jwalitm
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Posts
- 12
- Likes
- 0
Hello!
I am new to Head-fi. Have used it a lot over the past few weeks. Thought I’ll try posting a review and contribute my .02. Please bear in mind that while I have tried to do my best, I lack experience and am uninitiated at high-end or even not-so-high-end equipment.
Sources : A Compaq laptop and Cowon iAudio G3 1GB
SHURE E2C vs SONY FONTOPIA vs ULTIMATE EARS SUPER.FI 3
SHURE E2c
My first pair of IEMs. Bought them along with the Sony Fontopia.
I had only my laptop then and a pair of 10$ Sony cheapo stock buds (nope, they deserve more respect than that – they served me well for many years)
BUILD QUALITY AND ERGONOMICS:
The fit was no problem whatsoever. Infact the smaller flanges were loose and the larger ones only just a little too big. (There are 3 sizes provided – each for soft and not-so-soft flanges, I did not need to try the foamies) So I think my ear canals may be roomier than those of most other people. A lot of people have complained about the fit of the E2c (“My ears felt like they were giving birth”), but it wasn’t a problem for me. Also, they were pretty easy to slip in after a little bit of practice.
The carry case provided is protective and sturdy, but the finish isn’t what you’d call slick and the zipper isn’t so smooth. This is nitpicking though.
The build quality is excellent. No doubt about it. The cable, the point where the cable splits into 2, the point where the cables meet the earpieces, and the (‘chunky’) earpieces themselves are all well constructed. IEMs are delicate things but these don’t seem so. And yes, no microphonics issues, none that bothered me atleast.
NOTE: I haven’t seen this issue discussed anywhere. The E2c are peculiarly constructed. From the photographs of various IEMs that I have seen, the drivers are placed in rather narrow housings – look at E3c, E4c, ER6, etc – none have the same cross-sectional diameter as the E2c. The driver of the E2c is placed in a pretty broad housing, which makes me suspect that the technology used in the E2c is markedly different from that in other IEMs. In fact, only regular buds have large drivers in large housings which is why they are regular buds and not IEMs. I wonder what the more experienced members of the forum think about this. I feel the technology used in the E2c belongs to a different ‘generation’ compared to other IEMs.
SOUND:
The first thing I noted in comparison to my stock earbuds was the lack of bass! I know that these are probably the bassiest of the entry-level IEMs, but still compared to the phones I had used till then, they lacked bass. Looking at IEMs now, I think this the best entry-level IEM for bassheads, but still not without EQing.
Also, attesting to the poor signal quality of laptops and the sensitivity of the E2c, a hiss (not very disturbing, but evident nonetheless) was noted instantly.
I expected a sizeable improvement in sound quality as compared to my 10$ buds (and rightly so). There was an obvious difference, but it didn’t ‘wow’ me. It was more like “Alright, these are OK…they sound better…”
It is now that I know what are rolled-off highs, but since the Shure E2c were my first expensive set of ‘phones, I heard detail in the highs I had not heard before. That impressed me. The bass was better upon EQing but my chief concern with the E2c was the forwardness and brightness.
Although they are amply sensitive and can be easily driven by any portable player, the upfront sound and prominent mids to treble (whatever treble was present) made them fatiguing and sibilant. Everytime I tried to elevate the volume while listening to rock and metal, I cringed and winced and turned it down. Also, soundstaging and detail retrieval, although better than my stock phones, were not what I expected out of 100$ (at BestBuy) phones.
The good thing about this upfrontness is that it gives the sound a certain edge and attack. There is this Pink Floyd track from ‘the division bell’ when there is a sudden door slam (or some such sound) and the sound of approaching footsteps. Since I hadn’t heard the track for a while I did not remember it. Also, I was alone in the house at night. Boy, it really gave me a jolt – part of the credit goes to the E2c and part to the recording.
A word about the isolation : very good (ok, that was 2 words)
But yes, I had to take these off even when no music was playing if I had to listen to the person sitting just 5 feet across. Definitely, they can isolate one to a great extent from a noisy environment.
I ended up feeling – “OK, so maybe this is how IEMs sound. They are better than my regular buds, sturdily built, and the isolation is good…..Maybe, they’ll serve me well for a long time….”
