[QUOTE="Foamybrian"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

I disagree, and I used to share your opinion. It is the fact that I've owned multiple $100+ in-ears and no matter how careful I am I just never think they are built well enough to justify the price. I used them with all kinds of devices, but primarily an ipod, yes. However, that isn't a problem, as in-ears are only really to be used on the road. I just upgraded my home headphones to the senny HD600s which are supposed to arrive today, actually.

Heirren

I have to disagree with your opinion. I've owned plenty of IEMs ranging from under $100 to exhorbant $500 price tags. Etymotic, Fischer Audio, Westone, Ultimate Ears, Shure, and quite a few other lesser known companies all make excellent products. I've owned a pair of Shure SE535's for about a year before selling it off and as far as durability is concerned, they are very well built. My etymotic ER4P lasted me for almost 6 years before I sold it. Of all the models I've tried, there were only two specific IEMs that gave me concern in regards to durability: the UE TF.10 and the Monster Turbines.

IEMs are small and lightweight since they are meant to be portable. They're not indestructible but at the same time they're not easily broken either. Like any other electronic device, you have to take care of them. Your iPod for example, while durable, would not fare well if dropped onto concrete. Likewise, the headband on the HD600 can break if you apply enough stress. The cable regions are the most sensitive parts of an entry level IEM (under $150); as long as you dont strain the reliefs or pull them uneccesarily, you'll be fine. Most of the more expensive models use better cabling that are far more durable (Westone 3 and 4's for example).

As far as sound quality is concerned, thats entirely subjective. I currently own a pair of AKG 702's, Beyerdynamic DT990, and 1964-Quad custom IEMs. If you were to ask me which one of these I like the best, I would pick the Quads despite it being an IEM. The transparency, separation, and overall mesh of the treble, mids, and bass are superior to both headphones however, the soundstage is inferior. IEMs tend to have an "in your head" soundstage (except for a few models like the Sennheiser IE8-) while the soundstage on a headphone is more expansive. Some people like one or the other exclusively; I like both for different reasons. IEM's for intimacy and headphones for a more concert feel.

I'll respectfully disagree. If you would have asked me 3 years ago I would have said otherwise. I'm not arguing that one can get good sound quality, but I think money is better spent on a really good over-ear set than in-ear, for home use. And I'll stand by my quality statement: I just bought a pair of HD600s, the cable is DETACHEABLE. Most higher end over-ears will either have this feature, or the cabling will be VERY reinforced. I was always surprised that the connections on the pricier buds were of no higher quality than that of a $50 pair of Sonys.

Likewise, the cabling on my IEM and most upper tier models are detachable as well and are significantly more durable than standard buds; it goes both ways. Anyhow, the main point of my post wasn't to discuss which of the two made a more sensible purchase but rather to address an earlier comment you made about IEMs in general having poor build quality. From my own experience (seen in my original post), this is simply not true. Some IEMs do have build issues (some of the models you've tried, the TF.10, turbines, etc.) while others are extremely well crafted (Westones in general, Sony MDR EX1000, JVC FX700 etc.). In the same light, some headphones have build issues (see Dr. Dre beats) while others are built like tanks (Ultrasones). Of course there will be limitations in durability for IEMs due to their intended use, afterall, thick cables and heavy weight materials are a no-go for something that sits in your ear.

As far as the headphones vs IEMs debate is concerned, IEMs will always be more of an ancillary setup to top tier headphones in the same sense that headphones are ancillary to top tier speakers. Each have their specific roles and will come with trade offs for a benefit (loss of soundstage for portability, loss of isolation for sound quality etc.). I agree that if a person is looking for a home solution, headphones will give the best bang for the buck but, if there are no significant financial limitations, then there is no reason not to splurge into an IEM for a significant boost in portable sound quality. I often listen to music on the go more than I do at home due to my schedule, so for me, IEMs are a worthwhile investment.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

This is a point that often times gets missed, which I've stated numerous times on this forum. The comfort is a big factor, especially if you are going to use the headphones for movies or games OR just extended use, period. People will point out better sound for the dollar, which is the truth, but Bose are not a poor product. You pay for that comfort. Just as people are saying you can get better audio at Bose price, it is only the REALLY expensive models from other brands that offers the same comfort.

This is coming from someone that thought Bose was trash, btw, before I tried the over-ear phones. Also, I'd like to point out that the in-ear Bose are MUCH better than the in-ear Shures. The high end in-ear shures are the most overpriced phone product on the market.

Heirren

I own those. They aren't nearly as comfortable. My father has the Bose, which he never uses, and I'm debating asking if I can take them for late night movies as I live in an apt building. The senns sound better, but I couldn't handle wearing them for 2+ hours straight. I've done that multiple times with the Bose when I visit him. The weight difference might seem small on paper, but it is something resting on a sensitive part of your body. I like to compare it to glasses. I don't need to wear glasses often. I do when I watch films, and that's about it. One pair is a more stylish pair, and one pair is a more relaxed paper light pair. I use the latter at home for the same reasons I'd use the bose--comfort.

