On, Over or In?

[Monder]

Hello

I’ve been an in-ear user for many years as they are handy for commuting but I have been feeling I am left wanting more. I left my SoundMagic e10s on the train recently and have now gone back to my old Sennheiser CX 200 II’s. I don’t think there is a great deal between them but feel I need an ‘over-ear’ set of phones now. I say ‘over-ear’ and not ‘on-ear’ specifically as I feel this is what will give me the most immersive sound experience. I listen to a lot of precise contemporary jazz/electronic and orchestral based music with pretty heavy base lines and drum loops (very little vocal) so this is what I’m after. Correct me if I’m wrong but I this is my own impression of the over-ear/on ear argument as far as I can work it out.

I have a Deezer account where I tend to download HQ when on wi-fi and play them offline on my LG G4. Wireless cans would be preferable but not a deal breaker if wired.

I was looking at the Philips Fidelio M2BT but they look like on-ear so now looking at the AKG K845BT – Both are around the £150 mark from Amazon and that’s the sort of price point I’m looking at. Maybe someone could tell me I have it wrong about the on/over ear thing, maybe also some in-ear’s would give me as good immersion for that price point (and be better for portability). Having said that portability is a nice to have and at the lower end of my requirements compared to sound quality and noise isolation.

What do you think folks, have I got this right?

 

[dalethorn]

Hello. I’ve been an in-ear user for many years as they are handy for commuting but I have been feeling I am left wanting more. I left my SoundMagic e10s on the train recently and have now gone back to my old Sennheiser CX 200 II’s. I don’t think there is a great deal between them but feel I need an ‘over-ear’ set of phones now. I say ‘over-ear’ and not ‘on-ear’ specifically as I feel this is what will give me the most immersive sound experience. I listen to a lot of precise contemporary jazz/electronic and orchestral based music with pretty heavy base lines and drum loops (very little vocal) so this is what I’m after. Correct me if I’m wrong but I this is my own impression of the over-ear/on ear argument as far as I can work it out.

I have a Deezer account where I tend to download HQ when on wi-fi and play them offline on my LG G4. Wireless cans would be preferable but not a deal breaker if wired.

I was looking at the Philips Fidelio M2BT but they look like on-ear so now looking at the AKG K845BT – Both are around the £150 mark from Amazon and that’s the sort of price point I’m looking at. Maybe someone could tell me I have it wrong about the on/over ear thing, maybe also some in-ear’s would give me as good immersion for that price point (and be better for portability). Having said that portability is a nice to have and at the lower end of my requirements compared to sound quality and noise isolation.What do you think folks, have I got this right?

(Someone else can advise on the headphone details) - But I wanted to mention to beware of the term over-ear, since it was invented to sell headphones that were allegedly around-ear (the correct term) when those headphones really didn't fit around a lot of users' ears. It's no small matter when returning the headphone is a huge bother or expense. The original Sennheiser Momentum was one notable offender.

 

[MajorFubar]

If you wear spectacles like me you might find some on-ears are extremely uncomfortable for long periods of listening, depending on how wide your head is and how much they crush your spectale legs between your ear shells and your skull. For sound quality, I'd always go for over-ears in preference to in-ears, other than they're comparatively heavy and when commuting there's no getting round the fact that you look a bit like a cyberman. But with plenty people doing it, maybe it's now more socially acceptible than it was 30 years ago when I used to take a pair of Senny 414s to-and-from college on the bus and the other passengers and kids would stare at me like I was some kind of alien.

(Or perhaps it wasn't the 414s, maybe it's because I have six arms three eyes and horny reptilian green skin. Nah..it won't be that....almost certainly it was the 414s.)

 

[dalethorn]

For sound quality, I'd always go for over-ears in preference to in-ears, other than they're comparatively heavy and when commuting there's no getting round the fact that you look a bit like a cyberman.

That's where there's confusion about "over ear" headphones, and why so many people ignore the need to find out how those "over ear" headphones really fit.

For example, the B&O H6 go mostly "around ear", and will not make you look like a cyberman. They are pretty slim.

 

[MajorFubar]

It's all relative, no circumaural headphones are as discrete as in-ears, but as the wearer, whether or not that bothers you in a public environment is always going to be down to the individual. But with sound quality the only object, I can't think off-hand of a pair of in-ears I'd choose in preference to the best pair of circumaural or supra-aural headphones at the same price-point.

I've never found any pair of headphones described as 'over ear' or circumaural that don't fit round my ears as advertised. But maybe I've just got small ears.

 

[dalethorn]

It's all relative, no circumaural headphones are as discrete as in-ears, but as the wearer, whether or not that bothers you in a public environment is always going to be down to the individual. But with sound quality the only object, I can't think off-hand of a pair of in-ears I'd choose in preference to the best pair of circumaural or supra-aural headphones at the same price-point.

I've never found any pair of headphones described as 'over ear' or circumaural that don't fit round my ears as advertised. But maybe I've just got small ears.

Good observations. BTW, there are some earbuds (not the ear canal type) that have a really good sound, and one of those might work if they don't fall out. I've found one set that has ear clips I like.