Bottomline : I was not very impressed with the sound quality – could not tolerate the upfront/sibilant sound for long. BUT…read on….
SONY FONTOPIA
BUILD QUALITY AND ERGONOMICS:
Nope. They fail by quite a margin compared to the E2c. The cord is thinner and tangles easily. There have been many concerns (check out the complaints at amazon) about the cord totally disintegrating within a few months. The earpieces themselves are ok.
Comfort-wise they are better than the E2c – if you don’t mind the necklace-style cable! They aren’t really IEMs in the sense that the sound isolation provided is much less compared to E2c. Nonetheless, for ppl who find IEMs uncomfortable the Fontopia could be a good choice.
SOUND:
Now these were more ‘entertaining’ than the Shure E2c out of my laptop.
They were definitely more detailed than my regular buds. Also, out of my laptop with it’s poor signal, the sound was more listenable compared to the E2c. Perhaps the Fontopia do not mind poorly recorded mp3s as much as the E2c. The hiss was not heard.
The biggest difference b/w the Fontopia and the E2c was the relatively recessed sound of the former across the frequency range. With the E2c guitar riffs sounded ‘into’ the ear, whereas with the Fontopia they were more listenable at higher volumes because they were relatively distant – mind you, only relatively. This made the sound less fatiguing. The Fontopia sounded open, spacious and lush. Frankly, entertaining is the word.
The bass was heavier than that on the E2c. Also, it had a certain amount of punchiness if the EQ was used. The treble extension was about as good/bad as the E2c.
For detail retrieval the E2c was better but not by a great margin.
Bottomline: The build quality (esp. the cable) spoils the deal. It is a very good not-so-expensive headphone – not what you’d call balanced but rock fans shouldn’t find too many reasons to complain……BUT, then something happened ---
My iAudio G3 flash memory based mp3 player arrived!
Now I had another source to compare my earphones. Basically, it taught me two things
1)The source matters !….the sound signature of the ‘phones changed a great deal, esp. the Sonys
2)Bad sources and bad phones can have a great ‘synergy’ !
I haven’t owned any other mp3 players apart from the iAudio and a Sony Discman sometime back. Can’t really comment on the sound from the iPod, creative and iRiver players, but what many reviews say is that the iAudio is a pretty good sounding player. Also, acco to its website it outputs 13 mW + 13 mW, which is better than comparable flash memory based mp3 players.
The E2c certainly benifitted a lot from the better source. I realized that a lot of the brightness and harshness was due to my laptop and not the E2c. But, I still maintain that the E2c is too forward sounding and fatiguing, atleast for me. The Sony Fontopia’s bass suffered a setback ( I do not understand why…maybe since my laptop has a stronger, albeit noisier, output). Also, they started to sound a little thin and the treble was not without its flaws. Although not harsh, the treble range was not clear – rather grainy and muddy. The highs on the E2c were as clear as the source allowed them to be.
It was then that I realized that 100$ phones deserve a good source. This is not to say that my opinions changed drastically. I suspect (note the word – suspect) that the Fontopia are buds that will improve a lot with an amp (I know it sounds crazy to use an amp for 20$ phones). Their sensitivity is less than that of the E2c and at the same volume level the E2c is definitely louder (I actually used a splitter and wore the left E2c phone and the right Fontopia bud, even after considering that E2c isolate better, there was no doubt that the Fontopia are not as sensitive). Also, since the more energy demanding part of the frequency suffered (=bass) I think the Sonys prefer players with a good output such as the iPod...
The REAL Bottomline : I returned both of them to BestBuy!
Now coming to why I choose to write this review in the first place –
ULTIMATE EARS SUPER.FI 3
It surprises me no end why there is so little mention of this phone. There is a lot of discussion about the UE super.fi pro and the Westone UM2, but very little about the UM1 and super.fi 3. It looks as if in the 100$ category there are only 3 competitors – the Shure E2c, E3c and the Etymotic ER6(i). For me the super.fi 3 is a vastly better phone compared to the E2c. Infact, it addresses to most of the complaints regarding the E2c and the ER6i. Read on….
