e2c versus e3c versus e4c
Mar 21, 2006 at 3:45 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 50

unlimitedx

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Posts
167
Likes
0
Which is more bang for the buck? I've been wearing the stock ipod earbuds and I'm OK with them, only because I've never owned an expensive piece of headphone/earphones. But one of the earbuds doesn't stay in my ear and it's driving me nuts, so what I'm looking for now is a good earphone that will last me for years to come. Cheers!
orphsmile.gif


Please help me
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 4:06 AM Post #2 of 50

003

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Posts
4,688
Likes
14
Well I've heard the E3c can be a little shrill, I used to have an E4, they were really good. The mids were breath taking.
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 4:11 AM Post #3 of 50

LaBreaHead

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
1,847
Likes
11
I have the E3C's, and I read in another thread that the E4's combine the best features of the E2's and E3's.

I hate when earbuds fall out -- this shouldn't happen with the E3's or E4's (I don't know whether the slightly larger size of the bassy E2's is a problem ... probably not, though).
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 4:17 AM Post #4 of 50

unlimitedx

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Posts
167
Likes
0
I originally intended to purchase closed circumaural headphones, but I did not fit one with features that I wanted (short, manageable cord, not too heavy, easy on the go gear), but now I'm probably leaning towards the e3c, unless someone can justify the extra $70 for the e4c.

Thanks for everyone's help so far!

edit: also, I plan to use them for my ipod, and I want to know how loud is it at the lowest volume (sometimes I've been sleeping with my ipod playing songs and want it to be ~whisper)
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 4:48 AM Post #5 of 50

thebrain

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Posts
207
Likes
10
I had e2c's. They aren't bad, maybe a little bloated/muddy in the bass. They are also kinda big and ugly. I now have the e4c's-much smaller and lighter with more detail, more acurate (however not for bassheads), and overall I like them alot. Of course the e4c (@~$200) is the most I will prob. spend on headphones, so I am glad I like them. I don't think I've really heard of anyone who really likes teh e3c. esp. after they hear the e4.
TheBrain
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 4:50 AM Post #6 of 50

unlimitedx

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Posts
167
Likes
0
I'm just wondering whether I will appreciate the difference in sound quality, since I don't consider myself an audiophile, though I do want to know what good sound quality sounds like (i.e. something better than the ipod stock earbuds but at a reasonable price for a poor poor college student). but then with your logic, no one would like the e3c or e4c if they used the e5c....
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 5:15 AM Post #7 of 50

unlimitedx

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Posts
167
Likes
0
I'll probably buy the e3c because it'll serve as a good intro to quality headphones but not going too overboard price wise for a person who have used stock earbuds and think they are OK (only b/c I've never experienced better and expensive headphones).

Any more tips, suggestions, comments about the e3c?


also, the cheapest price seems to be at headphonesolutions, is there a cheaper place?
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 5:53 AM Post #8 of 50

thebrain

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Posts
207
Likes
10
I am by no means an audiophile and I could tell the difference between the e2c and stocks (obviously) and I could tell a difference between the e2 and e4 (e4 also have some nice realistic drums IMHO). I personally would get the e3 because they are darn near old tech now that the e4c's are out and I think if you look around the e4c's sell for the same as the retail of the e3c's.

-another side note. E4c's have removable sound tubes, which can be easily replaced and/or cleaned, and this adds to the longevity of the product.

-another side note. I know this is vain, but the e4c's just look better than the e3c's.

Oh about the e5c's. Ya I think they knock the socks off of e2,e3,e4, pretty easily being dual driver

but if you go there, the shure e500 knocks the socks off of every lower 'phone shure makes (including e5)

my .02
Thebrain
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 6:00 AM Post #9 of 50

unlimitedx

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Posts
167
Likes
0
I agree the e4c looks better, and from everything I've read e4c seems to be a winner in every category, and the only thing holding me back is the extra $70.

also, I would like your comments on how these IEM perform when watching movies on a laptop. Noticeable difference, or does any pair of headphones work fine with movies?

Also, would songs encoded at 64, 128 or 160 sound horrible after getting these quality headphones?
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 6:04 AM Post #10 of 50

TheMarchingMule

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Posts
9,158
Likes
21
Location
SoCal
Yes, if I were you (I'm glad I'm not...I kid, I kid!), then I would hold off until the coming of the Shure E500.
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 6:12 AM Post #11 of 50

nirvanalvr12

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Posts
216
Likes
0
I've been extremely impressed with my E4cs. The mids and highs are amazing, and the bass is deeper and tighter than i expected. I found them a great value if you want great sound quality out of IEMs. I havent heard great things about the e2c's or e3c's, but the e4c's seemed to be enjoyed by many. IMO, theyre worth the extra money.
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 7:01 AM Post #14 of 50

jjcha

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Posts
3,592
Likes
45
Which iPod are you using? If it's a Nano, Shuffle, or iPod Video, I'd recommend the E4c.

Personally, I've always been disappointed with the E3c every time I've tried them, while I think the E4c are fantastic and a great value at its price point.

Best,

-Jason
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top