in 10db's above 2k... so you think I should sit with them for a bit or drive down to UE and pick up some of those reference ears. I'm trying to find something I can mix on when i'm on the tour bus etc.. and I dont think I'd feel comfortable mixing off these from my first tests.
 

 

[MaxwellDemon]

I actually could understand JessJackson's worries. I don't think I could focus mixing with the SE535 (I have the SRH840 for that though) either. Not sure why, but there is something about the SE535 that I won't dare to use while mixing. However, I do think they are very balanced... they don't sound flat though. Flat is something more akin to UM3X... even if that's not the word I'd use for that either.

 

[maverickronin]

We're talking about two different types of "flat" here.  The SE535s are flat to life.  The distance between you and a speaker or instrument will eat up the treble more than the mids and bass and that's how 'phones like the SE535s or above mentioned LCD-2's (designed for monitoring and mixing) are tuned.  Flat to measurement (like you seem to be looking for) is the "ruler flat" from DC to daylight without making allowances for psychoacoustics.  In most headphones, and especially IEMs, something that measures flat may not sound flat to a persons ears.  I don't do mixing so I've got no idea which is better for that kind of thing.
 
There are lot of psychoacoustic tricks that go into headphones that don't go into something like monitor speakers.  Those same trick go into measuring them as well.  Do you use a reverse HRTF?  If you do, which one?  Then you have to control for the effect of the dummy heads "ears".  There's no standardized way to do it.  Therefore you can only compare curves made using the same processes.  You can't compare Headroom's graphs to anyone else's headphone graphs and you certainly can't compare them to loudspeaker graphs.
 
In short, if the SE535s sound the way you're describing them then it's definitely a fit issue.  It may be fixable by finding the right tips or you ears may just be too odd for them to fit properly.  That's something that happens for some people since it is a universal design.  I have no doubt that the UE IERMs would be better, but that's to be expected since they are custom fitted.  If I were you I'd spend a few hours trying to figure out the fit before you drop more than double the price on the UEs.

 

[MaxwellDemon]

Ah, okay, thanks for explaining the other variation of flat to me, maverickronin.

 

[Danz03]

Graph-wise they do look pretty flat, however, the problem I find with universal IEMs is that the fit can alter the sound signature quite significantly. From my experience, with different tips or with a few millimeters further inside the ear canals can mean a few dBs more in bass response. So the same pair of IEMs can sound quite different with different sized ears, I personally would not do any mixing using universal IEMs. The LCD-2s are great as they do sound very similar to a pair of reference monitors.
 
Quote:

We're talking about two different types of "flat" here.  The SE535s are flat to life.  The distance between you and a speaker or instrument will eat up the treble more than the mids and bass and that's how 'phones like the SE535s or above mentioned LCD-2's (designed for monitoring and mixing) are tuned.  Flat to measurement (like you seem to be looking for) is the "ruler flat" from DC to daylight without making allowances for psychoacoustics.  In most headphones, and especially IEMs, something that measures flat may not sound flat to a persons ears.  I don't do mixing so I've got no idea which is better for that kind of thing.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Ah, okay, thanks for explaining the other variation of flat to me, maverickronin.

That's why sound is so hard.  You have to be subjective in picking your objective standard.  Just typing that almost makes my head hurt...
 
I think its because we're missing a set of clearly defined terms.  People throw around terms like "natural", "neutral", and "flat" without any definitions.  To add to the confusion, many of those terms are metaphors for what we experience with our other senses.
 
Like I said earlier, I've got no idea which interpretation of "flat" is better for mixing, but I forgot something else that probably make them inappropriate for mixing.  I can't speak directly for the SE535s, but I do own a pair of SE530s and they are very good at concealing flaws in recording or encoding.  They have an almost magical ability to deliver all the details you want to hear and cover up the ones you don't.  I can't say how how much of that carries over into the new model, though I'd venture it'd be enough to annoy you if you were mixing from anything less than pristine sources.
 
