In-ear headphones reviewed, with an eye on your ear wax
How do noise-cancelling headphones of the in-ear variety stack up to more traditional worn over the ear style? The AP's Peter Svensson had a look at a selection on both sides of the tracks and put them through their noise-cancelling paces on the New York City subway. He check out the Shure e4c ($299) and e2c ($109) and the Etymotic 6i ($149) in the in-canal department, and the Bose QuietComfort 2 ($299) and Koss QzPro ($59) on the over-the-ear side. All the phones did a comparable job at dampening the rumbling noise from the subway, but the Shure E4c and Etymotic canal phones were the hands down winners in the middle and high noise ranges (where conversation tends to fall) — the E2c didn't fare nearly as well. Overall the recommendation is to go with the in-ear phones, with one very specific caveat: mind your ear wax. The E4c's actually ship with an ear wax remover for cleaning the part of the phones' canal that tends to get plugged. And, um, you really want to avoid that awkward moment of removing your earbuds to have a conversation and revealing an unsightly glob of ear wax, so like, keep those canals clean, dig? This has been a public health announcement, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Filed under: Portable Audio
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kramer @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
They only compare four models.
And those Bose/Shure are probably hard to find.
Isn't there in-ear headphones from Sony, too?
I would like to see review of more accessible in-ear phones.
Fappy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
perhaps ive only tried dodgy ones, but dont noise cancelling headphones give you a headache after a few minutes?
jackie summers @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
As a music producer, I depend on being able to listen to accurate reproduction of sound above all things. This however, was the SECONDARY reason I purchased the 6i Isolator Earphones. As a NYC resident and a daily subway rider, I live by the ipod. My iPod allows me to turn a deaf ear to subway beggars, ignore the inane blather from other riders, and generally envelop myself in my
own private little world. Exactly how Apple expects anyone to appreciate this experience thru their pathetic iBuds is beyond me. It's akin to trying to race a Ferarri with cardboard boxes for tires. Without noise cancelling headphones, the iPod is about as useful as white dress at Pamela Anderson's next wedding...
Now if only someone would make SMELL cancelling NOSE BUDS...
Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
I have Shure E2C's and I absolutely love them. They are perfect for the subway, as about 80% of outside noise is blocked out, allowing me to ignore the rumbling and people, but I can still hear conductor announcement. The sound quality isn't quite mind blowing (I might upgrade, on certain songs I could use a tad more bass), but they are 10X better than standard iPod earbuds, and the ones that came with my Samsung YP-T7Z (which is an awesome mp3 player).
Sean Donnellan (En_croute) @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
The comment about the e2c's not coping at the middle and high noise ranges (were conversations tend to fall) is interesting - I use my iAudio M3 with e2C on London Transport, and no one ever talks to each other, so I find these absolutely fine !
Nate MC @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
The e2c's can be had at amazon for ~$70, whole lot cheaper than $109, I've tried them and I like em. I'm just waiting to have the money to buy em.
otakucode @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
So where is an ear, nose, and throat doctor pointing out the perils of having squeaky clean ear canals? Ear wax is there for a reason, and if you keep your ears constantly clean of it you will open yourself up to all sorts of ear infections and such. Not to mention the dangers of jamming things in your ears to clean it out... theres a reason Q-Tips say "Do not insert into ear canal" on the package...
But my recommendation is to ignore the doctors and just be reasonable. Don't go too deep with the Q-Tips, from personal experience I can tell you that jamming some wax up against your eardrum can be unpleasant.
Pete Nice @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
Comparing the Etymotics 6i's with the Shure e4c's is completely stupid. With the e3c's sure... The e4c's are just another level of headphones... I have all three of them and their is definitely an improvement moving from the 6i's to the e3c's and another improvement moving to the e4c's. They all do about the same when it comes to isolating sound, but when it comes to producing sound the Shure's are just light years better.
F. Villa @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
I agree with otakucode. I use the Etymotic ER6i and I was very diligent in cleaning my ears. I got ear infection. My doctor blame my obsessive cleaning not the earphone.
Locarius @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
I just bought Apple's in-ear iPod headphones for my little bar-of-soap-esque player and, while I am sure they aren't the best in-ear headphones on the market, they sure do a good job. Great bass response too for an earbud. They were good enough to make me switch back to Apple Lossless.
