in-ear earphones

Hey guys! I've been thinking of buying a good pair of in-ear headphones for a change! I've never owned an expensive pair so i'm not sure how to go bout buying it! I currently own a $15 pair of creative in ears.

My use is only while gaming or music. I like a decent amount of bass as well. Looking to spend around $30-$50. any suggestions?

Edit: Oh n I using it on a laptop with on-board audio card

 

Perhaps take a look at MEElectronics, they have a pretty decent selection of headphones for under $30-$40. They also go on sale very often.

 

Oh thanx!

any other brands i could look at??

 

I don't know if you would consider Sennheisers.
But they are pretty reliable.
Here are in-ear for $9.99 After rebate at amazon:
Sennheiser - Earbud Stereo Headphones (CX 200)


Or,


Sennheiser HD201 Lightweight Over-Ear Binaural Headphones - $15.85 FS w/Prime


Cin...

 

Thanx! i'll have a look!

 

Earbuds are not in-ear earphones. Or is that what OP is looking for? Either way, you'd be better off asking at head-fi.

 

Just gave him some choices. I linked them because they were priced decently. OP can ask here, there are many members with a huge Audiophile knowledge.

 

If you bump your budget up 20 bux, I'd suggest the Shure SE115. Amazon has them for about $72 w/ free shipping. Klipsch S4 are also great, but if you have a tight budget, then Sennheiser IE4 aren't bad either.

 

^^ Thanx! I liked the ie4! i also saw these bose ones as well for $60.

Amazon.com: Bose® In-Ear Headphones with Carrying Case - Black: Electronics

any idea how they compare??

 

I no there a little bit out of your range but These are the ones to get IMO.
Astro Gaming | Professional Gaming Equipment | A*STAR Ear Buds

 

The Bose will sound okay...until you get some headphones from a real audio manufacturer for the same price.

Pretty much what I'm saying is that Bose is overpriced junk. Their slogan needs to be changed to "Better audio through advertising".

 

LOL! ya agreed! I try to stay away from the hyped brands! My roommate hass it n they're nice but i wasn't sure if i wanted to spend that much on it!!

but wats better for $60?

 

Amazon.com: Sennheiser CX 300 II Precise Bass In-ear Canal Headphones with Asymmetrical Cable, Black: Electronics

 

100% agree w/s2odin. If you are trying to spend under $60, get the Sennheiser CX-300B (about $40). They sound fantastic for the price. I tried out MANY pairs of earphones in the ~$30 price range, and these are by far my favorites.

If you are willing to spend ~$70 - $80, you would do well with the Shure SE115 ($70) or Klipsch Image S4 ($80) earphones.

If you want the best value for your money, stick with companies whose primary business is making AUDIO gear like Sennheiser, Shure, Klipsch, Etymotic, Audio Technica, Beyerdynamic, etc.

Stay away from companies like Bose, Monster, Razer, Astro, etc. If you think about it, those companies rely more on using marketing and image to generate the perception of quality, rather than actually focusing on quality. The end result is that they make decent products, but you end up paying quite a bit for the marketing and branding.

 

Please excuse the long response to a short question. I'm a pro audio engineer and headphone fan.

In-ear monitors/headphones are different, as mentioned, from ear buds.

Ear buds, which are small and rest in your ears (ie. white ipod ear buds), typically have the worst low frequency performance because of their design.

In-ear monitors (IEMs) go inside your ear canal and should seal your ear completely. Properly designed, the acoustic seal will be as effective as wearing safety ear plugs. Because of this seal, low frequencies can be produced with a very small magnet extremely effectively. Typically, IEMs have the best low frequency response of any headphone. They will not, however, produce any frequencies above 14 kHz or so (the upper half-octave of perfect human hearing); this is a physical limitation of all in-canal IEMs today.

With all that said, for the price you are looking to pay, you will not get a decent IEM. At your price, earbuds are your only answer for in-ear headphones.

Unless commuting, why use ear buds at all? They are the worst option possible, aside from portability.

Spending $50-100 on over-the-ear headphones will give you much better sound reproduction than any ear bud will. As well, because their speakers are larger with stronger magnets, low frequency reproduction is actually possible.