The main point I wanted to get across was that JessJackson's issue is almost certainly fit related.  It may be correctable, it may not be.  If you can swing the extra cash Jess, FWIR about the IERMs and heard from my own SE530s, the IERMs will likely be a better choice.
 
The SE530/535 are flat (the 535s more than the 530s, the 530s are a little on the dark side) in the sense I described earlier but their tone is geared more towards relaxing and enjoying the music rather than picking apart its details as the IERMs seem to be.

 

[moseboy]

Okay, first of all, if anyone is hearing sibilance with the SE535, I say fit issue. I heard sibilance too (which I didn't think was even possible with Shure's earphones) and it turned out that I had to go up one tip size from what I used with my SE530. Now I don't hear any sibilance at all, and everything sounds like it should. If you don't like the sound signature, that's another story. That's a personal preference thing and I can understand if the Shure sound isn't your cup of tea. But in my experience, peakiness and an unbalanced sound are far from what you should hear with the right fit.
 
Second of all, why are we thinking the SE535s are good for mixing? They're not, and they're not meant to be. Shure tuned them in a way that makes them really fun and easy to listen to. The result is that they are balanced, but not reference. Do not use these on a mixing board. In fact, I wouldn't trust any universal IEM on a mixing board. There are way too many variables that come into play. For mixing, if you are going to use an IEM, I personally say you have to go with a reference custom (and if I were to choose, I would go with the JH13 Pro *drool*). But again, don't use any of Shure's (current) earphones for a job they weren't meant to do, lest you get some very unsatisfactory results.

 

[moseboy]

Quote:

 I can't speak directly for the SE535s, but I do own a pair of SE530s and they are very good at concealing flaws in recording or encoding.  They have an almost magical ability to deliver all the details you want to hear and cover up the ones you don't.  I can't say how how much of that carries over into the new model, though I'd venture it'd be enough to annoy you if you were mixing from anything less than pristine sources.
 

Yes, the SE530s are incredibly good at concealing flaws, but much more than the SE535 (which I actually find to be revealing by comparison).

[size=medium]Quote:[/size]

[size=medium]Originally Posted by maverickronin /img/forum/go_quote.gif[/size]

[size=medium]The SE530/535 are flat (the 535s more than the 530s, the 530s are a little on the dark side) in the sense I described earlier but their tone is geared more towards relaxing and enjoying the music rather than picking apart its details as the IERMs seem to be.[/size]

 
I don't really like that definition. I personally think "flat" is... well... flat. It's measurable using its frequency response. The term I would use to describe the SE535 is "balanced," meaning that "on a whole," the sound doesn't have a prominent (or recessed) bass, mid-range, treble, etc. Shure definitely tuned the SE535 to match the signature they were going for, adding gradual dips and humps (but not spikes) in the frequency response where they felt it was necessary. But that fact alone makes it ineligible to be called reference, and by my definition, certainly not "flat."

 

[JessJackson]

Appreciate the continued chat on the subject... I'll try larger tip sizes, foams etc... but I think i'm just going to get the UE references made. Moneys not a issue when it comes to good monitoring.
 
I could always get fisher to remold the shure's, this would squash any fit issue argument.
 
Your correct in saying that "flat" is subjective. Certain other producers / engineers prefer all sorts of near and mid field monitors than me. Personally i like tracking on ns10's and krk v8's and mixing on headphones, macbook pro speakers (which have become the new ns10) krk v8's and augspurger's for banging it loud.
 
If u want to get technical Flat doesn't actually exsist there are too many variables, the fact that we're human, physically different from one another and pre conditioned differently resulting in bias phsyco acoustic opinions... as long as its pleasant to listen to for long periods of time, transfers well from system to system and setup to setup thats what matters to us producers... example nightmare being when you level a mix or EQ a vocal only to find that is sounds completely different in the label execs office system.
 