BUILD QUALITY AND ERGONOMICS
Good – in a word. Cable is not ‘wispy’ like that of the Er6i nor as sturdy as that of E2c. Also it is replaceable. No major tangling or microphonics issues. They have a memory wire that makes sure the cable stays behind the ear. I am not in favor/disfavor of this. But may be with vigorous movements the memory wire will be helpful.
Also, they go less deep compared to other IEMs and hence, provide less isolation. Many people have mentioned them to be more comfortable as a result. But that has not been the case with me. The Shure E2c were more comfortable, fit more snugly, and were easier to wear. A little disappointment here. I was comfy with the E2c since day one, but the super.fis are demanding a bit more practice. Also, while taking them out, I have more than once left the flanges inside! But I don’t think this can happen if you are gentler and break the seal before taking them out.
The carry case is a leather one – nice, but not as protective as the shure one. Also, I feel it is a little small. Only 1 pair of foamies is provided. – 1 pair biflanges, 3 different sizes of monoflanges (if that’s a word)
SOUND
(I haven’t heard the Etymotics, so any comparisons to them are based on what I have read from other reviews – far from ideal, I know)
Alright, so THIS is what high-end is all about - was my first reaction!
A lot of reviewers have mentioned digging up their collection and listening to tracks they had never heard in ages when they find a fine set of phones – now I realize what made them do that. It will not be an exaggeration to say that I heard new details in every track I heard, no matter how many times I have heard it before.
The Shure E2c had more bass, so did the Sony Fontopias. But it is when you hear the detail that you have been missing for so long that you realize that there is more to music than just bass and more bass ( I know I am sounding quite superlative, but you must allow a newbie to express his enthusiasm, shouldn’t you ?!). People have cursed Etys for their lack of bass but they still sell because there are the best at getting out details. However, Etys have been accused of beign sibilant at times, this was never a issue with the super.fi 3 (or is it a case of rolled-off highs? I will only know when I have heard the Etys)
Still on bass – For many, rock is just percussion and leads. The keyboards/synthesizers and bass are just relegated to providing background and ambience. The super.fi had more enough instrument separation and soundstage to allow me to discover not only that little chime I never heard before, but also individual notes of the damn bass guitar which so often just seems to add some vague weight to the track. Although the Shure E2c had more bass, the super.fi had far more resolution in the bass region.
Nirvana – Lake of Fire – (Unplugged) – in the very first beat, Kurt coughs and this is masked by the beat. I heard it instantly on the super.fi. Infact, once I heard it (or for that matter, most details) I was left wondering how come I never heard it before. I heard countless inhalations, fretboard noises, mp3 encoding artifacts, distant subtle instruments etc. that I had not heard before – without straining much to hear them.
And yes, it sounds quite rotten out of my laptop....no doubt. It demands a better source.
I must admit though, that I might – mind you, MIGHT – have heard some of these details on the E2c also if I had tried to pay more attention. But in any case, as far as details and soundstaging are concerned the E2c is no match to the super.fi 3.
Where the E2c does beat the super.fi 3 is at transients and raw bass impact. The same Pink Floyd ‘Door slam’ track was not as sudden and didn’t make me blink….
Also, some may prefer the upfront mids to mid-highs of the E2c, but I found rock and metal more entertaining on the super.fi 3. A good way of putting it is that I am able to concentrate on writing this review with the super.fi 3 on but the E2c would have intruded more because of their different sonic signature.
Some grievances against the super.fi 3 –
- The balance is not consistent at all volume levels. But this is a probem with most phones that I've heard. At low volume the bass can get a muddy, at normal volume things are fine, and at high volumes the bass needs a good boost and/or the treble has to be turned down.... can't help it. Maybe things get better with an amp.
-At times, there is a ‘smaller-than-life’ feel to the instruments and especially some vocals. Some tracks sounds more laidback than they should, although I must mention I do not mind this much – there are enough ‘dark spaces’ between the instruments and vocals which I like.
