Shure e3c Review

[number1sixerfan]

Well I got familiar with the shures on my 4 hour and 30 minute flight from Cincinnati to Los Angeles. I let them play continuosly for 2 days prior to the flight.

Build quality: 10/10. These cans are greatly built. The seem anything but flimsy or easy to break. They have a nice sized, thick cord. They come with a pouch along with about 7 different types of tips to switch from(3 sizes of soft flex, 3 sizes of silicone flex, and 1 pair of faom).

Comfort: 8/10. The tips provided are very comfortable to my ears. The soft flex sleeves were the most comfortable. They became almost non-existent in my ear. Second in comfort were the foam sleeves which I happen to like. They felt scratchy for the first few minutes but after that they were fine. And lastly the silicone flex sleeves come in last. They aren't uncomfortable, they are just the least comfortable of the three imo.

Attaining a proper seal: 9/10. It's pretty easy to get a good seal with these phones. After a few times you easily get accustomed to it. I can take them on and take them off in a matter of seconds. The soft flex sleeves provided the best seal followed closely by the foam, with silicone coming in last.

Sound: 8/10. So far sound seems to be pretty good. Despite most canalphones not requiring burn in, these cans benefited from a two day burn in. The bass is present and it is tight and clear. The mids are great(probably the best aspect of the cans imo). And the highs are slightly rolled off(which I don't mind, I listen to rap).

Isolation: 8/10. The isolation is good. When the phones are in and the music is off, you can barely hear outside noise/conversation. When the music is on, it's just you and whatever you're listening to.

Microphonic control: 9/10. The microphonics aren't bad at all. The cord is pretty thick so it eliminates most of it. When I was eating airline peanuts it did sound like an explosion was going on inside my head.

All in all I'm quite satisfied. These were a steal at $135. I'd advise anyone looking into canalphones to try these out. Thanks for those at head-fi who advised me to do the same.

 

[IpodSF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan Well I got familiar with the shures on my 4 hour and 30 minute flight from Cincinnati to Los Angeles. I let them play continuosly for 2 days prior to the flight. Build quality: 10/10. These [size=small]cans[/size] are greatly built. The seem anything but flimsy or easy to break. They have a nice sized, thick cord. They come with a pouch along with about 7 different types of tips to switch from(3 sizes of soft flex, 3 sizes of silicone flex, and 1 pair of faom). Comfort: 8/10. The tips provided are very comfortable to my ears. The soft flex sleeves were the most comfortable. They became almost non-existent in my ear. Second in comfort were the foam sleeves which I happen to like. They felt scratchy for the first few minutes but after that they were fine. And lastly the silicone flex sleeves come in last. They aren't uncomfortable, they are just the least comfortable of the three imo. Attaining a proper seal: 9/10. It's pretty easy to get a good seal with these phones. After a few times you easily get accustomed to it. I can take them on and take them off in a matter of seconds. The soft flex sleeves provided the best seal followed closely by the foam, with silicone coming in last. Sound: 8/10. So far sound seems to be pretty good. Despite most canalphones not requiring burn in, these cans benefited from a two day burn in. The bass is present and it is tight and clear. The mids are great(probably the best aspect of the cans imo). And the highs are slightly rolled off(which I don't mind, I listen to rap). Isolation: 8/10. The isolation is good. When the phones are in and the music is off, you can barely hear outside noise/conversation. When the music is on, it's just you and whatever you're listening to. Microphonic control: 9/10. The microphonics aren't bad at all. The cord is pretty thick so it eliminates most of it. When I was eating airline peanuts it did sound like an explosion was going on inside my head. All in all I'm quite satisfied. These were a steal at $135. I'd advise anyone looking into canalphones to try these out. Thanks for those at head-fi who advised me to do the same.

Nice review but they arn't cans.

 

[commando]

When you say (eg) 8/10 what are you comparing with? And what would you rate things like sensaphonics, which are like $900?

This is the problem i'm having with my reviews site.

 

[Shatter]

Well, commando, most people ARE capable of judging the quality of smth on a "for that amount of cash" basis. I think that's a sensible scale... For $30, I'd say my K55s are a 6, but, for $70, the beaten up pair of SR60s I've heard would be an 8, and my K55s a 3. Is that logical?

 

[number1sixerfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando When you say (eg) 8/10 what are you comparing with? And what would you rate things like sensaphonics, which are like $900? This is the problem i'm having with my reviews site.

I base my rating on the "amount of cash" idea as Shatter said.

I'm not a well known reviewer or anything. I was just giving my thoughts on the phones I purchased.

 

[aeriyn]

Shure E3c, and many other of the higher-end canalphones (Etys ER-4P), are balanced armature drivers and should not benefit from burn-in.

