[rabbitsfoot]

I believe Muad'dibs comments are right on target concerning the E5. I use eq from a Shure psm 600hw belt pack specifically made to bring the high end up in balance, and the difference between non EQ'd and EQ'd is summed up in two words: detail and balance. There is still not as much high frequency informatiion presented as the Ety but much much improved and with the excellent bottom end, a great phone. With EQ, I could understand why some listeners would prefer the E5 over the E4, and of course the reverse is true. I have been using the Westone UM2 also, and am finding these really quite nice. Great bottom end, without the mid frequency emphasis of the E5, and a bit more detail up top. I could not live with either phone though without the boost in the highs. I asked Westone about this lack of highs in both drivers and was told this was the direct result of pumping up the bottom end. Sometime back, I read some comments in another post, concerning how the bass end of the Ety gets lost when other sounds are going on around you, and find this is true. Possibly the nod to get the bass end up in the pro-canal phones was the essential target. EQ is usually readily available to the performer and almost all in-ear monitor systems include the built in high boost switch in the belt packs. Some manufacturers are producing custom IEMs not needing the boosted high frequency and am sure we're in for many new products from many manufactures, in the near future. This should be exciting to all of us that enjoy canal phones.

 

[Orpheus]

look, it seems we all have different experiences with these things, but i swear to you, the E5's have just as much high-frequency content as the ety's but with deeper bass. really.

i used to listen to the ety 4p/s all day at work. did that for a couple months. then i just got the E5 last week, and have also been listening to it everyday. so, i'm not talking out of my ass. i've been listening to these things for quite a while.

also, you can look in my profile... i have tons of headphones. i have speakers as well. so, i know what things "should" sound like. believe me, i'm a perfectionist. if there's something a little weird, i'll hunt it down. and i did think the E5 was broken originally, until i tried different tips.

anyway, as for that graph, yes, it seems to suggest that the E5 is lacking in the high region relative to the other device. HOWEVER, these graphs for headphones and especially earphones are very misleading! speakers are much easier to measure... but ear devices interact with your canal and ear shape.

i can think of a couple ways just off the top of my head that that graph could be skewed:

1. they positioned the two earphones in different manners (they're different shapes after all!)
2. they have different amounts of seal on the headphones (and if i'm right, the E5 isn't even supposed to have a good seal!, thus also lowering the high region relative to the rest of the spectrum)

anyway, any scientist knows that measurements can be tailored to fit your hypothesis. there are MANY more ways they could have misrepresented the E5 in that graph.

so:

1. i never look at response graphs for headphones/earphones cause they are always very misleading. think about it this way--if we knew exactly how the ear will physically affect sound, then all published graphs should have had a formula applied to result in an understandable graph. in other words, we should see flatter graphs rather than the erratic response we always see in the higher-regions. just look at all the graphs on headroom's site. the high-region is very erratic in any headphone. again, it would be more convenient to adjust that graph to truly represent what we hear, but we can't!--no one knows how.
2. you're looking at the graph from a manufacturer's site! what, you don't think they would tried to represent their product more? don't be naive. it isn't a lie to represent a graph in a misleading manner--so that's what they do.

in conclusion, i hear that the E5 is very extended and flat in both ends of the spectrum. if you hear differently, i suggest you find a tip that sounds better.

 

[Muad'dib]

how do you find the bass on the um2s rabbitsfoot? I had always heard they were crappy so I didnt bother, considering I could buy them for the same price I got my used e5's im kinda upset to learn they're any good, but I guess my e5's could go back to ebay. I was sorta disappointed my e5's diddnt rattle my spinal column but I'm a bit greedy.

 

[AdamZuf]

i will ignore this insult, and discuss audio instead. i ask you members nicely not to bring this subject up anymore, because it's ain't no good for anyone; and definetly not as a cinic title of a thread.

i've used the Mensa DI/O and the PPA and concluded this, also an iPod and IMP-400 with porta corda;
i have found that the E5's lower frequency holds some added layer of sonic signature, which could be interprated as "muffled". this layer didn't feel like part of the instruments themselfs and more like an added bass which contributes to the soundstage size and structure only. it seemed very unnatural to me.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon The ultimate ears graph looks like an audiology headphone graph: too flat and totally unnatural. Shure looks more like a DF equalized headphone with more natural response.

why is that? the shures can sound unnatural to some (including me) more then overly bright headphones, which boosts the higher frequencies according to graphs. for myself, the reason i didn't like them was a lack of naturality that i couldn't have read on the graph.
more highs doesn't meen less natural; products which has different physical attributs behave differently (=affect our perception) much more unpredictably then what we can see on the graphs and want to believe we understand. you cannot see the percieved relation between frequencies when they play together and a whole bunch of other things which has the factor of music playing through the headphones to your head between them, which is quite a different situation from sine waves at the lab on some binaural head or whatever they use.
so, naturality, which is a part of music (and not saying yes/no to mr. 10Khz or mr. 16Khz), has nothing to do with the graphs, from my experience.

