Muffs over Sharps > quality portable closed can?

[sydsfloyd67]

Someone here had suggested they were doing this while mowing the lawn, so I found a small pair of ear protection muffs on the web:

http://www.ndsproducts.com/peltor.html

Wearing these over a pair of $50 Sharp MD-33S canalphones gives me oustanding isolation and sound quality without the negatives in soundstage and vocals from a closed can.

Sound redundant perhaps? Well try driving down the highway with your Sharps, and then take the muffs on and off. Major difference in the ability to listen to soft passages, and restores at least some of the bass that is subtracted amost entirely by road-engine noise. The Sharps alone like all other canalphones give an average of about -25db reduction across the range of frequencies (regardless of claims ). Muffs are rated from -20 to -30 db, and some workplaces require muffs be used with foam plugs.

(Need to find a better minimalist earprotecting muff, as these are a little too tight- although the smallest available, and cheap.)

Perhaps see if it also enahnces listening on the road/plane with Etys/Shures? Most people have these kind of ear protection around somewhere (shooting, machinery, gardening, etc)?

 

[TenaciousO]

The thing is, the sharps offer FAR LESS isolation than the etys or shures, and I've had them all. Muffs wouldn't even be necessary if you were to use the shures with foam tips, but I do think that the sharps are the best bang for the buck if isolation isn't too important.

 

[sydsfloyd67]

T,
Well, you put an object in your ear that seals your ear canal and you get an attenuation of approximately 25 db across the frequency spectrum (less at the most relevant lower frequencies). Manufacturer's claims aside, it doesn't even matter what the object is. Using Shure foams on the Sharp makes a very small difference in isolation (tried that), and that does almost nothing for road and airplane type of low frequency bass-canceling interference (check Xin's accurate reaction to Ety4's on the road here and at fixup.com:
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...light=Xin+Ety4
http://www.fixup.net/tips/ety/ety.htm

If you mileage varied relative to Shure Ety and Sharp, that is good news, and provides hope for a simpler solution. If possible please check out the on-off muff test with these other canal phones as a car passenger and please let me know what you experience. I have a hard time imagining how small differences in the canalphone will make any difference, particularly for nice low volume level tones in a low frequency noise environment. It does work for MD33S, just now need to find the best comfortable black low profile muff.

(Need to try the closed supraural AT-FC7 in the car next to see if it's design can overcome the canalphone road/bass issue.)




Quote:

Originally Posted by TenaciousO The thing is, the sharps offer FAR LESS isolation than the etys or shures, and I've had them all. Muffs wouldn't even be necessary if you were to use the shures with foam tips, but I do think that the sharps are the best bang for the buck if isolation isn't too important.

 

[bangraman]

I think you're relying on a large amount of conjecture for your assumptions. Try and E2c and you'll see what I mean.

 

[sydsfloyd67]

Easy for you to say.

I have MD33s with Sharp foam sleeves, and yes there is a small increase in isolation relative to the stock Sony-like rubber sleeves. The Xin comments are his, and I concur in terms of the Sharps (and Sure-foam sleeved Sharps), and ask those with other canalphones to do the muff test.

Regards,
sydsfloyd67

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman I think you're relying on a large amount of conjecture for your assumptions. Try and E2c and you'll see what I mean.

 

[TenaciousO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sydsfloyd67 Easy for you to say. I have MD33s with Sharp foam sleeves, and yes there is a small increase in isolation relative to the stock Sony-like rubber sleeves. The Xin comments are his, and I concur in terms of the Sharps (and Sure-foam sleeved Sharps), and ask those with other canalphones to do the muff test. Regards, sydsfloyd67

I don't doubt that the muffs increase the isolation with the md33s and make them sound a bit better, and I'm sure that there would be the same effect with shures or etys, but the improvement wouldn't be as great because the shures and etys isolate a whole lot more from the get go. Listen to Bangraman - if you can get a pair of e2s to try, I think you'll understand what I mean. I've owned the e2, e3, er6i, um2, tried the er4p, and now have the md33. I used the e3 over the summer while taking the train into the city every morning, and they were perfect because they offered so much isolation. Sometimes I'd just put them on without any music because they'd block out the rumbling of the train and the yapping of annoying commuters, and believe me, if you think the roar of a car engine is loud, you haven't heard the rumbling of a CTA (chicago) train when it's traveling underground. I've also mowed the lawn with the e2s and e3s. It would be a futile attempt to do that with the md33 because they offer nowhere near the amount of isolation that the shures and etys provide. I still think the md33s are great - better sound than the e2 and not too far off from the er6i or the e3, but if isolation is really important, why not spend a little bit more on the other canalphones instead of spending $20+ on some dorky looking earmuffs? (Not saying that you look dorky wearing them though

)

 

[Spankypoo]

I second Bangraman's thoughts on this one. This is dogmatic conjecture, the worst kind.
Quote:

Originally Posted by sydsfloyd67 Well, you put an object in your ear that seals your ear canal and you get an attenuation of approximately 25 db across the frequency spectrum (less at the most relevant lower frequencies). Manufacturer's claims aside, it doesn't even matter what the object is. Using Shure foams on the Sharp makes a very small difference in isolation (tried that), and that does almost nothing for road and airplane type of low frequency bass-canceling interference (check Xin's accurate reaction to Ety4's on the road here and at fixup.com

Ehh...no matter what the material is? Any material? That's quite untrue. The density of the object is going to have a huge effect in this regard, as will its willingness to transmit vibration.

