[DanielK]

Hi, so this is my first posting--be kind.

I have recently gotten an iPod, and am looking for a pair of earphones to use with it. I've had a pair of Koss PortaPros for years, and I am quite happy with them. They are definitely better than any of the other cheapo headphones I have. However, I think I would also like a pair of canalphones to listen to music in noisier environments, and also for the added portability--despite their name, you can't exactly shove the PortaPros in your pocket.

I have been reading this board, and am considering both the Sony EX71's and the Shure E3's. I am well aware that the EX71's don't have the best sound, but I don't know how good I need, and the money is an issue as well. Basically, I'd probably be unhappy with the EX71's if they sound significantly WORSE than my PortaPros. I'd probably also think I wasted money on the E3's if they don't sound at least as good, or probably significantly better than the PortaPros. I want to minimize my spending; I'm willing to spend a bit more for significantly better sound, but if the sound difference is quite subtle, I'd rather go cheaper.

Also an issue for me is comfort and portability, as well as, to a lesser extent, style. For these reasons I have ruled out the E2's.

One other thing to consider is my source: I will be listening to phones connected straight to my iPod, and my collection is encoded using AAC 128s. I picked this because I couldn't tell the difference between this and the higher quality encoding with the equipment I had. I could re-encode if the new phones made it so that I would get a significant improvement by doing so, but I'd be reluctant to do that. My main point is that if the more expensive ones will only show their benefits with a better source, I might as well go with the cheaper ones.

Oh, also: I listen to a wide variety of music, but mostly jazz, classical (particularly piano), some rock, some bluegrass and country, among other things. I have little need for deep thumping bass, although I do like to know that the bass is there; I like to be able to actually hear that someone is playing an upright bass in a jazz recording, for example, something that can be difficult with bad earphones. But I don't want to be overwhelmed by the bass, either. I am quite happy with the PortaPros in this regard, although more so when I can listen in a quiet environment.

Anyway, I'm grateful for any advice, especially from people who have directly compared the PortaPro's with the phones I am considering.

 

[LTUCCI1924]

DanielK
HI: it sounds like you are on a fence. The E3c will cost you about 160-170 but money seems to be of issue fore you. Yes they are quite a bit bitter than the portapro but at a good cost. I think the portapros are a very good inexpensive can. You could consider waiting with the portapros until you can comfortable afford the E3c then jump fore it.

 

[lindrone]

If you go to the Shure E3c, you will get much better detail, midrange resolution than the PortaPros. However, you'll be giving up a lot of bass excitement in exchange. You might actually fall in love with the much more resolved sound, but unless you can try it out first (get it from a place that guarantees returns), it's hard to tell. This much is for sure, it is a trade-off, since you will not longer get the visceral bass that you get so much of with the PortaPros.

I wouldn't suggest the EX71'at all, even though it is bassier than the E3c, it is a very muddy and inaccurate bass. It gives you no additional benefit over any other sound characteristic of your PortaPro, meanwhile offering up an even muddier bass.

E3c is also much more sensitive than the PortaPro, so using 128 AAC's with it will show a lot of deficiency of lossy compressed music.

Are you looking into these two canalphones because isolation is important to you? Or is it just a matter of size? For the money, KSC-35 is the best thing next to your PortaPro right now (in fact, I think they sound better than PortaPro), but they're clip-ons and offer next to no isolation.

Edit:

Another recommendation is the PX200, they don't have the bass slam of the PortaPro, but they have a bit more detail and accuracy (really, just a *bit* more).. however, they have a much better design than the PortaPro.

You can fold the PX200 into a flat shape, and it even comes with a case that you can put them in for carry around. It's a bit like a glasses case. The design of the unit is very, very well thought out.

They also offer more isolation when positioned correctly, and are probably the most comfortable headphone of that size that I've ever tried on.

 

[DanielK]

Thanks for the detailed reply, Lindrone.

As I implied above, visceral bass thump is just not a concern at all for me for 95% of the music I listen to. And even for the music that benefits from bass, I really want to hear it more than I want to feel it, if you know what I mean. Clear bass is more important to me than deep bass.

Yes, I was looking at canalphones for the isolation aspect. I sometimes listen to music in moderately noisy areas, and would like to be able to hear it without having to turn it up too loud. Canalphones seem to be the best option for that, but only if they are convenient and comfortable. For example, if I got the e3's, I would probably have to send them back if the only tips that worked for me were the foamies, since those seem to be too much of a pain for regular insertion and removal.

The KSC-35 looks like it wouldn't be much more useful than the portaPros, except that they might be a bit more portable. I'm not looking for something which duplicates the function of what I already have.