 

[rabbitsfoot]

I agree with most of AdamZuf. The only way I can listen to the E5's is with a high end boost. This BALANCES the sound with great bass and a reasonably good top end. I don't think you can have a great bottom end without the compementary top to balance the sound. It's how much high end that seems to be the difference we can't decide on here-some don't need any and some need a lot. I just think the balance of the E5 toward the bass end was the designed target of the E5 from the manufacturer. As the unit was produced primarily for the Professional Performer, the high end could be tailored to each players wish with eq-readily available. One need only read a few posts here to realize we all hear slightly or grossly different or desire different frequency balances. What could be more simple and universally desireable than to the leave the balance in the hands of the person that is going to listen to the end mix. Muad'dib, I'm liking the UM2-WITH EQ-quite a bit. The bass end is fat-mids are clear without the emphasis of the E5 and top end seems nicely balanced. Seems like you can hear a little more detail up top compared to the E5. Once again-I could not listen to this phone without high frequency EQ! But thats just me. I'm afraid most people without the benefit of balancing the top end would find this rather dark like myself-obviously opinions vary!

 

[rabbitsfoot]

I'd like to inform the community here, as a newer member, I found this site after wanting to do some research on canal phones. I work with a company which is sometimes involved with pro-sound sales/installs/live sound reinforcement. I have been involved with the love of all things music since my teenage years and find the involvement concerning sound very much fun. The first time I saw a band perform at my high school as a 9th grader and the reaction of the girls in the crowd-well, I decided with my brother on the spot that we were going to be musicians! But my love of audio has mirrored my love of performing and it is sometimes hard to keep my gear-person syndrome in check! You know what I'm talking about. I made references to the Westone UM2 that I've been checking out for the company. My opinions are just that-opinions. Sorry for this, but thought it needed saying. I've enjoyed the many different posts on this site during my short stay and have learned some valuable information. Thanks for the ride guys.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orpheus the E5 is not muffled at all. the top-end sounds just like the ety's, but the bass is much more extended. the reason it sounds muffled is probably cause you have too good of a seal. (i wrote about this issue in many threads.) when i first got my e5, i thought the same thing as you. in fact, it was so bad i though the high-frequency driver blew!!!-seriously. i was gonna return them! ....but that was using the foam tips. then i tried the rubber tips that barely go into your ear... and voila--perfect sound!!! you just gotta try on all the tips to see which one works best for you. they sound incredible. best earphones i have ever used! please try all the tips and report back. i think the reason this is, is cause they were made for custom molds, which musicians use. the ety's with custom molds are REALLY bad... really thin sounding, cause molds don't isolate as well as the foam or tri-tips. but the E5 seems to work best with less-than-perfect seal which suggests optimal performance with ear molds.

Just as others have pointed out before, the highs on the Shure E5 are not the same as those in the ER4. Depending on the tips used, the Shure E5 can sound very different in every case. I have tried all tips and what is common in every case with the Shure E5 is that it lacks detail and it is incapable of resolving sounds and instruments, that the bass is excessive for some materials and not to others, which indicates to me that there is some unbalance and possibly a hole somewhere. The bass itself sounds veiled, compressed and unatural. The ER4 may be too detailed for some folks, but they are unmatched for clarity and detail. The bass may sound recessed for some, but everybody will agree that the ER4's bass is clear, precise and well represented.

I am not going to say that the E5 is one of the worst cans I have ever heard and owned, but it pretty much sits at the bottom of my headphone collection. I am just glad that I just sold my E5 this week.

The Shure E3 is rolled at both ends and the mids are . If you like that sound, then great, but that earphone does not sound good at all to me.

I have to agree with the muffinman and his review.

 

[rhizome]

maybe this has already been covered at length in another thread, but i think it's worth mentioning the eq for etys as discussed here: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reference_earphones.htm

i've experienced a vast improvement after tweaking a software parametric eq according to what linkwitz suggests. the sound is opened up considerably. bass can be heard more clearly, and there is even more detail across the spectrum. try it on a track with some subtle cymbal brushwork like bill evans - jade visions. the clean up on the high end is immediately recognizable. to me it sounds much more natural and full. i haven't heard any of the shure phones, so i won't try to make a comparison. however, linkwitz likes the e2 also.

 

[AdamZuf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhizome i've experienced a vast improvement after tweaking a software parametric eq according to what linkwitz suggests. the sound is opened up considerably. bass can be heard more clearly, and there is even more detail across the spectrum.

i haven't tried the settings, but i must say that IMO, the Ety's provide a more solid base to a successful EQ work, which is very hard to achieve sometimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitsfoot I don't think you can have a great bottom end without the compementary top to balance the sound

very true. for example, if there's a lack of midrange relatively to the bass, some deep notes are not heard. notes needs the frequencies above their dominant frequency range in order to be sound clear and right to us.
in the high frequency range, and in for me there's a lot of soundstage structure information, which needs the right relationship with the music that fills it which obviously belongs to the lower frequencies.

