esanthosh
Skilled
Introduction:
I normally would have kept the impression to Random IEM rants thread. But, considering that this one is in some ways special, I thought I will post a dedicated thread. First off, SE53X have been high on my "want to hear" list for the last couple of years. Secondly, it's not every day that somebody trusts enough to send you a $450+ IEM. Also considering that there are not many SE53X impressions around, I thought I will post it in a separate thread.
I got a few tips, the Shure earphone case and the SE535 (Clear version) last week. But, I had not been able to spend any time with them. Now that I need to send them back within a couple of days, I will try to squeeze in as much as time can accommodate.
External Factors
Build quality:
The build quality is good at the outset. The thick and clear stock cable feels very well built from the well strain relieved plug to Y-split to the connector. The housings are well built especially compared to something like a SM3, which looks like a piece of cheap plastic. But, despite what external appearances say, the IEMs were sent with a warning note that frequent tip changes could break the nozzles. Given that Shure is known for screwing up big time with SE530 and then in choosing SE215's connectors, I took that warning to heart. Tip changing only needs a slow twisting motion to insert and remove the tips, but I was even more careful when doing that. Since I could find a decent fit with one of my own extra Shure Olives, I did not feel the need to use the tri-flanges or silicon tips that were sent along with them. But, I am not a big fan of the cable's connectors which allow free swirling motion of the housings. When those housings swing freely, I get a little tense until I manage to stick those things into my ear.
Fit:
Ah! Brings back memories of my initial struggle with RE-252's gummy housings. I hate memory wires - never liked them with MEE M6. SE535 does little to change that attitude. There are times during the past couple of days when I wanted to hulk up on those memory wires and do the surgery. But these are not mine and that sent the little green guy back inside. The issue is that I need lot of twist and turns to get the fit right, which is much easier to do with a normal cabled SM3. But with the presence of SE535's memory wire, it's kind of annoying. Isn't it called "memory" wire because it retains the shape (as in the last time I managed to get a proper fit)? Yes! but it doesn't work out that well in practice. I can get a good fit with my left ear each time, but right ear required lot more effort to get the IEM to fit and get a good seal. If it was mine, I'd have bought an after-market cable without memory wire or would have removed the memory wire for sure.
Comfort:
SE535 offers "comfort" - may be for others. But, I can barely survive a couple of hours as the housing starts to put pressure on my outer ear. Due to the angle of insertion and depth I require to get a proper seal (so that bass is not missed), it becomes uncomfortable both on the right outer ear as well as my inner ear. I do not have this kind of discomfort with SM3.
Microphonics:
None. Over the ear fit.
Isolation:
Very Good. May be among the better ones in this regard.
Measurements
Link to Inner Fidelity Measurements: http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/ShureSE535.pdf
Golden Ears Measurements: Earphone Review - SHURE SE535
Frequency Response with Shure Olives
Sound Signature
SE535 is extremely sensitive. How much? If I plug them into Clip+ and then turn Clip+ on, it picks up a slight hiss. To my memory, not many IEMs are as sensitive as this. Regarding the other sensitivity (as in loudness), I can comfortably use them at -37dB for most recordings on my RB-ed Clip+ and I can go much lower depending on the recording.
Overall, I'd describe SE535 as a balanced IEM with a strong mid focus. It is not a typical BA sound, but a very flavored sound. At times, it reminds me of dynamic drivers than a BA.
Now in case you are wondering why I spent a long time ranting about fit, it is that important for SE535. With a wrong fit - a slight change in angle of insertion or depth, SE535 can sound far worse than RE272 in bass. The bass of SE535 extends very well, does not have a mid-bass bump, slightly thicker sounding and hardly comes in the way of the mid range. You can even 'feel' the bass a little in certain tracks. With most recordings, you do not feel you are missing bass or the extension and it is enjoyable with bassy tracks. But, it's mostly just information - mere text! A photo in place of a 1000 words gives more information and puts you there (No! I am NOT talking about my reviews). That is the problem with SE535's bass. It is not absent, but it does not connect with impact, texture or bass detail. It merely is.