-There is some unpredictability at rendering the music. There were times when I was surprised that a particular track or instrument should sound like ‘this’. I mean some tracks sounded a lot different than they had done so far on other phones. At times the guitars were ‘too’ distant, the vocals ‘too’ soft, the bass ‘too’ inadequate. But this was not a big problem for me. I don’t know what the purists or audiophiles will say to this…
-I like the bass – but not without EQing. But the super.fi takes EQing quite well without distorting or masking detail. Also, my iAudio player has a good equalizer, I think. Using the “BBE Sound” on my player there is a distinct improvement not in the quantity of the bass but in its punchiness. But by and large, I would have preferred more bass.
-Finally, now that I have heard good details, good soundstaging, good separation, I feel I could have done with more of all this! ….NOW, I know what guys at head-fi are complaining about - empty wallets, a rack-full of headphones and making your spouses understand WHY the iPod stock buds are not so nice!
Bottomline : the super.fi 3 are also going back but only because I am moving out of the 100$ category. These are pretty good phones and definitely deserve more attention than they do. It is just that I want better bass without EQing. Also, *sometimes* the sound is unexciting, maybe a little dry. I just want to spend once now rather than upgrade later on. Am getting a super.fi Pro soon!
********UPDATE********
Well the comfort issue is not an issue anymore now that the biflanges fit very well (haven't tried the foamies - recurrent investment and hassle). But the isolation is not great. Infact, if you are purchasing a pair of IEMs just for their isolation and to use them in subways/flights/noisy gyms etc...these won't do the job well, the Etys or Shures should be better. You'll again have to resort to raising the volume, which atleast in part, defeats the purpose of using an IEM. For routine office/household noise these should work fine... The Shure E2c have a significantly better isolation. On the other hand, using the foamies may isolate better, but not by much I feel.
Secondly, I cannot slam my fist down on the desk and emphatically state "Yes! there is something called breaking-in and the super.fi 3 have more bass now." ... but I do feel that I am having to use the EQ less often and to a lesser extent. It's not that I've gotten used to their sound because I still keep using my sony cheapos once in a while to remind myself of the past (and that insane sloppy bass...i had to EQ my player to -18dB in the first two bands of my five band EQ for my Sonys!). But in any case, I feel that bass is not such a problem with these phones....not great extension but tight and resolved.
Super.fi pros arriving soon....wonder what they'll have to offer!
I am new to Head-fi. Have used it a lot over the past few weeks. Thought I’ll try posting a review and contribute my .02. Please bear in mind that while I have tried to do my best, I lack experience and am uninitiated at high-end or even not-so-high-end equipment.
Sources : A Compaq laptop and Cowon iAudio G3 1GB
SHURE E2C vs SONY FONTOPIA vs ULTIMATE EARS SUPER.FI 3
SHURE E2c
My first pair of IEMs. Bought them along with the Sony Fontopia.
I had only my laptop then and a pair of 10$ Sony cheapo stock buds (nope, they deserve more respect than that – they served me well for many years)
BUILD QUALITY AND ERGONOMICS:
The fit was no problem whatsoever. Infact the smaller flanges were loose and the larger ones only just a little too big. (There are 3 sizes provided – each for soft and not-so-soft flanges, I did not need to try the foamies) So I think my ear canals may be roomier than those of most other people. A lot of people have complained about the fit of the E2c (“My ears felt like they were giving birth”), but it wasn’t a problem for me. Also, they were pretty easy to slip in after a little bit of practice.
The carry case provided is protective and sturdy, but the finish isn’t what you’d call slick and the zipper isn’t so smooth. This is nitpicking though.
The build quality is excellent. No doubt about it. The cable, the point where the cable splits into 2, the point where the cables meet the earpieces, and the (‘chunky’) earpieces themselves are all well constructed. IEMs are delicate things but these don’t seem so. And yes, no microphonics issues, none that bothered me atleast.
NOTE: I haven’t seen this issue discussed anywhere. The E2c are peculiarly constructed. From the photographs of various IEMs that I have seen, the drivers are placed in rather narrow housings – look at E3c, E4c, ER6, etc – none have the same cross-sectional diameter as the E2c. The driver of the E2c is placed in a pretty broad housing, which makes me suspect that the technology used in the E2c is markedly different from that in other IEMs. In fact, only regular buds have large drivers in large housings which is why they are regular buds and not IEMs. I wonder what the more experienced members of the forum think about this. I feel the technology used in the E2c belongs to a different ‘generation’ compared to other IEMs.
