[iamdone]

I believe the ety filter also shapes the sound too. Someone mentioned the tried them without the filters in and they were too harsh.

 

[lindrone]

Oh yes, I totally forgot about that... You're right, the filters in the Ety's are there for the sound filtering as well as a wax guard...

Although, given my personal experience with it (not really having to worry about the earwax.. hmm..), I'm supposing that it has more much to do with shaping the sound...

There are also people who got custom molding for the Ety's, and has to take off the filters (wax probably won't reach into it by then anyway), because the acoustic and the additional length of the custom molding pretty much requires you to take off the filter... I don't think there's any negative effect in that case.

 

[bangraman]

Etys too ugly? WTH? They're just a pair of earphones, for Christ's sake!!!!

Oh, I fully agree about the Shures looking like hearing aids. At least the Etys look like earphones.

 

[davidtoc]

Well, I went ahead and passed on the Etys. THey're just too ugly. I ordered the Shure e2c's. I would gladly have spent triple that amount for the ER-4P's if they were more attractive. If you're going to make an earphone specifically designed for portable audio players and you're going to charge $330.00 for it, it seems to make sense that you'd also design it to be attractive instead of industrial. To me the ER-4 looks like a prototype, just to demonstrate functionality, rather than a product that's ready for retail. Look at the iPod. There are mp3 players out there that are significantly cheaper with more storage and better functionality, but people are clearly willing to shell out for that snazzy iPod look and feel (myself included). Think about all the young people, college students out there with mp3 players. They want what *looks* cool, not just what sounds cool. Who's gonna say, "Dude, did you check out Mike's ugly new earphones? I'll bet they sound great!" Anyway, it's just a suggestion. I hope someone from Etymotic reads this. I'll still consider buying a pair in the future if they redesign them (Ooh, and preferably with a shorter cord. It's only 2 feet from my hip to my ear; I don't need 5 feet of cord--although I love that cable turtle thing someone posted about.) I also volunteer to do focus group testing if you give me a free pair.

hee hee.

 

[lindrone]

AMEN!!!

 

[Aloft]

Quote:

Originally posted by davidtoc If you're going to make an earphone specifically designed for portable audio players and you're going to charge $330.00 for it...

Dude, I'm the opposite. The headphones are the only visible element of roughly $1,600 of portable audio equipment. The last thing I want is some obviously expensive looking gear flagging me.

People walking around with obvious iPod headphones are just screaming, "Look, look! I'm carrying at least $500 worth of easily fenced electronic hardware!"

 

[Hiker]

Personally, when I got my Etys I didnt even consider aesthetics. I just wanted the best sounding, smallest portable headphones that were for sale at the time. Right now when I think about them, I think they are small enough to not be all that noticable. Maybe for some people its the looks that matter more than the sound. For me it is clearly the other way around. If I get a product that sound good and just happens to look pleasing as well, then I got a bonus. Just my thoughts. If you happen to value style more than the sound, then thats your decision. However, I think you are missing out.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[lindrone]

I think the point is... if any manufacturer should charge you hundreds of dollars for any headphone, they should at least make an attempt at creating something that's aesthetically pleasing...

If I had a place an order of importance, I would pick sound over looks as well... but why pick when you should be getting BOTH?! There's no reason why a $200 headphone couldn't be at least somewhat good looking... designing a good wiring scheme or a good plastic casing around a good driver is what..?.. $5?.. $15 on the manufacturing side of things?

If a company produces great drivers and great sound, I just don't get why they can't spend a extra few weeks developing a good "look" to them, which won't really change their manufacturing cost all that much in the end.

On a $20 headphone, I can sacrifice sound for aesthetics (KSC-35), on a headphone with a MSRP of $330... are you kidding me?! (yes, the market price is much lower, but market prices are much lower on all headphones, including ones with superior aesthetics)...

It's almost as if we're justifying the company for not giving us what we should be paying for...

 

[Aloft]

Quote:

Originally posted by lindrone I think the point is... if any manufacturer should charge you hundreds of dollars for any headphone, they should at least make an attempt at creating something that's aesthetically pleasing...

