[Napalmhardcore]

I've been doing some rsearch recently and have noticed something. When Googling the terms listed in the title I am greeted with many articles intended to clear up confusion newcomers may have about what the differences are. There is one problem however. It seems that everyone seems to have their own definition of what each is.
 
Canalphones seems to have the most consistent definition, though this is a much less frequently used term. Earbuds and earphones definitions seem to be different from user to user and article to article. Before the type of device that has exchangeable eartips came along/became popular, the term earphone and earbud described the type that sits in your outer ear but does not insert into your ear canal. IEMs seems to have become a generic term rather than one reserved for devices intended for professional stage use or critical listening applications. It is the equivalent of people referring to hi-fi speakers as monitors.
 
Up until now, my previous earphones with exchangeable tips have been shallow fitting types that form their seal at the outer part of the ear canal. My most recent purchase is the RHA T20i Black. This type has longer stalks and inserts much further into my ear than the Sennheiser CX2.00G (which I bought recently) does for example. I would personally categorise these T20i and the CX 2,00G as a different type of earphone.
 
I can honestly understand why there is the occasional Amazon review where people report terrible sound from a product that gets praise from the majority. If I tried to wear the RHA T20i in the same fashion as my previous (I'll call them) in ears, I'd think they sounded terrible for the price. Having done plenty of research, I realised that I didn't have the correct fit and so inserted them deeper. This experience was extremely unfamiliar and I found it slightly worrying just how deep these sat in my ear canals, but suddenly the sound was as people had described (within the limits of subjectivity of course).
 
This post has been part rant, but I would also like to know if there is a consensus amongst Head-Fi members as to what each type of in ear should be referred to as.

 

[serman005]

  I've been doing some rsearch recently and have noticed something. When Googling the terms listed in the title I am greeted with many articles intended to clear up confusion newcomers may have about what the differences are. There is one problem however. It seems that everyone seems to have their own definition of what each is.
 
Canalphones seems to have the most consistent definition, though this is a much less frequently used term. Earbuds and earphones definitions seem to be different from user to user and article to article. Before the type of device that has exchangeable eartips came along/became popular, the term earphone and earbud described the type that sits in your outer ear but does not insert into your ear canal. IEMs seems to have become a generic term rather than one reserved for devices intended for professional stage use or critical listening applications. It is the equivalent of people referring to hi-fi speakers as monitors.
 
Up until now, my previous earphones with exchangeable tips have been shallow fitting types that form their seal at the outer part of the ear canal. My most recent purchase is the RHA T20i Black. This type has longer stalks and inserts much further into my ear than the Sennheiser CX2.00G (which I bought recently) does for example. I would personally categorise these T20i and the CX 2,00G as a different type of earphone.
 
I can honestly understand why there is the occasional Amazon review where people report terrible sound from a product that gets praise from the majority. If I tried to wear the RHA T20i in the same fashion as my previous (I'll call them) in ears, I'd think they sounded terrible for the price. Having done plenty of research, I realised that I didn't have the correct fit and so inserted them deeper. This experience was extremely unfamiliar and I found it slightly worrying just how deep these sat in my ear canals, but suddenly the sound was as people had described (within the limits of subjectivity of course).
 
This post has been part rant, but I would also like to know if there is a consensus amongst Head-Fi members as to what each type of in ear should be referred to as.

No idea if there is consensus but here is how I see it:
 
earbud--an extremely commonly misapplied term. In actuality, an earbud is a type of phone that sits at the external auditory canal opening, dangling. It is not sitting in the canal. Many people new to head-fi use the term earbud to describe in-ear phones. This is a misapplication of the term. An earbud sits at the canal opening, it does not insert down into the canal.
 
in-ear monitor--a phone/monitor that sits in a position inserted into the canal some distance (different for each IEM). In-ear, therefore. IEM is a less commonly misused term, in my experience. An IEM May be custom or universal.
 
earphone--a generic term that describes both in-ear monitors and earbuds, in much the way 'headphone' describes both on- and over-ear headphones.
 
canalphone--another term for a subtype of IEM--the device sits inserted more deeply down in the canal some distance from the opening. It is designed to block ambient sound.
 
