[dealmaster00]

So...I have always been an IEM/Earbud kinda guy. I have owned a ton of different models, including Rivet, EP-630, EX71, EX81, CX300, e2c, etc. Well, I have been reading head-fi a lot the past week and I decided that I wanted to try something new; I wanted to buy some headphones. I looked around and decided that the A900 seemed great for me. Some called it "the best closed headphone without the need for an amp." The fact that it is a closed headphone is also good because it suits my current environment. I figured I would purchase an amp later (maybe a year or so) and then trade the A900's with something a bit better (maybe DT-990s).

THEN I saw a great deal on the shure e5c. The best (read: most expensive) IEM I have owned was the e2c, and I wasn't a huge fan because I felt the bass output was a little lacking (I'm not a basshead but I do like a noticeable bass presence, if you know what I mean). From what I've read the e5c has a lot better bass than the e2c. Actually, it seems a lot better at everything.

So, the price difference is ~$150 for the A900s vs. $240 for the e5cs. I don't mind paying the extra money for the e5cs. But I'm wondering just how much better the e5c's would be. Would you think it is enough of a difference to warrant the $90 difference?

Yeah, yeah, I know...sorry about your wallet

 

[Deftoned]

Well I wont comment on sound since I've owned neither. Just thought I could say this though, the A900 are really large headphones, so that might be quite a change for an IEM/earbud person.

Hope you'll get some better help with the sonics department

 

[Zuerst]

The A900 have better sound quality than the E5c IMO. The premium you pay for an E5c is miniaturization and portability.

 

[dealmaster00]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuerst /img/forum/go_quote.gif The A900 have better sound quality than the E5c IMO. The premium you pay for an E5c is miniaturization and portability.

Oh, really? Wow, I didn't know that. I had always thought that the e5c had better quality. I would gladly welcome more opinions on the matter.

 

[jant71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuerst /img/forum/go_quote.gif The A900 have better sound quality than the E5c IMO. The premium you pay for an E5c is miniaturization and portability.

x2. I personally kept my large headphone choices to mid-level at most on purpose since I am mostly portable oriented and I didn't want to be downgrading when putting in my IEMs. Still surprised that the likes of Triple.fi 10 and ER4S don't surpass the CD-780 that I got off ebay for $35 shipped. I throw out soundstage since that's not fair to compare that, but still not quite as good in most other areas. IMO, you need to go custom to beat an A900.

 

[Mrvile]

I personally (and I know a lot of others would) take the E4C to the E5C any day. The price is a lot closer to that of the A900, and the sound is probably closer too. And from what I've read I think I'd even prefer the sound of the E4C to the A900. But that's just me.

 

[geardoc]

E5C for good midrange - more natural sound, built for stage monitoring vocals
A900 for lows and highs - finer quality sound but more weird mids