Shure SE846: A New In-Ear Flagship From Shure. Finally! (Impressions p26-28)
May 11, 2013 at 9:46 PM Post #481 of 3,218
Quote:
 
19 out of 20 people on headfi say that they need an amp to properly drive whatever they are listening through. Personally, I think, my SE535 does great from an ipod classic. I sold my C5 and pocketed the $150. I just couldn't hear an improvement, though there was a difference. 

I think most of us prefer not to use an amp. I have had a few to check out but nothing wacky and used a Fiio LOD. The no required amp consideration is part of my IEM selection process and will again be with my next DAP. My IEMs are a benign, nonreactive 28 ohms. The new Shure is 9 ohms with a normal network besides the acoustic woofer low pass. Seems an odd choice for a ground up design and seemingly aimed at <1 ohm amplification. I also thought the 530 was fine sans amp.
 
May 11, 2013 at 9:54 PM Post #482 of 3,218
Guys, acoustic low-pass is the norm for multi-BA setups. BAs are extremely sensitive to inductive noise, so a typical low-pass is very difficult to implement. That's why you see that low drivers always have fairly heavy acoustic dampers in front of them. However, that's never enough to create a true <100 Hz low pass. That's where the metal plates of the 846 are an innovation.
 
May 11, 2013 at 9:58 PM Post #483 of 3,218
Quote:
Guys, acoustic low-pass is the norm for multi-BA setups. BAs are extremely sensitive to inductive noise, so a typical low-pass is very difficult to implement. That's why you see that low drivers always have fairly heavy acoustic dampers in front of them. However, that's never enough to create a true <100 Hz low pass. That's where the metal plates of the 846 are an innovation.

 
tomscy2000,
 
Could you please translate that into English?
 
May 11, 2013 at 10:03 PM Post #485 of 3,218
Quote:
tomscy2000,
 
Could you please translate that into English?

 
The Shure is cool.
wink.gif

 
Quote:
  Yes I do know but this is kind of unique. Somewhat similar to the 3 dynamic driver JVCs bass loading without the Frankenstein dimensions..

 
I was just addressing peoples' posts in general, not to you?
 
May 11, 2013 at 10:08 PM Post #487 of 3,218
tomscy2000,

Could you please translate that into English?


The stainless still nozzles have a propensity to withstand oxidization with the extruded decombopulator faceplates. With older IEM's the armature flywheel gramus would impede the circumferential flow of the dynaflow creating an unequal bandwidths within the parameters of the specified frequency range. Beyond that, these IEM's should sound really really good!
 
May 11, 2013 at 10:23 PM Post #490 of 3,218
The stainless still nozzles have a propensity to withstand oxidization with the extruded decombopulator faceplates. With older IEM's the armature flywheel gramus would impede the circumferential flow of the dynaflow creating an unequal bandwidths within the parameters of the specified frequency range. Beyond that, these IEM's should sound really really good!


Outstanding!
 
May 11, 2013 at 10:25 PM Post #491 of 3,218
Quote:
Guys, acoustic low-pass is the norm for multi-BA setups. BAs are extremely sensitive to inductive noise, so a typical low-pass is very difficult to implement. That's why you see that low drivers always have fairly heavy acoustic dampers in front of them. However, that's never enough to create a true <100 Hz low pass. That's where the metal plates of the 846 are an innovation.

Thank you for the explanation, I have been wondering about this...
 
May 11, 2013 at 10:31 PM Post #492 of 3,218
Quote:
The stainless still nozzles have a propensity to withstand oxidization with the extruded decombopulator faceplates. With older IEM's the armature flywheel gramus would impede the circumferential flow of the dynaflow creating an unequal bandwidths within the parameters of the specified frequency range. Beyond that, these IEM's should sound really really good!

 
I seriously was trying to make sense out the sentences. "decombopulator", was difficult to diggest, but I moved on. By the time I reached "circumferential flow of the dynaflow", I said, hey, isn't he being facetious a bit? I am such an engineer :wink:.
 
May 12, 2013 at 12:33 AM Post #493 of 3,218
My first thought is "Wow that's alot!"  Then again, if these new shures SQ can beat other $1,000 universal iems (1plus2, etc), then they have just won the game.  One thing I know they got right though, is the changable filters.  Once again, if its SQ meets the 1k universal competition, then it's just another 1k universal to think about.  I can't really get mad at the price if I think about it that way.
 
I don't like the cheap plastic shell, I've got tons of bad experiences with plastics made in china.  I never liked the westone shells either, they just look plain and ugly, yet they did pretty well. 
 
Now the real question is:  Did I make a mistake buying the JH16 pros?  I'm secretly hoping the new shure 846's will crash and burn! MWUHAHAHAHA!! 
 
What'll be really interesting though, if they combined shures new 'true subwoofer' technology with JH Audio's 'FP' technology! 
 
May 12, 2013 at 1:11 AM Post #494 of 3,218
Quote:
The stainless still nozzles have a propensity to withstand oxidization with the extruded decombopulator faceplates. With older IEM's the armature flywheel gramus would impede the circumferential flow of the dynaflow creating an unequal bandwidths within the parameters of the specified frequency range. Beyond that, these IEM's should sound really really good!

 
I find it incredibly endearing how every (real) word in your post is spelt correctly except 'steel'.
 
Someone should make a headphone amplifier with a flywheel instead of a battery. *nod nod*
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top