Chu Chu @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
How do you guys find these in-ear buds as far as staying put while you move around? I have some e4c's and while the sound quality is amazing, they are constantly trying to pop out on me if I'm going for a walk/jog/etc. My right ear in particular seems to be particularly good at ejecting in-ear buds in no time flat.
Right now I'm using the medium black tips which I believe are silicon. Perhaps it's just an issue of using a different tip.
TomK @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
I've used the Shure e3cs for a while and had the popping-out problem that Chu Chu did when using the silicone sleeves.
I switched over to the foam tips and haven't looked back (with my Samsung T7Z player as well!)
Scott @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
If you read the review, it becomes apparent that this guy is clueless.
"The Bose, however, has much better sound the best in this test."
"Foam plugs supplied with the canal phones are more comfortable, but not suitable for music."
Wha?
michael @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
what about the risks of in-ear headphones? i think unexpected noise (defect mp3 or too high volume at startup) is big danger for the ears. and especially when the headphones sit right inside the ear. professional in-ear systems have a security mechanism to avoid that danger. my ipod does not hav anything like this.
Chu Chu @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
#15 you seem to be under the impression that in ear headphones are significantly louder than regular headphones. They aren't. The reason you can set your ipod volume lower with the in-ears is not because they are louder but because they cancel out all the background noise so you don't have to drown it out with volume.
As for your ipod, due to the design of the wheel it's impossible to accidentally max out the volume while the unit is off. This is not some walkman with a rotary volume dial that gets knocked around in your gym bag.
Aidan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
I had a pair of the e2c's, when using the silicon sleeves they were amongst the most uncomfortable earphones it has been my displeasure to use.
They did keep popping out and I wonder about hygeine, seems like the only reason they cancel outside noise is because they're jammed so far into your eardrums that you can't hear anything.
This must be a necessity as they seem to be powered by the large amounts of earwax that clings to them, even in those that clean their lug-holes regularly.
So if you like uncomfortable earphones that are unwieldy and hard to wear, ones that pop out of your ears if you don't jam them into the inner regions of your skull and have mediocre sound quality, go for the bottom-of-the-barrel Shure e2c's
The sound quality was not that stellar, considering they're made by Shure.
I descredit myself by saying that I replaced them with a pait of Sony Sony MDREX71SLB's at a third of the price and I' still smiling.
The reason I replaced them was because they ceased to function after 4 months of reasonable treatment.
Jonathan Norris @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
I use the er6i earphones and they are amazing, if you take care of them they wil be the best sounsing earphones you can get.
James @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
I back this up.
I have been using the Sony in ear headphones for about a year. The wax backed up into my ears so bad that I was having trouble hearing.
Worked at getting my ears cleaned out and pulled out a HUGE SOLID chunk of wax out of my right ear. Had to goto the doctor to get the other ear cleaned out.
Just be careful with these. Scared the hell out of me pulling that out of my ear.
rtg @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
"The cheapest of the canal phones, the E2c, did not work as well. Its plugs are too thick to fit well into my ear canal, so they did not dampen well."
Um...The E2c comes with with foam and rubber plugs, each in 3 sizes. I find it hard to believe one of these does not fit. I have the E2c (in NYC) and they dampen & sound just as good as any of the higher priced Shure models or other brands. Yes, I tried the E3c & E4c's as well, heard no difference so I bought the cheaper of the 3. They rock! Don't be fooled.
Incidently...Anyone who claims they can hear sound differences in higher(priced) models of these headphones, and is not of canine decent, is full of shit. Especially if you are listening to an iPod (or other portable device). Which is plays lossy, compressed media.
Back to the review...What's up with this guys ear wax issue? Sounds like he has a larger hygine problems to me. By the way, all Shure models come with the wax remover and wax shield stickers to prevent clogs.
This is a silly, unresearched review and should be disregarded completely.
p.s. All Sony in-ear headphones suck.
Chu Chu @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
"Incidently...Anyone who claims they can hear sound differences in higher(priced) models of these headphones, and is not of canine decent, is full of shit. Especially if you are listening to an iPod (or other portable device). Which is plays lossy, compressed media."
lol the sound difference is pretty obvious, they each have their own unique sound characteristics.
