E2C vs E3C

[Op27Nr2]

Hi Guys,

This topic's probably been done before, but I didn't find the answers I was specifically looking for.

Can anyone give me a personal opinion/review of the Shure e2/e3 line. I understand that the differences between the two models are benign and that the e2 might be even better in the dynamic range over the e3.

Unfortunately, I am currently based in a city that doesn't have retailers where I can try them out - so I'm going by the one time I tried a colleague's e3 a while back.

I appreciate any information/advice you can provide me.

[kauffee]

The difference is not benign... I think it's rather significant. I also don't agree that the E2c has a better range. The E2c is bit more warm and full, and therefore the low end appears more filled out. However, I think the idea that the E2c has much stronger bass than the E3c is overstated. The E2c has a touch more impact, but the difference is minimal. Mainly, it's just a bit fuller (muddier?) in the lows and mid-bass.

Still the E3c's presentation is much better in my opinion. The mids are nice and forward, the highs have much better extension, and the instrument separation and imaging are just far superior. The E2c just seemed so stuffy and congested to me.

And while the E3c's weakness is it's thin bass, I don't think the E2c really gives you that much more... and it's a huge trade-off.

[Op27Nr2]

In your opinion, is an $80.00 difference in price between the two models justified for the reasons you mentioned?

Thanks so much for responding!

[kauffee]

It's justified if you have the $80. I mean, I'm currently using $600 phones. Are they justified? Well, they're certainly better than anything else I've used and I really enjoy them. It's all about your resources and priorities. I was not happy with the E2c, but I was very satisfied with the E3c... so I definitely felt the difference was justified.

[rx7_fan]

I would have to disagree with kauffee, I think the Shure E2c is a good start for you. Yes, the E3c is better, but in my opinion, it's not $80 better =D, it's more like $40.00 better.

If money is an issue to you, i think you should use the Shure E2c. However, if shelling out an extra $80 bucks wont 'hurt' you, then I say for the E3c. I'll tell you right now that doubling the amount of money you'll spend (on the E2c) will not equal doubling in sound quality.

[stevesurf]

Originally posted by kauffee
It's justified if you have the $80.
IMHO kauffee's right, but there are a number of differing expert opinons here (http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=68297&highlight=e2+e3) and here (http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=86885&highlight=e2c+e3c)

Really, there is a better thread comparing the Etys and e3s here (http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98434&highlight=e2c+e3c)

and make sure your music can handle the e3C (http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110013&highlight=e2c+e3c)

I'm eating Ramen and saving my pennies for the e4 (http://www.shure.com/news/pressreleases/pr-nammw05_e4c.html)