The HD555 is very unforgiving to people with big heads (even more if you wear glasses). I couldn't wear it for more than an hour before the sides of my head start to ache. While the pads are comfortable, the vice-grip was just a bit too much for me.

[QUOTE="Foamybrian"]

[QUOTE="SoraX64"]I've already got a nice set of headphones for home use, but the SR 60i isn't really meant for on the go use. So I'm in the market for a nice pair of IEMs or earbuds. Budget is under $50, preferably close to $30. Any recommendations are welcome. :)Mozelleple112

Read the sticky for some suggestions, then check here and here for more options and impressions. There are tons of choices within the $50 range; which would be right for you would depend on your taste. Read up on some of the impressions and then do some more research once you've found a few models you like. Happy hunting :).

I've owned both the S4's and the X10's. Hell I still have my S4's (they are my backup IEMs just in case I lose my other two IEMs) and while I like them, they simply don't stand a chance compared to my Quad customs and DBA-02. The review range is in regards to all headphones seen in that list. The S4 is good at the price ($80ish) but is easily blown out by the big boys. Remember that these reviews are subjective and are meant to enrich the available data on IEMs rather than be absolute. Thats why I made a point to OP to do more research before pulling the trigger as his impressions on sound quality will be subjective. The S4's are very bass heavy (if not a bit bloated with bass) which is a signature that some people simply won't like.

Anyhow, the value I would say is closer to 8/10 if you can grab them on sale. At Their $90ish retail price, you can grab the SE215's, Turbines, or RE0's which would all give the S4 some stiff competition depending on your taste.

The bose in-ear phones are also absolutely remarkable.

Anyways the point of the thread was not to say that bose is the best thing ever because they arent but simply to address the stupid notion that bose audio is mediocre, a complete rip-off blah blah.

The sad thing about many audiophiles on the internet is that they have just learned that bose is bad through the internet and never actually tried them but yet they know that bose is not "true" audio.

I mean I have never said anything negative about a sennheiser or any other audio brand because I havent used them so why would I say something bad about them.

Gambler_3

In general, sound quality is not the biggest issue that people have with Bose. Rather its the price point of their products and the respective build quality at those prices. Consider the Bose LS V35 that retails at $3300 on amazon. With $3300, you can do all sorts of wonderful things to your home theater including full standing 5.1 bookshelfs, a high grade subwoofer, and a mid-high end receiver.

Bose charging $3300 for tiny sattelite speakers with plastic enclosures is absolutely ludicrous compared to whats out on the audio market. Some nanosats with a mid-range receiver would give you comparable sound and compact design at about 1/3rd the price.

As far as sound quality is concerned, Bose is somewhere in the middle for me. Its not atrocious to listen to but its not the best either (I've tried their QC's, On Ears, some LS systems they audition in their store). Both the treble and the lows were a bit recessed which isn't my cup of tea since I prefer a more neutral sig. The isolation on the QC was excellent however.

I've already got a nice set of headphones for home use, but the SR 60i isn't really meant for on the go use. So I'm in the market for a nice pair of IEMs or earbuds. Budget is under $50, preferably close to $30. Any recommendations are welcome. :)SoraX64

Read the sticky for some suggestions, then check here and here for more options and impressions. There are tons of choices within the $50 range; which would be right for you would depend on your taste. Read up on some of the impressions and then do some more research once you've found a few models you like. Happy hunting :).

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

Don't spend much. In-ear are not worth the expense. I've owned the high end Shures and Bose. VERY VERy disappointed in the shures. Everything from the sound quality to the overall contruction was not worth it. The Bose are the best I've used for in-ear, but again, build quality! I just feel that ANY in-ear buds are bound to break down.

My suggestion is to go with either a Sony or Senny in the 30-50 dollar range.

Heirren

In-ears are so worth the money, just like any other high-end headphones.

What did you use to power/test them, an iPod?

I disagree, and I used to share your opinion. It is the fact that I've owned multiple $100+ in-ears and no matter how careful I am I just never think they are built well enough to justify the price. I used them with all kinds of devices, but primarily an ipod, yes. However, that isn't a problem, as in-ears are only really to be used on the road. I just upgraded my home headphones to the senny HD600s which are supposed to arrive today, actually.

I have to disagree with your opinion. I've owned plenty of IEMs ranging from under $100 to exhorbant $500 price tags. Etymotic, Fischer Audio, Westone, Ultimate Ears, Shure, and quite a few other lesser known companies all make excellent products. I've owned a pair of Shure SE535's for about a year before selling it off and as far as durability is concerned, they are very well built. My etymotic ER4P lasted me for almost 6 years before I sold it. Of all the models I've tried, there were only two specific IEMs that gave me concern in regards to durability: the UE TF.10 and the Monster Turbines.

