E3c's, If you were considering them...

[1967cutlass]

Buy them! by all means!


Now that I've used them enough to give [some unorganized/ train of thought] impressions, heres what I think. They are very very good. That being said, there are a few things to be noted:
1. They need EQ adjustments
2. It really does take a while to find the right fit
Once i got the EQ right, they really brightened up and the detail started to come through. One thing I noticed immediately is a huge increase in voice intelligibility compared to any of the other headphones I've used. The highs aren't 100% smooth though, that's my biggest criticism. They are definately there with the EQ, it pretty much negates the rolloff, but you can tell something is a bit off. The bass is punchy and well balanced, and it might seem weak depending on what you're used to, for instance if you are used to the "fun" (disproportionate) bass commonly found in grado headphones these may seem lacking. The sound is much more akin to hd-480's bass-wise (those have the most balanced and musical bass of any cheap can i've ever heard). The soundstage on these is about as wide as my sr-80's but it is much more accurate and very distinguishable. Much of this varys from recording to recording of course. I won't bother mentioning the isolation, it's good of course. I have to say once again that I keep hearing things in songs that I haven't heard before in other headphones. The biggest thing about these is that every once in a while they become transparent and you only hear music, not transducers in an enclosure. That is what makes a good system IMO, and these are capable of that I believe, if you can get the setting right. Comfort wise, they can dissapear if you are using the comfy rubber tips.
So what do they mean to me? Recently I've been getting sick of the Grado sound: the sr-80's were the last of my headphones, I've bought and sold many others but kept those. Although I bought the E3's for portable use, I find that they are musically far superior to my grado's (based on my speakers as my musical reference). Now I'm selling the grados and buying eggos for my girlfriend and a few new cd's for myself.

 

[Mr Iriver]

I agree. The e3's are awesome little phones. They are musical, detailed, clear, with great imaging, and transparent enough. I like them over quite a few full size phones around and below the price range. But for rock and metal however, the grados are just a much more enjoyable listen IMO, though not as detailed.

 

[warpdriver]

I dislike the E3C's, with a passion. Goes to show that all advice on this forum should be taken with a grain of salt with such a wide range of opinion. People should really hear them for themselves instead of taking any faith in any one (or many) opinions. I read the reviews until I was blue in the face (and trusted the Shure name), and then I bought my E3C from a place that doesn't offer returns, and took a needless loss in selling them when I was utterly disappointed with their sound (in fact, they are the only headphones that I bought and sold with less than 20 hours of actual listening on them, not including break-in time)

And I should mention that I believe earphones shouldn't need EQ to sound good, that is basically a bandaid solution. Not everybody's DAP (esp iPods) can address the limitations of sound in the E3C. As an iPod user, I think the E3C is poorly matched for an iPod, and there is no preset that can bring out the highs (or lows) of the E3C to a reasonable level. If a headphone doesn't sound reasonably good without EQ, I automatically eliminate it from consideration

 

[Mr Iriver]

Well, the same could be said of the etymotics. The shures can be equalized to bring out the lows, and highs. With the ipod, the latin setting does this for the most part, yet the shures are affected by the lows roll off, but can still sound great out of the ipod. The etymotics on the other hand, have really bad timbre, treble distrotion and decay no matter what equipment or EQ is used. Even then I would not say they are bad. They simply aren't as good as many say they are.
It seems that canalphones tend to differ more from person to person, reason for which I also agree, people should listen for themselves before bying if possible. IMO, the shure E3s are the best single driver canalphones, except in comparison to the E4 which I have never heard.

 

[warpdriver]

Why did you even bring up Etymotics? I never even mentioned them ( do you really you want to turn yet another thread into a Ety vs Shure thread)
I was discussing Shures on a pure sound quality point of view.

And you keep mentioning that Ety's have bad timbre, decay and such. The highs of the Ety are very good IMO. I have to disagree. Let's just keep it at that (agree to disagree) without degenerating yet another thread.

I tried every EQ setting with the E3 on an iPod. The iPod EQ sucks (one of the big drawbacks of the iPod), and I would not recommend any of them. Consequently, I would not recommend Shures on an iPod. Frankly I think most of the single driver IEM's have a serious compromise in some aspect of sound quality not sufficiently fixable by EQ (esp the iPod's).

 

[jonnywolfet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver And I should mention that I believe earphones shouldn't need EQ to sound good, that is basically a bandaid solution. Not everybody's DAP (esp iPods) can address the limitations of sound in the E3C. As an iPod user, I think the E3C is poorly matched for an iPod, and there is no preset that can bring out the highs (or lows) of the E3C to a reasonable level. If a headphone doesn't sound reasonably good without EQ, I automatically eliminate it from consideration

i disagree with your opinion that eq is a bandaid solution, saying that adding eq to sound is a poor solution, then you are saying that anything else, i.e. adding an amp is also a shabby way of bettering sound. the limitations and advantages of each headphone or source are there to be used to thier full (percieved) potential, and if eq'ing a phone is a good way of getting better (percieved) sound, then it cant really be said to be a poor way of getting musical enjoyment out of a rig.

saying that, i agree that the e3c sounds rubbish out an ipod, but eq'ed and amped, theyre allmost as good (to me) as the e4c.

