Just bought a new mp3 player last week and (perhaps unsurprisingly) the headphones that came with it aren't exactly fantastic. So, I'm looking for some advice on a good pair of headphones. I definitely want bud type in ear phones, not the overear ones (I'm not very technically minded when it comes to headphones/audio equipment so dunno the best way to describe that). I'll be listening to an assortment of types of music but mainly rap and rock. I'm willing to spent a reasonable amount of money but considering the player was only 120 I don't want to spend more than about 40 on headphones. I've done a bit of searching on here and other places and my shortlist at the moment is Sennheiser CX300 (I've already got a set of wireless Sennheiser headphones for the house and they're pretty impressive, despite being the bottom of the range), Creative EP630 or Shure E2Cs. I've got a feeling that there isn't a huge amount of difference between these and that any of them would be really good, but if anyone's got good experience with one or more of these I'd appreciate some input.

Thanks in advance.

I use Shure E2C's, brilliant IMO, although some people don't like the "underwater" feeling the sealed ear units give you.

I get good sound quality and bass reproduction, even at 120mph in my bike

Using Sennheiser HD 465's here atm, nothing spectacular...actually if I had not lost the receipt I'd have taken the back, there shite imo, whatta waste of €75:weeping:. will not be purchasing any of senn's stuff again neither.

2c

How muc are you looking at spending? I like my EP-630's, but i'm sure the Shure's would be better.

Quote from Jakg :

How muc are you looking at spending? I like my EP-630's, but i'm sure the Shure's would be better.

I'd like to keep under 40 but I'd possibly go higher for a big improvement. The E2Cs are on Amazon for £34.88 (including first class delivery). The EP-630s are gonna be around £20 and the CX300s are just over £20 delivered.

IMO, the shure's are a bargain for £35

I paid £7 for my EP630's....

Wasn't there a topic on this like a week ago?

I use the CX300s and they sound good to me. Nice bass and detail, everything's there. Apparently they rival the E2Cs too.

And to whoever was dissatisfied with the 465s, try a pair of 212s if you're on a budget as they sound great for the price. If you have money to burn, get the HD595s as they are the best Senns you can get without requiring an amp. I own both the 212s and 595s and can recommend both.

Ok, thanks for the replies. I'm gonna go totally crazy and get the E2Cs with the express delivery option (£37.98 in total). You only live once

If you haven't already bought them, I'd recommend Etymotic ER-6i s instead of the e2s. The Etymotics have a much more "true" sound, whereas the e2s have too much extra bass. I've been using a set of Shure e3cs for a couple of years, and they have a more realistic profile, but I plan on buying a set of qJays soon.

I used to have a set of Ety 6s, I found them very light in the bass; they needed considerable boosting to give some warmth. My current Shure E4Cs are better in this regard but still can't compare to full size headphones (where I don't find the need for an EQ).

Regarding spend £40 when the player costs £120, considering (unless you buy a particularly bad player) the cost of the player has little effect on sound quality, when compared to the phones. I'd say if you're interested in quality, you'd want to spend about the same amount on each. Particularly considering that, sound per pound, value drops with size, so you need to spend more to get the same quality. My Sure phones don't sound as good as my Grados even though they cost nearly twice as much; that's the premium for them being ten times smaller.

Quote from spookthehamster :

If you haven't already bought them, I'd recommend Etymotic ER-6i s instead of the e2s. The Etymotics have a much more "true" sound, whereas the e2s have too much extra bass. I've been using a set of Shure e3cs for a couple of years, and they have a more realistic profile, but I plan on buying a set of qJays soon.

I ordered them last night so I could get them delivered tomorrow. I'll see how they are, I probably wouldn't notice that much difference between them anyway.

@Bob...I'm not really that much of an audiophile, I just wanted a pair of reasonably priced, mid-range type phones. I couldn't justify to myself paying the same for a pair of headphones as for an 8 gig mp3/video player. It's not about the money, it's just that I don't see enough incentive.

Well you've bought Sures so things should be fine. It's just the people who happily spend £500 on the latest player an then think their £25 Sony in-ear jobbies were really pricey ("but they've got good bass init"), that irk me.

You've clearly defined your budget and made a reasoned purchase so that's perfect, I was just offering my oppinion on the whole balance of money idea.

