[ThePorge]

I've found these (JVC HA-FX66) work the best for me when exercising. The cord actually does seem to reduce "scrub" noise. Bought my second pair last weekend @ Frys for 30 bucks. First pair took a beating for about a year before the cord gave out.

http://www.jvc.com/p...e=true&pageID=1

[Dan Frakes]

dogbreath said:

Where's the review of Apple's in-ear headphones?

Apple's in-ear headphones are canalbuds; they're also a headset with a microphone and inline controller. We'll be taking a look at them in a separate article with other iPhone/iPod headsets.

[Dan Frakes]

cal_gecko said:

Looking at the review, and clicking the link to look at the Memorex headphones.. they look just like canal buds to me (and Memorex even calls them earbuds)...

Many vendors use the term "earbuds" to refer to anything that sits on or in your ears. But the EB100 are indeed "canalphones" -- they use a longer, thicker foam eartip that sits down in your ear canal and blocks significant external noise.

[Dan Frakes]

spinoza2 said:

To be honest, if I were to go with true "audiophile" sound, I wouldn't get earphones at all, but rather higher end headphones instead. I know some people have their gripes about Bose, but I really like their sound-canceling headphones. For $300 I think you can get much better quality with headphones than with earphones.

I'd have to disagree with you there. A good set of canalphones, including a few of the models included in Tony's review here, can go head-to-head with the best dynamic headphones. Each has advantages: dynamic headphones will outperform canalphones for visceral bass response, while good canalphones are tough to beat for accurate detail. Canalphones have the advantage of blocking more external noise than the best "noise-canceling" headphones, as well as the ability to be driven by the weak headphone amps in portable electronics; higher-end dynamic headphones require more power than an iPod or iPhone can provide in order to sound their best.

[spinoza2]

I guess I should qualify my statement by saying that I find the Bose QuietComfort phones ergonomically more comfortable to wear while producing a "closed" full- ear sound. I have no problem with the in-ear sets, but I find the over-the-ear headphones provide a greater feeling of experiencing the sound spatially. The QuietComforts are without question better for listening to music for longer periods of time.

I'm not sure if I agree that in-ear sound-canceling is better than the QuietComforts, the latter are pretty amazing for blocking out external sounds. I've never had problems powering the QuietComforts with my iPods, but perhaps you are referring to the even more expensive studio-quality Beyer-Dynamics, Sennheisers, and the like.

[Dan Frakes]

spinoza2 said:

The QuietComforts are without question better for listening to music for longer periods of time.

I think that's more of a matter of opinion: Some people hate sticking things in their ear canals; other people hate full-size, over-the-head headphones. (IMO, the best solution is a set of custom-fit canalphones made to fit your ears perfectly; of course, this adds ~$100-$150 to the price.)

Quote

I'm not sure if I agree that in-ear sound-canceling is better than the QuietComforts

When talking about active noise cancelation (the circuitry used by Bose and other NC headphones) vs. passive noise isolation (the approach taken by canalphones), it depends what you mean by "better." A good set of canalphones provides more accurate audio, doesn't have the weird inverse-audio hiss, and actually blocks more external sound (assuming, of course, a good seal). Noise-canceling headphones are, well, easier -- you don't have to worry about getting a seal, there's no odd "in my ear canal" sensation, etc. Different tradeoffs for different preferences.

(You can read our review of 9 noise-canceling headphones here.)

Quote

I've never had problems powering the QuietComforts with my iPods, but perhaps you are referring to the even more expensive studio-quality Beyer-Dynamics, Sennheisers, and the like.

Right. The QCs are made for portable use; they can indeed be adequately driven by an iPod and iPhone.