For my money, and I own a pair, Fostex T20RP (latest mk.) are the best value in circumaural (over-the-ear) headphones. Around $95, IIRC, deals can be found. They are my choice for portable, rugged professional audio work and have a nice, flat response. Another great option, and cheaper, are Sony folding headphones you see so many DJs use. They are fairly flat, have good low frequency response, are durable and easy to find.

If you want to start treating yourself, and your ears, your budget needs to be larger. Unless you spend a few hundred dollars or more, any headphone will only be decent at best.

In terms of IEMs, cheaper ones like the Monster Audio and Beats are popular. Monster Audio gave me a set of Turbines to use and give feedback. While nice, I found the low frequencies over-emphasized (boomy) and the high frequencies lacking clarity in their transient response. I'm a pro engineer, and am picky. I gave them to my brother, an electrician, and he loves them. These, like the Beats, are around $300, IIRC.

For just a bit more money, you start getting into elite circumaural (over-the-ear) headphone territory. In fact, the best dynamic headphones, period.

For around, $450 the AKG K702 (pro version of the K701 features a detachable cord the K701 lacks) is amazing. Incredible detail and phase accuracy. Very neutral sound, I find just a bit thin in the low frequencies.

For slightly more money, you can get the Sennheiser HD600. My favourite dynamic, circumaural headphone of all time. Amazingly flat and detailed performance even beyond the range of human hearing. The only drawback to these, they are worth the price, is their high impedance. You need a headphone amp to drive these or a very high quality receiver/mixer headphone output. I've used these with a reference tube amplifier as my professional engineering headphones for 15 years. Sennheiser has an even more expensive HD850 series. I haven't heard them, but reviews have been favourable.

Both the AKG and Sennheiser I mentioned are open-designed circumaural. This means there is little to no acoustic isolation from the outside world. You have to use these in a quiet environment.

In the $600-1200 price range you will find REAL in-ear monitors. Featuring two, three, and even four drivers with crossovers built in the earpieces, these are custom-fitted to your ear canal by an audiologist. They create a perfect seal giving you unrivaled low frequency response for headphones.

The two best brands are Ultimate Ears and Westone. I would avoid their entry-model versions (especially single driver). They are usually designed for drummers who want loudness and isolation over sonic performance. As such, they usually feature a heavy low-mid frequency emphasis that makes music tubby but makes them ideal for drummers.

The difference between Westone and Ultimate Ears is slight. I ended up buying Westone ES-2 IEMs. They are neutral and have two drivers. I had to choose them as a singer I work with uses them on tour and as her monitor engineer I need to hear exactly what she hears. I love using them while commuting, though, my own private world of audio bliss.

Until you reach that price range, however, in-ear phones are a compromise of portability over high-fidelity. At your price, buy over-the-ear headphones unless you really need something very portable.

Sorry again for the long reply, I'm a long-time headphone fan.

 

WOW! thanks a lot Voox! I'll definitely look into that! thanx a lot!

N thanx Kent n s2odin!

 

you're welcome, if you have any questions, let me know.

 

Amazon.com: Ultimate Ears TripleFi 10 Noise Isolating Earphones: Electronics

You might want to get this quick, it's amazon gold box deal - ultimate ears trifi 10 pro for only 95 dollars.

I've got a westone UM2, but it's more for pop music, just bought a UE trifi 10 for classical because of UE's great sounding treble.

 

I had some creative in ear plugs aswell which I got for free with my creative zen mozaic mp3 player, and when I bought 40€ in ear plugs from sennheiser, I heard no difference whatsoever.

They didn't give me the chance to test the sennheiser earplugs before I bought them so whatever you buy, test it first. After my friend showed me his sennheiser headphones (the ones that completely cover your ear) which he bought for 50-60€ I was blown away and ever since I kinda regret throwing my 40€ away.

 

This is an absolutely *FANTASTIC* deal to get these at $100. These headphones typically retail for $400, street price of around $300.

If I didn't already have too many headphones, I would have jumped on this in a heartbeat.

