[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally think the Shure is better for rock/contemporary music because it has that added beat and generally good soundstage, while the Triple.fi's are great with orchestral music. It does a great job of highlighting the concertante in the curtain of orchestra texture. I sometimes feel if the Shures do too good of a job separating the symphony/orchestra, making it less "attached". Would've been great for chamber music if the highs were attenuated more.

i also agree with this,where i think the triple fi falls down tho is yes it does classical better, but if you listen to slassical mainly you would be better off with neither as the er4p are maybe the best at that. so i cant see where the triple fi does the better job, yeh maybe classical but once again something cheaper can do that better

 

[gmiossi]

e500s: big bass and warmth
TF (haven't tried them personally): supposedly more neutral...more detailed. Less bass emphasis, not as warm.

A line from warmth/bass to clarity/detail is probably:
e500 <--> TF <--> Etymotics

The difference is significant, though. The e500s have ***WAAYY*** more bass and FAR less detail while the Etymotics have WAY less bass (almost 0 without EQ'ing it) and WAY more detail. I can only guess the TF is in the middle, leaning towards the Etymotics, from descriptions I've heard.

-Graham

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

The e500s have ***WAAYY*** more bass and FAR less detail while the Etymotics have WAY less bass (almost 0 without EQ'ing it) and WAY more detail.

I disagree that the E500 display less detail than the Ety. The Etys are brighter so the detail is more in your face, but both resolve about the same amount. In fact if you don't focus only on the highs and and include the in the mid range I think the E500 is superior in that it has the same amount of detail while being much more musical.

 

[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree that the E500 display less detail than the Ety. The Etys are brighter so the detail is more in your face, but both resolve about the same amount. In fact if you don't focus only on the highs and and include the in the mid range I think the E500 is superior in that it has the same amount of detail while being much more musical.

x2...gettin back to the point that people think detail is all about highs, the shures display more detail in bass/mid bass/mids in my opinion, thats 3-1 shures, anybody that says ety's have better bass and mid bass just needs to listen again, the shures have 2 seperate bass drivers...that isnt to just increase bass but to seperate it and manage detail and very low distortion levels.

anyway the point is detail is all over the frequency range and shures show more all over the range than ety

 

[MrWhite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree the the E500 display less detail than the Ety. The Etys are brighter so the detail is more in your face, but both resolve about the same amount. In fact if you don't focus only on the highs and and include the in the mid range I think the E500 is superior.

I agree. The e500s are very detailed - in the frequency range that they reproduce.

When listening with the Shures to tracks that contain a large amount of sounds all at once, it is surprisingly easy to single out and follow each one. Definitely a strong point for the E500s.

Being detailed or having strong resolution should not be confused with frequency response. Just as lack of detail should not be confused with a more limited frequency response.

 

[honda]

I own both. My Triple.fis are extremely new, from the newest lot. One pair just finished burning in and another pair purposely left unburnt for the sake of comparison. I am thinking they are reformulated because everyone is saying SE530 has more bass than Triple.fi. That is quite far from what I am perceiving. SE530 has a pretty strong low mid hump with decently deep bass, but my triple.fis give me bass that extends down to WAY lower frequencies that none of my other IEMs can even pretend to produce, but with less of a hyped low mid range where most of the thumping and pumping resides. So if you are not getting a proper fit on the Triple.fis (a not so uncommon problem) or are mistaking the boosted SE530 low mids for bass (also very common because the IEMs that can actually produce true bass can be counted in one hand, so what are that chances of everyone having experienced true bass from an IEM before?), or maybe have an old pair of Triple.fis that has less bass than the current batch, or have never actually heard them but just repeating those same old opinions posted everywhere, then maybe I can see why you feel SE530 has more bass.

 

[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by honda /img/forum/go_quote.gif I own both. My Triple.fis are extremely new, from the newest lot. One pair just finished burning in and another pair purposely left unburnt for the sake of comparison. I am thinking they are reformulated because everyone is saying SE530 has more bass than Triple.fi. That is quite far from what I am perceiving. SE530 has a pretty strong low mid hump with decently deep bass, but my triple.fis give me bass that extends down to WAY lower frequencies that none of my other IEMs can even pretend to produce, but with less of a hyped low mid range where most of the thumping and pumping resides. So if you are not getting a proper fit on the Triple.fis (a not so uncommon problem) or are mistaking the boosted SE530 low mids for bass (also very common because the IEMs that can actually produce true bass can be counted in one hand, so what are that chances of everyone having experienced true bass from an IEM before?), or maybe have an old pair of Triple.fis that has less bass than the current batch, or have never actually heard them but just repeating those same old opinions posted everywhere, then maybe I can see why you feel SE530 has more bass.

ok first things first balanced armature drivers do not benefit from burn in...ask ultimate ears, ask shure, ask etymotic research it dont exist so you cannot base your experiences on that because its a placebo effect

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Being detailed or having strong resolution should not be confused with frequency response. Just as lack of detail should not be confused with a more limited frequency response.