Moving on to mid range, it is the focus of the presentation. It is clear, smooth, warm, liquid, forward and really engaging. If one ever wanted to buy a SE53X, it must be for the mid range. While it is forward, it is not too forward or in your face. It leaves a little distance between the listener and itself. That and it's relative clarity are factors where it scores over SM3. It is thick, but not overly so. With the right tracks, I can listen to SE535 all day.
But, over a full session, my feeling with the Shure mids fluctuates. For the first half an hour, I am just listening and loving the mid range. There are times I wonder how anyone can say that RE262 can beat this mid range (while trying to remember how RE262 sounded). There are certain tracks with which SE535 does things much more to my liking than (m)any other IEM(s). On the flip side, there would be a few familiar tracks where I missed a little thing here or there compared to my memory of how it sounded with EX-1000. Towards the end of the session, a long 4-5 hour session, I feel a little let down and start wondering what's wrong. It lacks a bit of transparency and while it is well detailed, but does miss tiny nuances, which might explain my thoughts comparing it to EX-1000. Secondly, while the mid range is liquid, it is also leaning a little towards neutral more than say what little I remember of RE262, which may be wearing me out at the end.
Vocals are really good with the SE535, but it does not hide sibilance in tracks completely. Sibilance never hurts unless you have a bad fit (hot treble would be another factor that determines if you have a bad fit) though.
Treble is rolled off, but not overly recessed as I suspected (unlike how I remember RE262). Though it is a bit overshadowed by the mid range, it does have decent amount of detail, energy and quantity. It also carries a tiny bit of sparkle depending on the recording. Like bass, treble won't be missed, though it is not the best or the most engaging of presentations. But, I'd say that treble is a slight bit better suited for my tastes than the bass presentation.
Sound stage of SE535 has good width and depth. The imaging is good, but separation is only about decent. There is no sense of expanse or space in the sound stage. While it does not sound congested, it sounds rather intimate and closed in. That is mostly because SE535 positions things close together than separate them in distinct layers. It is not as airy as FX700 and even though SM3 is weird with imaging, it does have better separation.
Comparison to Earsonics SM3 and Final Audio Design FI-BA-SB
Is there any reason for going with these three? Because, they all have a bit of emphasis on their mid range, but they each have a very unique way of doing it. None of them are the best at either end, especially in treble. Actually, SE530, SM3 and Piano Forte VIII/IX should make for a better comparison, but getting the other two is well beyond my means (at least for) now.
Price wise, these three IEMs are not in the affordable range at all. SM3 and SB are in the $250-350 range and SE535 is past $400. Among the three, SE535 has the thickest cable, SM3 has the braided cable and I personally don't find fault with the flat cable of SB. None of them are perfect though - SE535 has the memory wire, SM3 has the cord cinch way up, SB neither has a cord cinch nor a strain relief where it enters the housing. Moving on to the housing, I have a slight affinity towards the shiny housing of SB. Though I mean no harm, I sometimes am curious about dropping the SB housings on the other two and see what happens. SE535 appears to have a stronger housing than SM3, but with Shure, I can never be shure about the appearance of strength. When it comes to identifying left and right for a predominantly night user, SB's raised dot on the strain relief is much easier to find in the dark. SM3's blue and red coloring comes next, but SE535's subtle blue and red dot on the end of the housing (or insertion point in the cable) is slightly difficult to find.
In terms of ease of fit, SB's bullet style housing is the easiest. SM3 is not difficult either as it requires just a fit and a twist. SE535 personally is hard for me to fit. Strangely, I have slight trouble fitting SM3's left ear piece and have much more trouble with SE535's right - talk about differently shaped ear canals. Comfort factor for me follows the same order as ease of fit - SB, SM3 and SE535. Isolation wise, SE535 leads the pack with SM3 and SB not falling too far behind. Volume wise, SB and SE535 fall close to each other, whereas I require a few more notches for SM3.