 

I'd go with the entry Shure (115) as previously suggested. These have among the highest potential noise isolation for a dynamic in-earphone due to the small ear tube bore and the way they fit. You can also alternate between the easy-to-wear silicones and the higher-isolating foams.

You won't get significantly higher than the CX series in terms of sound quality, but you will be able to use it in more places at lower volumes. Shure have solved the cable issues of their entry phones, and their 2-year warranty is solid.

Bear in mind that most laptop audio is poor, and with isolating earphones you may be able to notices hisses and interference that you perhaps didn't when listening via speakers. Even a ~$10 fleabay USB soundcard (or one of these) can however successfully solve this issue.

Unless you have giant earholes, the worst earphones you can buy come from Ultimate Ears. Their 'sonic bang for the buck' is decent, but the large-bore design (especially of the TF10) makes it really hard to get the high isolation that balanced-armature phones *should* provide.

 

The Ultimate Ears linked above, and Westones mentioned, do not use custom-fitted earpieces. While in the same price range, and better quality, than the Monster or Beats version, they are still less than ideal.

It is very hard to get a non-custom-fitted IEM to seal well. They never do 100% reliably or stable.

Personally, I really dislike Shure earpieces. While early adopters of IEM technology, their drivers leave a lot to be desired. Especially compared to the Ultimate Ears or Westone offerings.

 

And yes, a good external audio I/O box will give dramatically better headphone performance. The noise is lower, as mentioned, and the better units have decent headphone amplifiers which can drive high impedance headphones like the Sennheiser HD series.

Also, good I/O boxes will feature much better A/D and D/A converters, which make a huge difference, particularly when recording.

 

You can use Breakaway Audio instead of buying a soundcard.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/not...36397-ultimate-ears-triple-fi-10-95-00-a.html

 

It's all about the fit. If you haven't tried all the tip options - or if your ear can't fit a particular IEM, it won't work well. Ultimate Ears' use a different, larger ear-tube bore diameter (similar to Shure's old E2) from the likes of Shure, Westone and Etymotics's major generic-fit earphones and as such don't fit those with smaller-to-regular-size ear canals as well. There's also a 'nervousness' aspect. A lot of self-proclaimed pro audio types even end up wearing these things like your Sony EX's - i.e. lightly inserted into the canal, and they don't realise a compromised fit is responsible for whatever sonic woe they are expressing (some phones just are compromised, but I'm talking about issues beyond).

However I don't think getting a functionally decent fit is a major issue for the majority of people with the Shure/Ety size bores.

Especially as they're the same drivers. Subjectivity's a female dog, isn't it?

The sole difference in many cases is the frequencies addressed by a particular driver. Given the same number of drivers, some tune for a slightly compromised sound quality but a more pleasing or accurate / full-range-seeming tonality, while others tune for the best compromise given the abilities of each driver.

Anything less than 4-5 drivers in a balanced armature phone, you're looking at such a compromise. A lot of people equate more drivers with higher sound quality, but they seem not to understand why that is - it's because each driver is being driven more in its comfort zone. A balanced armature driver isn't like a dynamic - the Sennheiser IE range for example address the audible range pretty well. But to ask one, two or three balanced armature drivers to address the full audible range results in compromises - and it's up to each company to deliver either a more full-range-seeming, but 'crunchier' sound, or a phone with audibly compromised tonality but less compromises in delivered sound quality. Some mistakenly tend to equate that sparklier, 'crunchier' sound with better quality, especially if their source material is throwing up so many artifacts that it makes it impossible to tell where the problem is.

 

Thanx for the link to the usb card i think i'll get that n maybe a sennhieser for now... not sure!! the USB card does make a good difference in quality right??

 

A good sound card can make a big difference in quality.

But a cheap one is not.

 

Take a look at the Elago E3 and E5's

I have a pair, never heard so much bass come out of such a cheap earbud in my life. lol

 

A cheap, decent-performing soundcard will make more difference to noisy laptop mobo audio than the difference between a cheap, decent-performing soundcard and an expensive one.

 

Another vote for the CX 300 II, I swear by these.

