[M-A-Z]

Can you enlighten me about the wearing characteristics of IEMs between 60 and 120$
(Denon AH-C351/551, Sennheiser CX-95/300/435/500/, AKG K-324-P, Sony MDR-EX90LP, Philips 9850, KOSS KEB 79, SHURE SE210, BOSE InEar, V-Moda Vibes, JBL CR 220, Beyerdynamic DTX-50 ...)

a) Which models isolate the auditory canal completely (making audible body noises like breathing or stepping). Are body noises more or less noticeable with certain models or is this an inherent feature of complete isolation?

b) Which models let leak in muddy sound background from outside (e.g. you can hear that someone talking next to you but don't understand what he/she is saying) in the way closed full-size headphones do?

c) Which models let leak in most outside noises, maybe to the point of open full-size headphones (AKG 701, SENNHEISER HD-595 etc.)?

d) Which models are most susceptible and which most tolerant to tips getting out of place (jogging, gym etc.) or not fitting perfectly (i.e. SQ immediately/hardly deteriorating)?

e) Which models involve most/least fiddling when placing them into the ear?

 

[ClieOS]

I think, beside the design of the earpieces, one of the major factor of isolation is what kind of eartips you used on the IEM. If you mod a pair of Shure black foam sleeves on those Denon, I sure the isolation will be improved significantly.

 

[M-A-Z]

This may well be, but better isolation doesn't necessarily mean the same or a better sound quality, and complete isolation may worsen the situation, as you exchange external noise for internal body noise and microphonics. So, I'd rather leave the IEMs as they are meant to be.

 

[jonathanjong]

Apparently, the Shure or Comply tips don't degrade SQ on the Denons. "Apparently" because I'm still trying to convince myself to buy the dang tips. Anyway...

I wouldn't run with the 551s. The medium length barrel is a bit of an annoyance, feeling all jiggly in the ear. This isn't a problem with the C351s (no it's not in my equipment list, because I gave them to my girlfriend) and the CX300s, but I don't like running with IEMs/canalphones in general because of the bone conduction reason you mentioned, with reference to the ones I've had experience with (viz., C351, 551; CX300, 500; Bose IE)

You realize this is a huge range, right? Heh. OK, time to answer your questions:

a. I'm not sure what you mean by complete isolation, but none of the 5 I'm discussing block out sound completely from the outside with music turned off. Do any IEMs do this? From most to least, this is the order of magnitude of bone conduction (i.e., the breathing, stepping sounds): 551 > 351 > 300/500 > Bose.

b/c. Without music, outside sound is muffled for all of these. With music, I can't hear any conversation with the 551s at 30% and I can't hear traffic at 60%. The CX300s, 500s, and 351s need more volume to do the job. I can't seem to tell the difference among the three isolation wise. The 300s and 351s seem totally identical, and the 500s might just need a little more volume. Are they higher impedance or something?

d. The 551s and the Bose IEs feel jiggly and might fall out. They do for me, anyway. The 351s and 300s are fine. I've never run with the 500s, but I think they should be fine too.

e. The CX300s are the easiest to put on. I think it's because the silicone tips are softer than the Denon ones. The 351s come next, then the 551s. I have problems achieving a good seal on the Bose IEs, and I think many have similar experiences.

Hope this helps.

c. None.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M-A-Z /img/forum/go_quote.gif This may well be, but better isolation doesn't necessarily mean the same or a better sound quality, and complete isolation may worsen the situation, as you exchange external noise for internal body noise and microphonics. So, I'd rather leave the IEMs as they are meant to be.

While I agree the better isolation doesn't always mean better SQ and the use of foam tips might affect SQ in a bad way, complete isolation does not, however, worsen bone conduction or microphonics.

Microphonics is most easily affected by wearing style and cable material. The use of a better isolating eartips might make it very slightly more noticeable (because there are less background noise to be noticed), it doesn't worsen the situation.

Bone conduction is an unavoidable phenomenon when using IEM because of the sealed ear canal that served as an acoustic chamber which amplifies the internal sound transmitted by the bone. Regardless of how well or lousy the seal is, once there is a seal, bone conduction will happen. The only way to minimize the problem is to use custom eartips deep enough to pass the second bend in the ear canal (passing the bony part of the ear canal so the bone conduction is less obvious). How well the isolation are has no effect on the degree of bone conduction. Like the first case, the only difference is better isolation makes it more noticeable (again, because there are less background noise to be noticed about), but it doesn't worsen the situation.

 

[M-A-Z]

By complete isolation I mean a hermetically sealed auditory canal, probably involving a foreign body feeling and/or a slight ache after some time of wearing and/or awkward fiddling when putting on the IEM.

Bone conduction and microphonics being more or less noticeable is the crucial point. If I don't notice breathing, chewing and stepping sounds I don't care whether bone conduction is, physically speaking, present or not. So, a less isolating design may be an advantage and not lousy IEM quality as many posters imply.

It's interesting, jonathanjong, that you mention the Bose IE as an isolating IEM, because it's not meant to be completely isolating and some posters here have even argued it's an open system (with all ambient noises leaking in). No wonder the Bose InEars feel jiggly compared to plug designs (which doesn't mean, though, that they actually fall out). Most users concede the Bose perfect wearing characteristics, for that matter.