Just got back in from work and spent 20 minutes opening the box and figuring out how they fit in my bloody ears. Now that I've got that sussed I'm very impressed. Sound quality is great but it shows up some of my lower (192k) quality mp3s badly. Really need 320k to appreciate them. Very good at filtering out background noise too!

Strange, most of my mp3s are 192 and sound fine. Axus couldn't tell the difference between 192 and lossless in blind ABX testing with his headphones (don't get that man started on audio ).

I can't tell the difference between 192 and 260, but I can between 128 and 192, on pretty much any speakers/headphones.

Thus reinforcing the idea that 192kbit MP3 encoding (with LAME at least) is surprisingly transparent.

It is pretty transparent for most things, although nothing beats going "ZOMG, I HAVE 3434 GB of Music!!" Sadly, that's just 4 OGG encoded songs...

I have a good 15 GB of music, and it's all at a minimum of 192kbit (where possible, live recordings and bootlegs of unreleased stuff are varying), and you could probably replace them all with 320kbit, and I wouldn't notice anything outside of myself losing another 13 GB or so of HD space.

Quote from danowat :

I use Shure E2C's, brilliant IMO, although some people don't like the "underwater" feeling the sealed ear units give you.

I get good sound quality and bass reproduction, even at 120mph in my bike

I have the same. It is absolutely stunning. It's got very good frequency range ( beyond what human can perceived so that's good) and the response time is quite short(don't have exact figures) so whenever you blast your music, you won't hear your earphones go crrshhhshhhsh at every bass.

But if you truly want to enjoy the quality, you'll need at least 256kb/s or more. under that, it's just an insult to the earphones lol
All my music are 420kb/s, and some are 520 lol.

Quote from -DrftMstr- :

I have the same. It is absolutely stunning. It's got very good frequency range ( beyond what human can perceived so that's good) and the response time is quite short(don't have exact figures) so whenever you blast your music, you won't hear your earphones go crrshhhshhhsh at every bass.

But if you truly want to enjoy the quality, you'll need at least 256kb/s or more. under that, it's just an insult to the earphones lol
All my music are 420kb/s, and some are 520 lol.

520kbps mp3? What's the point, surely FLAC would be better - please don't tell me you're using an iPod to play this music? (Even if you are I beleive rockbox on the ipod can play FLAC)

Quote from pb32000 :

please don't tell me you're using an iPod to play this music?

Why not? The 5G iPod has been widely praised for its audio quality compared to pretty much all other personal players. Before the 5G came along, many audiophiles agreed that the iPod Shuffle was one of the best players out there.

My Phillips noise-canceling in-ear headphones from Wal-Mart were cheap, and work VERY well.

How about the V-moda Bass Freq?

Quote from pb32000 :

520kbps mp3? What's the point, surely FLAC would be better - please don't tell me you're using an iPod to play this music? (Even if you are I beleive rockbox on the ipod can play FLAC)

C'mon now... iPod are made for those ppl that dunno shit and wants to buy something that looks cool and fit in with the mass.

I use a Pocket PC to play my MP3's. HP rx1950, old but never failed me.

OT: Pocket Pc's are great! Word, PowerPoint, Excel, MSN, Internet Explorer, Media Player, WiFi, ALL of that, in your pocket. I have a wireless foldable kb and voila! my laptop.

Quote from -DrftMstr- :

C'mon now... iPod are made for those ppl that dunno shit and wants to buy something that looks cool and fit in with the mass.

I use a Pocket PC to play my MP3's. HP rx1950, old but never failed me.

OT: Pocket Pc's are great! Word, PowerPoint, Excel, MSN, Internet Explorer, Media Player, WiFi, ALL of that, in your pocket. I have a wireless foldable kb and voila! my laptop.

Lol good stuff

@spook I don't know much about the 5G iPod tbf, but before that iPods had inferior sound to the iRiver, Cowon etc players because of the DACs and OpAmps they use for the headphone output. Compared to a Creative or cheapo Samsung or other general MP3 player, then yes the iPod sound quality is good, but compared to a manufacturer that uses high quality Wolfson DACs *AND* high quality OpAmps, the iPod has mediocre quality, which is noticeable on the crappy stock earbuds, and undeniably obvious on a quality pair of headphones (i.e. not earbuds, nor any other budget headphones)