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

i will ignore this insult, and discuss audio instead. i ask you members nicely not to bring this subject up anymore, because it's ain't no good for anyone; and definetly not as a cinic title of a thread.

what are you referring to?

anyway, seeing the majority here seems to think that the E5 high-end is recessed, it would seem that they only work for certain individuals. i swear they are have a very extended response in my ear. really. so, perhaps it is possible they are extra sensative to positioning and other factors, and perhaps simply will not work with certain people. but they remain the best sounding earphones i have tried to date. but i suppose it would be worth it to any potential buyers to first demo them before buying, as apparently they don't work out for many people.

 

[winty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orpheus so, perhaps it is possible they are extra sensative to positioning and other factors, and perhaps simply will not work with certain people.

If you're right, and I think it's quite possible you're right, then that makes a mockery of the "ear simulator" frequency response graphs we see.

 

[Orpheus]

well, i don't want to call them liars. cause i'm sure they are not. look, my degree's in biology. i've read many research papers. and no matter how straight the professor is in reporting the facts and numbers, "nonessential" byproducts are always ommited in the favor of the hypothesis. there's always bias. now, in the field i work in, it's the same thing. in litigation, there's two sides... and each side can hire an expert witness. this witness will present only facts that support his argument, despite knowing inconsistencies and other facts that oppose his argument. but both sides do the same thing, so what it comes down to is who has the best team of biased experts.

this is life.

so, no, i'm not trying to mock the graph in question. what i do want to present is a consideration that the graph is misleading. cause it is... for the reasons i wrote about.

do this for me.... look at the response graphs posted on headroom's site. do ANY of them look flat??? just looking at them, you'd say to yourself, "What kind of bullcrap headphones are these!?" all of them measure extremely erratic relative to loudspeaker measurements. so, why is that?--and yet, we all know headphones sound perfectly fine.

that is because we do not have a measurement tool that can represent the data in a way we can understand.

i just want you guys to know that the graph in question is not the "last word." far from it.

what is telling in this case is that the VAST majority of you do seem to hear a roll-off in the high-region. so, since i do not hear this, and i don't dare call all of you incompetent, i must conclude that the E5 only works for certain individuals. sounds like the logical conclusion to me.

 

[Muad'dib]

This may seem strange to some but from this discussion and further listening its starting to actually seem like the bass is what disturbs me most, I think its probly just that I'm not very sensitive to the details in the high end, although I do have to at least make it loud enough to hear it... but coming from the e2c's i was dissappointed with the kind of bass that some had enjoyed, it sounded more like every type of bass noise was being reproduced with the exact same thump, and although the e5cs dont distort as much and produce a bigger thump, its still very bland and undetailed... and I enjoy bass very much, but what I found was the loudness was making up for how little it reproduced the very low end, so Im listening to this loud thump but feeling very little of it, I'd like to hear more about the um2 if it can produce lower frequencies and do so with some real oomph.

I also think that even though orpheus thinks he knows what things "should" sound like from listening to speakers, I think a lot of us here dont spend this kind of money to hear what it sounds like in a symphony, we want to hear what it sounds like to have a violinist in our lap

.

I keep noticing people letting others borrow there phones over a forum, which i find odd, but can anyone lend me some um2's? Im torn between those and my current e5's, and I might even go to 4s's but I hate to lose so much bass.

 

[wolfen68]

I've used every Shure canalphone and I like them for what they are. I am auditioning E5's right now and I really like them. I find them very impressive and they are the first canalphone I've ever used that has that "big" sound. However, I am returning the E5's because I came into this with very high expectations....

The E5's will demonstrate a high end once in awhile. It's sometimes elusive, sometimes needs EQ, but it's there. My main issue is that the detail is juuuust shy of my expectations. If custom IEM's did not exist (even though they are not completely proven out yet), the Shure E5 would be my portable of choice. The promise of that extra sparkle of clarity is the only thing that's making me move on in my search. For the money these things cost, near perfection has been my target and the E5's barely miss IMO.

I've done a lot of hopscotch upgrading looking for some great portable cans, and I'm concerned that the E5's minor failings would just have me looking onward in a short period of time.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

Your point is taken. The frequency plot of the E5, which can be found in the UE's website, exactly describes the response of the E5 with foamies, but not of that with the tri flanges to my ears. With the tri flanges, the mids recess and the highs become noticeable by contrast. The overall sound is more balanced, but the mids and lows become severely muffled and muddy.

The frequency plot that etymotic has published for the ER4S exactly describes what I hear when I use my etys with foamies. Even with the tri flanges, the highs and detail on the E5 do not come close to that of the ER4. Aside for frequency plots and measurements, it is widely accepted that the E5's highs are rolled and have less detail than the ER4. Even SugarFried who works for Shure agrees. I have spoken with him many times on the phone. The rolled off highs does not automatically make the E5 a bad headphone. I think the muddiness is what makes the E5 a bad earphone.