The CX 500 are a similar price, but I recommend against them. They have a volume control half-way down the cable, and it is extremely prone to breaking. The CX 300 II sounds just as good.

 

CX300's are good for its price. Nothing extraordinary though.

Picked up some last week for cheap, sold out quite quickly.

 

Re: Shure IEM
While I have not tried the generic-fitting Westone or Ultimate Ears models, I have used the pro-Shure IEMs and was not impressed. Although, better than the Monster IEM, I still don't love them.

Re: Fit
I've never got non-fitted IEMs to fit well. They seal but often lose seal as I move/work. I don't think I have an odd size or shape of ear canal either. Of the generic tips, the ones with the yellow foam tips work best for my ears.

Re: Number of drivers
There is a problem with too many drivers - overall phase accuracy and frequency reproduction at the crossover frequency. While you contend that 4-5 drivers are necessary, I would personally disagree. Without having heard the high-driver IEMs personally, this is only a guess. It would be nice to spend $1000 at a time to try various platforms, but I find that financially silly.

Back to my point, I prefer 2-3 drivers in my IEM. The dual-driver Westone ES-2 have excellent reproduction. Nothing feels "lacking", but a BIT more mid-range drive would be nice, which is why my next IEM will be the triple-driver Ultimate Ears.

What you haven't addressed, is sometimes muliple armature units are designed to over-emphasize some frequency ranges. User reviews of the Westone and Ultimate Ears triple-driver units describe completely different sonics.

While the UEs are flat, the Westone ES-3 model overemphasizes the low-mid frequency range. Based on Westone's own literature, they were meant for vocalists and guitar players who they think want those frequencies emphasized.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the more drivers you have, the more difficult phase accuracy becomes. Combined with more crossover frequencies which are compromised, and you'll see why I think 3 drivers are more than enough, IMHO.

 

To me, it's not a big deal. Less pontificating, more experience.

 

I'm happy with two drivers, right now. I've spoken to fellow engineers and most also really like the UE 3-driver custom IEMs.

If the next artist I tour with uses an IEM that's not a Westone, they'll buy me the system they're on as part of hiring me. Usually it's double or triple driver Ultimate Ears or double driver Westone that see the most use on large tours.

While I've heard of a couple of acts using the quad driver Ultimate Ears, these tours are very rare.

If you have the budget to buy various custom IEMs, awesome. Just remember to have them re-fitted every couple of years.

To me IEMs are a tool for the road, and an indulgence on the subway. When I need a reference headphone when editing or mixing a project, I'll use my Sennheiser HD600 cans. IEMs are amazing under certain circumstances, but roll-off around 15 kHz and lack the detailed transient response of the HD600 or the K702 cans.

If you have the budget, the single best headphone format are electrostatic headphones with an appropriate amp. Absolute bliss and precision for roughly $10,000.

Remember, though, headphones will always be inferior to reference monitors with sub. Headphones have two major limitations sonically:
1) No head transfer effect stereo. Both ears hear your left speaker, the far ear will perceive it softer, a bit delayed, and with less high frequencies. Our brain uses these subtle differences to localize sound.

In headphones, only one ear will hear that channel's audio. No head transfer effect. Thus depth of stereo field is lacking. Unless you spend a LONG time critically listening to headphones, as an engineer or enthusiast would, your won't be able to get your brain to recreate the spacial depth of the stereo image. Reverb and stereo delay effects suffer the most in headphones.

2) Very-low frequency content is only transmitted through the bone transfer effect in the skull. LFE drivers (subwoofers) can shake your organs, even in a reference system. Our brain and body uses these body vibrations to sense and experience very-low frequencies that our ears are less sensitive to.

Headphones only cause the small bones in the ear and the surrounding skull to vibrate, and much less than a full-size sub would. Thus, our perception of very low frequencies is lessened in headphones.

Don't take me wrong, I love headphones. Amazing performance per dollar when building a reference system. I am just conscience about their limitations and strengths.

If I had your budget, instead of thousands of dollars in headphones, I would by a top-of-the-line 5.1 Tannoy studio monitor setup for my home. I'd bi-amp each speaker using an amp (like a Hafler) with an extremely fast slew rate to allow the details the Tannoys are capable of to come through. Beautifully neutral and phase coherent sound, which would give you the ultimate home theatre system.

