I am getting sick of my the awful earphones supplied with my iPod, in partticular they are no good at all for listening to classical music with. I'm not sure what it is, but they just don't cut it. Was wondering if anyone had any reccommendations for a good pair of earphones they use or any suggestions?

I use Shure sound isolating headphones, they are not cheap but sound is amazing, plus I have such tiny ear holes the foam inserts fit without causing me pain.

for an iPod (or other small player) you might find it can't drive large headphones well (giving a weak/quiet sound). for portable headphones i'd recommend Sennheiser PX-100, which give a very good sound for their size, and work fine on mp3 players. at home i use Sennheiser HD-555, which are a bit larger (and more comfortable, as they're circumaural; i find i can't wear the PX-100s for more than a couple of hours); these are probably too large for an iPod.

I'm sure any earphones costing more than £10 will be better than the ones supplied with an iPod. I never even tried them on mine!

Sennheiser (sp) are pretty good

I also have a pair of Sony ones that cost aruond £20 that are good

Bose are probably the top brand but ridiculously expensive!

I have these and they are great, they are much better than the standard ipod earphones. They are people friendly too in that no-one else can hear what you're listening too.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B...x_ya_oh_product

i have trouble taking Denon seriously after they tried to sell a £5 audio cable for £500 ;-)

I have the same problem with Bose. I bought the cheapish Sennheisers (CX300s I think) to replace the "buds" on my original iPod and though they were better I always found the bass seriously lacking and isolation poor. My iPhone came with new buds which are much, much better than the originals so I haven't looked for replacements yet (especially as they will have to have a mic and controls built into the cable). I believe the Etymotic range are highly regarded, but at the price they should be.

For sound quality and isolation I'm pretty sure you are better off with "on ear" rather than "in ear". However, I for one wouldn't want to walk down the street looking like a total wally.

At the moment I'm reluctantly accepting that I can't expect the same sound quality from my iPhone and in ear phones as I get from my (rather expensive) home hi-fi.

If anyone has any good recommendations, then I too will be "all ears".

Difficult topic this, hard to balance sound quality with comfort and price.

At the moment I'm using the Apple "in ear" buds - the ones with the volume controller and track selector and find them quite good. Once you get used to the track selector function I find that I really miss it when using ones that don't have that function.

The Apple "in ear" aren't too expensive $79 but you have to be careful not to get the track controller wet.

Tried the Etymotics but didn't find them terribly comfortable - they had good isolation but were a real nuisance taking them out when people wanted to speak to you!!

For running I find the green Sports Sennheisers hold up really well to perspiration abuse and fit great too.

Not tried the Bose or any of the other high end types (except the Etymotics) but I don't think you can realistically compare an iPod with a home stereo - you're not comparing Apples with .... (Sorry coudn't reist).

all the best,

Nigel

I'd agree ipod headphones are so abysmal its unbelievable especially with the price you pay for an ipod. I use Shure's myself and they are excellent, about 50 quid off amazong. But if you get Shure, Bose or Sennheisers you should be fine.

I would always recomend trying the headphones before buying them.

I had Sennheiser in-earphones and they had an excellent sound but the ones I got had a funny sticky-outy bit that was supposed to keep it firmly in your ears that I found very uncomfortable.
Then I had a mad moment and bought in-ear Bose...my bank manager may not agree but I think they're wonderful - couldn't go back to anything else now.

M.x

Well I reckon given a good pair of phones (whatever they might be) there's no technical reason why you shouldn't get pretty close.



Well I think you've just argued against yourself there. A decent pair of phones would increase the price of an ipod by what? £45?

You would expect not something up to the standard of some of the headphones i've mentioned, but you would expect something of better quality than they produce.

Pushpull - interesting point about listening - don't get me wrong I have nothing against good quality ear buds nor indeed the stock Apple ones - they sound OK to me - it's just that listening to a stereo compared with a iPod is different - not worse, just different. It may have something to do with the distance that the sound comes from, which again may account for the difference between going to a concert and listening to music at home.

