lindrone
King Canaling
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Posts
- 3,887
- Likes
- 27
Review: Shure E3c, E5c, and Ety ER-4 comparisons
I was fortunate enough to be one of the few to receive an early unit of the Shure E3c to perform review and comparison here. Everyone's heard enough about them, so I won't go into any marketing speak or cute introduction paragraphs.
As a reference, here's my first E5 & Ety comparison, and E5 + Custom Molding review:
E5 & Ety Comparison
E5 + Custom Molding Review
Review Equipments
Source:
Philips 763sa
Sony 333es (modded)
3rd gen iPod (firmware 2.1)
Amp:
Gilmore V2
MPX3
Melo SHA-1
Music selection
Ben Folds, "Sunny 16" EP
Ben Folds, "Rockin' the Suburbs"
Ben Folds Five, "Whatever and Ever Amen"
Coldplay, "Parachute"
Dave Brubeck, "This is Jazz, Vol. 3"
Jars of Clay, "Who We Are Instead"
Jason Mraz, "Waiting For My Rockets To Come"
Miles Davis, "Kind of Blue"
Norah Jones, "Come Away With Me"
Plumb, "candycoatedwaterdrops"
Vince Guaraldi, "The Charlie Brown Suite & Other Favorites"
Note on sources and amps
I tried including a variety of amp & source combination in this review. However, after spending much time with amp and sources, I realized that as long as the set-up is the same, the only variable remain being the headphone, it didn't really change how I felt about each headphone. There's no real specific situation in which any of the headphone's sound characterisic changed so dramaticlly as to change the final outcome of the comparison.
Note on the new "soft flex sleeves"
If you've noticed, that the E3c comes with a sleeve that's not like any of the other Shure fitting options before. In fact, it looks a lot like a Sony EX71's fitting. In truth, they are very similar, but the Shure's "soft flex sleeve" is thicker and sturdier than Sony's offering. It is soft and flexible, much more than other fittings, and achieves a seal very, very easily.
Putting them into the ear is very easy, although it does take sometime to adjust to the new "seal". Since the fitting is much lighter and thinner, a proper seal can be easily created with much less forced insertion and pressure than before. It could at first, create a sense that you're not getting much of a seal at all. It takes some getting used to.
Sound quality wise, if you read my E5c Custom Molding Review, you would've known that the tri-flange is so far, the best acoustically sounding fitting option there is for the E5c. These new sleeves does one even better. Since they're very short, it's easy to get a consistent fit out of them. The high-end is more apparent, in comparison the tri-flange warms the sound too much, muddies the bass and recede some of the high-end. The soft flex sleeve gives you a clear high-end, as well as clear and deep bass just as the tri-flange did.
The new sleeve is now, by far the best fitting option of any canalphones. The only trade-off, is that the isolation is the same as the tri-flange. If you wanted maximum isolation, you would still have to return to either the regular flex sleeve, or the foam sleeves.
Given the situation, I reviewed both the E3c and the E5c with the new sleeve only. I didn't bother with the other fittings, knowing that the sonic character is sacrificed with the other fittings. Likewise I only tested the Ety with the tri-flange, as I personally felt that the tri-flange for the Ety provides the best acoustic characteristic as well.
E3c with soft flex sleeve
E5c with soft flex sleeve
Fit & Comfort
The E3c has been designed for both a straight-through and an over-the-ear fit. I think a lot of this design has been from people who complained that there's a learning curve involved with properly inserting the other Shure earphones. Personally, I would've much rather they kept the over-the-ear design as the central focus. Although I understand how by having a straight-through design, it definitely helps broaden the potential reach of the market.
E3c worn straight through
E3c worn over-the-ear
E5c worn with new soft flex sleeve
It's very easy to work with the straight-through fit using both the tri-flange and the soft flex sleeve. There's nothing more involved than just plugging them in. With the tri-flange, they are a little more comfortable than the Ety tri-flange (due to the length of the stem). While using the E5c and the E3c with the soft flex sleeve, they are the most comfortable fit I've ever experienced with any canalphones. They become almost transparent in your ears. Not to mention there's absolutely no sound quality sacrified.
Wearing the E3c in an over-the-ear fashion is a little weird. It's hard to get the orientation of the earphone correct, but it's completely workable when you get used to it. In a way, the combo design makes over-the-ear fit even harder to get used to with other styles.