Nice review, btw. Your opinion of the E3c is spot on with my opinion. I'd rate their sound at a 9/10 for the price I got mine (same price as yours) but I'd still give them a 7/10 for their actual retail price of 180.

Comfort is great on them, which I couldn't say about the ER-4P. I like the sound coloration better, too. E3c is more "fun" than the Etys are.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeriyn Shure E3c, and many other of the higher-end canalphones (Etys ER-4P), are balanced armature drivers and should not benefit from burn-in.

Yeah, I thought about that because they shouldn't have parts that move which would require burn in, but when I say burn-in I also mean how my ears' perception of the music changes and acclimates to the phones. Should have been more clear. Sorry.

 

[aeriyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan Yeah, I thought about that because they shouldn't have parts that move which would require burn in, but when I say burn-in I also mean how my ears' perception of the music changes and acclimates to the phones. Should have been more clear. Sorry.

Psychoacoustics perhaps?

 

[number1sixerfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeriyn Psychoacoustics perhaps?

That would be what I was looking for.

 

[commando]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shatter Well, commando, most people ARE capable of judging the quality of smth on a "for that amount of cash" basis. I think that's a sensible scale... For $30, I'd say my K55s are a 6, but, for $70, the beaten up pair of SR60s I've heard would be an 8, and my K55s a 3. Is that logical?

And that's the problem i'm having. My site uses high quality cans (Stax/R10/etc) as a frame of reference, value is a field by itself. I get people rating average cans 8/10, so I either delete the review or mark the member in such as way as to make the scores they enter be ignored. Their comments still show up though.

 

[bangraman]

Most having not heard (and far more importantly, spend a decent amount of time with) R10/Stax, it's not really a valid frame of reference I would imagine.


The mental burn-in with canalphone generally is very valid. If you go directly from a regular $200 phone to E3c/Etymotics, you end up saying "WTH? Piece of s*** canalphones?" despite the extra clarity that these bring you, because it sounds so tinny. The Etys/E3c have a distinct amount of 'tin' when you don't acclimatise yourself to the 'canalphone experience'.


But something I did quite recently was a revelation to me, and this is of course in the narrow confines of canalphones. I was using the ER-6i for a couple of weeks, solid... Nothing else. Then one evening, I switched to the E3c. A grin spread across my face as I thought to myself "now that's a musical phone!". Yet the following week when I switched directly from the HD25-1 to the E3c, I thought the E3c very tinny, and the ER-6i horribly thin. So how your hearing is recallibrated is very important.

 

[geardoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman ..snip... I was using the ER-6i for a couple of weeks, solid... Nothing else. Then one evening, I switched to the E3c. A grin spread across my face as I thought to myself "now that's a musical phone!". Yet the following week when I switched directly from the HD25-1 to the E3c, I thought the E3c very tinny, and the ER-6i horribly thin. So how your hearing is recallibrated is very important.

This revelation is very important to us that have both portable and home phones. Which sound more like full cans (HD580, A900, SR60's), the Ety's
or the Shures? In other words, which one has less of a transition?

I can just see a new thread forming about brain burn-in.

 

[Davie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeriyn Shure E3c, and many other of the higher-end canalphones (Etys ER-4P), are balanced armature drivers and should not benefit from burn-in.

Could you explain this more, in layman's terms? I've been wondering why canal phones supposedly don't burn in (and why regular dynamic phones do).

 

[Davie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman But something I did quite recently was a revelation to me, and this is of course in the narrow confines of canalphones. I was using the ER-6i for a couple of weeks, solid... Nothing else. Then one evening, I switched to the E3c. A grin spread across my face as I thought to myself "now that's a musical phone!". Yet the following week when I switched directly from the HD25-1 to the E3c, I thought the E3c very tinny, and the ER-6i horribly thin. So how your hearing is recallibrated is very important.

The problem I have with this is that I was quite acclimatized to my crappy earbuds before I discovered head-fi. So when I find I have to spend time getting used to the sound of canalphones and that they sound crappy after listening to full-sized cans, I begin to wonder whether I'm just playing headgames to convince myself that I like phones that I really don't. I don't have this problem (at least to anywhere near the same degree) when I listen my Sennheiser PXC250's. But the PXC250's are kind of cumbersome -- particularly in combo with my Creative Muvo N200 micro flash player. It seems silly to use headphones that are about five times as big as they player itself.

I notice that your profile says you have the e5's. Do they stand up better to comparison with the HD25-1's than the e3's do?

 

[bangraman]

Oh yes, definitely. But the thing is that you have to be prepared to give up certain things for the hugely increased isolation, and (generic fit at least) canalphones are sonically compromised... even the E5.