I wasn't really worried that I might get phones which were so good that they showed deficiencies in the compression; I was more worried that the compression might be so bad that I could see no difference between the phones, in which case I'd go with the cheaper phones, since I've been happy with the compression so far. But it seems from what I have heard that the difference will still be clear, even at 128 AAC.

The PX200 also might be useful in that they would be more portable. I'll take a look at them. Thanks!

LTUCCI1924: Thanks for your comment. I can afford the e3's, but I don't want to spend that kind of money lightly--if I don't buy them, that means I can use the money for something else.

Edit: I looked at the PX200, and they look pretty good, but maybe a little too big for what I want. I like the fact that they are closed, but I kind of like the inconspicuousness of canalphones.

Anyone else? Right now I'm leaning toward either getting the e3's or getting nothing at all and sticking with the PortaPro's for now.

 

[LTUCCI1924]

DanielK
HI: I just thought that I would mention that when I had the portapros I cut a quarter size hole in the middle of each pad. By doing that it released the mids and highs and lessened the bass some what. It was almost like a different can.

 

[BANGPOD]

Koss PortaPro's with bass turned down...
(Bass reducer or acoustic setting of your iPod, for example)

These headphones passed my expectations as a $49.95 headphone.
They are simply fantastic, as long as the bass is turned down.

The only problems:

Vocals are slightly recessed (as is the rest of the midrange, but vocals show this the most). Higher pitched instruments (alto saxes, for example) are pushed a little too far forward for my liking. Percussion decay (cymbals and tom's) is a little too long to believe (synthetic reverb-type sound).

I just got mine in the mail yesterday, and these negatives were very obvious -- I noticed them in the first 15 minutes of listening. Beside those negatives, these headphones are all I could ask for. But if you think about it, what $49.95 headphone doesn't have negatives as extreme as those mentioned above? The positives more than make up for it and I couldn't ask for a better headphone at this price point. If you don't have a way to turn down the bass output on your source (which you say you do), then these will be a little bit too muddy to be satisfactory. With the bass at its normal level, I couldn't stand it. Otherwise, A+ headphones.

Do you agree with my assessment of the PortaPro's?
If not, what insights have you made that I haven't?

BANGPOD

 

[DanielK]

Bangpod--

You have a more discerning ear than I do. I can't say much except that the PortaPros sound good to me, with the bass normal (but I don't listen to very bass-heavy music usually). They are definitely the best headphones I have heard, but I might be more critical of them once I've compared them to other headphones.

But really, I already have an opinion on the PortaPros. I like them, and want to know if I am likely to find switching to the other headphones mentioned above a step down or a step up. In fact, your glowing review of the PortaPros makes me nervous--will I be disappointed with the e3's since I am used to the PortaPros? Maybe I should just stick with what I have. But again, they are not as portable as I would like, and don't work well in noisier environments.

Incidentally, I would probably also be seriously considering the new Apple in-ear headphones if it weren't for all of the problems people seem to have keeping them in.

 

[Jodiuh]

But the ex71's will suffice for the gym, right?

 

[br--]

I think you underestimate actually how bad the EX71's sound. I mean, they sound really bad. Definately not worth whatever you are paying for them.

 

[BANGPOD]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanielK Bangpod-- They are definitely the best headphones I have heard, but I might be more critical of them once I've compared them to other headphones.

I own the ER-4S earphone by Etymotic Research. Had I not bought these brilliant earphones about 6 months ago, the PortaPro would have been perfectly acceptable to my ears and I wouldn't be on such an audio rampage like I am now (I am in the process of spending about $2000 on my new headphone rig). But that doesn't mean the PortaPro's are of low quality -- they have their place at $49.95 shipped. The explanation for this is that they are good headphones, but listening to better ones makes one more critical of the headphones one owns lower on the spectrum. It is just something one must come to accept. I have a pair of Sennheiser HD-212 Pro's that I thought were fantastic when I bought them, but upon listen to my ER-4S, my listening standards were raised another notch and the 212 Pro's became inferior. Don't worry, if you are just starting out in head-fi, this will happen naturally. I was in the same position 6 months ago as you are now.


Quote:

Originally posted by DanielK Bangpod-- You have a more discerning ear than I do. I can't say much except that the PortaPros sound good to me, with the bass normal (but I don't listen to very bass-heavy music usually).

This will change when you upgrade your headphones.
I have read that the E3c's are supposedly very good.
I know nothing about the other headphone you mention.
Read up on those 2 phones around here, do a search.
I guarantee you will find a significant amount of information.

I do not have a more discerning ear than you do.
It is just something that comes with time and listening.
When you hear better equipment, you come to expect more.
Again, had I not heard the ER-4S, I would not know anything.
Just give it time, your preferences and tastes will develop.

