Shure KSE1500 Review – A Revolutionary Approach In Its Class

3.2 Sound impression: How does it stack against the competition?

What a difference a day makes and I am not talking about the burn in phenomena (which to me had no effect on KSE1500) but more along the line of how my perception of this device changed in a matter of using it for almost a day. To be more precise around 8 hours of listening time is where I realised KSE1500 is a truly revolutionary product, there is that word again.
I remember listening to this IEM for the first time when they just arrived and with the first few track I truly was craving for that warmer sound or a little more treble detail but something about the ambience kept me wanting to keep on listening. The ambience presentation reminded me of the few headphone that i always loved to have, the HD800 and SR009.

The first word that comes to my mind when listen to the KSE1500 setup, regardless of the source I am using is how transparent the sound is. KSE1500 transparency comes in two folds, first is its ability to be transparent of the analog signal that is feeding its analog input and second it is transparent of the files mastering/mixing. Whether this is a good or a bad thing will be proven over time and in large to the personal preference of the individual listening but the sound that comes out of KSE1500 is rich in detail.

Detailing of a sound normally described in two manners:

• Macro-detail: Normally deals with sound reproduction as a whole, involving with imaging and in general the spatial presentation of sound.
• Micro-detail: The small nuance in sound, such as a faint cough of a member of audience in a live recording, it relates to focusing of sound, that is ‘the ability to hear the brief moments of silence between the musical impulses in reproduced sound.’

To me the macro-detail of KSE1500 is going to fall in the realm of inner-ear monitors (IEM), that is it will not be able to have an airy sound as something like the AKG K812 however that is not to say that it will not be able to present spatial cues. To my ears the instrument placement of KSE1500 is among the best I have heard in both the headphone and IEM world. It is able to best the closed back headphone I have heard, T5p, LCD XC, TH900 or at least be as equally good if not better. It is able to give enough room, or ‘air’ between each instrument in a larger symphony works to keep the sound open, which can be problem for almost all IEM, in particular the one that completely design to seal inside the ear canal.

KSE1500 is capable of presenting the micro-detail like nothing I own before. Some might consider this presentation as a little excessive, excessive to the point that they might consider it analytical. Now my definition of analytical is something that is treble emphasised with sacrifice to lower-end detail. However as I found out in the course of writing this review my definition of analytical based on the current convention is incorrect as according to the general definition of the term analytical refer to an over-excess of detail.

To me this makes no sense, how can you have an over-excess of detail? Detail is detail, if it is present in the sound track it should be heard.
I find the level of detail that KSE1500  easy to the ears and my brain, it is like giving more data to my brain to reduce its guessing game, I feel much less fatigue when I listen to KSE1500 compared to all the IEM I mentioned above.

If I was to focus more on the strength of KSE1500 after its ability to extract and renders a natural ambiance of the music the other strength of it is in the bass quality and speed. According to Dr Toole during the loud speakers testing the general bass production results in 30% of the final score of how a listener rates a speaker. Bass reproduction can make or break a product. It is the slower frequency of the sound, take longer to get to the ear and it has a longer impact on our senses, both aurally and physically.

To me KSE1500 has the bass quality of a dynamic driver with the speed of a balance armature driver with zero loss in coherency.

In order to perhaps produce a better idea of how KSE1500 is I am going to now compare it to the IEM listed perviously using the test tracks mentioned earlier

KSE1500 vs FAD VI:
I choice FAD VI as to me this is truly an IEM that will sound good out of anything. It has a very nicely midrange oriented sound with a delicate yet present treble that is never fatiguing. However it is heavily coloured and it distorted so easily in the music that seems to push the treble louder than usual. This IEM will make the KSE sound lean.

Comparing the KSE to FAD VI the obvious thing that stand out is how little micro-detail is presented in FAD VI. The VI is about the macro-detail and the human vocal, mostly suitable for vocal jazz and recording of similar nature.

Once someone listen to KSE and transition to the FAD VI and its lack of micro detail can create ear fatigue rather easily.