[EXrider]

I'm such a cheapskate, I have a hard time justifying paying more than $30 for a pair of earphones. The ones that come with the iPods are utter garbage, they hurt, fall out of your ear, and have the worst sound quality ever, all at the same time. I bought some cheap Sony earphones at walmart, and they pretty much suck slightly less than the Apple ones.
You know, it may sound crazy, but the best sounding pair of earphones I've ever owned were the ones that came with my old 1st gen Nintendo Game Boy, those things rocked! Too bad they (and the Game Boy) were stolen years ago.

[cal_gecko]

I am still using the earbuds that came with my iPhone 3G that I bought nearly a year ago... I am quite happy with the sound quality of them actually. The only reason I'd get a different pair is for working out at the gym, as the earbuds don't stay in very well while I'm exercising.

[ToddSD1]

Is there even such a thing as in-ear (either canal-bud or canal-phone) headphones with both a microphone and inline controls for the iPhone? I don't like the standard headphones that come with the iPhone at all. The sound quality is poor, they're uncomfortable, and they constantly fall out while exercising. But I'm loathe to give up my mic and inline controls!

[Dan Frakes]

ToddSD1 said:

Is there even such a thing as in-ear (either canal-bud or canal-phone) headphones with both a microphone and inline controls for the iPhone?

Yep, there are a good number of them out there. We covered a few about a year ago:

http://www.macworld....neheadsets.html

Since then, many other models have also been released.

[flohmann]

I owned both the Westone UM2 and 3. After comparing them head to head, I found the 3 to be substantially better, with a more open sound, allowing you to hear deeper into recordings (more hall ambience, greater separation between instruments and voices, more realism overall). But it was only with an external portable headphone amplifier (Ray Samuels Tomahawk) that this became really obvious.

I did find both of the Westones to be a bit richer in the lower midrange than the Shures I've used (e2c and e3c, predecessors to the ones you reviewed). I couldn't tell from your review whether you thought there was a difference between the Westones and Shures in terms of overall balance.

Finally, I have really loved the cable on the Westones, which is light, flexible, and not nearly as microphonic as some others I've used. When you're listening on a plane, it's very distracting to hear noise every time the cable moves across your shirt! My experience with Shure and Etymotic cables (again, older models) made the Westones really stand out as an improvement.

[WaltFrench]

Phones slipping out?

Try another brand, or, as with my Etymotics, a different size/style of flanges. I have used my earphones for over 5 years now, and never have them work loose during exercise. I doubt that my ears are significantly smaller than most, and I don't use the largest flanges supplied.

[WaltFrench]

The comment about the Etys sounding a bit harsh on higher frequencies suggests that you might actually be hearing distortion on the original material or as added by the player. Even "pretty good" (e.g., 256kb/s MP3) encoding can leave rough edges on the music (so I prefer the somewhat better AAC) and not all players give a clean sound at higher frequencies. Too loud of a signal -- whether for the electronics or the phones -- will eventually show up as "clipping" that makes highs really irritating. If it's the electronics, and the phones are merely playing what's there, don't blame the phones.
When CDs were first introduced, many people did not like the "lifeless," antiseptic" or even "strident" "CD sound" because the engineers included lots of treble on the new disks, which was muted on vinyl recordings. Much the same way that the cook at my Mom's nursing home says his clientele vastly prefer mushy canned vegetables to the fresh ones he would rather serve. Many portable music types would rather have boomy, distorted bass and loud midrange to being able to hear clean upper register music.
Finally, most players worthy of $100+ earphones offer tone control of some sort, so I don't understand concerns about bass or treble being too strong or weak. The concern ought to be about how good of a sound you can get once you tackle the basics of adapting your music/player/phones to your personal tastes and hearing.

[trikks]

I use the Shure SE530 with molded earplugs and it's about as close to heaven as you can come on the go.
My only regret is that now my 128 kbit mp3s sound terrible...
Another thing to keep in mind is Shure's excellent warranty service. Mine were 1.5 years old when the cables cracked open at the bend around the ears, probably due to excessive bending over time in cold weather. I just sent them to Shure with my receipt and received a brand new kit within 2 weeks.