SOUND:
The first thing I noted in comparison to my stock earbuds was the lack of bass! I know that these are probably the bassiest of the entry-level IEMs, but still compared to the phones I had used till then, they lacked bass. Looking at IEMs now, I think this the best entry-level IEM for bassheads, but still not without EQing.
Also, attesting to the poor signal quality of laptops and the sensitivity of the E2c, a hiss (not very disturbing, but evident nonetheless) was noted instantly.
I expected a sizeable improvement in sound quality as compared to my 10$ buds (and rightly so). There was an obvious difference, but it didn’t ‘wow’ me. It was more like “Alright, these are OK…they sound better…”
It is now that I know what are rolled-off highs, but since the Shure E2c were my first expensive set of ‘phones, I heard detail in the highs I had not heard before. That impressed me. The bass was better upon EQing but my chief concern with the E2c was the forwardness and brightness.
Although they are amply sensitive and can be easily driven by any portable player, the upfront sound and prominent mids to treble (whatever treble was present) made them fatiguing and sibilant. Everytime I tried to elevate the volume while listening to rock and metal, I cringed and winced and turned it down. Also, soundstaging and detail retrieval, although better than my stock phones, were not what I expected out of 100$ (at BestBuy) phones.
The good thing about this upfrontness is that it gives the sound a certain edge and attack. There is this Pink Floyd track from ‘the division bell’ when there is a sudden door slam (or some such sound) and the sound of approaching footsteps. Since I hadn’t heard the track for a while I did not remember it. Also, I was alone in the house at night. Boy, it really gave me a jolt – part of the credit goes to the E2c and part to the recording.
A word about the isolation : very good (ok, that was 2 words)
But yes, I had to take these off even when no music was playing if I had to listen to the person sitting just 5 feet across. Definitely, they can isolate one to a great extent from a noisy environment.
I ended up feeling – “OK, so maybe this is how IEMs sound. They are better than my regular buds, sturdily built, and the isolation is good…..Maybe, they’ll serve me well for a long time….”
Bottomline : I was not very impressed with the sound quality – could not tolerate the upfront/sibilant sound for long. BUT…read on….
SONY FONTOPIA
BUILD QUALITY AND ERGONOMICS:
Nope. They fail by quite a margin compared to the E2c. The cord is thinner and tangles easily. There have been many concerns (check out the complaints at amazon) about the cord totally disintegrating within a few months. The earpieces themselves are ok.
Comfort-wise they are better than the E2c – if you don’t mind the necklace-style cable! They aren’t really IEMs in the sense that the sound isolation provided is much less compared to E2c. Nonetheless, for ppl who find IEMs uncomfortable the Fontopia could be a good choice.
SOUND:
Now these were more ‘entertaining’ than the Shure E2c out of my laptop.
They were definitely more detailed than my regular buds. Also, out of my laptop with it’s poor signal, the sound was more listenable compared to the E2c. Perhaps the Fontopia do not mind poorly recorded mp3s as much as the E2c. The hiss was not heard.
The biggest difference b/w the Fontopia and the E2c was the relatively recessed sound of the former across the frequency range. With the E2c guitar riffs sounded ‘into’ the ear, whereas with the Fontopia they were more listenable at higher volumes because they were relatively distant – mind you, only relatively. This made the sound less fatiguing. The Fontopia sounded open, spacious and lush. Frankly, entertaining is the word.
The bass was heavier than that on the E2c. Also, it had a certain amount of punchiness if the EQ was used. The treble extension was about as good/bad as the E2c.
For detail retrieval the E2c was better but not by a great margin.
Bottomline: The build quality (esp. the cable) spoils the deal. It is a very good not-so-expensive headphone – not what you’d call balanced but rock fans shouldn’t find too many reasons to complain……BUT, then something happened ---
My iAudio G3 flash memory based mp3 player arrived!
Now I had another source to compare my earphones. Basically, it taught me two things
1)The source matters !….the sound signature of the ‘phones changed a great deal, esp. the Sonys
2)Bad sources and bad phones can have a great ‘synergy’ !