I need reference in ears when i'm in the studio, my engineer is tracking vocals with the artist or writer and I'm on a separate rig working on new track or whatever. Headphones don't have enough noise cancelation for me to focus without bleed from the room.

 

[MaxwellDemon]

Quote:

Appreciate the continued chat on the subject... I'll try larger tip sizes, foams etc... but I think i'm just going to get the UE references made. Moneys not a issue when it comes to good monitoring.
 
I could always get fisher to remold the shure's, this would squash any fit issue argument.

I don't think either maverickronin or moseboy were defending SE535's ability as a reference monitor. Just to make a note, even if I have a SE535 custom-remolded, I still wouldn't wear them aside from leisure listening.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Wow look at that graph, exactly what i stated... I ain't a producer / mix engineer for nothing. Theres that 10k bump creating all that harsh in your face sibilance and theres that missing 3.8 and 5.8k that would give vocals and upper mids the presence thats missing. and I guess that bump on the lower end is the lower mids (not bass bump) i'm talking about which could definately be enhanced by the tips im using (med olives) but i feel i have a tight comfortable seal with them.
 
These are definately not flat mate... flat to me is a monitor that sounds like Yamaha NS10 or beyer dynamic DT770's or KRK VXT4
 
 
Quote:

Quote:

I just brought a clear pair and threw them on the ipod nano... not sure if i'm a big fan though... i was looking for a flat earphone and there seems to be a decent bump in the lower mids around 200hz, there is also a bump around 10k where ess's in vocals pop out at you, after that the top end begins rolling off. the upper mids are well balanced but I feel that they dont have much presence. a tiny little bump around 3.8khz and 5.8khz would fix this.
 
Thinking about selling up on to someone who would appreciate them more and getting the UE Capitols. hmm

 
I'd keep playing around to get the right tip. There is no bass hump to my ears or FR graph:
 
http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2731
 
These are the most balanced universal IEMs I've heard to date. The FR graph is the closest I've seen to the LCD-2s.

 

Ummm...I think you're mistaken, first off, sibilance is around 6-8kHz, not at 10kHz (not a whole lot happening at 10kHz), secondly, the "bump" you speak of is under the 0dB reading. Hardly a spike.

  Not to mention, your "mid-bass" hump is nowhere to be seen.

 
They are certainly the flattest universal IEMs out there. You just joined, I recommend reading up and learning a bit more before making some bold assertions.

 
Have a look at a few "other" top IEMs in comparison:
 
http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2731&graphID[]=743&graphID[]=603
 
Not sure how many IEMs you've heard in the past, but listening to several always helps formulate your opinions better. Not to mention, comparing IEMs to full sized cans is just...well...silly, as is using IEMs for mixing.
 
Here is an awesome quote regarding the "flatness" of headphones. Considering IEMs are much closer to your ears, I imagine it would be even more relevant:
 
Quote:

/img/forum/go_quote.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyriel0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am not understanding how these are being talked up soo much if everything above 1.5khz is dropped 6-10 db.

That's a very perceptive question you have there!

In short, the human hearing system free field response is not "flat".

When you're listening to a concert at the local concert hall, for example, what you're hearing is "colored" by the acoustic effect of the physical structure of your face, outer ear and ear canal. The acoustic shadow cast by your pinna, for example creates a notch in the frequency response as perceived by your brain. This notch, both in depth and placement in the spectrum, is then integrated by your brain to create the psychoacoustic perception of placement of said sound. Vertical, lateral, and depth in the z-axis is all derived by your brain's ability to integrate and process the placement of this acoustic notch in each ear relative to the other.

The dip you see in the FR chart beginning at above 2kHz, is an approximation of this effect. When one listens to headphones, the sound is basically bypassing all of one's external physical attributes and being directly injected into your ear canal. Without an approximation of this notch being designed into the headphone's frequency response, the sound that one perceived from the headphone would be artificially bright and otherwise "off the mark."

