Comparing Klipsch in-ear headphones
James Ralston is Crutchfield's Web Editor for Home Audio/Video. He joined the company in 1994 as a member of the sales department and began writing about A/V gear in 1999. James attended the University of Virginia, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature. Since arriving in the Charlottesville area, he has been active in the local music scene, playing drums in a variety of musical projects ranging from world beat, to blues, to instrumental improv.
Heads up!Welcome to this article from the Crutchfield archives. Have fun reading it, but be aware that the information may be outdated and links may be broken.
I've owned a set of Klipsch Custom-1 in-ear headphones for a couple months now, and I've been putting them to frequent use with my iPod. More recently, my friend DaveB got a set of the higher-end Custom-3s, and he was kind enough to let me borrow them so I could listen to the two models back to back, for comparison's sake.
The more expensive Custom-3s feature two separate "drivers" to produce sound, instead of just one for the Custom-1. I'm using the term "driver" loosely — the moving parts in these Klipsch headphones are actually called "armatures" and aren't shaped like traditional speaker drivers. With the Custom-3, one armature produces low frequencies, and the other produces highs; a crossover network sends the audio frequencies to the correct armature. I knew this difference on paper, but was curious to hear it for myself.
A quick note about the comfort factor
My Custom-1s are easily the most comfortable set of headphones I've ever owned, and the Custom-3s are identical in terms of fit. Both models feature an assortment of interchangeable ear gels. The gels have a slightly oval shape — Klipsch's research found this to be a better match for most people's ear canals than a perfectly round gel. Both pairs also have pliable built-in wire clips that go over your ears to hold the 'phones in place.
I used my iPod as the audio source, and just started grabbing random tracks. I encode most of my music as 192 Kbps (kilobits-per-second) AAC files. I feel like this setting gives me considerably better sound than the default 128 Kbps setting in iTunes. Despite the lossy compression of the source, I found that both sets of headphones brought out lots of sonic details.
On a cut from Bill Frisell's The Intercontinentals, the Custom-1s did a great job reproducing the vibrant tone of a Fender telecaster, along with lifelike acoustic strings and crisp hand percussion. Backing up the track and listening again with the Custom-3s, everything sounded a bit livelier and bass was noticeably fuller. The hand percussion wasn't just crisp anymore — it had the unmistakable low-end punch of a djembe.
On Beck's Sea Change album, string and synth arrangements felt big and lush with the Custom-3s. In contrast, the Custom-1s didn't sound as full, but Beck's soft, almost sleepy vocals seemed more prominent, and I found myself noticing more little details like the squeak of an acoustic guitar string.
The bottom line
To sum up the differences I heard: the Custom-3s had fuller bass and more high-frequency shimmer. Instruments had a more visceral, immediate attack across the board. It makes perfect sense, considering their additional cost. However, the Custom-1s presented lots of midrange detail, and on some cuts I found myself actually preferring the way they emphasized certain things, like the timbre of an acoustic instrument or a singer's voice.
Of course, sound is always a matter of personal taste. Have an opinion about these headphones you'd like to share? We'd love to hear it.