|
Recent Additions
Budget Components Audacious Audio
Loudspeakers
Amplification
Digital Sources
Analog Sources
Accessories Listening / Art Dudley The Fifth Element / John Marks Music in the Round / Kal Rubinson Fine Tunes / Jonathan Scull Special Features Reference Interviews Think Pieces Historical Recording of the Month Records 2 Die 4 Music/Recordings Stephen Mejias Robert Baird Fred Kaplan Wes Phillips Audio News Past eNewsletters RMAF 2008 FSI 2008 CES 2008 RMAF 2007 CEDIA 2007 HE 2007 FSI 2007 CES 2007 China 2006 RMAF 2006 HFN 2006 CEDIA 2006 HE 2006 FSI 2006 CES 2006 Forums Galleries Vote Previous Votes Dealer Locator AV Links Audiophile Societies Contact Us Customer Service New Subscription Digital Subscription Renew Give a Gift Sub Services Recordings Backissues More . . . Phono Preamp Hi-Fi Phono Cartridge Amplifiers Stereo Speakers |
Shure E3c in-ear headphones
"Ah, I see what the problem is. Your ear canals are larger in diameter than normal." Size does matter, I guess. I was talking to Shure staffers at their booth at Home Entertainment 2003 last June. I had always had a problem with such in-ear headphones as the industry-standard Etymotics, and was explaining that I was getting on no better with the review samples of Shure's then-new, $499 E5c in-ear cans. With what I now knew to be my wider-than-normal ear canals, I had not been able to get the supplied sleeves, foam or soft plastic, to seal properly. The result was sound that seriously lacked bass.
Inside the head
Listening
Getting the E5cs to fit comfortably, with their stiff cable and over-the-ear insertion, had been tricky. But the '3cs were easy to fit and didn't feel intrusive. The big adjustment you must make with in-ear cans is to learn to reduce your body's sheer noisiness. With the foam sleeves providing effective isolation from external noise, the sounds of your own footsteps, transmitted through your spine, can become oppressive. And I got used to holding the cable yoke away from my chest lest it, too, communicate body noise.
High frequencies were the E3c's strong suit. Not only was the treble naturally balanced, there was also a refreshing lack of the presence-region emphasis that leads to a "rattling" of massed voices through inexpensive headphones, such as the freebies that came with my iPod. Binaural recordings—a 1980s BBC drama broadcast of She Stoops to Conquer; my excerpt from the 1992 F1 Canadian Grand Prix on Stereophile's Test CD 3 (STPH006-2)—gave impressive out-of-head imaging. I encountered one operational problem with the E3cs. Their sound-isolating properties were a boon on airplanes, even when the iPod's battery ran down. However, if I inserted them in my ears before takeoff, they would stop working when the plane reached its cruising altitude. It sounded as if the drive-unit had stuck, as turning up the volume resulted in a clipped sound. If I didn't insert the headphones until after the plane's cabin had depressurized, they worked fine. However, I then had to remove them when the plane began its descent.
Summing up
Article Continues: Specifications »
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


Shure then sent me some custom foam sleeves that fixed the problem. More important, they also sent me a pair of the E3c headphones they were introducing at the 2004 CES in January. While the '5s are a seriously good product, the low price of the '3s—just $179—tempted me to write instead about them. (An even lower-priced model, the E2c, costs $99, but the E3c was the one Shure describes in their literature as having "audiophile" aspirations.)
Most important, you must get an airtight seal or the E3c will have reduced bass. But when you do get a good seal, the low frequencies sound impressively full. The 1/3-octave warble tones on Stereophile's