Mr Iriver
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Posts
- 1,065
- Likes
- 11
Thanks for all the replies.
It seems the shure e3c are the best choice.
It seems the shure e3c are the best choice.
Which? E3c or ER6i based on soundstage.
- Thread starter Mr Iriver
- Start date
commando
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2004
- Posts
- 4,187
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Just make sure you buy from somewhere that accepts returns - that's a general recommendation, not just for this purchase.
| Originally Posted by Mr Iriver Thanks for all the replies. It seems the shure e3c are the best choice. |
Just make sure you buy from somewhere that accepts returns - that's a general recommendation, not just for this purchase.
bangraman
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Posts
- 10,305
- Likes
- 65
I've never really equated a fully functional soundstage to the canalphones I've owned. (E5, E3c, E2c, ER-4P/S, with ER-6i on order... haven't heard a peep out of iDealsound since I paid them, which is a bit worrying)
E3c's don't 'break in'. Any 'break in' is your hearing adjusting to it.
E3c's are very efficient. Do not turn them up 'to get the bass'. You'll get tinnitus or hearing loss. This is extremely obvious but I have noticed some posters failing to apply common sense, so I'll mention it.
E3c's have stronger mid-bass than the Etymotic ER-4 but the low bass is the same. The ER-4 do not extend lower down as sometimes claimed. The difference is not huge however, and if you're expecting 'slam' the E3c will disappoint you too.
E3c's have a prominent midrange with most tips and can sound upfront and aggressive as a result. EQ down the mids for best results. There is no need to jack up the highs to the excessive levels of the Etymotic ER-4's to hear detail (unless you already have high-end hearing loss)
I have no comment on the ER-6i yet.
E3c's don't 'break in'. Any 'break in' is your hearing adjusting to it.
E3c's are very efficient. Do not turn them up 'to get the bass'. You'll get tinnitus or hearing loss. This is extremely obvious but I have noticed some posters failing to apply common sense, so I'll mention it.
E3c's have stronger mid-bass than the Etymotic ER-4 but the low bass is the same. The ER-4 do not extend lower down as sometimes claimed. The difference is not huge however, and if you're expecting 'slam' the E3c will disappoint you too.
E3c's have a prominent midrange with most tips and can sound upfront and aggressive as a result. EQ down the mids for best results. There is no need to jack up the highs to the excessive levels of the Etymotic ER-4's to hear detail (unless you already have high-end hearing loss)
I have no comment on the ER-6i yet.
Mr Iriver
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Posts
- 1,065
- Likes
- 11
Bangraman:
If I lower the mids and raise the low end with a portables equalizer, will that help the base in a noticeable way (It would be great if I can get a sound close to the E5c).
If I lower the mids and raise the low end with a portables equalizer, will that help the base in a noticeable way (It would be great if I can get a sound close to the E5c).
bangraman
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Posts
- 10,305
- Likes
- 65
You will not get a sound close to the E5c but it will help.
lee0539
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Posts
- 311
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
cuz its on backorder till the new etys come out...
please do a comparison when u get the e6i. I like the etys cuz i want detail, but my music may need some bass. I dont like the idea of excessive or rolled off highs... i've got annoyed by the ksc 35s. So i would like to know what would be best also
| Originally Posted by bangraman I've never really equated a fully functional soundstage to the canalphones I've owned. (E5, E3c, E2c, ER-4P/S, with ER-6i on order... haven't heard a peep out of iDealsound since I paid them, which is a bit worrying) E3c's don't 'break in'. Any 'break in' is your hearing adjusting to it. E3c's are very efficient. Do not turn them up 'to get the bass'. You'll get tinnitus or hearing loss. This is extremely obvious but I have noticed some posters failing to apply common sense, so I'll mention it. E3c's have stronger mid-bass than the Etymotic ER-4 but the low bass is the same. The ER-4 do not extend lower down as sometimes claimed. The difference is not huge however, and if you're expecting 'slam' the E3c will disappoint you too. E3c's have a prominent midrange with most tips and can sound upfront and aggressive as a result. EQ down the mids for best results. There is no need to jack up the highs to the excessive levels of the Etymotic ER-4's to hear detail (unless you already have high-end hearing loss) I have no comment on the ER-6i yet. |
cuz its on backorder till the new etys come out...
please do a comparison when u get the e6i. I like the etys cuz i want detail, but my music may need some bass. I dont like the idea of excessive or rolled off highs... i've got annoyed by the ksc 35s. So i would like to know what would be best also
Mr Iriver
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Posts
- 1,065
- Likes
- 11
Now between the E3c and ER4 without an amp which:
-is better for rock, like coldplay, nirvana.