KSE1500 vs CK100Pro:
Those who know me from the forum know I rate the CK100Pro highly. It is perhaps the most favourite balance armature that I ever listened and owned and I tried some really nice IEM much more costly. To me the treble detail of the two are similar. However where they differ and to me quiet significantly is with how they present those details. The 100Pro are much more sensitive and picky on good recording and can sound excessively bright on bad one. For instance on track 3 of the list the 42-56 second region all sounded sibilant on the 100Pro to the point of me requiring to reduce the volume way down. However with KSE I knew the female vocal is quiet energetic however the reproduction was much more tolerable.

In summary CK100pro will not be a good all rounder, KSE1500 does what 100Pro does with much more ease but on those few occasion 100pro is as capable.

KSE1500 vs EX1000:
Lets get one thing out of the way EX1000 has the best ergonomics in any IEM I have tried, period. Also soundstage wise EX1000 is much wider than KSE1500, so it should be as it has an air ventilation at the back of its housing. To me micro details are on the same level. Tracks 7 which have a very large 3D sound, excellent ambiance sound and instrument placement is rendered great on both IEM. Also the microdetails that I am familiar with on track 1, Keith Jarret Koln concert are easily audible on both IEM albeit EX1000 requires a quiet room whereas KSE1500 can do that almost anywhere.

Now where EX1000 falls behind is on faster bass. Modern music like track 5 and track 8 KSE1500 is about the only IEM which is able to give some air to the highly compressed and centre focused sound of these tracks. On EX1000 the music is just bright, piercing bright.

On track 2 the presentation of EX1000 is too forward and treble has a distorted appearance in a similar manner as of FAD VI.

In short EX-1000 requires the right music to sound perfect and with the right music it is as good as KSE1500 or even for some better due to a wider more open sound. To be more exact any solo piano presentation will do just fine with EX1000 but play some coldplay you will not be able to finish the entire album.

KSE1500 vs Kaede II:
To me Kaede II is a more matured EX1000 with more extension on on bass and treble. Arguably at times the coherency of Kaede II might feel a touch less coherent than EX1000 but in large it has a better texture and timber.

Compare to Kaede to me KSE comes across as less engaging due to the Kaedes more energetic tuning.  The same goes with the bass which might be a little mid bass elevated on the Kaede but not to a level that is unbearable.

In summary the things that shine on EX1000 becomes perfect on Kaede II. Music like track 6 sound identical on both KSE and Kaede or better say the different aren’t enough to make the listener pick one IEM over another. But music like track 4 perhaps makes the Kaede II a better choice due to the nature of its sound. Track 4 is a classical Jazz with a presentation of your typical trumpet, drums, piano mixture, all typically a treble oriented sound which favours the more energetic treble presentation of Kaede II. However when one performs at lower volume listening test to me KSE texture and balance wins over Kaede II, Kaede requires a louder volume to sound its best.

So in summary kaede II could better be suitable for those audiophile recorded albums, piano and jazz but when it comes to faster modern music, the more compressed one KSE1500 wins by a large margin. KSE wins in ergonomic, noise isolation and overall linearity and speed where as Kaede is truly a product that require a noise free place, it is not something you can plug and enjoy in a noisy environment. It is almost a lot more fragile than the KSE.

KSE1500 vs AKT8iE:
AKT8iE is the fastest dynamic driver I have tried, it does well with fast hitting bass however where it suffers is on most classical music due to its more forward sound signature. It is perhaps the most forward sounding IEM in the entire list. It does not have a particular bright frequency spot but it does come close, or tangentially close to sounding a little hot. It has great potential with most vocal, cello or small jazz ensemble but with larger more complex works it can sound a little congested. It does well with tracks 1, 2and 6 but suffers in terms of producing the micro detail as effortlessly as KSE1500. It also just like Kaede requires a louder listening in order for the T8iE to sound its best which can cause fatigue quicker than the wonderfully linear sounding KSE1500.