[insomniac]

I did the E2 to E3 upgrade via the eCost deal. Digressing a bit, I had an overall positive experience with eCost. I know there's been some mixed opinions here and the rating on ResellerRatings is horrid. The $6 "handling" charge at the last step is pretty sneaky but at $124.95 shipped, still a good deal, and I received the package within a week with no problems.

The main thing about going from the E2 to the E3 for me was the comfort level. I'm not a big fan of the foamies and the E2 flex tips were starting to wear on me. Wearing them for short periods was fine but they started to irritate my ears after prolonged use. I thought the E3 soft flex tip might be my ticket and it turned out I was right. MUCH more comfortable and I have no problems wearing it for extended periods of time. Of course this is just for me. Everyone's ear shape and comfort preferences ar different. The earphones are also a bit less bulky and you don't have to wrap the wires over your ears - all adding to the comfort factor.

As for the sound, I was a little scared about all the posts I read regarding the loss of bass from the E2. It is true, you do lose some some low-end extension. But I'm happy to report that it's not as dramatic a loss as I had imagined. The bass is still there when you need it. It's not as deep or impactful but feels tight and fast.

As for the mids and highs, it's no comparison for me. The E3 wins hands down. The sound is much clearer and crisper to me. I felt that veil being lifted coming from the E2. Don't get me wrong, the E2 was a great pair of earphones and a fantastic value but I feel I got what I wanted upgrading to the E3. Especially at the discounted price.

I don't like the white color of the E3 too much and the E3 doesn't feel quite as sturdy or rugged as the E2, but far better than the Sony earbuds I have (888lp). But I can't stress enough the improved comfort I've experienced so far.

If I found the E2 comfortable to wear, then I think I would probably just stick with the E2. Though the overall sound quality isn't as good, the bass is deeper and the phones are CHEAPER. But comfort is such a huge deal for things you have to shove deep in your ear for extended periods of time and that's where the E3 wins out (and earns it's worth in higher price) for me.

 

[wolfen68]

I also did the e2---->e3 transition. You should be happy with them....enjoy.

 

[Jeffie]

Too many people leave this stuff out on comparisons...

I run my E2's off of a Rio S353S, with 128k encoded
tunes, and still cant seem to get enough info
to really justify upgrading to the E3's.

 

[revan]

The ecost deal left the site Tuesday or Wednesday - right when I was going to pull the trigger. I called them on Friday to see if could get the deal and was nearly laughed at. bummer.


Revan

 

[Earwax]

I got an email from ecost yesterday, a list of "secret sale" items, that expires May 17th. It says "save $60" on E3c (no actual price listed) - call 1-877-888-2678, with secret sale source code: EWB05505

Maybe it's worth a call again, to see what the "sale" price is now, dunno...

Between Monday and Wednesday they were bouncing the price between $119 and $129 several times. Weird company, but they did deliver my e3s ($119 + $6 for handling), that's the important thing.

 

[RunsWithScissors]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffie Too many people leave this stuff out on comparisons... I run my E2's off of a Rio S353S, with 128k encoded tunes, and still cant seem to get enough info to really justify upgrading to the E3's.

Jeffie -
That Rio player has 128MB of memory if I'm not mistaken? The E3 can be very revealing of low bit rate MP3 so it might not be worthwhile to use this combo if you're not willing to encode at a higher bit rate. I used the E2, E3 and now E5 with an iPod and EAC ripped, LAME encoded MP3 with (preference) -alt-preset extreme (~256 VBR) and some -alt-preset standard (~192 VBR) and this worked well for me. Lower bit rates will likely reveal compression artifacts and this could detract from enjoying your music.

Let us know if you have more specific questions such as what you are looking for in your listening experience, ie detail and resolution with forward mid-range and good extension on highs and lows but a little less visceral bass slam (E3) or can sacrifice some detail and resolution for a warmer and more impactful bass (E2).

Hope that helps

 

[insomniac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffie Too many people leave this stuff out on comparisons... I run my E2's off of a Rio S353S, with 128k encoded tunes, and still cant seem to get enough info to really justify upgrading to the E3's.