I always believe that the best way to settle any confusion is to stick to the mantra - "When in doubt, A:B". Two days of continuous SE535 dose had me thinking whether it would be a serious threat to SM3. Before going into today's comparison, I thought that SE535 would beat SM3 in mid range due to better clarity and would beat SB hands down. I also thought that may be, I'd join the Shure fan club. Alas! If only thoughts translate into reality...
In overall terms, SE535 is the only one which is balanced. The other two are well colored.
In terms of bass, SE535 has the best extension, but lacks in terms of texture. SM3 has a bit more mid/upper bass and good texture along with decent impact, but is rolled off at the lowest lows. But they both have a softer presentation. SB is slightly on the aggressive side and goes for impact, but it's thickness overclouds whatever it is trying to do. At times in certain tracks, the bass feels muddy next to the other two. But on the positive side, it has the extension that SM3 lacks. Among the three, SM3 is the best with bass.
With mid range, SE535 is not surprisingly the only one anywhere close to 'neutral'. SM3's lower mid range takes precedence over the upper mid range, while SB has a slight tilt towards the upper mid range. In terms of mid range clarity, SM3 falls behind SE535, but SB makes SE535 a bit veiled. Quite surprisingly though, both SM3 and SB are quite forward in the mid range next to SE535. In terms of coloration, SM3 is darker, while SE535 is warm, but SB is even warmer than 535. I'd say while SM3 is 'colored' due to it's frequency response, SB is purposely tuned to be unapologetically colored. While SE535 can be termed neutral in terms of presentation, SM3 is cooler & softer while SB is a bit more aggressive in it's approach.
With vocals, SE535 is good, really good. But, SM3 seems to have a slightly better effect of picking out the singer apart from the track and putting him/her at the center of attention. SB works depending on the track. When it comes to vocal sibilance, SM3 is the only one masking it. While SE535 just does not make an effort to hide it, SB highlights it a bit more due to it's energetic, upfront presentation.
When it comes to treble, much like bass, none of them make the cut. SE535 is the only one where the treble is a bit more balanced with the mid range. Due to a slight lower treble bump, it also has some energy and clear, apparent details. SB has a little more recessed treble. But, it falls more by the way side since the thicker treble notes seem to smash into each other. Though it has good quantity and bit more energy than the other two, the quality is not quite there. We know about descriptions like 'recessed' with treble. But, if I have to describe SM3's treble it would be 'hidden'. I needed either more volume and/or more attention to grasp SM3's treble from under it's mid range. When I did 'catch' it, it had good detail, but stayed very laid-back and smooth. I'd say SE535 was the easiest to 'pick' treble with, though SM3 was the cleanest.
In terms of pure sound stage size, SM3 has the most rounded of stages. SE535 still has the SB beat in terms of size. But, presentation is everything. SM3 has the best separation among the three. SB, though working within a smaller space, has better separation than SE535. One aspect where SE535 lost most of it's points today is it's irritant blended presentation. Though weird in terms of positioning, SM3 has a better spaced out, filled sound stage than the other two. It enabled me to pick out details better. It also has slightly better transparency than the Shure or the FAD. It might sound like a center speaker encircled by legion of surround speakers rather than stereo music, but it still wins the presentation aspect by a margin. This one aspect rekindled my memories of why I ended up liking SM3.
When it comes to slower, acoustic tracks with minimal instrumentation, SE535 is the most engaging. On the other hand, when you want to rock out, SB hands you over that air guitar. When it comes to Classical music, especially larger orchestras, SB is the only one which makes the cut. But, SB has this weird nature. When the track fits it's tuning, it is quite unbeatable. SB may be mildly aggressive for some, but what to say - I have a weakness for the weird! SM3 is slightly weird in that every form of music from Norah Jones to Nu Metal, Dance music to Death metal is presented the same way. But to me, that makes for an easy listening through an entire library, though I understand it might hurt the sentiments of many. I liked either of them over SE535 for most of the tracks.
