Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › If you still love Etymotic ER4, this is the thread for you...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If you still love Etymotic ER4, this is the thread for you... - Page 77

post #1141 of 4970

Are you for real???? 7 dollars???

post #1142 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by docked seaman View Post

Are you for real???? 7 dollars???

 

Haha.  It is funny.  Although not unbelievably accurate, I think the $10 sony rockin' buds are absolutely insane quality considering they are $10 dollars.  I'm talking a huge percentage of some of these really expensive sets.  I'd pick the rockin' buds over some 100+ sets. ha.

post #1143 of 4970

....still laughing.....

 

"HF5's are boomy and muddy sounding"

 

Stop!  you are killing me.

 

What would that make the Westone 3 or UM3X.  

 

Total Classic.....


Edited by Spyro - 4/3/13 at 7:09pm
post #1144 of 4970

eke2k6 is right on with his assesment.  Again, tones are all there but zero tactilness or feeling of the instruments.

 

Heck, just listen to an ER4 and a UE900 side by side.  Both equally detailed and neutral but like night and day the different presentation they offer, one sounding true to life and the other 1 diminsionally mechanical.

 

HF5 and ER4 are the same IEM, same driver.  Why one is $100 and the other $300 is sort of insulting to ones intelligence.

post #1145 of 4970
So the UE900's are one dimensional and mechanical? I have not heard them though owned the TF10's (one of the mistakes in listening to the popular masses here) which were terrible, probably the worst I have heard next to Sennheiser's Momentums for the price range.

Price difference I think comes down to them NOT having the same drivers as far as I am aware, also the 4's are made in the US so your paying someone a decent living wage to make something and also the driver matching is much tighter and hand done. All that costs money!
Edited by ianmedium - 4/3/13 at 7:22pm
post #1146 of 4970
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyro View Post

....still laughing.....

 

"HF5's are boomy and muddy sounding"

 

Stop!  you are killing me.

 

What would that make the Westone 3 or UM3X.  

 

Total Classic.....

 

I found W3 almost unlistenable - they are totally incoherent sounding to my ears... UM3X is more coherent, but sounds quite dull and boring with a severely recessed treble and poor, excessively softened attack. UM3X is not bad though, but I do prefer the HF5 with its more lively sound, better tonal balance and its much better bang for the buck (sounds as good as UM3X, if not better, for 1/3 the price). The bass, in particular, is not really better on the HF5 than on the Westones with a noticeable roll off the the sub bass, but the definition is probably better on HF5. Again, I said that HF5 sounds muddy in the bass, compared to ER4, and ER4 has the cleanest sounding bass I've ever heard in headphones. Compared to most other headphones, HF5 has great bass.


Edited by Pianist - 4/3/13 at 7:52pm
post #1147 of 4970
I swear, so many people are simply not able to hear things properly going by the number of people who love wooly, smearing earphones or things that can cut glass with their edginess on this forum! As I posted earlier I have yet to hear a multi driver that engages me. They all smear and seem to be more about fireworks than subtleties. Of course that is what a lot of people crave now but it does not make it right!

I stil think the ER4's portray music on the whole as accurately as an IEM/Headphone can within the constraints. People on this forum are quick to say JH must be good as musicians use them. I work with musicians and half the time they have no idea how something should sound! Funny thing is on the other side of the desk most folks I know use these or some sealed back old school Beyers!
Edited by ianmedium - 4/3/13 at 7:36pm
post #1148 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

 

I found W3 almost unlistenable - they are totally incoherent sounding to my ears... UM3X is more coherent, but sounds quite dull and boring with a severely recessed treble and poor, excessively softened attack. UM3X is not bad though, but I do prefer the HF5 with its more lively sound and better tonal balance. The bass, in particular, is not really better on the HF5 than on the Westones with a noticeable roll off the the sub bass, but the definition is probably better on HF5. Again, I said that HF5 sounds muddy in the bass, compared to ER4, and ER4 has the cleanest sounding bass I've ever heard in headphones. Compared to most other headphones, HF5 has great bass.