I do think that listening comfort has a lot to do with it, which is why the more expensive ear-buds tend to be more comfortable - despite my experience with the Etymotics.

A most interesting topic this - but I'm no expert. I do record a lot using Logic and have found that my preference is to have melody lines panned slightly right in the mixes and the accompanying instruments panned slightly left - maybe I'm right eared!!!

all the best,

Nigel

personally i lik the ipod ones

I guess you're talking about listening through phones v. speakers. I was comparing an ipod through phones against the home hi-fi through phones. In that respect there ought not to be much difference in "potential" performance. The front end doesn't make much difference these days - e.g. whether it's my CD player or iTunes on the macbook through Airport to the hi-fi. Then again, my home phones (which in fact get no use these days - I prefer speakers where possible) are AKG K-1000s which cost a king's ransom 2nd hand a good few years ago (and require a power amp to drive them) and I'm not expecting that sort of performance from an iPod.

I shall perhaps have to give those Etymotics a serious looking at - and listening to.

The best earphones in the world wont make an iPod sound like a stereo since all the music on an iPod is compressed into mp3 format, I remember an interview with Andrea Bocelli where he said he refuses to listen to mp3 compressed music!

I don't think many cd players/mp3 players come with decent headphones, as it would increase the price, and most people just aren't bothered. Plus you wouldn't want to keep paying the extra every time if you update your mp3 player (we seem to live in the throw away age...)

No it isn't necessarily so. I use Apple Lossless format on mine, which is what it says - Lossless, i.e. same as CD quality.

MP3 quality depends on the degree of compression. The original format was horrid. It now allows for a degree of choice between file size and quality.

I am pretty fussy when it comes to sound quality. My several years old £1200 CD player was certainly better than any other I came across at the time. But time marches on and I will accept that the difference in front end performance is far less than in the past. As I mentioned, iTunes played from my macbook through the hi-fi is "comparable" (not identical) quality to the CD player (NB - uncompressed Apple Lossless format, not mp3).



Yes I certainly agree there. Perhaps they should be sold without phones (no I know the marketing men wouldn't like it).

Pushpull - you're right - we were talking at crosspurposes - I hadn't thought of listening to music via high end headphones direct from CD player or pre-amp. I haven't done that for ages. I used to use the Sennheiser 550's, I think, direct from a Denon CD player, but that was many years ago. Now I stream iTunes to a much smaller stereo/surround system using the optical link from the Airport Express. As you say time marches on.

I've never really had an issue with how music gets compressed with different formats (with one noteable exception) when playing back on either mini-disk or iPod. As I mentioned before I record using Logic and yes there is a loss of quality from the original when converted to a Sound Designer file for mastering and then into iTunes as AAC - but that loss of quality doesn't bother me that much.

The one exception - Beach Boys' Smiley Smile - a lovely album - but compressed to an inch of it's life!!! Everything including the vocals is at the same level, no dynamic at all - Horrid.

By the way - I'll look up the model number of the Etymotic's I have and will send you a PM.

All the best,

Nigel

just to be clear, MP3 compression is not the same as dynamic range compression. MP3 removes nearly-inaudible frequencies (and starts removing more and more audible data as you decrease the bitrate), but it doesn't do dynamic range compression. (although of course you can compress the audio then encode it as MP3.)

interestingly, many people actually prefer compressed audio; it's well known that if someone listens to exactly the same recording twice, but one is played at a louder volume, the louder one is often perceived as being better quality. compression makes the track sound louder, since people turn up the volume to compensate for the reduction in loudless the compression causes. personally i can't stand it... while i don't think vinyl is inherently better quality, i'd much rather listen to an original vinyl than a remastered, compressed CD.

It's funny how many albums are wrecked by appalling (re) mastering. I had one or two CD re-releases in the early days which were utterly dreadful, only for later releases to put right the damage.

Ta, that will be much appreciated.