However, wearing the E3c over the ear, just like the E5's and the Ety mod, helps reduce cable noise a tremendous degree. When the E3c is worn in a straight-through fashion, there's definitely just as much cable noise problem as the Ety. Perhaps even more so, because the E3c do not have a shirt clip in middle of the cable as the Ety's do. There's pretty much no way to secure the cable if you're not wearing it using the over-the-ear fashion.
When all is said and done, there's no question the soft flex sleeve + Shure is much more comfortable than Ety + anything.
Sound quality
The ER-4 has always felt a little sterile and hollow to me. It seems that the ER-4 has a tendency to introduce detail by enhancing the "notes" in the music. For example, if a guitar string or a piano key is struck, you hear a very clear and distinct note being played, but you don't get the falling note nor the transition notes. In a way, the "sound between the sound" seems to have been hollowed out. This produces a very clean, almost clinical sound.
On the contrary, the E3c has more air and tonality between the notes. Overall it makes a much more musical presentation. The E3c is also more forward, it has a lot more excitement. The sound is punchier, the overall tone is fuller, and especially apparent in the low ranges where the bass is much more filled out than the ER-4. In comparison the ER-4 sounds very subdued and controlled.
These two are still in relatively the same class when it comes down to technical performances. ER-4 has a little more high-range detail, E3c has better midrange and lows. However, if there's a personal preference to be had here, if you want fun and emotionally engaging sound, there's no question the E3c is better. If you want neutral and detailed sound, then the ER-4 comes into play. Also, if you find the bass in the ER-4 lacking, then you would definitely have to move to the E3c.
How does the E3c compare to the E5c then? On majority of popular recordings (in a way, "crappy" recordings),it's hard to tell the difference between E3c and the E5c. The E5c has a more balanced presentation. The highs, mid and lows on the E5c is equally presented across the entire sound range. The E3c has a more enhanced midrange. This means in order to get the same highs and lows you get on the E5c as a certain volume, you need to turn them up higher with the E3c. However, this also means the midrange gets progressively louder as well. The midrange on the E3c definitely overpowers the highs and lows. Even though there's an appreciable difference, it's not a difference that changes the general sound signature and impressions.
However, if you move into recordings with extreme highs and lows, you notice a definite difference between the E3c and E5c. For example, Coldplay's opening track on Parachute, "Don't Panic" has a very low rumbling bass that starts along with the first verse of the song. This bass is produced with much more depth and accuracy on the E5c. There's also a very pronounced difference listening to a lot of classical and jazz recordings, as the highs and the lows will start becoming more recessed as they reach the extremity on the E3c.
There's also a noticeable difference in the soundstage capability of the E3c versus E5c. On Plumb's candycoatedwaterdrop, "Phobic" is a song that's ridden with very impressive 3d imaging effects, as well as deep bass throughout. The E5c again wins out by a very significant margin here. Even then, the E3c seemed to outperform the ER-4 in its ability to present a wide and accurate soundstage.
Most of the time though, people are listening to a lot of music that doesn't have very high and low end extension. E3c adequately reaches a good high (although not as detailed as the E5c), and extends to a little past a mid-bass. The low-rumbling bass that it has problem with is often not present in most popular music. In these cases, you might be hard pressed to find a difference between the E5c and E3c.
All this sums up to conclude, that given one's preference towards different sound signature, there are still merits for the ER-4. However in most cases, I think the E3c is a much better choice for presenting a fun *and* accurate music. There's also no question that the E5c is a cut above the rest.
Portable usability
All the other musical test has been done with home systems. I did a solid week and half of test with the iPod, switching between different earphones on my train ride and at work. Overall, the Shures deliver a more consistent playback experience. The Shure earphones were both easy to drive, and produces a much more dynamic and enjoyable sound than the Ety.
I can't compare with other portable sources, since the iPod is really my only true, viable portable source (I got some crappy CD players, but they're crap). The tests with the iPod were done all without using a portable amp.
Value/Performance
The Ety ER-4 and the Shure E3c are definitely in the approximate class. The choice between them will vary from people to people, and preference towards a certain sound signature. However, given that the E3c is retailing for $180, and the Ety ER-4 is still going for about $250 on the market... you're looking at an earphone that's at least $50 cheaper with a performance that's equal in some respects, and excels in others.