 

[ClieOS]

If I am reading your comment correctly, than we have indeed two different view of what isolation is (isolation for me is all about noise, not about seal).

In any case, the use of different eartips still won't affect the seal by much. This is because the seal is determined by the design of the earpieces, but not by the eartips. Almost all IEM that I know of use eartips that need to be fully inserted into the ear canal (it is In-ear after all). If there isn't a complete seal, than most likely the opening is on the earpiece and not on the eartips, thus change eartips will not seal off or change the opening. All it does is improving or decreasing the noise isolation (and maybe comfort and freq. resp. in this case).

 

[M-A-Z]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif we have two different views of what isolation is (isolation for me is all about noise, not about seal).

I can't see much difference. After all, the two things are inseparably bound up. Isolation cannot be any better than the seal, while a perfect seal need not necessarily imply absolute isolation.

 

[ClieOS]

Let take a step back:

You said 'by complete isolation I mean a hermetically sealed auditory canal' and you 'can't see much difference' b/w isolation and seal, am I correct?

For example, I can get Shure tri-flanges, yellow foam, black foam, and gray sleeve to form a complete seal in my ear canal (using the same IEM), but for isolation, black foam = yellow foam > tri-flanges > gray sleeve.

A complete seal is essential for achieving the minimum of isolation. However, if we assume we are using a closed design IEM that intended to provide a certain level of isolation, it is the acoustic property (material and design) of the eartips that affect the degree of isolation (since we assume all of them will give you a complete air-tight seal).

You can get a complete seal in ear canal, but there is not possible to get a 'complete' isolation. To be completely isolated, that is to 100% cut the outside noise off, is impossible to achieve in IEM. The best isolation we have is around -34~36dB (ER4), and that is only around 90~94% of noise reduction. This is why I said isolation for me is all about noise and not about seal, while you seem to use the term as a mix of both, hence why I don't think our idea of isolation is the same.

 

[M-A-Z]

You've got me wrong. I quoted your saying that we have two different views of what isolation is and I replied that I don't see much difference in our views. As a matter of fact, you endorsed and greatly elaborated on my statement that isolation cannot be better than the seal, while a perfect seal need not necessarily imply absolute isolation. Thanks!

 

[ClieOS]

What I am trying to endorse and greatly elaborate is, I don't agree on your choice of words - that is to use the word 'isolation' with partial meaning of 'seal' - that is I believe they are two entities with intimate relationship, and shouldn't be used to describe each other. This disagreement b/w our understanding of that word is what make me believe that we have 'two different view of what isolation is'.

Note that on my previous posts, I did not say that I disagree on your statement that 'isolation cannot be better than the seal, while a perfect seal need not necessarily imply absolute isolation.' My replies were for your 2nd and 3rd post, where you used the word isolation to describe seal, and your 4th post what you said you don't see much difference (b/w the two words).

My apology for all the OT posts. If it is fine w/ you, I think we should leave our discussion on semantic to another thread in the future - that is to continue on what your original questions.

 

[synaesthetic]

You can get a seal without isolation. The "Baby Stax" electrostat earphones are a good example of this. They don't isolate, but if you don't get a seal, you get no bass.

 

[nickdawg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M-A-Z /img/forum/go_quote.gif By complete isolation I mean a hermetically sealed auditory canal, probably involving a foreign body feeling and/or a slight ache after some time of wearing and/or awkward fiddling when putting on the IEM.

You can have a tight, almost vacuum like seal, but I don't think we'll ever have a "100% isolation" IEM. It just doesn't seem possible. It's already amaxing enough that we have earplugs/ear tips that have noise reductions in the 30dB range.

 

[M-A-Z]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickdawg /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can have a tight, almost vacuum like seal, but I don't think we'll ever have a "100% isolation" IEM. It's already amaxing enough that we have earplugs/ear tips that have noise reductions in the 30dB range.

What's the point of a vacuum-like seal (and feeling like a bottle being uncorked) if it doesn't lead to more isolation? I'd rather put up with a 20 dB ambient noise reduction "only" if in return I can have a comfortably fitting design that I can use for hours and take in and out as often as I like.

 

[ljcii]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M-A-Z /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you enlighten me about the wearing characteristics of IEMs between 60 and 120$ (Denon AH-C351/551, Sennheiser CX-95/300/435/500/, AKG K-324-P, Sony MDR-EX90LP, Philips 9850, KOSS KEB 79, SHURE SE210, BOSE InEar, V-Moda Vibes, JBL CR 220, Beyerdynamic DTX-50 ...) a) Which models isolate the auditory canal completely (making audible body noises like breathing or stepping). Are body noises more or less noticeable with certain models or is this an inherent feature of complete isolation? b) Which models let leak in muddy sound background from outside (e.g. you can hear that someone talking next to you but don't understand what he/she is saying) in the way closed full-size headphones do? c) Which models let leak in most outside noises, maybe to the point of open full-size headphones (AKG 701, SENNHEISER HD-595 etc.)? d) Which models are most susceptible and which most tolerant to tips getting out of place (jogging, gym etc.) or not fitting perfectly (i.e. SQ immediately/hardly deteriorating)? e) Which models involve most/least fiddling when placing them into the ear?

For B and E, can i suggest something out of your list?
Head-direct re2 with the big bi-flanges.