[Jaywalk3r]

1. Yes and no. Most people determine the type of device they choose to reproduce music by their use-case. Earbuds and IEMs look the least offensive on public transit and most people wearing them don't do so to levels that annoy those around them in a given environment. On ear / over ear closed headphones are in a different category for aesthetic [read: judgement by your fellow passengers] and physical read: larger drivers] differences. Over ear open headphones are for people who want a larger driver than other headphones but can't/won't utilize speakers for their quieter environments. They all have different typical sound signatures as well due to the delivery method of the sound...

Why would anyone use earbuds on the subway unless they just don't care about having anything more than background music? They're exactly the wrong tool for the job. They're for quiet listening environments only, unless they're for low-fi only. In a quiet listening environment, there's no reason they shouldn't offer every benefit of an open-back headphone. On transit, I see IEMs and I see closed-back headphones, mostly Bose QC35. No one care what anyone else us using. I wouldn't bring my premium open-back cans on transit, not because anyone would give me a second glance, but because not even the best open-back cans are capable of delivering high-fidelity sound in such an environment at a safe volume. I use the right tool. IEMs & closed-back headphones are equivalent tools. Earbuds and open-back headphones are equivalent tools.

Thank you for highlighting the folly of choosing a 'phone based on aesthetic.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Why would anyone use earbuds on the subway unless they just don't care about having anything more than background music? They're exactly the wrong tool for the job. They're for quiet listening environments only, unless they're for low-fi only. In a quiet listening environment, there's no reason they should offer every benefit of an open-back headphone. On transit, I see IEMs and I see closed-back headphones, mostly Bose QC35. No one care what anyone else us using. I wouldn't bring my premium open-back cans on transit, not because anyone would give me a second glance, but because not even the best open-back cans are capable of delivering high-fidelity sound in such an environment at a safe volume. I use the right tool. IEMs & closed-back headphones are equivalent tools. Earbuds and open-back headphones are equivalent tools.

Because there are people worse than Bob.

If Bob thinks that research into what each form factor is generally for counts for "reading twice," which he is above of, other people just don't care, period, even if you tell them all about hearing damage and noise floor and all that.

Very few people who actually care about reading without whining about it as "researching twice" look for earbuds, and those who do, prefer them because the deep insertion tips itch or hurt in their ears.

Why would anyone use earbuds on the subway unless they just don't care about having anything more than background music? They're exactly the wrong tool for the job. They're for quiet listening environments only, unless they're for low-fi only. In a quiet listening environment, there's no reason they should offer every benefit of an open-back headphone. On transit, I see IEMs and I see closed-back headphones, mostly Bose QC35. No one care what anyone else us using. I wouldn't bring my premium open-back cans on transit, not because anyone would give me a second glance, but because not even the best open-back cans are capable of delivering high-fidelity sound in such an environment at a safe volume. I use the right tool. IEMs & closed-back headphones are equivalent tools. Earbuds and open-back headphones are equivalent tools.[/QUOTE

 

[Jaywalk3r]

Because there are people worse than Bob.

If Bob thinks that research into what each form factor is generally for counts for "reading twice," …

When the first split is on a meaningless factor headphone vs. earphone, yes, it's making them look stuff up twice.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

When the first split is on a meaningless factor headphone vs. earphone, yes, it's making them look stuff up twice.

Only as meaningless as the split between Floorstander and Car Audio Component Set or Raw Drivers w/ or w/o a passive crossover.

 

[Jaywalk3r]

Only as meaningless as the split between Floorstander and Car Audio Component Set or Raw Drivers w/ or w/o a passive crossover.

I have no idea, or curiosity, about what those are.

I do, however, know enough about 'phones to understand that an earbud has a lot more in common with an open-back headphone than with an IEM. Closed-back headphones have more in common with IEMs than with open-back headphones. It makes far more sense to split on isolation strategies than form factor. Isolation is a limiting factor in use. Form factor matters for aesthetics only for most people, probably not a primary consideration for folks coming here.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

I have no idea, or curiosity, about what those are.