My question would be: Why? There are plenty of examples of things, quite expensive things, which are not aesthetically pleasing at all. They have no need to be. Look, for example, at Sony studio monitor. It is a rectangular device with a utilitarian control scheme, metal handles so it can be installed in an A/V rack, and one very smokin' high resolution screen. These monitors cost thousands of dollars. Why should they be aesthetically pleasing? They are typically installed in banks of half a dozen or more in production studios.

It really comes down to what you want in a device. There are plenty of televisions that look nice, and have really nice specs too, but they lack the high definition and esoteric controls of the Sony Monitor. If you do not need those extra features, then there are hundreds of models to choose from.

It is the same with most other things, headphones included. There are a lot of headphones that look really nice, and some of those that even sound really good too. But for the most part, companies have to choose between putting their research into design teams, or putting their research into sound. Some split it up, some like B&O put nearly all of it into design. Others, like the AKG-K1000 -- all sound no design.

Not every company can be a Sony or an Apple and afford to put a lot of money in to both (actually Apple is right on the edge. They took a bit of a risk with the iPod.) Not even these companies can do that all of the time. For what it is worth, I'd rather the money I spend on the Etys goes towards creating even better sounding headphones in the future -- not better looking headphones that sound as good or worse than what we already have.

Quote:

There's no reason why a $200 headphone couldn't be at least somewhat good looking... designing a good wiring scheme or a good plastic casing around a good driver is what..?.. $5?.. $15 on the manufacturing side of things?

First, as I said earlier in the thread, I like the way the ER4 line looks. That's my style. I like it when things look like they mean business. I would rather know that the majority of my money is going towards the sound design of that device, than the useless frills. To me, the Etys look marvelous. I guess that affirms my INTJ status.

But personal taste aside, I think you are underestimating the costs of the design aspect. There are a lot of factors that go into every component of a high quality headphone, which is why very few of them have useless bits. Even the ones that look pretty, are often thinly disguised to look pretty, but at the core there is many hours of research in the materials and the way those materials interact with the stuff around them. How would you feel about that $5 chunk of plastic if it came loose after 600 hours of usage and started rattling on 50hz tones? Cans that are truly designed to look good, and sound good with what they look like are very rare, and most often very expensive.

It isn't just the cost of the materials magically added on at fabrication time. Most of the bloated cost of good looking things is to pay for the enormous amount of time spent designing it -- and in some cases with the truly luxury items -- the cost of the materials themselves can be quite high.

Quote:

I just don't get why they can't spend a extra few weeks developing a good "look" to them,

Because truly good design takes more than a few weeks, and companies pay through the nose for very talented artistic engineers to come up with good designs. Good practical designs.

Quote:

It's almost as if we're justifying the company for not giving us what we should be paying for...

And in my opinion, that is exactly where I want my vote to be. When I spend $300 on a headphone that looks like a wire and plastic cylinder, I am telling the manufacturer, I don't care how this looks, just keep up the good work in the acoustics department.

Soundwise, whether the Ety sound is to your liking or not, I think most people will say that the value you get from these cans far exceeds the price. I mean, you see these things getting compared to headphones that are ten times their cost, in the thousands of dollars, on a regular basis.

Part of the reason why the price is so low is the unique design, I am sure, but I bet another part is because they just make a headphone, period. They don't hire a design team to come up with the next Hot Thing, because that isn't what they are about. I admire that.

 

[rt297]

The interesting thing is that Etymotic Research could do it. Take the ER-6. It looks better than both the E2 and the ER4 put together. They are cool looking, and I don't think the drivers in the ER4's could differ that much from the ER6's if at all. Personally I think that if anyone ever level matched the ER4's and ER6's, they may well be the same.

 

[davidtoc]

Aloft: I hear ya. I live in West Philly, for Pete's sake. But I have to question the logic of "high quality merchandise should look crappy so that nobody steals it." I mean, people who bought iPods are, at least in part, people who want their iPods to be seen.