On an overall basis, I liked SM3 the most, followed by SB with SE535 lagging behind, largely because I found SE535 to be the least special of the three. I would not say that SE535 looked out of place though. They sounded more like something from a similar SQ tier than something wide apart.
Conclusion:
Shure SE535 is very much near the top-tier, but not quite there for me. It's liquid mid range is an experience I am not disappointed by. It was however different from my original expectations, possibly because I've heard many say SE530 and SE535 sound the 'same' and SE530 and RE262 are 'similar'. Personally, after the honeymoon period passed, I did not fancy buying one for myself. If any, I found myself gravitating towards getting one of those costlier FADs one day (if I have the means and the mood, of course). If anything, I am intrigued by their unconventional approach to design and tuning.
Now, is it "value for money"? Is it worth paying $400+ for SE535? Let's tackle these questions separately.
VFM is something which is close to a benchmark at that particular point of time at that price point. Personally, I don't see any value in SE535 considering that you can get a better sound signature for lot less (many of the IEMs ranked above SE535 in my list cost much less). So, that's not it.
Then, if you are buying SE535, you are buying it for a reason - probably the brand name or the mid range. Is it worth? That would be an individual decision. If you like it very, very much, it's worth all that money. For example, someone can accept 5% better SQ or something with more even performance ironing out issues or some special kind of tuning for even 2X the price (or say $100-300 more). Personally, SE535 is not worth to me even if I had that kind of generous acceptance of law of diminishing returns. For my tastes and preferences, SE535 was a nice change, something different to try out for a week. But, that is what it was... a nice change to try something from a brand I've never heard so far. Now, Westone remains the one of those leading brands I've not heard a single IEM from. At least, I can strike Shure off that list happily with wallet still intact!
IMO, who should buy?
I normally would have kept the impression to Random IEM rants thread. But, considering that this one is in some ways special, I thought I will post a dedicated thread. First off, SE53X have been high on my "want to hear" list for the last couple of years. Secondly, it's not every day that somebody trusts enough to send you a $450+ IEM. Also considering that there are not many SE53X impressions around, I thought I will post it in a separate thread.
I got a few tips, the Shure earphone case and the SE535 (Clear version) last week. But, I had not been able to spend any time with them. Now that I need to send them back within a couple of days, I will try to squeeze in as much as time can accommodate.
External Factors
Build quality:
The build quality is good at the outset. The thick and clear stock cable feels very well built from the well strain relieved plug to Y-split to the connector. The housings are well built especially compared to something like a SM3, which looks like a piece of cheap plastic. But, despite what external appearances say, the IEMs were sent with a warning note that frequent tip changes could break the nozzles. Given that Shure is known for screwing up big time with SE530 and then in choosing SE215's connectors, I took that warning to heart. Tip changing only needs a slow twisting motion to insert and remove the tips, but I was even more careful when doing that. Since I could find a decent fit with one of my own extra Shure Olives, I did not feel the need to use the tri-flanges or silicon tips that were sent along with them. But, I am not a big fan of the cable's connectors which allow free swirling motion of the housings. When those housings swing freely, I get a little tense until I manage to stick those things into my ear.
Fit:
Ah! Brings back memories of my initial struggle with RE-252's gummy housings. I hate memory wires - never liked them with MEE M6. SE535 does little to change that attitude. There are times during the past couple of days when I wanted to hulk up on those memory wires and do the surgery. But these are not mine and that sent the little green guy back inside. The issue is that I need lot of twist and turns to get the fit right, which is much easier to do with a normal cabled SM3. But with the presence of SE535's memory wire, it's kind of annoying. Isn't it called "memory" wire because it retains the shape (as in the last time I managed to get a proper fit)? Yes! but it doesn't work out that well in practice. I can get a good fit with my left ear each time, but right ear required lot more effort to get the IEM to fit and get a good seal. If it was mine, I'd have bought an after-market cable without memory wire or would have removed the memory wire for sure.