 

I'm not sure exactly who you're lecturing to... since to anyone who knows a bit about the subject and are fairly in-depth into it, everything you've said is already pretty much part of common knowledge (well, the bits which aren't guesses, assumptions or apparent third-hand knowledge, that is), yet at the same time it's unlikely to have much general resonance in a forum like this. Indeed some of it could be termed slightly false advice from even a 'discerning consumer' point of view.

And if you do have my budget, you will have decent headphones and speakers and deploy them as use-appropriate. In my specific case, taking what's in my slightly poky living room as a limited example, that means a Sennheiser HE90/HEV90 sharing a dCS three-box (as well as an audio-centric PC) with a Bladelius integrated and a set of Wilson Benesch Discovery's.

 

I'd get the phones first, then if you hear anything obviously wrong (loud hissing, high pitched squeaks, buzzing, etc) I'd look at solutions like the compact USB audio interfaces.

 

If you bump your budget up 20 bux, I'd suggest the Shure SE115. Amazon has them for about $72 w/ free shipping. Klipsch S4 are also great, but if you have a tight budget, then Sennheiser IE4 aren't bad either.





______________________
ipad downloads
download ipad

 

I think to say these things are common knowledge, even to enthusiasts, is elitist. The amount of absolute nonsense spouted in audiophile magazines and sales shops is staggering. I've busted more than a couple of salesmen peddling $100,000 speakers on pure BS.

And to say the rest of the stuff is guesses or third-hand knowledge is ignorant. Especially to classify it as false advice.

I'm an audio engineer who works with major artists. I'm paid to use my ears and pro-audio tools at the highest level.

My information doesn't come from stereo magazines, but real world experience for critical applications. Also from friends and contacts in my industry who are some of the leading hardware and acoustic designers in the world.

My colleages and I use and discuss the technology/tools that allow us to complete multi-million dollar projects, including recordings, tours, and installations. Not just on forums, but in real life.

How about you?

 

I use what I use, and like notebooks what I tend to do is to buy everything I'm interested in after broadly narrowing down some competitors, decide what is best in a fairly objective manner in both benched and actual use, pick one I like and dispose of the others I bought to try. As a result, I'm voluble about things I've tried (from a 'have and evaluated' sense - never a 'I tried that in x' sense) and largely incommunicado on things I haven't.

I'm aware of the BS in audiophile circles, just as there's also a fair amount of BS in the pro audio industry - most of it is ultimately, like many things, is down to ego ("I chose it for some nebulous reason and therefore it is the best") and I can get past that, simply because of the above - I bench and try. It's no coincidence that my opinions go against some major audiophile grains.

And it's odd - since while you claim to be all that, and you're obviously interested in this stuff, and yet you can't seem to pony up the relatively speaking, totally puny dollars of your (or more likely someone else's, given your apparent position) cash to have a few flagship IEM's at your side - just for starters.

As I alluded, you seem to be more interested in regaling us with rather stale apparently thirdhand knowledge instead. See, the problem is that from what you write, while there's lots of information there, it's actually very hard to make out - speaking as someone who does have the experience - whether there's any real consistent experience from a single party behind it. If you were more upfront about your range of actual experience, I don't think anyone - well, me - will wade in to type what's been typed so far.

 

VooX - thanks for your writeups, great reading for neophites like myself, much apreciated;

Vogelbung I don't know what's your problem; to me it's clear that he is a profesional that has no need for the generic not custom fit, entry level offerings from those brands so why try them ? but still has the knowledge about the technology so he can offer pointed advice. relax

 

That's kind of the point. We were both talking about the professional stuff (as well as the generics). The posts are a series of write-ups which displays, for one, inconsistent experience.

No-one should mind a particular point of view, but regurgitated, aggregated info from different sources without a common frame of experience then stamped with the seal of 'I'm a pro' - which hasn't really been demonstrated thus far - are more misleading than helpful. That's my 'problem'.