For those people who has been putting off the E5c because of the high price, there's definitely no more excuse left to try the Shure's and really know for themselves which one they prefer. The E3c is not only a competitive product, but definitely beats the Ety's on a price/performance ratio.
Previously in my reviews, I've mentioned that the E5c is better, but I can't really go out on a limb and say it's really worth the price. Over the past few weeks though, my opinion has definitely changed. First of all, I had a chance to use the E5c with some truly high-end equipments (higher quality cd sources, as well as higher quality amps), and I had spent even more time with other canalphones.
I had mentioned earlier in the review that the combination of equipments didn't affect the sound signature much, which is true, but as the quality of the source and amp increases, the performance gap does widen quite a bit. In a way, the E5c can be considered very revealing, you can differenciate between recordings that were not well produced versus others that are. On top of that, the more details you extract from your recording, the better the E5c is adapt at presenting them than the E3c and the Ety.
I used to think that $500 was a pretty high premium for the E5c, even given its performances. After having heard them on higher quality sources, I'm now fully convinced that the E5c is worth every single penny of that $500. Still, $500 is much to ask for a canalphone, so as hard as it is to think of the E5c as "good value"... it is definitely a "good value".
The Ety ER-4 has always been a good value... however now that it's been pitted up against a fair competition, the value equation has shifted quite a bit. I would have to attest that in most cases, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the E3c and E5c. Given a more generic genre of music (pop? rock?) with very little high and low end extensions, the E3c gives you most of what the E5c is good at, at a price even lower than the Ety. Ultimately the best price/performance ratio belongs to the E3c now.
Conclusion
The Shure E3c is an amazing product, and given its price, there's no longer any excuse that people can criticize them without trying them out. Go out, get a pair, judge for youself. I'm sure that majority of the people will find the E3c very, very satisfying.
The Shure E5c still remains, undoubtfully, the king of all canalphones. With each small improvement, Shure was able to eliminate the flaws with the E5c. The new soft flex sleeve eliminates the recessed high-end problem that some people were having with the E5c. If you already have an E5c, order yourself a set of the soft flex sleeve right away!
Edit: Had to fix several formatting problems... you probably saw the format problem occur/disappear as you read this post?...
I was fortunate enough to be one of the few to receive an early unit of the Shure E3c to perform review and comparison here. Everyone's heard enough about them, so I won't go into any marketing speak or cute introduction paragraphs.
As a reference, here's my first E5 & Ety comparison, and E5 + Custom Molding review:
E5 & Ety Comparison
E5 + Custom Molding Review
Review Equipments
Source:
Philips 763sa
Sony 333es (modded)
3rd gen iPod (firmware 2.1)
Amp:
Gilmore V2
MPX3
Melo SHA-1
Music selection
Ben Folds, "Sunny 16" EP
Ben Folds, "Rockin' the Suburbs"
Ben Folds Five, "Whatever and Ever Amen"
Coldplay, "Parachute"
Dave Brubeck, "This is Jazz, Vol. 3"
Jars of Clay, "Who We Are Instead"
Jason Mraz, "Waiting For My Rockets To Come"
Miles Davis, "Kind of Blue"
Norah Jones, "Come Away With Me"
Plumb, "candycoatedwaterdrops"
Vince Guaraldi, "The Charlie Brown Suite & Other Favorites"
Note on sources and amps
I tried including a variety of amp & source combination in this review. However, after spending much time with amp and sources, I realized that as long as the set-up is the same, the only variable remain being the headphone, it didn't really change how I felt about each headphone. There's no real specific situation in which any of the headphone's sound characterisic changed so dramaticlly as to change the final outcome of the comparison.
Note on the new "soft flex sleeves"
If you've noticed, that the E3c comes with a sleeve that's not like any of the other Shure fitting options before. In fact, it looks a lot like a Sony EX71's fitting. In truth, they are very similar, but the Shure's "soft flex sleeve" is thicker and sturdier than Sony's offering. It is soft and flexible, much more than other fittings, and achieves a seal very, very easily.
Putting them into the ear is very easy, although it does take sometime to adjust to the new "seal". Since the fitting is much lighter and thinner, a proper seal can be easily created with much less forced insertion and pressure than before. It could at first, create a sense that you're not getting much of a seal at all. It takes some getting used to.