Comfort:
SE535 offers "comfort" - may be for others. But, I can barely survive a couple of hours as the housing starts to put pressure on my outer ear. Due to the angle of insertion and depth I require to get a proper seal (so that bass is not missed), it becomes uncomfortable both on the right outer ear as well as my inner ear. I do not have this kind of discomfort with SM3.
Microphonics:
None. Over the ear fit.
Isolation:
Very Good. May be among the better ones in this regard.
Measurements
Link to Inner Fidelity Measurements: http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/ShureSE535.pdf
Golden Ears Measurements: Earphone Review - SHURE SE535
Frequency Response with Shure Olives
Sound Signature
SE535 is extremely sensitive. How much? If I plug them into Clip+ and then turn Clip+ on, it picks up a slight hiss. To my memory, not many IEMs are as sensitive as this. Regarding the other sensitivity (as in loudness), I can comfortably use them at -37dB for most recordings on my RB-ed Clip+ and I can go much lower depending on the recording.
Overall, I'd describe SE535 as a balanced IEM with a strong mid focus. It is not a typical BA sound, but a very flavored sound. At times, it reminds me of dynamic drivers than a BA.
Now in case you are wondering why I spent a long time ranting about fit, it is that important for SE535. With a wrong fit - a slight change in angle of insertion or depth, SE535 can sound far worse than RE272 in bass. The bass of SE535 extends very well, does not have a mid-bass bump, slightly thicker sounding and hardly comes in the way of the mid range. You can even 'feel' the bass a little in certain tracks. With most recordings, you do not feel you are missing bass or the extension and it is enjoyable with bassy tracks. But, it's mostly just information - mere text! A photo in place of a 1000 words gives more information and puts you there (No! I am NOT talking about my reviews). That is the problem with SE535's bass. It is not absent, but it does not connect with impact, texture or bass detail. It merely is.
Moving on to mid range, it is the focus of the presentation. It is clear, smooth, warm, liquid, forward and really engaging. If one ever wanted to buy a SE53X, it must be for the mid range. While it is forward, it is not too forward or in your face. It leaves a little distance between the listener and itself. That and it's relative clarity are factors where it scores over SM3. It is thick, but not overly so. With the right tracks, I can listen to SE535 all day.
But, over a full session, my feeling with the Shure mids fluctuates. For the first half an hour, I am just listening and loving the mid range. There are times I wonder how anyone can say that RE262 can beat this mid range (while trying to remember how RE262 sounded). There are certain tracks with which SE535 does things much more to my liking than (m)any other IEM(s). On the flip side, there would be a few familiar tracks where I missed a little thing here or there compared to my memory of how it sounded with EX-1000. Towards the end of the session, a long 4-5 hour session, I feel a little let down and start wondering what's wrong. It lacks a bit of transparency and while it is well detailed, but does miss tiny nuances, which might explain my thoughts comparing it to EX-1000. Secondly, while the mid range is liquid, it is also leaning a little towards neutral more than say what little I remember of RE262, which may be wearing me out at the end.
Vocals are really good with the SE535, but it does not hide sibilance in tracks completely. Sibilance never hurts unless you have a bad fit (hot treble would be another factor that determines if you have a bad fit) though.
Treble is rolled off, but not overly recessed as I suspected (unlike how I remember RE262). Though it is a bit overshadowed by the mid range, it does have decent amount of detail, energy and quantity. It also carries a tiny bit of sparkle depending on the recording. Like bass, treble won't be missed, though it is not the best or the most engaging of presentations. But, I'd say that treble is a slight bit better suited for my tastes than the bass presentation.
Sound stage of SE535 has good width and depth. The imaging is good, but separation is only about decent. There is no sense of expanse or space in the sound stage. While it does not sound congested, it sounds rather intimate and closed in. That is mostly because SE535 positions things close together than separate them in distinct layers. It is not as airy as FX700 and even though SM3 is weird with imaging, it does have better separation.