It's like the posts on here and on many other tech-related posts with starts off with 'I'm an IT Professional with xx years experience'. Know them? What I'm looking at is the audio equivalent.

 

cidhu88 and cosma12, thanks for the kind feedback. I'm glad I could help.

I don't mean to slightly derail this thread, sorry, but my credibility has been challenged and I'd like to take the time to respond.

Read my original posts carefully. I mentioned I was an audio engineer and headphone enthusiast, but I never specifically mentioned my artists, my experience, or any of my friends. I would not have even mentioned I was an audio engineer, except for a few reasons:

1) To show my requirements, experience, and expectations may be different than those of the average user. I require certain performance standards in my pro equipment that a recreational user may not.

2) To contrast how a set of Monster Turbines did not sound good to me, a pro, but sounded great to my brother, an electrician with a good ear. I wanted to illustrate how my sensitivities may be different than the average user.

3) To be ethical and upfront about Monster's lead headphone designer asking me to sample and evaluate the Turbine IEMs before they were released to the public. I don't think it would be fair to give a review without being honest about any conflict of interest.

I did not mention that the same lead designer was interested in hiring me as a technical consultant to help them improve their headphone line for professional use; I decided not to pursue the opportunity for my own reasons, and it was not relevant to my posts. This detail will be relevant when I discuss your other posts.

In fact, I did not elaborate on my background until you accused me of spouting "third-hand information" and giving "slightly false advice".

You certainly are voluble, Vogelbung, how knowledgeable you are is debatable.

Let me address something that many audio enthusiasts, like yourself, don't understand about most audio professionals: we don't often buy equipment for fun, we usually buy equipment to make money.

You ask why I "can't seem to pony up the relatively speaking, totally puny dollars of your (or more likely someone else's, given your apparent position) cash to have a few flagship IEM's at your side - just for starters."

I'll tell you why... I have no need for another set of IEMs yet. When I do, I won't spend a dime on them, the artist who hires me will buy them for me. That's how it works when you are a pro.

I know triple-driver Ultimate Ears will be my next IEM as they are the only widely-adopted IEMs beyond dual-driver units among pros. Currently, my dual-driver Westone IEMs are just fine for use with artists who use dual-driver Ultimate Ears units. The sonic differences are negligible, so the artists, management companies, labels, and myself all agree there is no use wasting money for a set of dual-driver Ultimate Ears.

Second, and more importantly, all equipment purchases as a professional have to be weighed on a cost vs. benefit scale. There simply are too many "toys" to buy everything for the fun of it. We buy a tool and extract every ounce of performance we can out of it. Quite frankly, except for road use, I don't have much use for headphones professionally. I certainly don't mix on them.

The only audio pro whom I met that uses Stax electrostatic headphones was a researching Tonmeister at the University of McGill. He is doing cutting-edge acoustic research, and occasionally needs their performance, not a single other pro that I've met would even consider buying a pair for work. Ironically, this same Tonmeister uses his Sennheiser HD600 headphones in the studio and for research far more often than any other headphone, including his Stax.

If I were an enthusiast like you, I could spend $6000 (a conservative estimate) on a reference electrostatic headphone system, interconnects, etc., and I would not make an extra penny of income from it.

As a pro I could, and recently did, spend $6000 on a new laptop (why I'm using this forum) and specialized analysis hardware/software to further specialize in my field. Immediately, my daily rate has doubled and, hopefully, my rate will eventually triple or quadruple while demand for this type of work is skyrocketing. My new tools are carving out a lucrative niche for myself. Real benefits for the cost of the equipment.

Another thing you may not realize is often professionals don't have all the coolest toys at home. Like most F1 racing car drivers don't drive super-cars everyday at home, they drive something more comfortable and appropriate.

Most audio pros, like myself, only have a decent reference monitor system, or even inexpensive consumer speakers as our entertainment systems. While we all would prefer awesome systems, most would agree that our day-to-day system can colour our internal acoustic reference and that having a system with neutral sound and good phase response is more important, and practical, than having a high-performance system at home.

