[ljcii]

I'm out for better sound-stage though. I've heard the etymotic ER-4P has quite bad soundstage. moreover, I sort of read somewhere before that if you have an earpiece, if it has bass the rest you can just equalize to your likings, so atrio m5 seems like a versatile choice to me.

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljcii /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm out for better sound-stage though. I've heard the etymotic ER-4P has quite bad soundstage. moreover, I sort of read somewhere before that if you have an earpiece, if it has bass the rest you can just equalize to your likings, so atrio m5 seems like a versatile choice to me.

The ER4P has relative close imaging, but excellent stereo separation. Though you won't get the airy feeling of something larger and more grand, you will easily be able to discern between instruments and nuances of the stereo image and be able to place them with relative accuracy in a more closed-in environment (in terms of soundstage).

And I don't know where you read that, but I couldn't disagree more. Failing highs are much harder to rectify than quiet but accurate bass. The Etymotic IEMs all respond fantastically to equalization, and since the bass is only a problem in volume all you need is a few dB on the 60hz band and you'll be set to go. The balanced armatures of the ER4 will probably respond better to equalization than the dynamic drivers of the Atrio M5 because balanced armatures tend to not distort if the source file is properly pre-cut (I used to set a -10 dB precut with +10dB on everything below 60hz in Rockbox sometimes for kicks, and I got totally deep and amazingly visceral bass for an armature IEM in the past). IMHO balanced armatures are unmatched for equalization viability.

 

[jonathanjong]

While the Etys are great SQ wise, they're not the toughest things in the world. So, again, if you're poor and fear replacement, they might not be the way to go. Also, Etys require regular filter replacement, which isn't the most convenient thing in the world either.

I've never caught on with the audiophile lingo. What's bright? Check out the huge AH-C700/751 thread for more info on 551. That thread also contains lots of info on other canalphones/IEM.

My opinion remains: Get good canalphones. Relative to IEMs, they're not much worse (SQ-wise), often more durable (Westone notwithstanding), more versatile (e.g., less microphonics, better for gym), cheaper, and less fancy-looking (read: less tempting to steal). So, once you decide on genre, decide on brand and model.

 

[3X0]

No way! Versus some Sony MDR-EX-lookalikes and a tri-flanged Ety with chunks of yellowed earwax smeared over the flanges, I'm sure any sensible thief would take the product that looks more conventional and hygienic.

And IMO the ER4 is far hardier than it appears, and has the benefit of being discreet. I don't even recall any documented issues being brought up as to their build quality.

 

[nickdawg]

^^^Most thieves probably wouldn't even know what an Ety is and that it's really an expensive earphone. Now if it were ibuds or a regular set of cans, then you'd be more open to theft.

 

[jonathanjong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3X0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif tri-flanged Ety with chunks of yellowed earwax smeared over the flanges, I'm sure any sensible thief would take the product that looks more conventional and hygienic.

LOL! That's assuming the OP won't clean his/her ears. Also, would-be theives might not know what Etys are, but IMO they look expensive. Fancy tri-flange stuff, etc. Unless they're crusted in ear-gold...

 

[ljcii]

Hey perhaps i should make a new thread with poll on this.
IEM or canalphones.

 

[jonathanjong]

LOL. Yea, you could. Decisions, decisions.

 

[DARKHAVEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majkel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Better than the HD600's but portable and easily driven from pretty any decent mp3 player.

HD25-1s are better than HD600s? I imagine a lot of people on Head-fi are going to be pretty pissed when they find that out...

 

[DARKHAVEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif While the Etys are great SQ wise, they're not the toughest things in the world. So, again, if you're poor and fear replacement, they might not be the way to go. Also, Etys require regular filter replacement, which isn't the most convenient thing in the world either.

Yes, but they are one of the only IEMs out there that offers a filter, which is a nice feature. I personally view it as more of a benefit than a pain, because once you plug any other IEM, you've got quiten issue on your hands..

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've never caught on with the audiophile lingo. What's bright? Check out the huge AH-C700/751 thread for more info on 551. That thread also contains lots of info on other canalphones/IEM.