Comparison to Earsonics SM3 and Final Audio Design FI-BA-SB
Is there any reason for going with these three? Because, they all have a bit of emphasis on their mid range, but they each have a very unique way of doing it. None of them are the best at either end, especially in treble. Actually, SE530, SM3 and Piano Forte VIII/IX should make for a better comparison, but getting the other two is well beyond my means (at least for) now.
Price wise, these three IEMs are not in the affordable range at all. SM3 and SB are in the $250-350 range and SE535 is past $400. Among the three, SE535 has the thickest cable, SM3 has the braided cable and I personally don't find fault with the flat cable of SB. None of them are perfect though - SE535 has the memory wire, SM3 has the cord cinch way up, SB neither has a cord cinch nor a strain relief where it enters the housing. Moving on to the housing, I have a slight affinity towards the shiny housing of SB. Though I mean no harm, I sometimes am curious about dropping the SB housings on the other two and see what happens. SE535 appears to have a stronger housing than SM3, but with Shure, I can never be shure about the appearance of strength. When it comes to identifying left and right for a predominantly night user, SB's raised dot on the strain relief is much easier to find in the dark. SM3's blue and red coloring comes next, but SE535's subtle blue and red dot on the end of the housing (or insertion point in the cable) is slightly difficult to find.
In terms of ease of fit, SB's bullet style housing is the easiest. SM3 is not difficult either as it requires just a fit and a twist. SE535 personally is hard for me to fit. Strangely, I have slight trouble fitting SM3's left ear piece and have much more trouble with SE535's right - talk about differently shaped ear canals. Comfort factor for me follows the same order as ease of fit - SB, SM3 and SE535. Isolation wise, SE535 leads the pack with SM3 and SB not falling too far behind. Volume wise, SB and SE535 fall close to each other, whereas I require a few more notches for SM3.
I always believe that the best way to settle any confusion is to stick to the mantra - "When in doubt, A:B". Two days of continuous SE535 dose had me thinking whether it would be a serious threat to SM3. Before going into today's comparison, I thought that SE535 would beat SM3 in mid range due to better clarity and would beat SB hands down. I also thought that may be, I'd join the Shure fan club. Alas! If only thoughts translate into reality...
In overall terms, SE535 is the only one which is balanced. The other two are well colored.
In terms of bass, SE535 has the best extension, but lacks in terms of texture. SM3 has a bit more mid/upper bass and good texture along with decent impact, but is rolled off at the lowest lows. But they both have a softer presentation. SB is slightly on the aggressive side and goes for impact, but it's thickness overclouds whatever it is trying to do. At times in certain tracks, the bass feels muddy next to the other two. But on the positive side, it has the extension that SM3 lacks. Among the three, SM3 is the best with bass.
With mid range, SE535 is not surprisingly the only one anywhere close to 'neutral'. SM3's lower mid range takes precedence over the upper mid range, while SB has a slight tilt towards the upper mid range. In terms of mid range clarity, SM3 falls behind SE535, but SB makes SE535 a bit veiled. Quite surprisingly though, both SM3 and SB are quite forward in the mid range next to SE535. In terms of coloration, SM3 is darker, while SE535 is warm, but SB is even warmer than 535. I'd say while SM3 is 'colored' due to it's frequency response, SB is purposely tuned to be unapologetically colored. While SE535 can be termed neutral in terms of presentation, SM3 is cooler & softer while SB is a bit more aggressive in it's approach.
With vocals, SE535 is good, really good. But, SM3 seems to have a slightly better effect of picking out the singer apart from the track and putting him/her at the center of attention. SB works depending on the track. When it comes to vocal sibilance, SM3 is the only one masking it. While SE535 just does not make an effort to hide it, SB highlights it a bit more due to it's energetic, upfront presentation.