I haven’t owned any other mp3 players apart from the iAudio and a Sony Discman sometime back. Can’t really comment on the sound from the iPod, creative and iRiver players, but what many reviews say is that the iAudio is a pretty good sounding player. Also, acco to its website it outputs 13 mW + 13 mW, which is better than comparable flash memory based mp3 players.
The E2c certainly benifitted a lot from the better source. I realized that a lot of the brightness and harshness was due to my laptop and not the E2c. But, I still maintain that the E2c is too forward sounding and fatiguing, atleast for me. The Sony Fontopia’s bass suffered a setback ( I do not understand why…maybe since my laptop has a stronger, albeit noisier, output). Also, they started to sound a little thin and the treble was not without its flaws. Although not harsh, the treble range was not clear – rather grainy and muddy. The highs on the E2c were as clear as the source allowed them to be.
It was then that I realized that 100$ phones deserve a good source. This is not to say that my opinions changed drastically. I suspect (note the word – suspect) that the Fontopia are buds that will improve a lot with an amp (I know it sounds crazy to use an amp for 20$ phones). Their sensitivity is less than that of the E2c and at the same volume level the E2c is definitely louder (I actually used a splitter and wore the left E2c phone and the right Fontopia bud, even after considering that E2c isolate better, there was no doubt that the Fontopia are not as sensitive). Also, since the more energy demanding part of the frequency suffered (=bass) I think the Sonys prefer players with a good output such as the iPod...
The REAL Bottomline : I returned both of them to BestBuy!
Now coming to why I choose to write this review in the first place –
ULTIMATE EARS SUPER.FI 3
It surprises me no end why there is so little mention of this phone. There is a lot of discussion about the UE super.fi pro and the Westone UM2, but very little about the UM1 and super.fi 3. It looks as if in the 100$ category there are only 3 competitors – the Shure E2c, E3c and the Etymotic ER6(i). For me the super.fi 3 is a vastly better phone compared to the E2c. Infact, it addresses to most of the complaints regarding the E2c and the ER6i. Read on….
BUILD QUALITY AND ERGONOMICS
Good – in a word. Cable is not ‘wispy’ like that of the Er6i nor as sturdy as that of E2c. Also it is replaceable. No major tangling or microphonics issues. They have a memory wire that makes sure the cable stays behind the ear. I am not in favor/disfavor of this. But may be with vigorous movements the memory wire will be helpful.
Also, they go less deep compared to other IEMs and hence, provide less isolation. Many people have mentioned them to be more comfortable as a result. But that has not been the case with me. The Shure E2c were more comfortable, fit more snugly, and were easier to wear. A little disappointment here. I was comfy with the E2c since day one, but the super.fis are demanding a bit more practice. Also, while taking them out, I have more than once left the flanges inside! But I don’t think this can happen if you are gentler and break the seal before taking them out.
The carry case is a leather one – nice, but not as protective as the shure one. Also, I feel it is a little small. Only 1 pair of foamies is provided. – 1 pair biflanges, 3 different sizes of monoflanges (if that’s a word)
SOUND
(I haven’t heard the Etymotics, so any comparisons to them are based on what I have read from other reviews – far from ideal, I know)
Alright, so THIS is what high-end is all about - was my first reaction!
A lot of reviewers have mentioned digging up their collection and listening to tracks they had never heard in ages when they find a fine set of phones – now I realize what made them do that. It will not be an exaggeration to say that I heard new details in every track I heard, no matter how many times I have heard it before.
The Shure E2c had more bass, so did the Sony Fontopias. But it is when you hear the detail that you have been missing for so long that you realize that there is more to music than just bass and more bass ( I know I am sounding quite superlative, but you must allow a newbie to express his enthusiasm, shouldn’t you ?!). People have cursed Etys for their lack of bass but they still sell because there are the best at getting out details. However, Etys have been accused of beign sibilant at times, this was never a issue with the super.fi 3 (or is it a case of rolled-off highs? I will only know when I have heard the Etys)
Still on bass – For many, rock is just percussion and leads. The keyboards/synthesizers and bass are just relegated to providing background and ambience. The super.fi had more enough instrument separation and soundstage to allow me to discover not only that little chime I never heard before, but also individual notes of the damn bass guitar which so often just seems to add some vague weight to the track. Although the Shure E2c had more bass, the super.fi had far more resolution in the bass region.