Hiker: In general, I'm with you--for my home equipment. It's all about sound, not appearance. But in public (on the bus, in coffee shops and book stores, on Amtrak, walking to work in the morning) I'm just not willing to look stupid. And when you think about it, you probably agree with me. There is a degree of ugliness you wouldn't put up with either, no matter how good the sound. Would you walk down the streets with earphones which covered half your head, were lined with fur, were painted neon orange and electric blue with two peacock feathers sticking off the sides even if they sounded fantastic? I'm guessing not (but of course I can't be sure since I don't know you.)

lindrone: you are so right about the design. There are all sorts of really cheap, crappy headphones out there that look as cool as anything I've ever seen. Clearly design does not add much to cost for these babies. There's not much excuse for something not to look good these days. And absolutely, the company needs to give US a reason to buy their product. And Etymotic just hasn't done that for me. (But hopefully they will soon, because I really want a pair!)

I don't put looks above sound--there's a certain balance to be met, however, and the higher the price i pay, the less I'm willing to compromise on either one. And again, remember the ER-4P is "for use with portable devices". Have you looked at the headphones that come with portable devices these days? They're pretty slick. And that's what people are wearing. You're darned right I want good sound--that's why I bought the e2c's, but I also want them to look fairly decent--that's why I *didn't* buy the ER-4's.

 

[rt297]

Quote:

Originally posted by davidtoc And absolutely, the company needs to give US a reason to buy their product. And Etymotic just hasn't done that for me. (But hopefully they will soon, because I really want a pair!)

I think there are thousands of testimonials that Etymotic gives us a very compelling reason to buy their product....the best performance money can buy.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Aloft My question would be: Why?

A: They will sell more.

I agree with nearly everything you said about underestimating design costs, however I might add some of those (material testing, etc.) are required in some degree and I would guess a hearing aid company would have to do some design work anyway. Also since we don't know Etys expenses, it may be just as wrong to assume the selling price would fluctuate with increased costs (as is sometimes said about Grados also - "all their costs go into the sound").

Which "in the thousands of dollars" phones are the Etys compared to? Did I get a R10 on sale?

I'm assuming Stax?

 

[Aloft]

Quote:

Originally posted by davidtoc But I have to question the logic of "high quality merchandise should look crappy so that nobody steals it."

Well to be fair, my comment was only meant to apply to portable equipment which you'll presumably be wearing in public, and in places where it might not be safe to flash the fact that you are loaded. If one lives out in the middle of nowhere, this philosophy does not really apply. If you just use them at home, it doesn't apply. I wouldn't use my HD600s in public, not just because I wouldn't hear anything (heh) but because even if somebody doesn't know what they are, they look expensive, and anybody with half a brain would conclude that anyone wearing headphones that huge and expensive looking would have them plugged in to something more than a $10 CD player they picked up at the pawn shop.

Disclaimer: I'll be the first to admit that I am more paranoid than most about these kinds of things. I am a low-key, in the shadows kind of person. I don't want people to notice me, and I certainly don't want them to notice that I'm hauling enough gear to pay several months rent.

Quote:

I mean, people who bought iPods are, at least in part, people who want their iPods to be seen.

I suppose in general you are quite right. Personally I didn't buy it for that. I keep it in a case under my coat. I am completely willing to admit that I am exception to the rule, though.

Quote:

There are all sorts of really cheap, crappy headphones out there that look as cool as anything I've ever seen.

You do not think there is a corelation there? And for taste, I think most of these headphones look horrible. They look like bad tennis shoes with extra chrome. Heh, that's just me.

Quote:

Have you looked at the headphones that come with portable devices these days? They're pretty slick. And that's what people are wearing.

And they sound horrible! I can't think of a single portable purchase I've made where I've said, "Wow, these actually sound pretty good."

 

[hazmat]

Aloft: well-said on many accounts. I believe I am INTJ as well. Heh.

I also have an iPod and ER-4P's, but did not get it at all to be seen (per davidtoc's comment). In fact living in NYC and taking the subway every day (see my sig) and hate seeing people constantly fiddling with their iPods because I know a lot of them are doing it in an attempt to say, "Hey, look how cool I am because I have an iPod." I cue up the album I want to listen to on my commute and stuff the iPod in my inside jacket pocket and never touch it again until I'm either at work or back home that evening. I use the iPod's remote clipped onto that pocket to pause or adjust volume.

I never once considered not getting the ER-4's based on looks. I could care less what they look like. And like Aloft, I actually like how they look. I do think the ER-6's look very cool, but never once had a second thought about my ER-4's. I wear them with pride.