Quote:

Originally posted by DanielK Bangpod-- But really, I already have an opinion on the PortaPros. I like them, and want to know if I am likely to find switching to the other headphones mentioned above a step down or a step up. In fact, your glowing review of the PortaPros makes me nervous --will I be disappointed with the e3's since I am used to the PortaPros? Maybe I should just stick with what I have. But again, they are not as portable as I would like, and don't work well in noisier environments. Incidentally, I would probably also be seriously considering the new Apple in-ear headphones if it weren't for all of the problems people seem to have keeping them in.

I see I was not answering your question correctly.

I will take the time to do that now. If you already have an opinion on the PortaPro's, then so be it -- to each his or her own. You say you like them, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will carry that bias to another headphone; each headphone is a totally different experience, in my opinion. It is safe to say that the E3c will be a step up and, as I said above, I don't know anything about the other headphone you mention. My glowing review of the PortaPro was glowing for one reason: they are satisfying my headphone needs while my ER-4S is being repaired (I forgot to mention that), as I never said they were "audiophile" quality, per se; but they are anything but unsatisfactory, come to think of it, they are quite good. The better you think the PortaPro's are, the grander the scale of the audio-epiphany you will experience when you jump up to a higher quality headphone. Again, I thought the 212 Pro's were good and when I jumped up to the ER-4S, it was absolutely mind-boggling

. So no, you will not be disappointed with the E3c's after extensively using the PortaPro's.

Maybe you should stick with what you have?

BAH! A upgrade would be welcomed to your ears. An upgrade would be well-deserved. You owe it to yourself to try out some of the higher quality audio equipment offered by this industry. Don't ever settle for sticking with what you have, unless you are totally content with you system. I tried to do that by "settling" for the less-expensive XP-7 (a headphone amp), but realized I would only be happy buying the higher end HR-2 (another headphone amp). If you are 100% satisfied, then good for you -- your wallet will thank you (and every member here will envy you

). But if you have that constant thought sitting in the back of your mind, begging for you to try something better, then why fight it? I had that for months, and I couldn't be happier with my ER-4S.

Lastly, try not to settle for earphones made by a company that is not known for making earphones (Apple)

. Those whom were enlightened (Enlightenment specialists) were much better off than those whom opted for a general education (Renaissance philosophers). It worked then and it sure as hell is evident in our society today. I am a Republican, by the way

.

Respond with questions if I missed anything,
BANGPOD (yes, those are sex monks as my avatar)

LOL.

 

[BANGPOD]

Again,

If anyone out there disagrees with any matter of my posts, please tell me. I would like to know what people think of my posts, and if everyone for the most part agrees with what I say. If you feel I have posted some piece of speculative thought you think is not true or is erroneous, please feel free to tell me. I would be honored to correct the matter to improve my posts for the future. One thing, though; please do not flame me if you are suggestng a correction. Sex monks aren't meant to be burned.

BANGPOD

 

[wildeone]

DanielK,

I've never heard the PortaPros so I can't comment on them versus the other phones.

What I can say is this: the Sony's will do the job, but they'll never really make you smile. The E3's can and will make you really smile.

P.S. The only caveat is your 128 MP3's. I've found that the E3's are fairly sensitive to lower compression rates. I know you don't want to spend your money lightly, but with the 30-day return, what do you have to lose? You may be more discerning than you think!!!

Oh, Bangpod -- loved your post and love your monks!

 

[daveman_84]

I again do NOT recommend the EX71's. I bought them after some people liked them, and figured that the people who say they're awful are just fancy audiophiles who would scoff at such a lower-end product. Not the case -- I got them and they are BAD. Bass is okay, but what gets me is the shrill high freqs. They are downright cringeworthy.

So, I made the leap and bought e2c's. I realize they have some comfort issues BUT -- but -- they fit well for me and they may for you too. Remember, most people won't post here and say "they fit!". The majority will be posting saying "I can't stand these they don't fit". For the price ($80 if you look around) they stand almost $100 cheaper than the e3c's. I say give it a shot. You can always order them from headroom at $100 (still way cheaper than e3c's) and if you can't get them to fit, then no loss. They isolate well and are infinitely better than the EX71's. Clear bass, and clear and crisp everything else. Very warm. And hey, if you like them, you saved a good buck. Just my .02

 

[LTUCCI1924]

daveman_84
HI: I agree with you. Before the E3c I had the E2c and was very happy with them and fore the money they are a great buy. The harder tips are OK fore the money also. The E3c are a better ear phone and much more comfortable and fore me have audiophile sound but of course you have to pay double the price fore that comfort and sound. If I only had limited funds then I would opt fore the E2c with out hesitation.

 

[wildeone]

And, actually, the E2's have better bass than the E3's.