Thought I post a short summary that could be helpfull for those considering same. I use my portable rig only at the gym listening mostly to fast mix of classic rock staples (vbr192 Lame mp3) with deviations here and there. At home its jazz, classical, blues, prog rock and Fado out of K501 or SR-225 hooked to Creek OBH-11 head amp and some Nakamichi cdp.
I wouldn't dwelve into isolation and stuff - if you have e3c e4c are same in all those respects, maybe just stick a bit more out of ears and a little heavier.
One note though about Shure's tri-flanges that come with e4c but not with e3c. With latter personally I found Etys tri-flanges (as-is, without any cutting mods) to be most comfortable while not compormising isolation or sound. Shure tri-flanges seem to be same (material, shape, size) except that they have extremely long sticking out "tube" into which you insert driver nozzels. That as opposed to Etys that have opening flush with flange "root". As-is Shure's tri-flanges are totally unusable. I wasn't even able to insert them into ears since soft flange being without any internal support simply bends no matter how hard you push it inside. To be fair e4c user manual advises to cut out this pointless "tube" if there're problems. I didn't do that since I have a huge supply of Ety tri-flanges which are basically same (and cost much less if bought seprately).
Now onto the sound. I let e4c burn for 24 hours and here're my findings. For the stuff I listen most at home, let's call it "K-501 material" there's simply no contest. E4c wins over e3c hands down in everything - high-end detail and extension, ballance, bass definition and texture. In comparison E3c, highly enjoyable by themselves, simply seem veiled and un-ballanced with sticking out mids and lacking highs. Same results from both un-amped iPod and full home rig. Both Shures benefit somewhat from head amp with e4c gaining most, especially in bass extension and bass "volume".
But that's critical listening at home to subdued and nuanced music. For gym and similar environment I'm conflicted here. With "Grado material" (fast, envigorating rock like Deep Purple) e4c whie retaining superior clarity and opening highs somehow feel less engaging and enjoyable than e3c. By analogy I guess it's same like trying to get psyched listening to CCR's "Keep On Chooglin'" or Manson's cover of "Personal Jesus" on K-501 when you can do this on Grados. On e4c you get a more clinical and anemic version. Compared to e3c bass "theoretically" is better in terms of detail and control but it feels "lost" thanks to increased mid/high detail. For highly rythmic music that's mostly driven by bass that results in a sense of whole structure "collapsing" without support of prominent bass drive. Following AKG vs Grado analogy e3c seem "faster" and more dynamic which's more suitable for rocking at the gym
. Simply put despite vastly superior overal sound to me e4c feel simply less exciting than e3c for this particular application.
Few other comparative things of lesser importance:
Out of iPod e4c seem to be somewhat less sensitive than e3c. At least I had to increase volume 5-10%. Maybe it's because volume increase affects e4c's bass more prominently than e3c. Not a biggie, iPod Mini still has more than enough juice to drive these phones.
Next thing is controversial but I can swear that e4c have more microphonic effect. Dunno why, cords seem the same. Maybe it comes from different driver housing construction and how cords attach to it? Very well it could be my imagination or simply result of better clarity?
Anyway I dunno if I'm keeping e4c's. If I was relegated to use IEMs for critical listening to compelx and/or accoustic music at home or maybe while walking around burbs then no question - e4c are big winners! But for gym/active usage and music I'm more inclined to send them back and either keep e3c or try super.fi pro 5. Don't want to spend more than $200 for this type of application so e5c or UM2 are out of question.
I wouldn't dwelve into isolation and stuff - if you have e3c e4c are same in all those respects, maybe just stick a bit more out of ears and a little heavier.
One note though about Shure's tri-flanges that come with e4c but not with e3c. With latter personally I found Etys tri-flanges (as-is, without any cutting mods) to be most comfortable while not compormising isolation or sound. Shure tri-flanges seem to be same (material, shape, size) except that they have extremely long sticking out "tube" into which you insert driver nozzels. That as opposed to Etys that have opening flush with flange "root". As-is Shure's tri-flanges are totally unusable. I wasn't even able to insert them into ears since soft flange being without any internal support simply bends no matter how hard you push it inside. To be fair e4c user manual advises to cut out this pointless "tube" if there're problems. I didn't do that since I have a huge supply of Ety tri-flanges which are basically same (and cost much less if bought seprately).
Now onto the sound. I let e4c burn for 24 hours and here're my findings. For the stuff I listen most at home, let's call it "K-501 material" there's simply no contest. E4c wins over e3c hands down in everything - high-end detail and extension, ballance, bass definition and texture. In comparison E3c, highly enjoyable by themselves, simply seem veiled and un-ballanced with sticking out mids and lacking highs. Same results from both un-amped iPod and full home rig. Both Shures benefit somewhat from head amp with e4c gaining most, especially in bass extension and bass "volume".
But that's critical listening at home to subdued and nuanced music. For gym and similar environment I'm conflicted here. With "Grado material" (fast, envigorating rock like Deep Purple) e4c whie retaining superior clarity and opening highs somehow feel less engaging and enjoyable than e3c. By analogy I guess it's same like trying to get psyched listening to CCR's "Keep On Chooglin'" or Manson's cover of "Personal Jesus" on K-501 when you can do this on Grados. On e4c you get a more clinical and anemic version. Compared to e3c bass "theoretically" is better in terms of detail and control but it feels "lost" thanks to increased mid/high detail. For highly rythmic music that's mostly driven by bass that results in a sense of whole structure "collapsing" without support of prominent bass drive. Following AKG vs Grado analogy e3c seem "faster" and more dynamic which's more suitable for rocking at the gym
Few other comparative things of lesser importance:
Out of iPod e4c seem to be somewhat less sensitive than e3c. At least I had to increase volume 5-10%. Maybe it's because volume increase affects e4c's bass more prominently than e3c. Not a biggie, iPod Mini still has more than enough juice to drive these phones.
Next thing is controversial but I can swear that e4c have more microphonic effect. Dunno why, cords seem the same. Maybe it comes from different driver housing construction and how cords attach to it? Very well it could be my imagination or simply result of better clarity?
Anyway I dunno if I'm keeping e4c's. If I was relegated to use IEMs for critical listening to compelx and/or accoustic music at home or maybe while walking around burbs then no question - e4c are big winners! But for gym/active usage and music I'm more inclined to send them back and either keep e3c or try super.fi pro 5. Don't want to spend more than $200 for this type of application so e5c or UM2 are out of question.