 
So, in my world, each term does have a specific meaning and application. They get confused because people so commonly misuse the terms, jumbling them together.
 
I am sure others will offer a different understanding, but this is mine. FWIW. YMMV, of course.

 

[Napalmhardcore]

  No idea if there is consensus but here is how I see it:
 
earbud--an extremely commonly misapplied term. In actuality, an earbud is a type of phone that sits at the external auditory canal opening, dangling. It is not sitting in the canal. Many people new to head-fi use the term earbud to describe in-ear phones. This is a misapplication of the term. An earbud sits at the canal opening, it does not insert down into the canal.
 
in-ear monitor--a phone/monitor that sits in a position inserted into the canal some distance (different for each IEM). In-ear, therefore. IEM is a less commonly misused term, in my experience. An IEM May be custom or universal.
 
earphone--a generic term that describes both in-ear monitors and earbuds, in much the way 'headphone' describes both on- and over-ear headphones.
 
canalphone--another term for a subtype of IEM--the device sits inserted more deeply down in the canal some distance from the opening. It is designed to block ambient sound.
 
 
So, in my world, each term does have a specific meaning and application. They get confused because people so commonly misuse the terms, jumbling them together.
 
I am sure others will offer a different understanding, but this is mine. FWIW. YMMV, of course.

I understand that IEM is a term that has taken on the meaning that you described. In the world of speakers, monitors usually either refer to stage monitors (for monitoring the musician's performance) or to speakers designed for accurate monitoring of what is being recorded by the studio engineer. Yes, there is variation within the world of professional studio monitors, but one that deviates from accuracy is generally considered less capable even if it sounds good. For this reason, I personally don't like the use of the term IEM, which makes it slightly annoying that it is seemingly the most used term nowadays for any in ear.
 
I'd like it if there was a separate term for shallow fit and deep fit 'phones that seal with the use of exchangeable tips. It would make shopping easier and would potentially lead to less reviews from people wearing them incorrectly.
 
Personally I think earphones works well as a blanket term for anything that isn't a headphone.
 
The term earbuds, as you say, has been so commonly misapplied but I'd agree upon that term as it was around before IEMs (as they're commonly called) were mainstream.
 
Canalphones along with mention of whether they are deep fitting or shallow makes sense for what is now referred to as IEMs. I just don't see the name catching on any time soon.

 

[serman005]

 
I understand that IEM is a term that has taken on the meaning that you described. In the world of speakers, monitors usually either refer to stage monitors (for monitoring the musician's performance) or to speakers designed for accurate monitoring of what is being recorded by the studio engineer. Yes, there is variation within the world of professional studio monitors, but one that deviates from accuracy is generally considered less capable even if it sounds good. For this reason, I personally don't like the use of the term IEM, which makes it slightly annoying that it is seemingly the most used term nowadays for any in ear.
 
I'd like it if there was a separate term for shallow fit and deep fit 'phones that seal with the use of exchangeable tips. It would make shopping easier and would potentially lead to less reviews from people wearing them incorrectly.
 
Personally I think earphones works well as a blanket term for anything that isn't a headphone.
 
The term earbuds, as you say, has been so commonly misapplied but I'd agree upon that term as it was around before IEMs (as they're commonly called) were mainstream.
 
Canalphones along with mention of whether they are deep fitting or shallow makes sense for what is now referred to as IEMs. I just don't see the name catching on any time soon.

I can see what you mean about people from the pro audio world and their use of the word 'monitor.' It just makes things very confusing, as you correctly identify, since the term ;IEM' is so widespread in use to simply describe in-ear phones of various sorts. Maybe what needs to happen is for a panel of sage gurus to get together and lay out formal definitions for each of these terms. Something like that might help clarify things somewhat. Thanks for bringing the topic up.

 

[Napalmhardcore]

  Maybe what needs to happen is for a panel of sage gurus to get together and lay out formal definitions for each of these terms. Something like that might help clarify things somewhat. Thanks for bringing the topic up.

I'd love for that to happen. Sage gurus unite! Sounds like something from a comic book.