[PiccoloNamek]

He also said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mastercheif Like I said, im not looking for a bass heavy can, I like em' nice a nuetral.

The E4C and ER4 fit the bill much more closely. The super.fi 5 pros are nowhere near neutral.

Quote:

I'm not quite sure why you would find them to be uncomfortable, especially since the UE website shows you a second way to wear them.

They are uncomfortable because they are massive. The blocky housing rubbed against my ears and the huge tips irritated my ear canals. The nozzle is huge so you are limited to using only their tips, none of which are comfortable, or seal very well.

Quote:

But to say that the 5 pros do not have tight, controlled bass, I believe is a farse.

I never found the 5 pros bass to be particularly flabby or uncontrolled, but it is definitely flabby when compared to the E4C. "Slower", would be the proper word, I think.

Quote:

The treble is also very nice and clean and defined, and with no iPod EQ setting is very noticable with no sense of overpowering high end. The cymbal crashes are clear and defined and do not blend into a cacophony of high-end chaos. To prove that, put on a Steely Dan track (also classic rock, which is the genre he likes) and listen to the natural sounds of the drums. I think the Super.Fi 5 pros EXCEL ESPECIALLY in music recorded originally in Analog, which is why I think Classic Rock is a perfect fit for those IEMs....

The super.fi 5 Pro doesn't have particularly more treble than the E4C, which has much less treble than the ER4. I like my music to be bright, but natural, which is why I prefer the ER4.

[qoute]Before I figured out the little trick on how not to get the iPod to distort with EQ use, I often found myself ONLY listening to classic rock because they were some of the only genres that excelled on the Super.fi 5 pro.[/quote]

I never EQ, well, not with my iPod at any rate.

Quote:

Based on budget however, I arrived at the conclusion that the Super.Fi 5 pro would be best for you.

The E4s and ER4s can be found for less than $200, if you know where to look.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 223 But even still his post is not the be-all-end-all recommendation. However, instead of unanimously recommending one of the IEM's, he pushed the OP in the right direction.

Heh. I'm trying to break myself out of my "OMG ER4 RULZ" habit.

 

[derek8555]

Get the E4s. They are the most sweet sounding IEM in the sub-$200 range. Vocals benefit alot from the Shure signature midrange. Although superior in bass response, the Super.Fi 5 Pro's simply cannot compete in the midrange and treble IMHO.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by derek8555 Get the E4s. They are the most sweet sounding IEM in the sub-$200 range. Vocals benefit alot from the Shure signature midrange. Although superior in bass response, the Super.Fi 5 Pro's simply cannot compete in the midrange and treble IMHO.

Okeeeeee Dokeeee....

Why don't we ask the original poster if he likes strong mids?
Some people do, some people don't.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek I never EQ, well, not with my iPod at any rate.

Well what if you have ripped a CD to your iPod (well, iTunes first of course) that was mastered and produced horribly? What if the frequencies are all over the place? You are saying you would prefer that than to EQ it to sound more tonally balanced?

 

[PiccoloNamek]

I never listen to any CDs like that. As a general rule, classical and acoustic works tend to be well-mastered. The worst mastered soundtrack I have on my iPod is the Jets'N'Guns soundtrack, which has constant digital clipping throughout, but the music is so good that I don't notice. In a way, that particular kind of music actually benefits from being "hot".

Also, I never use iTunes. Ever. My iPod has Rockbox installed on it. I rip my CD with EAC, encode it, and then just drag it into the proper directory in my iPod.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek I never listen to any CDs like that. As a general rule, classical and acoustic works tend to be well-mastered. The worst mastered soundtrack I have on my iPod is the Jets'N'Guns soundtrack, which has constant digital clipping throughout, but the music is so good that I don't notice. In a way, that particular kind of music actually benefits from being "hot". Also, I never use iTunes. Ever. My iPod has Rockbox installed on it. I rip my CD with EAC, encode it, and then just drag it into the proper directory in my iPod.

And Rockbox is one of those alternate operating systems that runs on an iPod, right? Only asking because I'm not sure.

I know there are several various operating systems that run on an iPod. I think I'll stick to my regular one though.

But fill me in a little more on Rockbox or where to go to read about it if you don't mind.

Thanks.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ And Rockbox is one of those alternate operating systems that runs on an iPod, right? Only asking because I'm not sure. I know there are several various operating systems that run on an iPod. I think I'll stick to my regular one though. But fill me in a little more on Rockbox or where to go to read about it if you don't mind. Thanks.

Yes, it is. The biggest reason I installed it is so I could play OGG and MPC files on my iPod, since most of my music is in those formats. That, and its file tree based browsing structure. Rockbox also support's the iPod's hardware equalizer, which may be of interest to you. With that, you could equalize without having to worry about the iPod clipping, not to mention you wouldn't have to modify the amplitude of your files beforehand...

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek Yes, it is. The biggest reason I installed it is so I could play OGG and MPC files on my iPod, since most of my music is in those formats. That, and its file tree based browsing structure. Rockbox also support's the iPod's hardware equalizer, which may be of interest to you. With that, you could equalize without having to worry about the iPod clipping, not to mention you wouldn't have to modify the amplitude of your files beforehand...

So I could do my own custom equalizations? How many bands?
If it's just the standard presets, that's no different than now.
I like the way the file system is set up now, I am a Mac user (graphic artist).

Now about this MP3gain or RealplayGain that people keep saying are better than Audacity, do those work with WAV or AIFF files? Because if not, they would serve me no purpose anyway.