The relative phase and amplitude, as well as frequency contour of what each ear hears is used by the brain to perceive direction and distance of a sound.
This is why headphone design is a wonderful collaboration of art and science, as no two people hear exactly alike, but we hear similarly.

 
Oh, and welcome to Head-fi.

 

[ClieOS]

The only way to make a true reference class IEM that is good for mixing or critical monitoring is to go to an audiologist and has your hearing tested, generate a personal frequency response graph and send it to UE or which ever custom IEM maker that willing to work with you to custom tune an IEM that gives you a true perceived flat (or likely diffuse-field EQ'ed) sound. It is not cheap and probably time consuming but that's the service musicians used when they want the perfect IEM for themselves. For those who willing to compromise, working with an audio engineer to develop a specific personal EQ is probably the cheapest and easiest way to get a custom sound from an universal IEM.
 
Quote:

I understand, but even then were talking about a difference in 10db's above 2k... so you think I should sit with them for a bit or drive down to UE and pick up some of those reference ears. I'm trying to find something I can mix on when i'm on the tour bus etc.. and I dont think I'd feel comfortable mixing off these from my first tests.
 

 

 

[Skullbox]

 
Salut à tous!
 
Voici ma petite histoire.
 
Upgrade from : E4c => SCL4 => SE420 => SE530PTH => SE535 ???
 
Je possède une paire de SE530 (depuis plus d’un an) que j’adore beaucoup.
Mes 530 originaux étaient de la première génération. (avec câbles rigides)
Shure  m’a remplacé par la suite mes 530 par de nouveaux modèles avec câble beaucoup plus souple et confortable. Plus tard, je commence à percevoir des grincements sur un coté des mes 530. (J’avoue que les 535 commençait à m’intéressaient un peut, j’voulais essayez si Shure accepterait de me les remplacer gratuitement)
 
Je communique avec Shure Canada (SF marketing) pour leur expliquer mon problème (encore)
Je leur demande s’ils peuvent me réparer ou (idéalement) me remplacer par les nouveaux SE535.
Ils refusent donc en me disant que malheureusement mes SE530 ne sont plus sous garantie.
 
Ont me proposent donc un UpgradeDeal. Je leur envoie 50.00 $ (différence entre 530 et 535) et leur retourne mes 530. En retour, ont m’envoie une nouvelle paire de SE535 toute neuve, cé pas beau çà?
 
La grande Question ici qui se pose, est de savoir si je devrais accepter l’échange ou de garder mes 530. (ils fonctionnent encore très bien)
malgré la lecture des 111 pages de commentaires, je demeure quand même encore confusquant à la qualité sonore des ces nouveaux bijoux. Ce qui m’importe le plus avant tout, c’est la qualité sonoreplus que sa nouvelle apparence. Nouveaux câbles plus solide, détachable, nouvelle couleur, très long câble (inutile pour rien, danger de se pendre avec), plus mince…
 
J’adore encore mes 530, mais upgrader vers les 535 (même pour seulement 50. $) vaut-il vraiment la peine de faire le saut? Je ne comprends absolument rien dans les graph (FR) je ne peux donc en interpréter leurs significations. Les idées étant partagées, je me remets donc entre vos mains expertes, donnez encore vos avis. Merçi.
 
d(-_-)b
 
Pierre
 
 
So... if no answer from this community, do i have to convert this french to english to get some kind of response?
 
thx anyway!   

 

[Pianist]

^ Yes, I think SE535 is worth the extra money over SE530. There may be very little to no improvement in sound quality, but there is a huge improvement in the ergonomics with the cable being much better and the shape of the earphone being more compact allowing for better fit.

 

[chromatic]

je pense que ca vaut le coup oui pour 50$ tu te retrouveras avec une version un peu ameliore de tes 530, et comme le cable est detachable sur le nouveau model tu pourras les garder tres longtemps en changeant juste le cable dans un ou deux ans si besoin est... 
je pense que cest une bonne affaire que tu vas faire.