When I'm mixing a 40+ input show, either the main PA for the audience or over a dozen monitor mixes for the performers onstage, I have to be perfect. I have management, label reps, tour managers, promoters, and the artists themselves micro-analyzing my performance. If I make a single mistake that is noticeable, I'm fired immediately after the show. Guaranteed.

After working at that level, at that intensity, with that much focus and performance required, I am tired and my ears are tired. Sure, I may only need to work three to four hours a day on tour, but in those hours I have to work at the highest level with extremely high pressure to perform. At home or commuting, I often don't want to listen to music afterwards, I want to rest. It's not that I don't love music, it is one of my major passions, it's that I am fatigued after using my brain and ears at such a critical level at work.

Audio pros go to studios and work on million-dollar systems in just as expensive rooms with acoustic treatments. We go on the road and work on million-dollar PA systems. How can our home systems ever compare? Why would we really need them to?

Moving on...

You are very quick to try and discredit my posts as either third-hand rehash, common knowledge, or bad information. At the same time, you seem to think you are very informed about audio. You have mentioned you have bought a lot of high-end audio components. I honestly think that's great. However I can guarantee you don't hear things nearly as accurately as I do, nor do you have the acoustic background I do.

After all, this is the portion of your early post that caught my attention and drew my initial reply (and eventually your ire). It clearly shows how insufficient understanding leads to false conclusions:

At the same time as you show your ignorance, you will accuse me of re-hashing "third-hand information".

Before I explained my background and experience in more detail, I pointed out facts about: ear buds vs IEMs, in-ear vs over-the-ear headphone value and performance, impedance of headphones and the need for amps, limitations of non-custom IEMs, limitations and design characteristics of IEMs and other headphones, including detailing first-hand experience I have working with Shure, Sennheiser, AKG, Monster, and Fostex headphones.

I even responded to your initial response by further detailing the design characteristics of certain multi-driver IEMs (like the Westone ES-3) and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the negative frequency and phase response effects of having too many drivers/crossovers.

Almost all of these points are scientific facts, not just opinion, yet you call them false. The informed would not doubt my experience, and wouldn't challenge me on it as you did, nor would they be so bold as accuse me of spreading "slightly false information".

If pro-audio manufacturers are interested in my design ideas and professional feedback, I do know what I'm talking about. I don't think any manufacturers are sending you hardware and asking for your design input.

So allow me to re-iterate the MOST IMPORTANT fact I gave about IEMs, about frequency and phase response of crossovers. I'll add a few more details, so that you will actually understand what is going on, instead of pretending to. I hope others who may not know about these things have a chance to learn, as I once did, what you seem to think is common knowledge; despite showing your own ignorance.

Frequency response and phase accuracy are equally important in determining sound quality. The perfect speaker is a single driver capable of perfect frequency and phase response. It doesn't exist, so we compensate by having multiple drivers.

Phase accuracy is a critical factor in determining speaker quality, directly affecting frequency and temporal acoustic response. It is, for those who may not know, how we describe the arrival times of sound at various frequencies. If a kick drum is hit, the low frequency boom, the mid-range attack of the beater, and the high frequency air should all be reproduced and arrive at your ear at the exact same time. Like in real life.

The more a frequency, or group of frequencies, is delayed relative to other frequencies the worse the sonics. As well, phase has the ability to negatively affect frequency response by creating constructive and destructive (both are bad) frequency inaccuracies caused by the each of the drivers' soundwaves interacting.

In the studio (and at home), phase accuracy is crucial for accurate frequency and temporal perception and, combined with off-axis response, accuracy and imaging outside of the sweet-spot. Over distance, every speaker's phase accuracy falls apart, which determines how far to put delay speakers (when doing concerts).

Having marginally better frequency specialization by having a large number of drivers, while degrading phase accuracy, is not an improvement at all. That is what you are doing when you add multiple drivers beyond what is strictly necessary.

I can understand where your "more drivers = better" mindset comes from, if you listen to stereo magazines, you too will think that two or three drivers is a "compromise" from having more drivers because, in your words, "...A lot of people equate more drivers with higher sound quality, but they seem not to understand why that is - it's because each driver is being driven more in its comfort zone..."

This is pure stereo magazine gibberish based upon a little bit of fact.