Which is why this thread will be replicated in a speaker forum when Bob tries to get speakers.

 

[Svenrolic]

Why would anyone use earbuds on the subway unless they just don't care about having anything more than background music? They're exactly the wrong tool for the job. They're for quiet listening environments only, unless they're for low-fi only. In a quiet listening environment, there's no reason they shouldn't offer every benefit of an open-back headphone. On transit, I see IEMs and I see closed-back headphones, mostly Bose QC35. No one care what anyone else us using. I wouldn't bring my premium open-back cans on transit, not because anyone would give me a second glance, but because not even the best open-back cans are capable of delivering high-fidelity sound in such an environment at a safe volume. I use the right tool. IEMs & closed-back headphones are equivalent tools. Earbuds and open-back headphones are equivalent tools.

Thank you for highlighting the folly of choosing a 'phone based on aesthetic.

TL;DR explaination: because the vast majority of people don't care how accurate their music is. They want bass. They want aestetics. That's it.

 

[Jaywalk3r]

TL;DR explaination: because the vast majority of people don't care how accurate their music is. They want bass. They want aestetics. That's it.

Your TL;DR approach to this thread is likely why you've missed all of the salient points.

If they want bass, headphone vs earphone is the wrong approach.

And people simply looking for aesthetics aren't going to be researching their purchase beyond marketing images. The headphone vs earphone distinction isn't meaningful. It provides no useful information. What an open-back headphone can do, an earbud can do. What a closed-back headphone can do, an IEM can do. It's all about the isolation and it's effect on the maximum dynamic range available at safe listening volumes.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

And people simply looking for aesthetics aren't going to be researching their purchase beyond marketing images. The headphone vs earphone distinction isn't meaningful. It provides no useful information. What an open-back headphone can do, an earbud can do. What a closed-back headphone can do, an IEM can do. It's all about the isolation and it's effect on the maximum dynamic range available at safe listening volumes.

It does to some, and even those people worse than Bob have enough brain matter to figure out how the form factors relate to their intended use.

You can curl up an earphone in a pocket.

Others don't want something that mysteriously gets into knots in their pockets.

It seriously doesn't take a math genius kid who can see a government code and then needs Bruce Willis' protection to figure that out.

 

[Jaywalk3r]

It does to some, and even those people worse than Bob have enough brain matter to figure out how the form factors relate to their intended use.

Hint: It doesn't for the vast majority of people. So why do so many people insist on classifying 'phones by form factor?

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Hint: It doesn't for the vast majority of people. So why do so many people insist on classifying 'phones by form factor?

Hint: the fact that some people want to wrap their cables around their phones or pocket them shows you're dead wrong.

 

[Svenrolic]

Your TL;DR approach to this thread is likely why you've missed all of the salient points.

If they want bass, headphone vs earphone is the wrong approach.

And people simply looking for aesthetics aren't going to be researching their purchase beyond marketing images. The headphone vs earphone distinction isn't meaningful. It provides no useful information. What an open-back headphone can do, an earbud can do. What a closed-back headphone can do, an IEM can do. It's all about the isolation and it's effect on the maximum dynamic range available at safe listening volumes.

You asked a question. I answered it. Are you here for answers, or to argue with people on a matter of perspective?

"What an open-back headphone can do, an earbud can do. What a closed-back headphone can do, an IEM can do." Yeah, no. Find me an IEM that reproduces the same sound signature as a ZMF Eikon, and an earbud that sounds like the LCD-4. I'll wait.

edit: Changed an to as

 

[Jaywalk3r]

You asked a question. I answered it. Are you here for answers, or to argue with people on a matter of perspective?"