 

[MajorFubar]

Good observations. BTW, there are some earbuds (not the ear canal type) that have a really good sound, and one of those might work if they don't fall out. I've found one set that has ear clips I like.

Oh definitely: it's possible to spend thousands on ear buds, they're just not the first type of phones I'd personally run to if sound quality was my only consideration.

 

[dalethorn]

Good observations. BTW, there are some earbuds (not the ear canal type) that have a really good sound, and one of those might work if they don't fall out. I've found one set that has ear clips I like.

Oh definitely: it's possible to spend thousands on ear buds, they're just not the first type of phones I'd personally run to if sound quality was my only consideration.

The OP talked about losing his earphones on the train, then went on to other issues. The thing is, if we're talking audiophile sound quality and portable in the same headphone/earphone, you'd need extremely high isolation or noise cancelation or both, and then noise cancelation tends to rule out the best sound. I never concern myself with best possible sound in portable use, just good enough sound that's not going to require any attention to my player other than controlling volume.

 

[Monder]

Thanks for the input. I'm sitting here on the train now with my CX-200's wanting more. I was looking at NC headphones for a while but then read that sound quality is normally compromised and realistically, air travel (which seems to be the primary use case for NC) is something I do very rarely.

I was sitting next to a colleague in the office today who was wearing Bose on-ears and it just looked to me as though they are a bit gappy. For me it seems like it should be 'in' for convenience and portability or 'round/over' for quality and immersion.

I'm sure I would take better care of my stuff if I had something more substantial too!

Not sure on the wireless thing either my phone has aptiX but I'm sure the units have added weight and bulk on one's skull. No idea if the batteries in wireless headphones aim to improve quality with using the batteries with active, amped output or if there are purely in place to power the Bluetooth circuitry.

 

[dalethorn]

Thanks for the input. I'm sitting here on the train now with my CX-200's wanting more. I was looking at NC headphones for a while but then read that sound quality is normally compromised and realistically, air travel (which seems to be the primary use case for NC) is something I do very rarely.

I was sitting next to a colleague in the office today who was wearing Bose on-ears and it just looked to me as though they are a bit gappy. For me it seems like it should be 'in' for convenience and portability or 'round/over' for quality and immersion.

I'm sure I would take better care of my stuff if I had something more substantial too!

Not sure on the wireless thing either my phone has aptiX but I'm sure the units have added weight and bulk on one's skull. No idea if the batteries in wireless headphones aim to improve quality with using the batteries with active, amped output or if there are purely in place to power the Bluetooth circuitry.

I haven't heard any Bluetooth that doesn't lower the quality of the signal. The best I have right now is the Audioengine B1 Bluetooth receiver, which is good, but not 100 percent like a decent amp. The Bluetooth inside of headphones is worse, as far as I've heard so far. Noise canceling makes it more complicated because the NC DSP generally colors the sound a lot. The Bose QC25 has the best NC that I know of, and the active mode sound is near neutral, but somewhat colored. Things should get better over time, but the progress is slow.

 

[Monder]

Got down to a shortlist of two now:
beyerdynamic T51pAKG K845 Funnily how stuff turns out, one's on ear and the other's over. I am leaning towards the AKG unless anyone has anything to say to the contrary.

 

[dalethorn]

Got down to a shortlist of two now:

beyerdynamic T51p AKG K845 Funnily how stuff turns out, one's on ear and the other's over. I am leaning towards the AKG unless anyone has anything to say to the contrary.

I'd like to remind you that "over ear" is a scam and "around ear" is the proper term. Good luck on the T51p BTW - while it's very comfy and isolates well, the sound is drier than dust and it has the most fragile cable I've ever experienced.

 

[Monder]

So my ears will be inside the cups. Over, around, call it what you fancy.

Very sure it will be AKG now.

 

[dalethorn]

So my ears will be inside the cups. Over, around, call it what you fancy.

Very sure it will be AKG now.

I don't bother with such things to be fancy, I bother with such things to inform users that many headphones that are on-ear are listed by their manufacturers as "over ear", because in fact they do fit over the ear. That can cause problems for users. What's worse though, and the reason it's become a scam, is because some of the influential headphone outlets have decided to downplay the fact that many headphones that are supposed to fit around the ear, don't do so for many users, so they use the meaningless term "over ear". Once you understand what's going on, you'll want to know whether a headphone is really on ear or around ear. Well, most customers will want to know that.

 

[Monder]

Yes thank you, I do understand what your saying but I've watched a couple of youtube reviews of the AKG's specifically and they apparently do consume ones ears very well - I have normal sized ears and do not wear specticles. This added to Amazon's excellent returns policy, I think I'll be alright.

 

[dalethorn]

Yes thank you, I do understand what your saying but I've watched a couple of youtube reviews of the AKG's specifically and they apparently do consume ones ears very well - I have normal sized ears and do not wear specticles. This added to Amazon's excellent returns policy, I think I'll be alright.

BTW, I've had 3 AKGs so far - love them all.