Sound quality wise, if you read my E5c Custom Molding Review, you would've known that the tri-flange is so far, the best acoustically sounding fitting option there is for the E5c. These new sleeves does one even better. Since they're very short, it's easy to get a consistent fit out of them. The high-end is more apparent, in comparison the tri-flange warms the sound too much, muddies the bass and recede some of the high-end. The soft flex sleeve gives you a clear high-end, as well as clear and deep bass just as the tri-flange did.
The new sleeve is now, by far the best fitting option of any canalphones. The only trade-off, is that the isolation is the same as the tri-flange. If you wanted maximum isolation, you would still have to return to either the regular flex sleeve, or the foam sleeves.
Given the situation, I reviewed both the E3c and the E5c with the new sleeve only. I didn't bother with the other fittings, knowing that the sonic character is sacrificed with the other fittings. Likewise I only tested the Ety with the tri-flange, as I personally felt that the tri-flange for the Ety provides the best acoustic characteristic as well.
E3c with soft flex sleeve
E5c with soft flex sleeve
Fit & Comfort
The E3c has been designed for both a straight-through and an over-the-ear fit. I think a lot of this design has been from people who complained that there's a learning curve involved with properly inserting the other Shure earphones. Personally, I would've much rather they kept the over-the-ear design as the central focus. Although I understand how by having a straight-through design, it definitely helps broaden the potential reach of the market.
E3c worn straight through
E3c worn over-the-ear
E5c worn with new soft flex sleeve
It's very easy to work with the straight-through fit using both the tri-flange and the soft flex sleeve. There's nothing more involved than just plugging them in. With the tri-flange, they are a little more comfortable than the Ety tri-flange (due to the length of the stem). While using the E5c and the E3c with the soft flex sleeve, they are the most comfortable fit I've ever experienced with any canalphones. They become almost transparent in your ears. Not to mention there's absolutely no sound quality sacrified.
Wearing the E3c in an over-the-ear fashion is a little weird. It's hard to get the orientation of the earphone correct, but it's completely workable when you get used to it. In a way, the combo design makes over-the-ear fit even harder to get used to with other styles.
However, wearing the E3c over the ear, just like the E5's and the Ety mod, helps reduce cable noise a tremendous degree. When the E3c is worn in a straight-through fashion, there's definitely just as much cable noise problem as the Ety. Perhaps even more so, because the E3c do not have a shirt clip in middle of the cable as the Ety's do. There's pretty much no way to secure the cable if you're not wearing it using the over-the-ear fashion.
When all is said and done, there's no question the soft flex sleeve + Shure is much more comfortable than Ety + anything.
Sound quality
The ER-4 has always felt a little sterile and hollow to me. It seems that the ER-4 has a tendency to introduce detail by enhancing the "notes" in the music. For example, if a guitar string or a piano key is struck, you hear a very clear and distinct note being played, but you don't get the falling note nor the transition notes. In a way, the "sound between the sound" seems to have been hollowed out. This produces a very clean, almost clinical sound.
On the contrary, the E3c has more air and tonality between the notes. Overall it makes a much more musical presentation. The E3c is also more forward, it has a lot more excitement. The sound is punchier, the overall tone is fuller, and especially apparent in the low ranges where the bass is much more filled out than the ER-4. In comparison the ER-4 sounds very subdued and controlled.
These two are still in relatively the same class when it comes down to technical performances. ER-4 has a little more high-range detail, E3c has better midrange and lows. However, if there's a personal preference to be had here, if you want fun and emotionally engaging sound, there's no question the E3c is better. If you want neutral and detailed sound, then the ER-4 comes into play. Also, if you find the bass in the ER-4 lacking, then you would definitely have to move to the E3c.
How does the E3c compare to the E5c then? On majority of popular recordings (in a way, "crappy" recordings),it's hard to tell the difference between E3c and the E5c. The E5c has a more balanced presentation. The highs, mid and lows on the E5c is equally presented across the entire sound range. The E3c has a more enhanced midrange. This means in order to get the same highs and lows you get on the E5c as a certain volume, you need to turn them up higher with the E3c. However, this also means the midrange gets progressively louder as well. The midrange on the E3c definitely overpowers the highs and lows. Even though there's an appreciable difference, it's not a difference that changes the general sound signature and impressions.
