This animated gif is for real? Absolutely hilarious .

To give my 2cts. on the 846. While I agree with Anax that they're not going to win the resolution and clarity context of the year, it doesn't necesseraly means they should be considered as a terribly overpriced piece of junk. Maybe because I come to them from a different angle, in the sense I am not trying to replicate my home rig sound signature, I personnally enjoy very much the voicing of the 846 as it's simply foot tapping experience for all the music I listen to on the go.

Mind you, I am originally pretty happy with the house sound, I still own se315 which are very medium centric but get that bit right at least. The 846 might be too much more $$$ for the sound difference but, as a lower model shure owner, I enjoy the extension at both ends of the spectrum  while still being cohesive. I can't stand the fitears & 1+2 universals i tried for this reason: the upper mids / lower treble feels detached from the rest - maybe due to some boost to increase liveliness. The thing is these iems just did not sound natural to me / were simply annoying.

You might say the 315 is not the end of line for shure and a comparaison against the 535 would be more appropriate. I don't have much experience with these as I bought the 315 because I felt it was the sweet spot in the line at the time. More recently, I did go back and forth between the 846 and 535se using the same source (iphone 5, I haven't found a player worth the hassle to carry around just yet). In this comparison, what jumped at me was that the 846 sounded less compressed, the 535se quickly becoming harsh when increasing the volume. The 846 has this ability to draw you into the music, maybe because of the bass emphasis, but for me it's the effortless rendering that wins me over, like a good well blended multi-drivers speaker.
Here also, many think it's an heresy to use an iphone or ipod when shelling out so much money for an iem. Maybe so, it's just hard to beat the convenience (I'd rather spend the money on the transducers than some buggy UI in a bulky enclosure, and it's not that easy to find something that truly works with iems, starting with the low zout).

Last, about the filters and bass tightness. The bass was clearly much cleaner and also not so present (just the right quantity for me) when i used a pico-power instead of the iphone's output, maybe partly due to the iphone's output Z ( > 3ohms vs. probably <<1ohm for the headamp). As such, the blue (neutral) would be my go to filter if using a high quality dap or amp upstream with low Zout. The nice thing here though is
I can hift the tonal balance  back to comfortable zone using the white (bright) filter with the iphone 5 straight amp out.

As a concluding remark, I'd echo MF's words: don't dismiss entirely until you can give them a fare shake. For me, they were a welcome relief from other popular universals that somehow don't mesh with personal taste.

Happy listenings,
Arnaud

Edit: sp.

Absolutely, don't dismiss something entirely because I or anyone else find issues with it.  I never said it sucked though I do think it is a tad overpriced.  Remember, I find issues with everything and in the end it's about picking the lesser of the most important evils for you.  I have my own set of metrics that I feel best applies to how I believe is the best overall way to evaluate fidelity subjectively is using the most comprehensive and accurate way I think I can that is most analogous to my thinking on the matter.  I like to think that as people get to know how the different ears that review stuff around here listen to things, they will better relate each others opinions to their own understandings.  Some might find they hear more similarly to some and not to others or may be able to triangulate something in the middle of varied impressions.  There are no overarching absolutes, just impressionable data to be analyzed for consumption.
________

I'm hoping LFF will chime in more comprehensively on the matter as that's up his wheel house.  I can say it depends on the band, studio and other factors like end user preferences and mastering biases.  However, I find that the studio tend to do more to try and be more accurate than most live concerts that rely on electronic amplification for most of their instruments.  The typical rock or pop concert sounds like utter shit due to the sound 'engineer' mixing and basing his Eq curve on the Skullcandy or Beats headphones he's using and how he perceives how much bass and treble needs to reach the back row to get people moving so the sweat and buy more fizz and beer at the vendors.  If you have been to over 200 concerts since 1976, you must have noticed all the crap they do between bands and acts to setup the soundstage other than just moving instruments and decor around.  130-140dB of compressed wall of noise and booming bass is far from fidelity I'd say.  That is not to say studio recordings don't get butchered.  The point is the worst mastered Metallica or Oasis album is still often more accurate by a wide margin than their respective concerts.  This has nothing to do with which one finds to be more 'engaging' as their are a million factors potentially responsible.  Many of the same ones are responsible for the loudness wars which have ruined most of recent modern recorded popular music.
________

I absolutely understand that perspective Kunlun.  However, most recordings do not have the mic placed in the back row behind the lady with the big hair.  More often than not, the mics are placed much closer to the performer where very little diffusion occurs.  This is why I must confess my actual preference is for sound that most closely mimics that from the perspective of the performer (caveat being that the staging does not have me behind, under or over the performers and band).  From here, all instruments are visceral, they each have a clearly defined and unique timbre, crashes are shrill and sibilant, cymbals are sweet are round, vocals are forward and seductive/engaging, dynamics swing all the way up and down the frequency range, resolution and plankton is second to none and not lost in hair or walls.  If you close your eyes, the sound can paint a picture of the instruments in your mind.  This is certainly a preference of mine, but I feel it is often more accurate and consistent to how most good performances are mic'd, performed and recorded versus having your favorite seat up in the Loge or Mezzanine.  If one prefers to color with diffusion then you should be willing to accept reverb, echo and other noise cancellation too.  I'd only want those things if it was actually in the recording and not added by the transducer.  When I started long ago in this hobby, I confess I actually did prefer those things as being more 'natu ral' sounding even when they weren't native to the recording.  The problem is that will always get in the way when critically analyzing music or gear if it is your sole reference point.

In the real world it cannot go perfect but it is live and happening right in front of you. Mistakes can happen when they perform live and they can add and change the songs. I have been to some very very well done concerts. It is not easy when the concert has 400,000 people in Rock In Rio or at Glastonbury Festival.

In the real world it cannot go perfect but it is live and happening right in front of you.

Oh I agree, that's the experience of it.  I don't begrudge anyone looking for some coloration to capture some of that feeling in a bottle, I've done and do so myself.  However, I know it is coloration and accept that.  I just want to be honest for people that know where my point of reference is in a way they can rely upon somewhat consistently.  Hell, in a way I can rely upon consistently even.  It's too easy to fool yourself in evaluating gear without maintaining some sort of listening discipline.  Otherwise I'd end up like some spineless shill recommending everything for almost everyone who might like something for one reason or another.