[supm]

From my understanding, the general consensus is that canalphones (e.g. Sennheiser CX 870) are typically safer for ears than earbuds (e.g. default iPod headphones).  By "safer for ears" I mean that they tend to cause less ear damage when tested in the same environment over the same time period at equal "loudness sensation" levels.  One reason I've heard is that canalphones are usually better at blocking out competing external noise, so the same loudness sensation can be achieved at lower volume levels.

However, I haven't found much on canalphones vs. circumaurals (e.g. Ultrasone DJ1).  I realize there may be a bit of variability depending on the brand and model, etc., but overall, do you think canalphones or circumaurals are safer for ears, and why?

Earbuds










Canalphones




Circumaurals

 

[supm]

I've edited the thread so that technical terms are used in order to eliminate confusion.  However, I haven't found a way to edit the poll, so for anyone who is wondering:
 
By "in-ear" headphones I am referring to canalphones.
 
By "on-ear" headphones I am referring to earbuds.
 
By "around-ear" headphones I am referring to circumaurals.

 

[Thecoolguy]

IEMs. they isolate more than around ear headphones so you dont have to turn the volume up so high to hear the music.

 

[calipilot227]

It doesn't matter what kind of headphones you have, it has to do with how loud you listen to your music. This has been discussed time and time again. IEMs allow you to listen to your music at a lower volume because they block out any background noise, so this certainly helps. But as long as you listen to your music at a safe volume, any type of headphones are safe to use.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I'd also say IEMs. Thanks to the isolation, you can listen at much lower levels because they don't have to compete with outside noise.

Though all of them are dangerous if you crank them.

 

[poikkeus]

I'm not sure if it matters which kind of device you use - as Uncle Erik says, cranking up the volume may cause hearing damage in any case.
 
My experiences with IEMs aren't as positive, however. With foams and a custom ear mold, initial sound was a problem for me; less than a half hour with IEMs left me with temporary hearing loss - and that's at moderate volume. The problem was with the intense bass. (With the UM2.)
 
"Safer for the ears?" The other problem with IEMs resulted from an ill-fitting ear-piece, which made various flanges painful. I realize that my experience is atypical, but the potential damage from volume and pain from a poor fit suggests that IEMs aren't the best choice for me. (That's with an ER-4.)
 
On-ear phones were much more suitable, and circumaural phones (like the K701 and HD800) combine sound and comfort. No pain, and no problems with tinnitus, temporary or otherwise.

 

[xnor]

If cranking the volume due to outside noise isn't a problem I'd say circumaural. Just a guess however.
 
I think the farther away the drivers are (from your eardrums), the better.

 

[Iniamyen]

I agree with the volume difference being in favor of IEMs, but I have a different problem where my IEMs tend to make my ears build up more wax, which could also pose a safety issue. I am not sure I can vote for one or the other being safer overall.

 

[haloxt]

Wax protects your ears! IEM's are generally safer. I think Ultrasone's s-logic is a double-edged sword, it lowers mids based on the fact that people can mentally up vocals, so if you listen for mids when adjusting volume, you will have boosted bass and highs which isn't good for your ears. Another problem is people might try to boost volume "until it sounds good", but Ultrasones sound best at low volume due to FR curve.

 

[Omega17TheTrue]

I say open circumaurals and ears-speakers because the sound move freely and is the most natural after speakers. IEM can be "safer" when you use them outside due to the sound isolation.

 

[Shike]

IEMs.  Just be careful to keep tips clean.  I'll never use foam tips again after the fungus that took off in my left ear from using them >_<'

 

[poikkeus]

The worst? It's generally recognized that buds have an imperfect fit, and doesn't allow for efficient sound; because of the inefficiency, there's the tendency to want to increase the volume to drown out outside noise. Small supra-aural headphones are portable and can even have good sound, but the outside noise makes hearing any music a challenge. Even medium-sized supra-aural phones can let lots of external noise. Only IEMs and full-sized circumaurals allow a certain amount of isolation. 

 

[Eric_C]

In-ears can be safest, in theory, due to isolation.
Take care when using your in-ears on a plane though--whenever the captain makes an announcement, the volume's a lot louder than the in-flight entertainment.

 

[chinesekiwi]

In-ears due to passive isolation. However, in-ears do introduce some problems such as earwax and flaked off skin buildup inside the ear canal. However if you use olive oil (works just as well as the pharmacy stuff so don't waste your money) to loosen the wax / flaked off skin it will help. Don't underestimate the power of earwax and flaked off skin! It does and will negatively affect your hearing. 
 
How to properly do it:
 
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-safe-ways-to-remove-ear-wax.htm
 
Do not use q-tips!!!
 
If you are still having problems with earwax (particularly if you used q-tips and thus pushed the earwax down the ear canal even more to your eardrum), you can get it ears syringed by an audiologist / professional. Honestly, it's not as bad as it sounds. Rather painless.
 
A good test is to blow your ears and see whether it crunches or that you feel you hear better. If so, you have got some earwax / flaked off skin in your ear.
If you are a frequent in-ear / canalphone user, it's a must that you clear your ears every so often as it will buildup.

 

[xnor]

^ Do not use in-ears instead. No need to put anything into your ears at all.
 
Btw, I've used q-tips for a couple of years now and never had any problems. Doc confirmed that.