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnywolfet i disagree with your opinion that eq is a bandaid.

It's a bandaid in the sense that you are just compounding another problem and probably introducing distortions of your own.

 

[jonnywolfet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver It's a bandaid in the sense that you are just compounding another problem and probably introducing distortions of your own.

only with ultra high end. e3c's are hardly super-hi-fi quality, and when used from a lossy source, the benefits of eq'ing would far outweigh the cons.

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnywolfet e3c's are hardly super-hi-fi quality

Now *that* I can agree with

 

[countach]

IMO, E3c are great IEMs. I think its better issue is the power and strengh they can give to certain kind of music, for example electronic, trance/prog or this styles mixed over-boosted in the lows.

The midrange is absolutely fabulous and with a tiny EQ +1 dB in the lows (60, 100 Hz), -1 in 6Khz and +1 Hz above they get enhacend a lot.

E4 are the same thing but with and incredible crystal clear highs texture.

Just my 2c

 

[1967cutlass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver I dislike the E3C's, with a passion. Goes to show that all advice on this forum should be taken with a grain of salt with such a wide range of opinion. People should really hear them for themselves instead of taking any faith in any one (or many) opinions. I read the reviews until I was blue in the face (and trusted the Shure name), and then I bought my E3C from a place that doesn't offer returns, and took a needless loss in selling them when I was utterly disappointed with their sound (in fact, they are the only headphones that I bought and sold with less than 20 hours of actual listening on them, not including break-in time) And I should mention that I believe earphones shouldn't need EQ to sound good, that is basically a bandaid solution. Not everybody's DAP (esp iPods) can address the limitations of sound in the E3C. As an iPod user, I think the E3C is poorly matched for an iPod, and there is no preset that can bring out the highs (or lows) of the E3C to a reasonable level. If a headphone doesn't sound reasonably good without EQ, I automatically eliminate it from consideration

your vendetta against the e3's is pretty misguided. maybe you should blame the ipod instead? it's the same logic. i'd be dissapointed in the DAP if i knew the potential of the earbuds and it were much higher than what i was getting.

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1967cutlass your vendetta against the e3's is pretty misguided. maybe you should blame the ipod instead? it's the same logic. i'd be dissapointed in the DAP if i knew the potential of the earbuds and it were much higher than what i was getting.

Not really. I have used the E3's with other non-DAP sources too, and my opinion remains the same.

I just found them hard to listen to. This is more a failing of the E3 than any particular setup issue.

I hope I don't come across as having a Vendetta though, I just want to state that one should listen for themselves. If you like the E3C....all the power to you.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver Not really. I have used the E3's with other non-DAP sources too, and my opinion remains the same. I just found them hard to listen to. This is more a failing of the E3 than any particular setup issue. I hope I don't come across as having a Vendetta though, I just want to state that one should listen for themselves. If you like the E3C....all the power to you.

Perhaps they were defective, as I remember you saying, even the PX100 are more clear and detailed, and from experience I can assure the PX100 is nowhere as clear, nor detailed as the shures. Perhaps it is your hearing, or perhaps it is the fact that the E3 are not bright phones, which may make them sound dull if you are used to other phones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver Now *that* I can agree with

None of the IEMs is ultra high end. Ultra high end would be where the STAX omega, and orpheus stand. The best canalphones would only be midfi.

 

[teemi]

I really quite like my e3s out of my ipod with no equalizer -- but they're my first non-stock headphones, so. What amazes me is that, even in what seems like a quiet environment, the volume needs to be so much lower than with other phones. Hearing the music in metal was startling; I'm used to Megadeth being fun, pleasant noise.

Of course, they also just pop right in with pretty much anything but the very largest tips, perfect seal nearly as easily as earbuds, so that probably colors my impression as well.

 

[tim_the_gamer]

I read lots and lots of reviews here about the e3 before I purchased them and my advice would be to please buy from a place with a generous return policy and to TRUST your own ears.

I disliked the e3s when I bought them. I'm of the opinion that if you like your music without highs, but with extra midrange, then these would be right up your alley. Furthermore, the sensitivity on these phones is so high that I could hear music when the volume was set to zero on my Karma. Volume 3 (out of 30) was loud and in addition, they would pickup other sounds like hard-drive whirring and buzzing when the backlight was on. No problems with my Ety er6s doing this but in all fairness I do hear harddrive whirring with the er4-p's but it's more subtle. (Likewise I hear it when using the hd25-1, but still it's subtle)