FACT: More drivers are used to compensate for acoustic limitations various driver sizes will have. Large drivers do low freqs well and high freqs relatively poorly, while small drivers exhibit the opposite traits, for instance.

FICTION: The more, and more specialized, drivers you have, the better the sound reproduction will be.

Those behemoth speakers which cause hundreds of thousands of dollars and feature a large number of drivers are absolute jokes. The one person in the perfect listening position has a great time, everyone else, even inches outside the sweet spot, have very compromised audio primarily due to phase inaccuracies causing frequency response degradation and temporal distortions. Not to mention the stereo/surround imaging sweet-spot becomes increasingly narrow as you increase the number of drivers and speakers in a system.

ANY crossover compromises frequency response and phase accuracy. The more drivers you have, the more negatively frequency and temporal accuracy as well as stereo/surround imaging is affected. A designer must balance out having enough drivers to reproduce the frequencies accurately, while having as few as possible to minimize the negative acoustic affects of multiple drivers and crossovers.

Crossovers are high-order frequency filters. A high-order filter has a very steep roll-off. Steep roll-offs are needed in crossovers so that two drivers don't overlap their frequency reproduction and have over-emphasized acoustic reproduction around the cross-over frequency.

Here's the problem. While high-order crossovers are needed, the steeper the filter, the more spurious frequencies are created in the pass-band (or non-filtered frequencies). These appear as "ripples" on a frequency analysis chart around the filter's roll-off frequency. Also, just as importantly, the steeper the filter, the more phase inaccuracies are created.

When you have a crossover, you have two filters acting around the same frequency. One to roll-off the high frequencies from the larger driver, one to roll-off the low frequencies from the smaller driver. Thus, around every crossover point you will have both phase and frequency artifacts (inaccuracies) created by two filters.

The more crossovers (drivers) you have, the more inaccurate your phase response and frequency reproduction. Even digital crossovers, which won't exhibit frequency artifacts in the pass-band, create distortions in phase accuracy.

I haven't even gotten into acoustic coupling of stacked drivers, and its implications, that is truly beyond the scope of this forum, and my post is long enough as it is.

Another important factor in why custom IEMs are so much better than non-custom IEMs is due to the frequency resonance of our ear canal.

Believe it or not, much like blowing air over a beer bottle creates a sound (at the resonant frequency), our ear canals also have a resonant frequency. Depending on the exact size and shape of your ear canal, there will be a broad frequency emphasis at roughly 2 - 4kHz.

In other words, your ear canal enhances these frequencies making your ear more sensitive to them. This comes from evolutionary survival. The sounds of leaves rustling, footsteps outdoors, and broken twigs all have frequency content in this region.

Any well-designed IEM will have a frequency emphasis in this frequency range to compensate for filling your ear canal, negating the resonant frequency's boost. Thus, a flat "sounding" IEM will not have a flat frequency response.

(For those who don't know about them, look up the famous Fletcher-Munson curves to learn about how we perceive frequencies differently at different volumes.)

Custom-fitted IEMs benefit by a design which leaves a relatively consistent, from person to person, distance between the drivers and your ear drum. This allows manufacturers to generalize a frequency boost at roughly 2 - 4 kHz that should approximate, reasonably well, each individual's unique canal resonance. As well, designers have to compensate for the IEM's own resonance. While not a perfect system, it works.

The problem with non-custom IEM units is that this gap, and the resulting ear canal between the driver and eardrum, becomes much less standardized from person to person. Thus, the general frequency boost becomes less accurate as more variables are introduced in the system between the drivers and your ears.

Remember the two other IEM points I brought up: Custom-fitted IEMs need to be refitted every couple of years and that high-frequency reproduction starts to roll off around 15 kHz.

I am going to end my post here. I already feel bad about it being so long.

I hope this post helps to explain speaker and IEM design principles and limitations for both enthusiasts and casual listeners. And I hope you, Vogelbung, learn to recognize that despite your experience and budget, you definitely don't know everything about audio; I don't either, but I'm happy to admit it.

If you choose to respond, please pick and choose quotes, no need to reproduce this entire tome unnecessarily in future posts.