 

Eureka!!!

 

I think I've solved the great mystery of Etymotic love, and this post is undoubtedly the key! 

 

You ready?

 

Ok. Ety lovers follow a simple, yet elegant rule when it comes to bass.

.

.

.

.

 

Less = MORE!

 

That's it. The less bass you have, the more accurate you are. For example, a castrato's voice is as accurate as a human voice can be, but James Earl Jones and Leonard Cohen's voices are simply incoherent and inaccurate. 

 

 

 

You can tell I'm teasing, but this is how the picture is presented to me. Perception is a hell of a thing.

 

This is my last post about the subject, as it seems trying to argue either point is akin to convincing a Tea Partier that Obama is not a communist. biggrin.gif


Edited by eke2k6 - 4/3/13 at 7:41pm
post #1149 of 4970
You know, I know your joking but I think your partly right, less is more, less overemphasis, less inaccurate and smeared, less bloom.

The great thing is that if one likes that there are plenty of headphones and IEM's that will give it and if you like that who am I to say it's wrong just as it is not right to say those of us who like it another way are. I still come back to my colleagues in the recording industry (High quality recordings, not the X factor type) who swear by the ER4's and you would have to pry them out of their cold dead hands before they would give them up, why? Because they allow them a level playing field with which to mix and engineer a record.
post #1150 of 4970
I find the whole "live performance" reasoning behind critiquing the ER4s interesting. Because doesn't what a live performance sounds like vary just as much as headphones do? Different equipment, different sound guys in charge with differing opinions...
post #1151 of 4970
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

I swear, so many people are simply not able to hear things properly going by the number of people who love wooly, smearing earphones or things that can cut glass with their edginess on this forum! As I posted earlier I have yet to hear a multi driver that engages me. They all smear and seem to be more about fireworks than subtleties. Of course that is what a lot of people crave now but it does not make it right!

I stil think the ER4's portray music on the whole as accurately as an IEM/Headphone can within the constraints. People on this forum are quick to say JH must be good as musicians use them. I work with musicians and half the time they have no idea how something should sound! Funny thing is on the other side of the desk most folks I know use these or some sealed back old school Beyers!

 

Actually multi dynamic driver based IEMs can be very good. My FXT90s are great sounding IEMs and offer more depth to the sound than ER4 does. ER4 is still more accurate... but if FXT90 had a more linear frequency response and a better design for a more stable fit, I think they might actually surpass the ER4. Multi drivers probably do have more potential than single drivers. Maybe it's just a matter of time before the technology will progress enough to allow multi drivers to be fully coherent sounding, finally surpassing the best single drivers in accuracy. I think multi driver dynamics, in particular, are catching on pretty fast.

post #1152 of 4970
I am not familiar with the FXT 90's, I will have to have a look.
post #1153 of 4970
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

I am not familiar with the FXT 90's, I will have to have a look.

 

Maybe I am wrong though. In fact, it's more likely than not. Apparently, speakers use multiple drivers to cover larger listening areas, but in case of headphones that are right beside the ears, there doesn't seem to be any real benefit of using multiple drivers. Maybe that extra depth/space that I am hearing with FXT90 is not the result of them using multiple drivers, but something else then.


Edited by Pianist - 4/3/13 at 8:49pm
post #1154 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selenium View Post

I find the whole "live performance" reasoning behind critiquing the ER4s interesting. Because doesn't what a live performance sounds like vary just as much as headphones do? Different equipment, different sound guys in charge with differing opinions...

