[HiFiChris]

  Hey Guys, I'm interested in purchasing the SE846 but I'm wondering about comfort.
 
I have pretty small ears, and the owned the SE425s a while back, and they were slightly too large for my ears.
 
Does the se846 have the same size / shape as the SE425s? If so I should probably just get customs again...

 
The SE846 is even a little larger and bulkier than the SE425, so it will likely even fit worse.

 

[moedawg140]

For everyone that is having issues with the SE846's fit and have tried a multitude of sizes-fit-most eartips but still love the sound, check out the SCS (Sensaphonics Custom Sleeves). The review thread for them is here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/723306/review-sensaphonics-custom-sleeves-in-crystal-blue-for-the-shure-se846.

Happy Holidays to everyone!

 

[Marleybob217]

   
The SE846 is even a little larger and bulkier than the SE425, so it will likely even fit worse.

Alrighty, good to know, thanks!
 
 

For everyone that is having issues with the SE846's fit and have tried a multitude of sizes-fit-most eartips but still love the sound, check out the SCS (Sensaphonics Custom Sleeves). The review thread for them is here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/723306/review-sensaphonics-custom-sleeves-in-crystal-blue-for-the-shure-se846.

Happy Holidays to everyone!

Checking them out now, thanks! Happy holidays!

 

[moedawg140]

  Alrighty, good to know, thanks!
 
 
Checking them out now, thanks! Happy holidays!

 
Awesome!  What's great about the SCS as well is that you will not have to worry about the housing size of the SE846, because if implemented correctly, the SE846 shouldn't touch your ears when fitted with the SCS.

 

[ThomasHK]

Back to the original Shure silicon tips for me. Was using Comply Ts series tips for the past couple of weeks because they block out more noise at work, but as with all foam tips they roll of the highs even more and noticeably affect the soundstage. 
 
Any recommendations other than the standard silicon tips? How do they compare to Spinfit or Westone tips?
 
Cheers!

 

[theintrospect]

Back to the original Shure silicon tips for me. Was using Comply Ts series tips for the past couple of weeks because they block
out more noise at work, but as with all foam tips they roll of the highs even more and noticeably affect the soundstage. 



Any recommendations other than the standard silicon tips? How do they compare to Spinfit or Westone tips?

Cheers!

The Westone star tips (silicone) give me the best sound (the blue ones specifically)

 

[John Culter]

  Back to the original Shure silicon tips for me. Was using Comply Ts series tips for the past couple of weeks because they block out more noise at work, but as with all foam tips they roll of the highs even more and noticeably affect the soundstage. 
 
Any recommendations other than the standard silicon tips? How do they compare to Spinfit or Westone tips?
 
Cheers!

Just for clarification - foam tips do not roll of any highs. They reveals original signature of the IEM.
You can compare it to the well treated room / studio with the foam blocks or any other absorbing material. Once foam tips are inserted in your ears, there are absolutely no reflections whatsoever.
 
With use of silicone tips or harder material in general - there starts to be reflections and some sort of resonance which results in elevated certain frequencies (mostly higher mids / lower highs).
 
Vast majority of IEM users are used to 'silicone tips sound' and they consider this as 'the base line', so when they switch to foam, they think there are rolled of highs
 
The signature of any IEM significantly changes when used with silicone tips. So in my opinion everyone doing reviews or any IEM comparison, they should refer always in first place to results with foam tips.

 

[ThomasHK]

 
Just for clarification - foam tips do not roll of any highs. They reveals original signature of the IEM.
You can compare it to the well treated room / studio with the foam blocks or any other absorbing material. Once foam tips are inserted in your ears, there are absolutely no reflections whatsoever.
 
With use of silicone tips or harder material in general - there starts to be reflections and some sort of resonance which results in elevated certain frequencies (mostly higher mids / lower highs).
 
Vast majority of IEM users are used to 'silicone tips sound' and they consider this as 'the base line', so when they switch to foam, they think there are rolled of highs
 
The signature of any IEM significantly changes when used with silicone tips. So in my opinion everyone doing reviews or any IEM comparison, they should refer always in first place to results with foam tips.

Sorry mate, not sure where you got your info, but it's simply untrue.
 
Measuring an IEM with silicon or comply results in very different responses. Typically the HF is more rolled off and some of the high frequency resonances are more damped. I'll would share some results, but unfortunately I don't have the particular coupler for HF extension yet in this new office. Some point next quarter I will. 
 
And there is no such thing as "the original signature of the IEM". Since people will be using an IEM with comply and/or silicon tips, it's the audio engineers job to make sure the response that is eventually settled on is a good middle point for both choices. 

