[teckgeek01]

I'm curious about these 3 earphones in particular. Shure e2c, se310, se530 and the sleek audio sa6.

I'm looking to buy either the Shure se530 or the sleek audio sa6. My old e2c's warranty will end soon and they last only for about a year. I'm looking at the sa6 because they have replaceable cables.

For anyone who have owned one of those earphones, what speaker would you compare them to based on sound quality alone (so no imaging).

 

[ljokerl]

I don't really think its fair to compare earphones to speakers, especially IEMs. I think they are used with different purposes in mind. I do wear IEMs at home, but only when I need the isolation. Otherwise, IEMs do not compare favorably to high-end fullsize cans, never mind speakers.

 

[teckgeek01]

That's why I said no imaging, because you can't compare earphones to speakers.

So only sound quality, as in fidelity, detail, clarity, etc. What speaker would you compare to the earphones above?

 

[jinx20001]

depends on the speakers ofcourse but to match the pure accuracy of a balanced armature in the ear the speakers have to be pretty special, the clarity, precision and accuracy is always superior when the speaker ( or armature in this case ) is so close to the ear.

in other words if you was to measure a set of speakers and earphones, in order for the speakers to match the high accuracy readings of quality IEM's there would be major tweaking needed of placement, environment and power matching.

however.... speakers will be more fun all day long i thinks

 

[chengbin]

I have the Shure E2c, and surprisingly my Logitech Z-2300 computer speaker sounds better than it (except bass, where the E2c is tighter). The mids are about the same, it is the highs that make all the difference. The Z-2300 is slightly bright, whereas the E2c has a really rolled off highs. The detail goes to the Z-2300 as well, because treble is more prominent.

 

[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chengbin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have the Shure E2c, and surprisingly my Logitech Z-2300 computer speaker sounds better than it (except bass, where the E2c is tighter). The mids are about the same, it is the highs that make all the difference. The Z-2300 is slightly bright, whereas the E2c has a really rolled off highs. The detail goes to the Z-2300 as well, because treble is more prominent.

most people mistake louder highs as more detailed but in reality the high range is the area humans most struggle to perceive and all the detail in music is usually contained within the midrange.

dont be fooled by sparkly highs.

 

[chengbin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx20001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif most people mistake louder highs as more detailed but in reality the high range is the area humans most struggle to perceive and all the detail in music is usually contained within the midrange. dont be fooled by sparkly highs.

They have equivalent detail, but Z-2300 is "more" detailed because the highs are not rolled off. If I EQ my E2c, it is the same, probably even better than the Z-2300. But the E2c's highs are really rolled off. I remember it was like -30dB at 16Khz.

 

[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chengbin /img/forum/go_quote.gif They have equivalent detail, but Z-2300 is "more" detailed because the highs are not rolled off. If I EQ my E2c, it is the same, probably even better than the Z-2300. But the E2c's highs are really rolled off. I remember it was like -30dB at 16Khz.

oh yeh i have no doubt the e2c's suck eggs!

 

[teckgeek01]

Ok, so now I have an opinion of the e2c. What about other earphones?

 

[Bigburger]

Well if your budget allows you to spring for the SA6 or SE530, then don't bother considering E2C, SE310 etc. Rather, you might want to change your list to SA6, SE530, Westone 3, UE triple.fi, Senn IE8 etc. However, I think SA6 is in a tier below those other ones. Along with the SA6, the triple.fi and IE8 also have cables that can be replaced, if that is of importance to you. Sorry I can't comment on speaker comparisons.

 

[xolp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx20001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif depends on the speakers ofcourse but to match the pure accuracy of a balanced armature in the ear the speakers have to be pretty special, the clarity, precision and accuracy is always superior when the speaker ( or armature in this case ) is so close to the ear. in other words if you was to measure a set of speakers and earphones, in order for the speakers to match the high accuracy readings of quality IEM's there would be major tweaking needed of placement, environment and power matching. however.... speakers will be more fun all day long i thinks

Well I feel there's another important difference between speakers and IEMs. Frequency response. A well designed speaker should have a flat frequency response at a distance in front of it in an anechoic chamber. However, due to the pinna (the fleshy external part of the ear) filtering sound, the response at the eardrum is not flat and will differ from person to person

An IEM is different, because the ear is sealed and the sound waves are delivered direct to the eardrum without influence from the pinna. As a result, IEMs that are designed to sound like a flat response speaker will have to compromise to an average pinna and most will experience a deviation from a flat response.

Along with stereo imaging, these are reasons why IEMs are not used in professional mixing and mastering studios despite their increased transient accuracy, lack of need for room treatment, isolation and reduced cost.

 

[teckgeek01]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigburger /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well if your budget allows you to spring for the SA6 or SE530, then don't bother considering E2C, SE310 etc. Rather, you might want to change your list to SA6, SE530, Westone 3, UE triple.fi, Senn IE8 etc. However, I think SA6 is in a tier below those other ones. Along with the SA6, the triple.fi and IE8 also have cables that can be replaced, if that is of importance to you. Sorry I can't comment on speaker comparisons.

e2c is what i have now.

My budget really only allows me the sa6 and the se310. I might be able to swing for the se530, but that's only if the difference is large enough.

I'm in Canada, so I can't get ue, sennheiser, or westone.

 

[derek8555]

Quote:

Originally Posted by teckgeek01 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm in Canada, so I can't get ue, sennheiser, or westone.

Sure you can. You can always purchase Westone online from ebay or marcopolo.ca.

And if you live in Ontario, Canada Computers sells rebranded UEs (under M-Audio) and Sennheisers.

And of course you can always consider the trade forum here.

 

[Bigburger]

Why can't you get the other brands in Canada??

If you're limited to the Shure, I think it might be worthwhile to spend the extra for an SE420 if not the SE530. People say that the SE420 is almost as good as the SE530 for a lower price. So I think the jump from SE310 to SE420 is probably greater than SE420 to SE530.

For me, I knew that after I got one, I'd just wonder what the next one up the line sounded like, so after using some entry level IEM's (not Shures), I went straight for the SE530. Skipped the models in between and saved the money spent on those intermediary steps. Customs don't interest me at the moment (and not just because I can't afford them!).

If you don't think you will get the upgrade bug, then get the SE310 because it will be better than what you previously had. Then run far away before head-fi tempts you to try something more expensive!!

 

[teckgeek01]

I'm reluctant to buy the se530 because earphones are very expensive. Earphones don't last long, and therefore you need to buy a pair every 2 years or so (warranty ends in 2 years). Spending $600 on a se530 for earphones is a bit ridiculous to me (I'm not rich like most of you here).

I'm considering the SA6 because the cables are replaceable. Therefore I just buy cables every year instead of earphones.