Try stuffing saran wrap in your ear until it seals. Sealing something and reducing vibration transmission are two very different things.

As one who's tried both, the rubber tips on the MDs don't isolate anywhere near as well as the Shure/Ety foamies. Their walls are too thin and they sit too much at the end of the canal to isolate as well as the Shure/Ety tips.

Even between foam tips, the type of foam used can make a large difference. There's a reason why commercial earplugs come in a variety of ratings - these aren't just 'manufacturer claims' which don't mean anything.

And as far as Xin's claim, there are many in that thread who disagree with him. MX500 better for use in noisy environment? Not very many people would agree with him there. (Again, I've used both extensively.) I wouldn't rely on his logic in this case. (Great amp builder, downright weird opinions on headphones at times.) His opinions on that specific matter are no more useful than that of any other individual, regardless of his accomplishments elsewhere.

 

[sydsfloyd67]

Sorry guys, bottom line if you read the posts is that am talking about the Shure foam tips (on the MD33s) in terms of the isolation with and without an additional -20 db muff.

Xin reports the same "zeroing" of bass on the road and train by external noise even with ET4s which are certainly providing the max possible. I think he is being honest, as I heard the same thing with Ec2 foam tips. Try some solid foam -29 db plugs vs any of your canalphones on an airplane, and we are talking about EAR PLUGs, and the isolation of relevant vibration and low frequencies is around -20 db.

I don't have all the relevant gear to test and report to you on, so that is why I raise the question. I guess I have to fill a closet with it to better discuss these issues here.

 

[Earwax]

It's not just a matter of the foam tips, isolation also depends on the body of the earphone and how well it conducts or blocks sound waves. Also, for me the triple flange sleeves offer much better isolation than the Shure foam sleeves or Ety small foamies.

I don't doubt that muffs over earphones would be the best for isolation, but heat buildup and bulkiness of the muffs outweighs the extra isolation when I find that the E3s and triple flanges alone offer "good enough" isolation for me.

 

[sydsfloyd67]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenaciousO if isolation is really important, why not spend a little bit more on the other canalphones instead of spending $20+ on some dorky looking earmuffs? (Not saying that you look dorky wearing them though )

TO,

Ah, perhaps there is jealousy over my Bullseye 5's?

http://www.ndsproducts.com/peltor.html

I would appreciate it if everyone would stop speculating until they have tried the proposed comparisons. I won't insist on you buying the Peltor muffs and the Sharp 4-poles with Sure Ec3 sleeves in this case.

-sf

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earwax It's not just a matter of the foam tips, isolation also depends on the body of the earphone and how well it conducts or blocks sound waves. Also, for me the triple flange sleeves offer much better isolation than the Shure foam sleeves or Ety small foamies. I don't doubt that muffs over earphones would be the best for isolation, but heat buildup and bulkiness of the muffs outweighs the extra isolation when I find that the E3s and triple flanges alone offer "good enough" isolation for me.

What he said. The Shure foams on the Sharps are not the best way to evaluate the noise attenuation properties of the Shures (even with the foamies).

 

[sydsfloyd67]

B,

Indeed. I hear the first hand reports indicating hope for some other canalphones (despite Xins repoted ET4 experience). I hope these were side be side comparisons on the same trip. Although convincing, it will take a while before I'm inclined to try a simple upgrade in canalphone for this purpose, as per my comments on simple max attenuation -29 db earplugs.

Next up in the effort to get some bass on the road/plane will have to be some closed cans (and then the spectre

of active electronic cancelation over canalphones was raised in another thread). The most likely solution for the airplane right now looks like just Bull's Eye 6 alone really, as they are comfortable and flush profile all the way around once stretched out nicely. (Foam plugs also suffer from comfort issues experienced by many canalphone users.)

-sf

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman What he said. The Shure foams on the Sharps are not the best way to evaluate the noise attenuation properties of the Shures (even with the foamies).

 

[TenaciousO]

Sorry to bring this post back up, but I think I've figured out why the md33 doesn't offer much isolation relative to other earphones, and it has little to do with the type of tips that one uses. Ever since I've gotten these, I found it quite remarkable that the md33 sounds a bit more open than other earphones. Well, I took a close look at the md33 today, and if you look at the driver housing, you'll see that the driver housing actually has vents in it. These vents are located between the sparkly silver portion of the driver housing and the shiny metallic ring portion. In comparison, the driver housings of the shures and etys are completely solid with no vents or holes of any kind. I think these vents are why the sharps do not isolation well, and if my theory is true, then using shure foamies on the sharps would poorly replicate the isolation that shures and etys provide.

 

[sydsfloyd67]

TO,

Very interesting. This may explain the direct comparisons here. I am hoping that maybe the higher end canalphones will then do a somewhat better job despite the low frequency transmission issues. Thanks.

-sf