-has a more pleasant and involving sound.
-is fuller sounding.
-is better for rock, like coldplay, nirvana.
-has a more pleasant and involving sound.
-is fuller sounding.
bLue_oNioN
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,315
- Likes
- 10
Now, I haven't heard the ER-4, S or P, so I am not qualified to answer, but I somehow suspect that the E3 will get the nudge on this one.
kyrie
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Posts
- 1,209
- Likes
- 11
I think you'd be satisfied with the E3c, as long as you use equalization. The EQ you should be using is the normal "bowl" type - more bass, less mids, more treble. Lowering the level of the lower mids helps a lot in making the E3 sound less murky, which has been a complaint.
bangraman
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Posts
- 10,305
- Likes
- 65
Quote:
To be honest, this is like asking "which is the best heavyweight boxer, Richard Simmons or Mikhail Baryshnikov?". Both are definitely compromises in regard to what you seem to want. I'd say the E3c is more suited, but this is relative. The E3c does not have the impact and tonal characteristic you'd be looking for from a 'rock' phone, and phrases such as 'full sounding' are relatively alien to both phones. You'd choose these because they are the best compromise for portability and isolation, married with a relatively high-resolution sound for both. Things like 'involvement', 'fat sound' and 'impact' are somewhat secondary considerations / abilities for these phones.
| Originally Posted by Mr Iriver Now between the E3c and ER4 without an amp which: -is better for rock, like coldplay, nirvana. -has a more pleasant and involving sound. -is fuller sounding. |
To be honest, this is like asking "which is the best heavyweight boxer, Richard Simmons or Mikhail Baryshnikov?". Both are definitely compromises in regard to what you seem to want. I'd say the E3c is more suited, but this is relative. The E3c does not have the impact and tonal characteristic you'd be looking for from a 'rock' phone, and phrases such as 'full sounding' are relatively alien to both phones. You'd choose these because they are the best compromise for portability and isolation, married with a relatively high-resolution sound for both. Things like 'involvement', 'fat sound' and 'impact' are somewhat secondary considerations / abilities for these phones.
Pov
Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 5, 2003
- Posts
- 88
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
I agree with most of this, except that I find the E3 to be very "involving," at least in my sense of the word, and I listen to a lot of rock music. The bass isn't going to pound you and the high end isn't going to pierce your eardrums, though.
| Originally Posted by bangraman To be honest, this is like asking "which is the best heavyweight boxer, Richard Simmons or Mikhail Baryshnikov?". Both are definitely compromises in regard to what you seem to want. I'd say the E3c is more suited, but this is relative. The E3c does not have the impact and tonal characteristic you'd be looking for from a 'rock' phone, and phrases such as 'full sounding' are relatively alien to both phones. You'd choose these because they are the best compromise for portability and isolation, married with a relatively high-resolution sound for both. Things like 'involvement', 'fat sound' and 'impact' are somewhat secondary considerations / abilities for these phones. |
I agree with most of this, except that I find the E3 to be very "involving," at least in my sense of the word, and I listen to a lot of rock music. The bass isn't going to pound you and the high end isn't going to pierce your eardrums, though.
adamofwales
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Posts
- 142
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Hello Mr. Bangraman,
What if I just want to get the exact same experience as you are getting with your Sure E5s on your mini ipod, but I want to pay 75% less than you did to get the same experience? What then?
| Originally Posted by bangraman To be honest, this is like asking "which is the best heavyweight boxer, Richard Simmons or Mikhail Baryshnikov?". Both are definitely compromises in regard to what you seem to want. I'd say the E3c is more suited, but this is relative. The E3c does not have the impact and tonal characteristic you'd be looking for from a 'rock' phone, and phrases such as 'full sounding' are relatively alien to both phones. You'd choose these because they are the best compromise for portability and isolation, married with a relatively high-resolution sound for both. Things like 'involvement', 'fat sound' and 'impact' are somewhat secondary considerations / abilities for these phones. |
Hello Mr. Bangraman,
What if I just want to get the exact same experience as you are getting with your Sure E5s on your mini ipod, but I want to pay 75% less than you did to get the same experience? What then?
Users who are viewing this thread