99% of my files are CD-DA (lossless, WAV or AIFF).... 1% are OGG 500...
And that's because what I don't own on CD, I can purchase from www.allofmp3.com for a lot cheaper, and encode at my own bitrates from 128 to 320 to 12 levels of OGG, to FLAC, to WAV, and on and on and on, it's an awesome russian site.

 

[vYu223]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ Yes, I have listened to many IEMs including the E4, just not the ER4, which I mentioned I hadn't.

Ah, I see. So what kind of music did you actually find enjoyable with the E4's? Did you find any type of music enjoyable with the E4's?

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

So I could do my own custom equalizations? How many bands?

5-band, fully parametric.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vYu223 Ah, I see. So what kind of music did you actually find enjoyable with the E4's? Did you find any type of music enjoyable with the E4's?

Unfortunately, I don't take a journal of every song I audition a headphone too. However, there are a few reference benchmark CDs that I do use.
One of them is "The Great Fantasy Adventure Album" by Erich Kunzel and the Cincinatti Pops Orchestra which has frequencies that extend down to 15 Hz on it. Another would be Madonna's Ray of Light, and even though I don't like her music at all, her mastering and production is some of the finest, and that album included William Orbit on production as well so it was her more electronic sounding album. Yet another CD would be Imogen Heap's Speak For Yourself which was mastered beautifully, and has soaring incredible female vocals, at time overlayed with a vocoder on her song "Hide & Seek".
Then there is CD 4 (the later years) of Steely Dan's box set Citizen, which was an amazing analog recording. Donald Fagen and Walter Becker are very critical of their sound. As you might know, they were ONLY studio musicians for most of their career before they started touring. I like to see how well a headphone can faithfully reproduce an original analog to digital transfer. Another analog would be a gold CD of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.
Back to digital, there are some amazing recordings by bands such as Ozric Tentacles (a compilation of electronic and live instrumentation), and one of my favorite bands Porcupine Tree, whos DTS DVD Audio won in a category for best of the year in sound mastering. And for jazz/fusion type music, maybe you've heard of Bela Fleck & The Flecktones, but they are some amazing modern jazz fusion bluegrass type artists who include such legends as Victor Wooten on bass. Their CD mastery is superb as well and all ranges of instruments from banjo to sax to electronic drums to the bass, especially the bass which is clean and tight are things I listen for when checking out a headphone.

Most stores around here won't let you listen to IEMs because of sanitary reasons, so you hopefully find someone who has one in that case.

Hopefully, that is what you wanted to know. But yes, I benchmark my headphones with the same albums.

Oh, you're real question, what did I enjoy on them:
Well, not too much. I found the headphones to be a little too much midrange presence and severely lacking in bass. Overall I just didn't like the tone. I think they sounded better on the more vocal albums, like the Imogen Heap and Madonna recordings, however.

 

[derek8555]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ Okeeeeee Dokeeee.... Why don't we ask the original poster if he likes strong mids? Some people do, some people don't.

OP said he listen to classical rock, so its pretty much vocal, and vocal benefit the most from good midrange. Shure does not just have a stronger/emphasised midrange but it's also one of the sweetest sounding too among IEMs.

 

[sethsez]

Neither the Super.fis (which are my favorites) nor the ER4s fit what he's asking for, in my opinion. The E4c seems like the best bet.

 

[jdimitri]

Quote:

Originally Posted by derek8555 OP said he listen to classical rock, so its pretty much vocal, and vocal benefit the most from good midrange. Shure does not just have a stronger/emphasised midrange but it's also one of the sweetest sounding too among IEMs.

Dont forget guitars, that's in the midrange too

Now go get the e4!

The only reason why you wouldn't like them is if you're a basshead (or running through a bass deficient source, eg 4G ipods) .. I think it beats super.fi 5pro or any other iems at it's price range in mids and highs

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdimitri Dont forget guitars, that's in the midrange too Now go get the e4! The only reason why you wouldn't like them is if you're a basshead (or running through a bass deficient source, eg 4G ipods) .. I think it beats super.fi 5pro or any other iems at it's price range in mids and highs

Well, I have the 5g ipod, and I don't know how you guys can call the Super.Fi 5 pros bass heavy.... Thats what the 5 EBs are for..
I mean, sure, there are some songs that I play that have excellent bass with the 5 pro's, but only with the EQ on. With the EQ off, what kind of bass are you talking about? I guess some people really think the mildest amounts of bass are bass heavy.

And I think the Shure e4, even though he is not looking for much bass, have very little bass at all!!! In your music, you have to have some sort of balance between your frequencies, and I think the Shure's suffer tremendously in that department.

But then again, what the hell do I know.... you all are obviously recommending them to him, so I guess for the most part they are considered good headphones. But typically, if you can get a dual driver headphone that sounds good [like the Super.Fi 5 pro or UM2], then why go with a single driver design? I know Shure e4 is not an armature [at least I don't think it is], but I still think dedicated drivers for dedicated speakers yields better separation. That is, after all, why high end audio loudspeakers, or even cheap ones, have a woofer and a tweeter, if not 3, 4, 5, 6, or more drivers. Am I incorrect on this? I don't think I am...

I think the OP should read reviews from other sources as well, to get a fair opinion. On most every site you can purchase either pair from, that has a review section, the Super.Fi 5 pro always wins out. And for this guy's budget, it's perfect for him.

Hey, doesn't it seem, this being post #30 of the thread, that we care more about what IEMs he buys than he does? LOL!!!!

Just an observation there.