[Squibbles]

I hated the E2. The phones were too big ... not the foamies ... but the other parts of the earphones. And I didn't like the sound. It was way too flat and muddled: very muddy and just not detailed and sharp. I love the sound of the MX500s. The MX500s are not bass heavy, produce detailed and sharp sound, and well.. i love them. But I need a more closed set of earphones. Which leads to me look at the E3. How's the E3 sound when compared to the E2 and MX500? Also how's the fit of the E3?

Thanks.

 

[toaster]

i've had the mx400's (which i think sound the same as the 500's) and the e3's. i would say stick with the mx's and not to waste your money on the e3's.

 

[Squibbles]

Oh really? Hmmm. That's interesting.

Anyone else?

 

[kyrie]

If you enjoy a "sharp" sound, then the shures aren't for you, I think. I say go for etys if you want canalphones. Shures are detailed in their own way, but their presentation doesn't make that fact obvious all the time.

 

[raisin]

Out of all the shure phones, I found the e3's the most comfortable and easiest fitting of the bunch.
A lot of people denigrate the shure sound, but you have to remember that they are really a mass market product first, and audiophile second. That said, I feel that the e2's provide a warm fun sound that is certainly competitive at it's price point. The e3's have a brighter more defined sound (probably the closest shure to ety sound comparison). And of course the e5's provide the best overall musicality in the line.

 

[gsferrari]

The shure e3 is by far the easiest to wear, fastest to insert, most comfortable to live with (not including the custom moulds) and best sounding of all budget ear canal monitors.

I have both the E2 and the E3 and though I miss the bass of the E2 - it is there...just in lesser amount...in the E3. There are other areas that are much improved sonically and cosmetically that makes the E3 a worthy upgrade.

Cheers!