[viator122]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necros Clueless.

What I meant was basically what joelongwood and iGory said. Few people who buy these will be using these through a home source. People generally, it seems, use canalphones as part portable rigs. I know I wouldn't be inclined to plug them into anything stationary. The

was also aimed at the dismissive nature of your post. Ogewo took the time to write up his impressions. If you're going to use your canalphones with stationary components, more power to you, take his comments with a grain of salt, but don't post just to dismiss his review. It's rude.

And I don't know what you mean by fanboyism. How could I be a fanboy of something that hasn't been released and that I've never heard? I like the sound signature of my e2 and the reviews so far of the e4 have been very positive. I think they'll be a good portable can and a good compromise between the e3 and e5. So, barring any negative reviews, I'd like to set aside some cash to pick up a pair and give them a shot myself.

 

[Oski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joelongwood Call me "clueless" as well, because I find reviews and impressions to be more useful when they use sources that I would most likely use myself, such as an iPod.

Same here...I'm clueless also. Thanks for the review Ogewo, that's very helpful, as I'll be using the E4's with my iPod mostly unamped.

However, regardless of the source, a comparative review of various phones from a single source can still reveal relative differences.

 

[matheis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloco Strange. I'm assuming you were listening to the e2c's and not a new revamped model? Because my e2c's do not sound muddy (and especially not bass heavy at all) when driven via my Rio Karma (naturally with custom eq on). If anything, they sound clean, a bit extended, there's some decent soundstage in well recorded tracks and the treble is decent. I gotta point the finger at the ipod (was eq used?) and possibly the way the files were encoded. I don't think you got a fair representation of the e2c.

having had the e2 for a couple years and recently upgrading to the e3, i can say that the e2 are muddy and lack articulation as compared to the e3. i was surprised at how much more i could hear with the e3. some people say the e3 lack bass resonse in comparison with the e2. i think that the e2 just has more bass, which overwhelms the earphones' ability to accurately reproduce sound over the entire range. the e3 definitely produces good bass (as paired with dr7, n10, and karma) and has good articulation to boot. definitely worth the upgrade from the e2. if you've got smaller ears, the e3's smaller size will make your ears happy, too

 

[apnk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by matheis having had the e2 for a couple years and recently upgrading to the e3, i can say that the e2 are muddy and lack articulation as compared to the e3. i was surprised at how much more i could hear with the e3. some people say the e3 lack bass resonse in comparison with the e2. i think that the e2 just has more bass, which overwhelms the earphones' ability to accurately reproduce sound over the entire range. the e3 definitely produces good bass (as paired with dr7, n10, and karma) and has good articulation to boot. definitely worth the upgrade from the e2. if you've got smaller ears, the e3's smaller size will make your ears happy, too

Yes, and the separation is better too.

 

[Blitzula]

Another vote for a review of canalphones using only portable equipment still being useful. Clueless indeed

 

[Max Minimum]

Thanks for the review! Most of us appreciate you taking time out when you could be doing other things to give us some comparitive impressions on a product we're interested in.

I have one question also. How big of a profile do these have once inserted? Are they big? I'm looking for a midlevel canalphone that I can listen to eardown on a pillow is why I ask.

 

[ogewo]

A few of you guys have asked if your e3s should be upgraded to e4s. I think that would depend on your listening environment. I'm not sure you could appreciate the differences while working out, or intensly focusing on anything other than the music. In that situation I wouldn't personally upgrade. OTOH if you could listen to the music undistracted then you would absolutely benefit from upgrading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Iriver How is the soundstage of the E4c, compare to the E3c

I don't remember noticing a difference. Both did have some soundstage, enough for me, but it wasn't great like some full-sized cans. Instrument separation (imaging?) did seem better on the e4, but that may just have been the greater detail giving me that impression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necros Don't you think any review should be on full size seperates with original CD as the source?

What you're talking about is a review of the absolute performance of the headphones. Such a review is strictly academic to anyone not planning on using high end associated equipment. For example, the e4 may be %100 better with the best source and amp, but at the same time it may only be %10 better out of an mp3 player. This is why my "review" could still have value to some.