 

[rmc]

Couple questions:
(1) Does anyone have experience with running (anywhere from 3-10 miles) with the 846's?
(2) I know they are larger than most UIEM, but would they be horrendous to run with (previously owned W3)?
(3) Also, I currently own some re-shelled JH16 FP's, would you guys say 846 is more "fun" for electronic music/hip hop?
 
Thanks!

 

[ThomasHK]

  Couple questions:
(1) Does anyone have experience with running (anywhere from 3-10 miles) with the 846's?
 
Thanks!

 
I would never go running with the 846 for sweat reasons. If you're anything like me, you sweat profusely around your ears (you don't actually sweat in your ear canal). 
Earphones for sports with high IPX ratings exist for a reason. They have Gore membranes that are hydrophobic to keep water/sweat away from the drivers.
 
But... you know, if you don't mind risking a $900 earphone breaking due to sweat that's your call to make really  

 

[John Culter]

  Sorry mate, not sure where you got your info, but it's simply untrue.
 
Measuring an IEM with silicon or comply results in very different responses. Typically the HF is more rolled off and some of the high frequency resonances are more damped. I'll would share some results, but unfortunately I don't have the particular coupler for HF extension yet in this new office. Some point next quarter I will. 
 
And there is no such thing as "the original signature of the IEM". Since people will be using an IEM with comply and/or silicon tips, it's the audio engineers job to make sure the response that is eventually settled on is a good middle point for both choices. 

I'm not specialist in the ear physiology, but I'm certainly sure some of the basic physical rules how sound travels are identical in ear and out of the ear. Can you specify what kind of measurements you have in mind?
Not really sure how can any material (which is NOT in the direct way in between the source and listener) change the sound.. Speaking of the material that wraps the space through which sound travels : the foam and well absorbing material simply does not have any reflections - sound travels without any change. But harder surfaces can cause reflections which are added to the original sound.

 

[ThomasHK]

 
I'm not specialist in the ear physiology, but I'm certainly sure some of the basic physical rules how sound travels are identical in ear and out of the ear. Can you specify what kind of measurements you have in mind?
Not really sure how can any material (which is NOT in the direct way in between the source and listener) change the sound.. Speaking of the material that wraps the space through which sound travels : the foam and well absorbing material simply does not have any reflections - sound travels without any change. But harder surfaces can cause reflections which are added to the original sound.

The easiest way (as always) to explain things is with a graph.
 
You should think of an earphone + earcanal as a piston exciting a tube which is closed at the other end by the eardrum. You get standing waves at wavelength/4, 3*wavelength/4 and 5*wavelength/4, wavelength here being the length of the earcanal ~25mm.
 

1. Black curve: assumes hard boundary (i.e. perfectly stiff eardrum)
2. Blue curve: takes into account the impedance of the eardrum (it's not stiff, of course, it has compliance and resistance)
3. Red curve: also takes into account radiation impedance of the earcanal entrance (difficult to explain succinctly, but there's also an impedance related to the opening of the earcanal)

 
These are the natural resonances that always occur in the earcanal. When you insert an earphone that will have it's own resonances (driver+housing volumes + tubing related), those resonances will combine.
 
I believe what happens when you add the foam tip at the entrance of the tube is that you're modifying the impedance of the earcanal entrace by adding more damping (i.e. acoustical resistance = the real part of acoustic impedance) and introducing more damping overall to the standing waves. So what would happen is a continuation of the trend you see from black --> blue --> red --> foam. i.e. more damped resonances and less HF extension.
 
I'm not making any of this up by the way, it can easily be seen in measurements. 
 

If you do measurements of an earphone with silicon vs. comply foam tips in a 711 coupler, the above described effects can easily be seen. That 711 coupler by the way simulates (1) earcanal and (2) eardrum impedance through a network of interconnected air volumes and tubes. 

 

[John Culter]

 

  The easiest way (as always) to explain things is with a graph.
 
You should think of an earphone + earcanal as a piston exciting a tube which is closed at the other end by the eardrum. You get standing waves at wavelength/4, 3*wavelength/4 and 5*wavelength/4, wavelength here being the length of the earcanal ~25mm.
 

1. Black curve: assumes hard boundary (i.e. perfectly stiff eardrum)
2. Blue curve: takes into account the impedance of the eardrum (it's not stiff, of course, it has compliance and resistance)
3. Red curve: also takes into account radiation impedance of the earcanal entrance (difficult to explain succinctly, but there's also an impedance related to the opening of the earcanal)

 
These are the natural resonances that always occur in the earcanal. When you insert an earphone that will have it's own resonances (driver+housing volumes + tubing related), those resonances will combine.
 