Bright is an overemphasis on treble to the point where it becomes harsh and metallic. That's what I believe "bright" means, anyway. Also, I like the 751s, they are pretty neat little guys. I'm thinking of grabbing a pair if I can get over that frankenstein's monster look when they're in your ears. Good price though...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif My opinion remains: Get good canalphones. Relative to IEMs, they're not much worse (SQ-wise), often more durable (Westone notwithstanding), more versatile (e.g., less microphonics, better for gym), cheaper, and less fancy-looking (read: less tempting to steal). So, once you decide on genre, decide on brand and model.

Be careful to generalize here, there are no cut and dried distinctions between canal phones and IEMs. Canal phones can create a similar seal and match SQ. They are not always more durable, not always cheaper, and not always less fancy-looking. Many people confuse IEMs and canalphones. If you are refering to earbud style phones, like the Yuin OK/PKs or Audio Technica CM700s, I understand where you are going. But the distinction between canal phones and IEMs is a much debated topic here (and among manufacturers). Are Sennheiser CX500s or Denon 751s canal or IEM? What about Shure? Difference is sometimes depth and sometimes definition. Cheers.

 

[DARKHAVEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3X0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The ER4P has relative close imaging, but excellent stereo separation. Though you won't get the airy feeling of something larger and more grand, you will easily be able to discern between instruments and nuances of the stereo image and be able to place them with relative accuracy in a more closed-in environment (in terms of soundstage). And I don't know where you read that, but I couldn't disagree more. Failing highs are much harder to rectify than quiet but accurate bass. The Etymotic IEMs all respond fantastically to equalization, and since the bass is only a problem in volume all you need is a few dB on the 60hz band and you'll be set to go. The balanced armatures of the ER4 will probably respond better to equalization than the dynamic drivers of the Atrio M5 because balanced armatures tend to not distort if the source file is properly pre-cut (I used to set a -10 dB precut with +10dB on everything below 60hz in Rockbox sometimes for kicks, and I got totally deep and amazingly visceral bass for an armature IEM in the past). IMHO balanced armatures are unmatched for equalization viability.

x2. Especially if you have a dual or triple armature setup with dedicated woofer. The Shure SE530s for example, have amazing bass before EQing 60hz. It can only get better from there. It's also a good way to add some more oomph to the UE Triples too. I really do like the Atrios, though, if you can get them for a good price. But, then again, I'm a basshead and Etymotics just are't my sound.

 

[ljcii]

I think i'm also a basshead. ( must be because i love bass ) Also considering whether i should save up to the Sleek Audios. (did i spell audio correctly?) as it seems to be a better buy. ANy opinions? I know that they're less bass heavy but will they stil fit for a basshead?

 

[DARKHAVEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljcii /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think i'm also a basshead. ( must be because i love bass ) Also considering whether i should save up to the Sleek Audios. (did i spell audio correctly?) as it seems to be a better buy. ANy opinions? I know that they're less bass heavy but will they stil fit for a basshead?

I think the SA6s are a good choice. They'll work pretty well for a bass head with their Bass Port 1 installed and you can similarly tailor the treble to your preferences. The replaceable cables are a nice touch too. I really like the SE530s too, very nice, clean, copious bass. More money though.

 

[jonathanjong]

DARKHAVEN's right, of course. I'm making gross generalizations, as assuming that the terms "canalphone" and "IEM" unproblematically refer to two discrete categories of sound-producing-thingamabobs-that-you-stick-in-your-ear. That said, I think the simplifications and generalizations I've made are helpful for the purposes at hand.

So, the OP doesn't want to spend too much money (e.g., replacements, etc.) and doesn't want it stolen. To my mind, then, canalphones are probably the safe option. Not everyone likes IEMs (i.e., thingamabobs that go deep and require head-tilting, jaw-opening action to insert), and unless he can try them out first, he might regret that decision. Also, they raise the possibility of filters and foam tips, both of which are recurring costs. Also, they look fancy (at least to people I hang out with). And I think they're some pretty good canalphones available (read: the Denon AH-Cs) for good prices.

So, I concede the point that simplifications and generalizations are not always helpful, but I think they are in this case. *sigh* I blame the fact that I'm a scientists...it's all about the generalizations here.

P.S. I think replacement filters are a feature rather than a bug too, but I don't think those kinds of IEMs will be suitable for the OP.

 

[DARKHAVEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I blame the fact that I'm a scientists...it's all about the generalizations here.

Ah, my friend, as a fellow scientist, I must disagree. Generalizations make the worst kind of science. We need precision and specifics!