Quite true. But it should be noted that while frequency response can be effectively tweaked with EQ and other adjustments, you can't do much to increase detail beyond the phone's basic capability.

 

[jinx20001]

good point but alot of people perceive detail wrongly and take it that too warm means low detail which is wrong

 

[MrWhite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quite true. But it should be noted that while frequency response can be effectively tweaked with EQ and other adjustments, you can't do much to increase detail beyond the phone's basic capability.

Yes, EQ'ing is a good band-aid for minor tweaks in frequency response. But with earphones like the e500 with their rather dramatic, IMO, rolled off highs, EQ is not the answer.

It is better to buy earphones that more closely match your preferred sound signature, rather than eating your headroom up with EQ and still not getting what you were after in the first place.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

But with earphones like the e500 with their rather dramatic, IMO, rolled off highs, EQ is not the answer.

Actually, a tad of treble EQ works quite nicely with the E500.

 

[MrWhite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, a tad of treble EQ works quite nicely with the E500.

For you.

For people who do not enjoy their particular sound signature, it would be silly to purchase them and then attempt to greatly transform their sound via EQ.

 

[gmiossi]

When I say the Shures have less detail in mids and highs, I mean...less detail. I do not mean that it's warm, and I don't like it being warm. Nor do I mean that it's not emphasized.

I actually did an ABX-type soundtest, picking apart certain ranges of lossless samples from various songs, looking for certain details in songs. I heard them extremely readily (including nuances of *voice* - mids) with the Etymotics, where I often couldn't perceive them at all with the Shures... **even** when equalizing them to deemphasize bass and emphasize treble so that 'emphasis' wasn't the differentiating factor. It becomes closer then, but there's still a significant difference. Yes, even in mids. You know the kinds of things I'm talking about... scuffle of a shoe, the artist breathing - that sort of thing. Also though... elements in a word that a person's singing, etc. The way his voice cracks... that kind of thing.

Two possibilities from this: Those who say "Shures are more detailed all-around than Etymotics" are either 1.) wrong... have bad hearing/haven't tested both pairs thoroughly, etc... or 2.) my shures were deformed (entirely possible - I wondered that myself, given how bad they seemed). I'm not sure how likely it would be that both earbuds would be warped or malformed somehow, but I suppose it's possible.

If there's some other possibility, and I can plug these Shures back in and magically have more detail than the headphones most known of all headphones for extremely high detail, while ALSO having great bass and warmth... then by all means, tell me how to accomplish that. It would make me happy getting perfect sound with *no* compromises with what I've got, rather than having to spend *thousands* on a better pair of headphones.

Otherwise, let's all be reasonable please, and admit the strengths *and* weaknesses of all of these IEMs. I've already gone over the downsides to the Etymotics. I just don't think a lot of people are being realistic about the characteristics of the Shures, and I don't really understand why. I can admit the relative strengths of the two IEMs that I own.

I prefer detail, even at the expense of some harshness and listening fatigue and lack of bass - so I listen to Etymotics.

Others prefer warmth, bass, ease of listening, and a more comforting fit and better style - so they listen to Shures.

Where the Triple Fis fit in, I don't know.

-Graham

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

You know the kinds of things I'm talking about...

Yeah, I do, but I think it's more a matter of perception rather than anyone not being able to 'admit' something. Sometimes Ety detail is a little like when you over-sharpen a digital photo... it seems sharper but also somehow not quite as real. Admittedly a very subjective thing...

 

[manaox2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Very quickly put: Bass: E500 = TF10 Mids: TF < e500 Highs: e500 > TF Soundstage: TF > e500 (probably) Comfort: e500 > TF That is how I would put it, I'm sure some people disagree with this in some way, so take it for what it's worth. I have never heard the E500 by the way as they cost too much where I live, but I owned the TF for awhile, and my impressions / comparison are just from reading the forum (always a good reason to base your purchases on ).

X2, most people report more texture and detail on the triple.fi bass as well which may explain comments I hear about real bass. Add a Westone ES1 cable and some Shure black foam sleeves to the triple.fi to increase the midrange, detail, tighter bass, and comfort in my experience.

I also would not recommend using either IEM unamped. My triple.fi with my 1st gen shuffle, supposively the highest quality headphone out iPod has ever produced, doesn't sound good to me anymore even with 320kbps mp3. Sounded great with the super.fi 5 pro and super.fi 3.