However, if you move into recordings with extreme highs and lows, you notice a definite difference between the E3c and E5c. For example, Coldplay's opening track on Parachute, "Don't Panic" has a very low rumbling bass that starts along with the first verse of the song. This bass is produced with much more depth and accuracy on the E5c. There's also a very pronounced difference listening to a lot of classical and jazz recordings, as the highs and the lows will start becoming more recessed as they reach the extremity on the E3c.
There's also a noticeable difference in the soundstage capability of the E3c versus E5c. On Plumb's candycoatedwaterdrop, "Phobic" is a song that's ridden with very impressive 3d imaging effects, as well as deep bass throughout. The E5c again wins out by a very significant margin here. Even then, the E3c seemed to outperform the ER-4 in its ability to present a wide and accurate soundstage.
Most of the time though, people are listening to a lot of music that doesn't have very high and low end extension. E3c adequately reaches a good high (although not as detailed as the E5c), and extends to a little past a mid-bass. The low-rumbling bass that it has problem with is often not present in most popular music. In these cases, you might be hard pressed to find a difference between the E5c and E3c.
All this sums up to conclude, that given one's preference towards different sound signature, there are still merits for the ER-4. However in most cases, I think the E3c is a much better choice for presenting a fun *and* accurate music. There's also no question that the E5c is a cut above the rest.
Portable usability
All the other musical test has been done with home systems. I did a solid week and half of test with the iPod, switching between different earphones on my train ride and at work. Overall, the Shures deliver a more consistent playback experience. The Shure earphones were both easy to drive, and produces a much more dynamic and enjoyable sound than the Ety.
I can't compare with other portable sources, since the iPod is really my only true, viable portable source (I got some crappy CD players, but they're crap). The tests with the iPod were done all without using a portable amp.
Value/Performance
The Ety ER-4 and the Shure E3c are definitely in the approximate class. The choice between them will vary from people to people, and preference towards a certain sound signature. However, given that the E3c is retailing for $180, and the Ety ER-4 is still going for about $250 on the market... you're looking at an earphone that's at least $50 cheaper with a performance that's equal in some respects, and excels in others.
For those people who has been putting off the E5c because of the high price, there's definitely no more excuse left to try the Shure's and really know for themselves which one they prefer. The E3c is not only a competitive product, but definitely beats the Ety's on a price/performance ratio.
Previously in my reviews, I've mentioned that the E5c is better, but I can't really go out on a limb and say it's really worth the price. Over the past few weeks though, my opinion has definitely changed. First of all, I had a chance to use the E5c with some truly high-end equipments (higher quality cd sources, as well as higher quality amps), and I had spent even more time with other canalphones.
I had mentioned earlier in the review that the combination of equipments didn't affect the sound signature much, which is true, but as the quality of the source and amp increases, the performance gap does widen quite a bit. In a way, the E5c can be considered very revealing, you can differenciate between recordings that were not well produced versus others that are. On top of that, the more details you extract from your recording, the better the E5c is adapt at presenting them than the E3c and the Ety.
I used to think that $500 was a pretty high premium for the E5c, even given its performances. After having heard them on higher quality sources, I'm now fully convinced that the E5c is worth every single penny of that $500. Still, $500 is much to ask for a canalphone, so as hard as it is to think of the E5c as "good value"... it is definitely a "good value".
The Ety ER-4 has always been a good value... however now that it's been pitted up against a fair competition, the value equation has shifted quite a bit. I would have to attest that in most cases, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the E3c and E5c. Given a more generic genre of music (pop? rock?) with very little high and low end extensions, the E3c gives you most of what the E5c is good at, at a price even lower than the Ety. Ultimately the best price/performance ratio belongs to the E3c now.
Conclusion
The Shure E3c is an amazing product, and given its price, there's no longer any excuse that people can criticize them without trying them out. Go out, get a pair, judge for youself. I'm sure that majority of the people will find the E3c very, very satisfying.
The Shure E5c still remains, undoubtfully, the king of all canalphones. With each small improvement, Shure was able to eliminate the flaws with the E5c. The new soft flex sleeve eliminates the recessed high-end problem that some people were having with the E5c. If you already have an E5c, order yourself a set of the soft flex sleeve right away!
Edit: Had to fix several formatting problems... you probably saw the format problem occur/disappear as you read this post?...