As far as your comments on fanboyism: I stated opinions and qualified them with my (lack of) past experience. You'll find no fanatical assumptions in my post. I think you suffer from flameboyism. But, since you just helped me coin that term, you are forgiven.

gloco - The e2 was fine, it's just that I was listening to all the models back to back to back, so their shortcomings become more readily apparent.

 

[ogewo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Minimum Thanks for the review! Most of us appreciate you taking time out when you could be doing other things to give us some comparitive impressions on a product we're interested in. I have one question also. How big of a profile do these have once inserted? Are they big? I'm looking for a midlevel canalphone that I can listen to eardown on a pillow is why I ask.

My pleasure.

The size was almost exactly the same as the e3. Same width and maybe 1-2mm longer. I meant to check if you could lie down with them, but forgot, sorry

.

 

[Feanor]

Thank you for your impressions. I am thinking about those e4-s. tempting.

 

[Max Minimum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ogewo My pleasure. The size was almost exactly the same as the e3. Same width and maybe 1-2mm longer. I meant to check if you could lie down with them, but forgot, sorry .

No problem, thanks again.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by matheis having had the e2 for a couple years and recently upgrading to the e3, i can say that the e2 are muddy and lack articulation as compared to the e3. i was surprised at how much more i could hear with the e3. some people say the e3 lack bass resonse in comparison with the e2. i think that the e2 just has more bass, which overwhelms the earphones' ability to accurately reproduce sound over the entire range. the e3 definitely produces good bass (as paired with dr7, n10, and karma) and has good articulation to boot. definitely worth the upgrade from the e2. if you've got smaller ears, the e3's smaller size will make your ears happy, too

I cannot argue your points since i don't own the e3's. I'm sure if i heard the e3's i would probably come to the same conclusion. However, the e2's are not bass heavy. If you eq correctly, they sound just fine.

 

[elnero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloco If you eq correctly...

I think this may be the defining statement in your differences of opinion.

 

[ogewo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloco If you eq correctly, they sound just fine.

Yeah I probably should have played with the EQ. I take it you like the EQ on your micro?

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnero I think this may be the defining statement in your differences of opinion.

Good point elnero, i should've been a bit more clear at what i was getting at.

I feel that the eq is definitely making the difference. Lets face it, who actually enjoys the sound of their dap with the eq off all the time? I sures hell don't and many people know about the karma's eq flexibility to tailoring the sound exactly the way you want it.

ogewo, i'm actually using a rio karma nowadays. The eq on it is stellar and i have a preset specifically for the e2's. Sounds pretty detailed to me, but i imagine that i probably feel that way since i got them for $70 new (included shipping from buy.com). Maybe one day soon i'll splurge on a high end canal phone so i can compare it, i'm getting incredibly curious over the e4's now thanks to you and others who are jabbering about them

By the way, the e2's and zen micro didn't mate that well, imho.

 

[pank2002]

Quote:

Originally Posted by matheis having had the e2 for a couple years and recently upgrading to the e3, i can say that the e2 are muddy and lack articulation as compared to the e3. i was surprised at how much more i could hear with the e3. some people say the e3 lack bass resonse in comparison with the e2. i think that the e2 just has more bass, which overwhelms the earphones' ability to accurately reproduce sound over the entire range. the e3 definitely produces good bass (as paired with dr7, n10, and karma) and has good articulation to boot. definitely worth the upgrade from the e2. if you've got smaller ears, the e3's smaller size will make your ears happy, too

Hey Matheis,
I haven't heard the e2, and though I agree that the e3c's are great they definitely lack on the bass side; partly because there could be better/more bass, and partly because it could reproduce the deep sounds better (if you get what I'm trying to express.) I have some songs where a very low male voice (volume and frequency wise) is singing, below a higher pitched voice, and the deeper voice just sound as mud when played back on iPod → e3c whereas one will be able to hear his words when listened to through fx eggoes. Sorry if this is unclear (which it most likely is.)
I will be getting the e4. From what have been said they seems to be ideal.
BTW: your imp is still going strong

Edit: Thanks for the review ogewo. I must be cluless to