I believe what happens when you add the foam tip at the entrance of the tube is that you're modifying the impedance of the earcanal entrace by adding more damping (i.e. acoustical resistance = the real part of acoustic impedance) and introducing more damping overall to the standing waves. So what would happen is a continuation of the trend you see from black --> blue --> red --> foam. i.e. more damped resonances and less HF extension.
 
I'm not making any of this up by the way, it can easily be seen in measurements. 
 

If you do measurements of an earphone with silicon vs. comply foam tips in a 711 coupler, the above described effects can easily be seen. That 711 coupler by the way simulates (1) earcanal and (2) eardrum impedance through a network of interconnected air volumes and tubes. 

Thanks for the clarification!
 
This is exactly what my assumption was = the earcanal entrance material changes a lot. And in this particular situation my guess is : silicone = more relfections, foam = less reflections
 
I would be then interested in the comparison measurements in between:
 
no tips vs silicone tips - my guess significant difference
no tips vs foam tips - my guess minimal difference
 
Anyway I’m already for a long time interested in some accurate and more professional measurements, useful for those discussions Vibro Veritas which I own is not very accurate and calibrated. And it is very hard to get a perfect seal, so lot of results became different.
 
Can you identify what exact type of coupler and accessories (stand/ holder) is Jerry using in this short FreqPhase demonstration video? it seems very easy / practical to do measurements that way.
 
Also what software is that?
 

 
As you said 711 coupler seems a best bet in this case. What other accessories are needed? Just saw the Golden Ears are using some sort of ‘conditioning amplifier’ as well.
 
+ Can’t find anywhere any approximate pricing on the GRAS products. Some ideas? Thanks a lot!

 

[ThomasHK]

  Thanks for the clarification!
 
This is exactly what my assumption was = the earcanal entrance material changes a lot. And in this particular situation my guess is : silicone = more relfections, foam = less reflections
 
I would be then interested in the comparison measurements in between:
 
no tips vs silicone tips - my guess significant difference
no tips vs foam tips - my guess minimal difference
 
Anyway I’m already for a long time interested in some accurate and more professional measurements, useful for those discussions Vibro Veritas which I own is not very accurate and calibrated. And it is very hard to get a perfect seal, so lot of results became different.
 
Can you identify what exact type of coupler and accessories (stand/ holder) is Jerry using in this short FreqPhase demonstration video? it seems very easy / practical to do measurements that way.
 
Also what software is that?
 

 
As you said 711 coupler seems a best bet in this case. What other accessories are needed? Just saw the Golden Ears are using some sort of ‘conditioning amplifier’ as well.
 
+ Can’t find anywhere any approximate pricing on the GRAS products. Some ideas? Thanks a lot!

 
No worries, happy to help.
 
no tips vs silicone tips - my guess significant difference
no tips vs foam tips - my guess minimal difference
 
I need to do the measurements, but not sure this is what will happen. To do the measurement without tips I will use putty to keep the earphone in place and create a seal. In my experience, those measurements look nearly identical to when you use a silicon tip. Potentially a small shift in location of the peaks as it is difficult to place the earphone in the exact same spot (length of tube --> resonance freq.).
 
With regards to the video. Not sure to be honest. I don't recognize the software. It may be the coupler used in a 318 coupler (e.g. GRAS RA0038), but I can't be sure. What I do know it's not a 711 coupler, which is the standard for earphones. Whatever it is, don't forget what the guy is trying to do here. He's marketing his new freqphase "technology". And if I know anything of this guys marketing techniques it's that they're "creative". The fact that he points out the response extends past 20kHz should set of alarm bells. There are no couplers that give you any real accuracy above 13-14kHz. And god knows what the Y-scale is on that video's graph. 
 
The 711 is flawed though as it does not accurately show >10 kHz responses as there the response is dominated by a resonance in the coupler. A newer version exists with 2 more damped resonances, but I haven't tried that one (soon). A coupler exists from GRAS with a very small 0.4cc front volume which is useful for testing only HF extension, but the rest of the response cannot easily be linked to what we hear subjectively.
 
So in short, you would need bare minimum a 711 and if you can swing for it, a .4cc coupler as well.
 
With regards to the other equipment needed:
- mic preamp (the stick attached to the mic)
- signal conditioner --> the measurement microphones need a large polarization voltage (read about LEMO)
- calibrator 

 

[ark1g09]

If I could get the Martian and the se846 for the same price, which one would you recommend? My setup will be just an iPhone 7 plus and sometimes the fiio x1.

Thanks in advance!f