Nirvana – Lake of Fire – (Unplugged) – in the very first beat, Kurt coughs and this is masked by the beat. I heard it instantly on the super.fi. Infact, once I heard it (or for that matter, most details) I was left wondering how come I never heard it before. I heard countless inhalations, fretboard noises, mp3 encoding artifacts, distant subtle instruments etc. that I had not heard before – without straining much to hear them.
And yes, it sounds quite rotten out of my laptop....no doubt. It demands a better source.
I must admit though, that I might – mind you, MIGHT – have heard some of these details on the E2c also if I had tried to pay more attention. But in any case, as far as details and soundstaging are concerned the E2c is no match to the super.fi 3.
Where the E2c does beat the super.fi 3 is at transients and raw bass impact. The same Pink Floyd ‘Door slam’ track was not as sudden and didn’t make me blink….
Also, some may prefer the upfront mids to mid-highs of the E2c, but I found rock and metal more entertaining on the super.fi 3. A good way of putting it is that I am able to concentrate on writing this review with the super.fi 3 on but the E2c would have intruded more because of their different sonic signature.
Some grievances against the super.fi 3 –
- The balance is not consistent at all volume levels. But this is a probem with most phones that I've heard. At low volume the bass can get a muddy, at normal volume things are fine, and at high volumes the bass needs a good boost and/or the treble has to be turned down.... can't help it. Maybe things get better with an amp.
-At times, there is a ‘smaller-than-life’ feel to the instruments and especially some vocals. Some tracks sounds more laidback than they should, although I must mention I do not mind this much – there are enough ‘dark spaces’ between the instruments and vocals which I like.
-There is some unpredictability at rendering the music. There were times when I was surprised that a particular track or instrument should sound like ‘this’. I mean some tracks sounded a lot different than they had done so far on other phones. At times the guitars were ‘too’ distant, the vocals ‘too’ soft, the bass ‘too’ inadequate. But this was not a big problem for me. I don’t know what the purists or audiophiles will say to this…
-I like the bass – but not without EQing. But the super.fi takes EQing quite well without distorting or masking detail. Also, my iAudio player has a good equalizer, I think. Using the “BBE Sound” on my player there is a distinct improvement not in the quantity of the bass but in its punchiness. But by and large, I would have preferred more bass.
-Finally, now that I have heard good details, good soundstaging, good separation, I feel I could have done with more of all this! ….NOW, I know what guys at head-fi are complaining about - empty wallets, a rack-full of headphones and making your spouses understand WHY the iPod stock buds are not so nice!
Bottomline : the super.fi 3 are also going back but only because I am moving out of the 100$ category. These are pretty good phones and definitely deserve more attention than they do. It is just that I want better bass without EQing. Also, *sometimes* the sound is unexciting, maybe a little dry. I just want to spend once now rather than upgrade later on. Am getting a super.fi Pro soon!
********UPDATE********
Well the comfort issue is not an issue anymore now that the biflanges fit very well (haven't tried the foamies - recurrent investment and hassle). But the isolation is not great. Infact, if you are purchasing a pair of IEMs just for their isolation and to use them in subways/flights/noisy gyms etc...these won't do the job well, the Etys or Shures should be better. You'll again have to resort to raising the volume, which atleast in part, defeats the purpose of using an IEM. For routine office/household noise these should work fine... The Shure E2c have a significantly better isolation. On the other hand, using the foamies may isolate better, but not by much I feel.
Secondly, I cannot slam my fist down on the desk and emphatically state "Yes! there is something called breaking-in and the super.fi 3 have more bass now." ... but I do feel that I am having to use the EQ less often and to a lesser extent. It's not that I've gotten used to their sound because I still keep using my sony cheapos once in a while to remind myself of the past (and that insane sloppy bass...i had to EQ my player to -18dB in the first two bands of my five band EQ for my Sonys!). But in any case, I feel that bass is not such a problem with these phones....not great extension but tight and resolved.
Super.fi pros arriving soon....wonder what they'll have to offer!