 

I think this is very interesting too, and for a few reasons.  Mainly, just because an IEM makes something sound more realistic doesn't mean that IEM is actually a more realistic sounding IEM.  It could be worse, but simply accentuating something that lacked in the original recording.  For instance, take a famous recording like a steely dan song.  Even to their own admission, the monitors they used were were not perfectly true in the mids and thus some of the recordings sound thin in the middle sometimes.  Ironically, this is almost a staple of the steely dan sound.  Anyway, something like the er-4s might accurately reproduce the song as lacking mids.  Joe Joe might listen to the album on them and say "these don't reproduce the mid frequencies realistically".  So they get a pair of IEMs that make the mids more forward and/or raised in level.  They argue they are more accurate.  When in reality the er-4s are more accurate and were simply revealing the flaws in the monitoring setup steely dan used when mixing.

 

Another example is the horrifically, disgustingly, vomit inducingly awful dynamic compression used today.  This results in high treble being squished and sounding muffled.  Assuming they don't artificially brighten the song to compensate, Sally Mae might listen to this music on her v-shaped IEMs.  This restores the treble giving her the impression the music is more realistic sounding.  However, the er-4s would reveal the poor mastering with compression.

 

Just some examples.  I listen to uncompressed music with typically great recording quality and mastering.  When thus, the kicks and such are punchy and tactile.  When you consider most people don't have a perfect fit, listen to compressed music, pair them with less than ideal sources, etc.  It's no wonder some people don't like them.  I'm not saying everyone on this thread does this.  Just pointed out some various reasons one person might find sound so different from another.  We can get into a deep discussion of mixing environments, but essentially a good mixing engineer strives to have a perfectly flat monitor setup in a properly, acoustically treated room.  This is done so that there is a standard by which everyone knows they can mix their music and achieve results that sound the best on any given system as much as possible.  My goal has always been to match that with an IEM.  The er-4s, no matter what flaws, bass or no bass, is the closest approximation of that I've heard.  It is also the only IEM that not only approaches a flat response across the board, but also makes me feel like I'm in the environment I'm listening to.  In other words,I have some nature rain albums, and it sounds like I'm outside in the rain.  If I'm listening to classical music I feel I'm part of the audience.  That sort of thing. :-)


Edited by luisdent - 4/3/13 at 9:54pm
post #1155 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

Eureka!!!

 

I think I've solved the great mystery of Etymotic love, and this post is undoubtedly the key! 

 

You ready?

 

Ok. Ety lovers follow a simple, yet elegant rule when it comes to bass.

.

.

.

.

 

Less = MORE!

 

That's it. The less bass you have, the more accurate you are. For example, a castrato's voice is as accurate as a human voice can be, but James Earl Jones and Leonard Cohen's voices are simply incoherent and inaccurate. 

 

 

 

You can tell I'm teasing, but this is how the picture is presented to me. Perception is a hell of a thing.

 

This is my last post about the subject, as it seems trying to argue either point is akin to convincing a Tea Partier that Obama is not a communist. biggrin.gif

 

One way to look at it is this: as long as one can hear all the details that exist in the lower frequencies down to below 40hZ, why emphasize it? An ER4 enthusiast probably isn't convinced by an iem's attempt at reproducing tactile bass, but rather heard bass. Emphasized bass is a trick that doesn't work on some of us, since it doesn't add detail or sonic clarity, just the feeling of impact, a feeling that is obviously not like the real thing to some. So really we have two different goals entirely, one working towards that feeling of bass impact, and the other working towards sonic clarity, not convinced by replicated bass impact.

 

I should say that I listened to Daft Punk's album Alive today on the ER4S, and found the bass to be quite substantial, with sub-bass being clearly discernible and even over-taking other frequencies quite often. Obviously it doesn't have the chest pounding bass I would feel at a live show, but then these are just iems, and I wouldn't be convinced of that if they tried. 

 

Also, it may be easier for you to get a deeper/proper fit with an actual ER4 instead of the ER-6. Spyro that goes for you too. I'm just saying because I couldn't sleep at night knowing that someone, somewhere isn't getting all the bass from an ety. It could be possible.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › If you still love Etymotic ER4, this is the thread for you...