Perhaps if you had read the thread first, you'd know that the issues you've raised had already been raised, discussed, and dismissed as being atypical priorities (e.g., most people have room to store earphones and headphones, and most people can handle IEMs in their ear canals), or based on misconceptions about earbuds, e.g., comparing cheap earbuds, used in noisy environments, to higher-end open-back headphones used in quiet environments. Preconceptions about earbuds' relative performance were not based on realistic comparisons. Mobile device manufacturers, Apple in particular, perpetuated the misconception that earbuds were suitable for mobile use by including them with mobile devices.

A visit to the Earbuds forums here or elsewhere will reveal some mid-fi to high-fi range earbuds, with number of offerings growing rapidly, like with IEMs several years back. Read some reviews of higher-end models, and you'll find most of them mention that earbuds are designed for quiet room listening, not mobile use. You'll also find reviewers quite impressed with the sound quality.

Tracking forecasts my Shozy Stardust to be delivered tomorrow. I've put my money where my mouth is. There's no physical reason that an earbud should not be capable of delivering similar sound quality as my open-back headphones in similar listening environments. My open-back cans are Sennheiser HD650/HD6xx, HD58x, Grado SR325e, and HiFiMan HE4xx. They range in price from about 75-175% of the Shozy's price, placing them all in a reasonably narrow price range.

I listen to my open-back cans primarily in my office, also very occasionally at home. I'll use the Shozys similarly. For my commute, I'll continue using my Etymōtic Research ER4XR, with a QC35 as backup (my best and worst 'phones, respectively).

All I'm concerned with is if it provides the same sort of listening experience as my open-back headphones. If it's bass-anemic, I'll be disappointed. If the mids are thin, I'll be disappointed. If there's a bunch of sibilance, I'll be very disappointed. Only if it offers the same big, full, airy sound as my open-back headphones will I be happy. It need not be the best of them, just offer a similar experience. (I will be a little disappointed if it doesn't at least sound a little better than the HE4xx.) I'll update the thread.

TL;DR If you'd read the thread, you'd know that you haven't raised any questions that haven't been previously answered.

 

[Svenrolic]

TL;DR If you'd read the thread, you'd know that you haven't raised any questions that haven't been previously answered.

Understood. You made this thread to argue, and not to elicit responses outside of your point of view.

As far as "There's no physical reason that an earbud should not be capable of delivering similar sound quality as my open-back headphones" goes, I'll leave you with this from Audio-Technica's blog post on "What Do All of These Headphone Specs Mean and Why Are They Important?":

"Driver Diameter – Headphone sound quality depends to a great extent on the size of the diaphragm, which is indicated by the driver diameter: the larger the diameter, the better the sound quality tends to be. Most drivers for earbuds are 13.5–15.4 mm in diameter, with those for canalphones being 8.8–12.5 mm. Over-ear and On-ear headphone drivers lie in the 30–53 mm range."

I do not wish to argue this point. I hope it adds to your understanding of the differences between the form factors. Thank you for your time.

 

[Jaywalk3r]

Understood. You made this thread to argue, and not to elicit responses outside of your point of view.

Incorrect. I'm quite receptive to the ideas of others, but I will consider those ideas critically. If they lack merit, I'll say so.

What your quotes from your article fail to consider is the distance (technically the square of the distance) between the eardrum and the driver. Since that distance is much smaller for an earbud than a headphone, the headphone's driver size must be much larger to achieve an equivalent effect. That's also why my ER4XR can sound just as big as, if not a bit bigger than, my HD650 (or the even larger HD4xx), despite having the tiniest drivers of all of my 'phones.

Incidentally, your information also fails to consider driver excursion, another factor that can affect how large the (dynamic) driver needs to be.

That leaves us back with There's no physical reason that an earbud should not be capable of delivering similar sound quality as my open-back headphones.

I do not wish to argue this point.

It's that you argue from a position of ignorance that's so annoying. If you had shown up and asked questions about the things that didn't make sense to you, instead of assuming you already knew everything there is to know on the topic (especially when the whole point of the thread was to examine the topic from a fresh perspective) your participation would have been better received. It's unfortunate you were not open to learning something new.

To be fair, I probably should have posted this in Sound Science.