BTW you ever hear of apple lossless?
Elias @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
Some "SOUND" Advice:
There's an old saying that you shouldn't put anything bigger than your elbow into your ear (meaning, don't put ANYTHING into your ear, for you slow types). Ear wax serves a purpose, and shoving it deeper into the ear can do a good amount of harm. Also, do you really want earpieces that have been rolling around town with you shoved into your ear? If you want an ear infection that badly, be my guest, but I'll stick w/ my Bose QC2's, thanks.
RTG @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
Chu Chu,
Learn how to comprehend what you read.
"Especially if you are listening to an iPod (or other portable device)"...was the context. And the difference IS negligible on these devices regardless of the headphone technology. So spare me the "...unique sound characteristics." bullshit. What the hell does that mean anyway? Did you copy that from the Shure website?
Apple lossless...what about it? There are currently more MP3's on portable devices than iTunes files (including the iPod). Plus, it's proprietary, Boo! Hiss!, to Apple/iTunes. Not very user/community friendly if you ask me. And not the best lossless format either.
Foolish, foolish Apple zealots, laugh now, cry later. Oh yeah...welcome to the Intel family ;)
Cyberwhore @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
My Etymotic 6i's were a godsend on my recent round the world trip.
Just whack em in your ears and most of the jet noise on the plane disappears allowing you to get some sleep or listen to your tunes in peace. But be warned, the foam plugs can indeed get pretty skanky from the earwax.
Chu Chu @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
RTG please try to pay attention. Read it slowly a few times to allow it to sink into your think little head:
"Especially if you are listening to an iPod (or other portable device)"...was the context. And the difference IS negligible on these devices regardless of the headphone technology." So spare me the "...unique sound characteristics." bullshit. What the hell does that mean anyway? Did you copy that from the Shure website?"
Which word is it you are having trouble with, unique? sound? characteristic? It means you plug in type A phones, listen, then plug in type B phones and listen to same sequence. OMG THEY SOUND DIFFERENT! And you don't need to be a canine or a sound engineer to hear the difference either. Try cleaning out your ears next time.
"Apple lossless...what about it? There are currently more MP3's on portable devices than iTunes files (including the iPod)."
Any types of music that I actually *care* to hear the nuances of I encode with apple lossless. Things like jazz, classical, acoustic, etc. When it comes to electronic or pop music I could care less on quality so I just use mp3 for space considerations. Are you still with me here or are you exhausted from all this tough reading?
"Plus, it's proprietary, Boo! Hiss!, to Apple/iTunes. Not very user/community friendly if you ask me. And not the best lossless format either."
LOL do you know what lossless means? Do you understand the implications of converting from one lossless format to another? Based on your barely coherent ramblings I would have to say no: "liek omg it's so perpriatarer! I play it on my ipod and on my stereo and convert it back and forth to and from other formatz with no loss in qualitiez but omgz its peropritari!"
As for being an inferior lossless format as you claim, we are talking a very small difference in filesize between the different lossless formats. Only the most anal retentive would even care about the size difference. Now how many other lossless formats are supported on ipod? Think hard now.
"Foolish, foolish Apple zealots, laugh now, cry later. Oh yeah...welcome to the Intel family ;)"
Pretend just for a minute that you just drank some smart juice and you have been briefly blessed with the mental capacity of a normal adult. What do mac zealots have to do with any of this? I am a PC user. Ok you can revert back to stupid mode now.
DF @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
RTG, I have to disagree. Even using merely decent MP3 or AAC files (for example, 160kbps AAC), it's fairly easy for someone with a good ear to hear the differences between higher-end canalphones. For example, the Etymotic ER-4P, Shure E4c and E5c, and Ultimate Ears super.fi 5 Pro all have distinct sonic signatures. Which is "better" or "worse" is at times a matter of personal preference, but there's no doubt that they sound different.
Joel @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
Too bad he didn't try the Future Sonics...IMO they are the best in-ear monitors you can get for only $100. Great cancellation of outside noise, amazing bass.
They may be the ugliest iPod 'phones on the market though, which eliminates them from the fashion-consious radar.
If you care about sound at a great price though and don't care about the looks...they are great. You'll never be tempted to use the iPod EQ again. Review these next time!!!