When it comes to treble, much like bass, none of them make the cut. SE535 is the only one where the treble is a bit more balanced with the mid range. Due to a slight lower treble bump, it also has some energy and clear, apparent details. SB has a little more recessed treble. But, it falls more by the way side since the thicker treble notes seem to smash into each other. Though it has good quantity and bit more energy than the other two, the quality is not quite there. We know about descriptions like 'recessed' with treble. But, if I have to describe SM3's treble it would be 'hidden'. I needed either more volume and/or more attention to grasp SM3's treble from under it's mid range. When I did 'catch' it, it had good detail, but stayed very laid-back and smooth. I'd say SE535 was the easiest to 'pick' treble with, though SM3 was the cleanest.
In terms of pure sound stage size, SM3 has the most rounded of stages. SE535 still has the SB beat in terms of size. But, presentation is everything. SM3 has the best separation among the three. SB, though working within a smaller space, has better separation than SE535. One aspect where SE535 lost most of it's points today is it's irritant blended presentation. Though weird in terms of positioning, SM3 has a better spaced out, filled sound stage than the other two. It enabled me to pick out details better. It also has slightly better transparency than the Shure or the FAD. It might sound like a center speaker encircled by legion of surround speakers rather than stereo music, but it still wins the presentation aspect by a margin. This one aspect rekindled my memories of why I ended up liking SM3.
When it comes to slower, acoustic tracks with minimal instrumentation, SE535 is the most engaging. On the other hand, when you want to rock out, SB hands you over that air guitar. When it comes to Classical music, especially larger orchestras, SB is the only one which makes the cut. But, SB has this weird nature. When the track fits it's tuning, it is quite unbeatable. SB may be mildly aggressive for some, but what to say - I have a weakness for the weird! SM3 is slightly weird in that every form of music from Norah Jones to Nu Metal, Dance music to Death metal is presented the same way. But to me, that makes for an easy listening through an entire library, though I understand it might hurt the sentiments of many. I liked either of them over SE535 for most of the tracks.
On an overall basis, I liked SM3 the most, followed by SB with SE535 lagging behind, largely because I found SE535 to be the least special of the three. I would not say that SE535 looked out of place though. They sounded more like something from a similar SQ tier than something wide apart.
Conclusion:
Shure SE535 is very much near the top-tier, but not quite there for me. It's liquid mid range is an experience I am not disappointed by. It was however different from my original expectations, possibly because I've heard many say SE530 and SE535 sound the 'same' and SE530 and RE262 are 'similar'. Personally, after the honeymoon period passed, I did not fancy buying one for myself. If any, I found myself gravitating towards getting one of those costlier FADs one day (if I have the means and the mood, of course). If anything, I am intrigued by their unconventional approach to design and tuning.
Now, is it "value for money"? Is it worth paying $400+ for SE535? Let's tackle these questions separately.
VFM is something which is close to a benchmark at that particular point of time at that price point. Personally, I don't see any value in SE535 considering that you can get a better sound signature for lot less (many of the IEMs ranked above SE535 in my list cost much less). So, that's not it.
Then, if you are buying SE535, you are buying it for a reason - probably the brand name or the mid range. Is it worth? That would be an individual decision. If you like it very, very much, it's worth all that money. For example, someone can accept 5% better SQ or something with more even performance ironing out issues or some special kind of tuning for even 2X the price (or say $100-300 more). Personally, SE535 is not worth to me even if I had that kind of generous acceptance of law of diminishing returns. For my tastes and preferences, SE535 was a nice change, something different to try out for a week. But, that is what it was... a nice change to try something from a brand I've never heard so far. Now, Westone remains the one of those leading brands I've not heard a single IEM from. At least, I can strike Shure off that list happily with wallet still intact!
IMO, who should buy?
- Goes without saying - the wallet size to spend upwards of 20K without affecting your life style or needs.
- You love a warm, smooth mid range. You need to immerse into the music than listen to the minutest of details.
- You do not need plenty of bass quantity.
- You do not need plenty of treble quantity or extension or brightness.
- You have an affinity for branded products and won't even look at unknown or unshure names.
- You want to secure your bike