I ran the E2 and now the E3 out of a 3rd Gen 15GB iPod.

I agree with the above statements that if your source is the Rio S35S, then it's not worth it to upgrade to the E3. In fact, I think I would have a hard time justifying even the E2.

 

[Jeffie]

thx guys...

Well, The E2's were an upgrade from the EX71's...
The E2's are way-way better.

(and BTW, my Rio has 1g on it...

)

One of these days I need to encode and compare
some songs with a higher bitrate and listen
for the difference.

But with respect to the E2/E3, even if I encode
higher, where's the limitation of the player fall in?
(as per quality of the DAC and amplification).

I'm just looking for the best canalphone given
the limitations above. I'm an audio purist,
so I have no sound "type", I just want the most accurate
delivery possible.

 

[RunsWithScissors]

I've never heard your Rio player so I can't comment on the sound quality of the player at all. Unless someone has compared it to another player like an iPod or IHP or Karma, it is difficult to comment on the player limitations as I have no point of reference.

E3 offer more resolution and detail than E2. They give up some bass impact though their bass is tight and extended and more controlled. The mid-range of the E3 is very forward and the high end has greater extension than E2 though it is still a bit rolled off. The E2 generally sound warmer and more balanced with emphasis on the mid-bass. As insomniac stated, direct comparison of the E2 to E3 will likely make you feel that there is a veil on the E2 being lifted going to the E3 due to the better resolution and detail.

Hope that helps.

 

[Aptmunich]

I've also just upgraded to the e3c's (despite my own mod, the soft-flex sleeves and better sq justified the price

)

I agree with all of the above statements in regards to sound quality: the bass is slightly less audible somehow, but a lot more accurate, i enjoy it a lot more than the e2's bass.

And you have the slight 'aha' effect in the high and mid ranges. Definetly less murky there now, like putting on your glasses in the morning and suddenly seeing detail everywhere. The difference isn't huge (say ipod stock buds -> e2c) but it is noticeable.

As to the encoding issue:

I'm using a 2nd gen ipod with nearly everything encoded at 160 AAC and i can't say that i've heard any difference compared to my cd's...

I also have one or two rare tracks that are poorly encoded (96kbps, 128 kbps mp3) and although there is a difference, they still sound better through e3's than e2's, they just don't do the 'phones full justice...

anyway two thumbs up from me!

 

[reeseboisse]

Jeffie, encode at a higher bitrate. I don't even know how you can live with 128 personally, especially since you're an audio purist.

And regarding the E2s amped, it makes little difference (in my experience). The bass is a bit tighter, but that's about it. It's just that they're such efficient little things that they don't really need too much power to bring out their full potential.

 

[Jeffie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reeseboisse Jeffie, encode at a higher bitrate. I don't even know how you can live with 128 personally, especially since you're an audio purist.

an audio purist, you betcha, but in the portable world,
you need to be a realist as well.

From a little portable, can you really tell the difference
between 128k encoded and greater? Maybe ina super
quiet room, but not out in the real world? (where outside
noises still filter in)

My task today is to encode a few songs at higher bitrates,
and see if I can even tell which one is which.

 

[lifeinabox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revan The ecost deal left the site Tuesday or Wednesday - right when I was going to pull the trigger. I called them on Friday to see if could get the deal and was nearly laughed at. bummer. Revan

Re: ecost and pricing, I just went on their site and found a wierd discrepancy. Type in "shure" in the search box and you get the E3c @ $129. But when you pull up the description and add it to your cart, it still says $179. Looks like you can easily make the case for the cheaper price if you still want deal with them.

 

[Luke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifeinabox Re: ecost and pricing, I just went on their site and found a wierd discrepancy. Type in "shure" in the search box and you get the E3c @ $129. But when you pull up the description and add it to your cart, it still says $179. Looks like you can easily make the case for the cheaper price if you still want deal with them.

Better yet, find a broken pair of e1c's somewhere. Send them in to Shure with a check for $55 and they'll send you a new pair of E3c's!