RTG @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
My barely coherent ramblings...maybe...but shit, at least I havent resorted to silly spellings of wordz :P What are you a 12 year old Japanese school girl? You should heed your own advice..."Pretend just for a minute that you just drank some smart juice and you have been briefly blessed with the mental capacity of a normal adult."
It's true, from a quality perspective lossless is lossless, but I never disagreed with that. However, there is more to a file format (audio in this instance) than just quality.
And who cares where you can play stuff. This is about headphone sound quality on portable devices, specifically the iPod. Which by the way, does not have the greatest fidelity to begin with; lossless media or not. The flat EQ balance sucks and it has over driven volume levels which distort at higher volumes. No headphone can save you from that. Other players may have better sound quality and so better models of headphones may produce a difference; but I doubt it would be enough to justify the cost.
At the end of the day, iPod, Zen Player, iRiver, Digital Walkman etc., are all low just end audio devices and should be treated as such. Im sure the E4c or E5c models sound awesome compared to the E2c on a proper hi-fi stereo system but not on a portable device.
But who knows. Hey, maybe you do have dog ears and if so good for you. Enjoy listening to the jazz through your over priced, overkill headphones. While youre doing that, Ill be at the bar buying drinks for your mother with money I saved by buying the right tool for the right job.
Oh and despite what you may have been told, size does matter.
Scott Johnson @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
To Kramer above, who says that many of these models aren't accessible:
e4c: http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B0007XGOTG/insane-20
Bose QC2: http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B000AP05BO/insane-20
Amazon has its way of making anything electronic accessible to all. :) Even if they are WAY too expensive.
Seba @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
Same idea:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/number999/jokes/2004earwax.jpg
s
KB @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
I upgraded from Sony EX51s to E2C. The exaggerated bass of the Sony's finally got on my nerves after a year of trying to hear the subtleties of Cannonball Adderly on two different takes of Flamenco Sketches. While the E2Cs sounded much much better, they were so hard to put in. I eventually gave up and got the E3Cs. These are so much easier to use with slightly better quality on the mids and highs. I also got the triple-flange sleeves which made for even better noise isolation and sound. These things stay in better than the soft flex sleeves. I used them while cutting the grass yesterday and my lawn mower was reduced to a whisper even with the volume at ~30%. People complain of a lack of bass with both the E2C and E3C. I find just the opposite. When inserted properly, bass is deep and punchy. Sound in general is more accurate. I'm going to do a comparison with my dad's Bose QC2s this weekend.
Walt French @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
Why argue about how lousy portable sound is? The review is about how to get a delightful music experience (with a fairly generous budget dedicated to the task).
You can do it: for this frequent flier, some Etymotic phones (the more expensive ER4P's) plus an iPod, are a Godsend. I hear very good quality music (clear, "alive" and full-sounding) rather than the roar of jet engines. I arrive comfortable and unstressed; it makes up for the many other indignities of travel these days.
I'm very partial to my choices, but I know that other gear can deliver similar results. Most portable CD players are at least pretty good. (I just got tired of dragging around 3 CD wallets on my travels.) Most non-cheapo MP3 players must be good, too. Etymotic can't be the only shop that can make good phones, even if they sound head & shoulders better than the Sony noise-cancellers that they replaced. Why, you might even favor a different recording of Boito's Mefistofele than the 1973 Treigle/Domingo/Caballe/Rudel recording I love.
I'm not looking for audiophile perfection in a mobile system, but you can get great sound, comfort and choice in systems. Don't let the grumps talk you out of it!
PS: Earwax. (Remember earwax?) Any drugstore will sell you cheap, painless & easy eardrops to dissolve excess wax. They shouldn't irritate your ears the way that aggressive Q-Tipping can. People with excess wax will appreciate occasional cleanups for all their listening. Your body will promptly replace any over-cleaning with a thin layer, to keep away those pesky earmites that you get from sharing straw beds with other cavemen.
Soulgirl @ Dec 19th 2005 1:24AM
I modded a pair of my own in ear earphones and I still use them now. They are the most pleasant and brilliant earphones I have ever owned and used :D
http://www.thesoulgirl.com/invisionboard/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=26&t=509
They only cost me about 20 dollars total :D