IEMs are small and lightweight since they are meant to be portable. They're not indestructible but at the same time they're not easily broken either. Like any other electronic device, you have to take care of them. Your iPod for example, while durable, would not fare well if dropped onto concrete. Likewise, the headband on the HD600 can break if you apply enough stress. The cable regions are the most sensitive parts of an entry level IEM (under $150); as long as you dont strain the reliefs or pull them uneccesarily, you'll be fine. Most of the more expensive models use better cabling that are far more durable (Westone 3 and 4's for example).

As far as sound quality is concerned, thats entirely subjective. I currently own a pair of AKG 702's, Beyerdynamic DT990, and 1964-Quad custom IEMs. If you were to ask me which one of these I like the best, I would pick the Quads despite it being an IEM. The transparency, separation, and overall mesh of the treble, mids, and bass are superior to both headphones however, the soundstage is inferior. IEMs tend to have an "in your head" soundstage (except for a few models like the Sennheiser IE8-) while the soundstage on a headphone is more expansive. Some people like one or the other exclusively; I like both for different reasons. IEM's for intimacy and headphones for a more concert feel.

I have the M200MKIII's and I love them. The soundstage is incredibly wide and is very immersive even though they are nearfields. Treble, mids, and bass are excellent for the price point but there is a a noticeable lack of sub-bass (I don't listen to dub step so its not really a big issue). You will need to pair them in the future with a good subwoofer if you want the most out of them, but as a 2.0 setup, they have more than enough bass to handle most genres (metal included). That being said, there is one major downside to these speakers: they are very conal. The farther you are from the speaker's optimal seating position (the center of the equilateral triangle), the more rapidly the soundstage begins to diminish. These speakers are not meant to fill a large room full of thumping music; instead they are geared towards individual listening.

6moons hit the nail on the head pretty well in their review.

Other good options for around $400~ are the KRK Rokit RP8G2, Audioengine A5 (not so great in small rooms), and MAudio BX5a. All of these are active speakers so you don't need to have a dedicated amp for them.

Cheap running shoes and cheap socks.

I value the longevity of my knees and ankles so cheap running shoes are a no-go for me. A nice springy set of custom tailored running shoes will always find a home in my closet despite however bad it may make my wallet cry.

Also, Thorlo socks rule. After putting on my first pair some years back, I'm never touching cheap socks again.

I usually get either some fries, a soft serve, yogurt parfait, or some oatmeal. Those things are pretty good for standard MCDs fare. Occassionally I'll aso get some chicken nugget to satisfy those childhood cravings but thats pretty much it.

As far as burgers and chicken sandwiches are concerned, I have nearby access to both In & Out and Chick-fil-a (Socal).

[QUOTE="Foamybrian"]

[QUOTE="yachtboy"] $84 isn't cheap for tiny computer speakers.... now if you are talking about home theater right and left channel... yeah that is cheap. I never understand why ppl go out and spend $300+ on computer speakers when they could just go the htpc route and buy solid polk audio speakers which are often on sale for $250 each and build an amazing system. My computer speakers cost $30... while my home theater subwoofer cost $250... now how often do you think I run my audio through the pc speakers and how often I use my home theater setup? Exactly...yachtboy

Its mostly a dilemma of both functionality and space. Full bookshelfs are only practical if you have the adequate space to both position and fit the gear. Considering that most PC setups are situated in tight spaces, its not always possible to add on a 30+lb receiver, subwoofer, and standing bookshelves. In these cases, active near-field bookshelves will make a lot more sense than full blown home theater setups. As far as Logitech, Creative, and Altec Lansing are concerned, I agree that their version of "desktop speakers" are absolute garbage but there are many companies that offer solid PC bookshelf options.

I'm currently using the Swan M200MKIII and I really couldn't be any happier atm with my desktop setup. I'll add on a subwoofer in the future to deepen the low-end, but at the moment its doing quite fine for my needs. I've also used the KRK Rokkit RP8 G2 and found it to be excellent as well. Quality PC audio does exist, its just a matter of wading through the pool of crap filled with cruddy sattelite setups.

Thats actually something I would recommend for most people. Headphones for gaming, speakers for music and movies. When it comes to positional audio in games, a solid pair of headphones is hard to beat and will offer the most bang for the buck. A pair of HD558s or ATH AD700s will satisfy most gamers with a low price tag. These gamers can then save up some cash for a more serious speaker setup in the $300+ range. It really is all preference though. Some people are fine with using headphones on their PC exclusively while others will want speakers. Some will also prefer to invest mainly in their HT setups for serious listening while others will not shy away from investing in desktop audio.