• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Shure SE535 Limited IEM Review

Rate this IEM:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 54 33.1%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 83 50.9%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 24 14.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 2 1.2%

  • Total voters
    163
I owned Shure 425, but I don't remember how they sounded - this was 20 years ago.

However, I remember that the comfort and the whole experience was miserable. First, they go deep into the ear canal so they are good at isolating outside noise, but then you hear all the inside noise amplified (breathing, heartbeats, footsteps, etc.) Putting them in/out for every conversation was also tedious. Changing the tips was a hassle because of the tight grip. Finally, the plastic nozzle gave out and broke, approximately 6 mounts in (to be clear, I changed the tips just a couple of times). The plastic nozzle is the weak point for all Shure IEMs (200, 400, 500). More expensive models have metal nozzles - so I didn't go back to Shure. Bought a random Sennheiser IEM (CX something) and enjoyed the music with a little bit more outside noise.
 
Hi

There is not much in this $400, Shure SE535 Limited IEM to sway a person from so many <$60 IEM from TRUTHEAR, 7 HZ, etc. Comfort could be an issue but even when you factor this in ,there are less expensive but better alternatives.


Peace.
 
There is not much in this $400, Shure SE535 Limited IEM to sway a person from so many <$60 IEM from TRUTHEAR, 7 HZ, etc. Comfort could be an issue but even when you factor this in ,there are less expensive but better alternatives.
Completely agree, and even above $400, I’m not sure there is much that would make an objective difference. Fit & comfort are extremely important for IEMs, but more expensive does not mean better ergonomics—far from it! More drivers of different technology are interesting technically (I’m a sucker for this), but have yet to translate into objectively superior IEMs.

Then one is left with the built quality, brand name & recognition, and all the subjective aspects a luxury item. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one can see through all the brand marketing BS—Shure products are expensive, but as a brand, they’re not the worse offender.
 
That is correct. There are some small filters that can be changed in the sound tube. I have the tool and the filters for the standard version somewhere, I haven't tried changing them though. I am curious how you find the sound of the 846s vs the 535s?
For me, the 846s deliver the detail of the 425s but with deep and solid bass. I do love the 846s but I suspect they've been eclipsed by other brands these days.
 
As a quick chime in - it probably has better than average passive noise reduction. This is a musician's brand - these can likely keep your ears safe while performing, which is hugely desirable. I'd guess the designers were targeting that, build quality, and sensitivity as much or more than the FR (and here, I'd also guess that there's a lot of mis-info about "flat" being the target response that musicians actually want, so Shure may be more intentional here than it appears).

As a drummer, finding something that has balances all of these and still sounds good is an incredibly frustrating endeavor. This is just more evidence to the point.
 
Talking about how IEM have evolved and which qualities can be nowadays achieved with a fraction of the past prices I just remember a moderator from a German audio forum having 10+ years ago a collection of very expensive IEMs in the order of almost 100.000€ (!), I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, not back then and even less today.
As with most things in audio that have objectively progressed with price, old collectors tend to still justify their old purchases through cognitive dissonance and/or by carving an ad hoc niche for "vintage". So I don't expect he'd be that disenchanted.
 
I've had 425s, 215s and the BT2 bluetooth receiver and they have all been terrible products.
The cables oxidise and turn green in weeks. The cases crack and the glue fails. The bluetooth receiver wouldn't work if your phone was in your back pocket. They were quickly discontinued. Never again.
 
Seems about right. A long time ago I compared these or a previous version of them to the ADDIEM's (Tyll measured the pair in question, though I it seems Stereophile has killed all the Innerfidelity links) and was surprised how lacking they were in comparison. Just not well balanced, and rather expensive to boot.

In humans, a generation is considered 25 years, in dogs about 3-4 and in IEMs around 1-2. So this IEM measures like from several generations from the past, absolutely not competetive, neither in target adherence nor in price. At least the distortion is quite low....

I'm not so sure. I've tried a couple of highly touted ones here. AKG's N5005 (Oratory measurements) is still my favorite, and they came out maybe six or seven years ago. The comfort (relatively small-diameter insert tube + Comply tips) helps too.
 
Last edited:
I've had 425s, 215s and the BT2 bluetooth receiver and they have all been terrible products.
The cables oxidise and turn green in weeks. The cases crack and the glue fails. The bluetooth receiver wouldn't work if your phone was in your back pocket. They were quickly discontinued. Never again.
True, I remember the green cables were a thing. That plus the cables themselves being proprietary was a pain in the neck for owners
 
I have aonic 5 and 3. The clearest sub-bass seemed to me with the Christmas tree tips in the aonic 5, but I don’t understand how to put it in the ear. In general, the sound seems boring. I have old westone um1 and I really liked the bass in them, it is super readable, you can hear the waveform itself. The sub-bass in the aonic 5 seems a little blurry. In general, I would describe the aonic 5 as a monitor, smooth, quite detailed, soft sound, a little smoothed, you can really listen to them for hours without getting tired. I would like to take the westone, but it was easier for me to buy the shure. As for the aonic 3, they have a very sharp, open, a little bright and readable low bass.
 
I used Shure 215/315's for years as monitoring IEMs for live playing. And I've tried some of the more expensive models too.

They are not pleasant to listen in a HIFI-sense. But they offer good comfort for most people, sufficient isolation for very loud environments and midrange to hear what is happening on stage. That's where the information for staying in tune basically is.

Too much bass in the IEM is a disaster. If it is out of phase with the sound from the gazillion watts of subwoofer under the stage, it just cancels out. If it is IN phase, your head will explode.

And they are reliable. I am not going to call them waterproof, but they work for years on the road, they just turn yellow from the sweat.
 
I used Shure 215/315's for years as monitoring IEMs for live playing. And I've tried some of the more expensive models too.

They are not pleasant to listen in a HIFI-sense. But they offer good comfort for most people, sufficient isolation for very loud environments and midrange to hear what is happening on stage. That's where the information for staying in tune basically is.

Too much bass in the IEM is a disaster. If it is out of phase with the sound from the gazillion watts of subwoofer under the stage, it just cancels out. If it is IN phase, your head will explode.

And they are reliable. I am not going to call them waterproof, but they work for years on the road, they just turn yellow from the sweat.
Not being familiar with how monitoring IEMs are used: would you EQ them to get the type of feedback you need?
 
Not being familiar with how monitoring IEMs are used: would you EQ them to get the type of feedback you need?
That would depend on the level of the production. Although modern, even affordable digital gear allows quite flexible sound processing.

You could still run into limitations, but generally you can at least EQ the monitor feed as a whole.
 
That is correct. There are some small filters that can be changed in the sound tube. I have the tool and the filters for the standard version somewhere, I haven't tried changing them though. I am curious how you find the sound of the 846s vs the 535s?
The one year I went to AXPONA, the 535 was my favorite IEM I heard that day. I found the 846 too bright. I ended up purchasing the 215 and have been happy with them after replacing the tips and the cable.
 
Back
Top Bottom