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 82

post #1216 of 4677

OK, no problem with any of that. (Other than thinking a single BA driver can fulfill all the duties of a multi-driver) .So it sounds like you agree that at least dual drivers are an improvement over anything that Ety offers?  I would agree too.  My JH5 is still the best sounding IEM I have owned in 10 years including better than W4  (asterisk * with JH16).

 

(a few posts above)..... UE900 IS pretty neutral.  An ever so slight sub-bass boost certainly does not screw up the sound (still laughing...) but only makes it sound  neutraly realistic!

 

When thinking Ety versus a UE900.  Think sitting in a 15ft square sound room with the worlds best 6" bookshelf speakers (ER4)  versus  four (4) 8" dual speakers in each corner of the room.

 

Which do YOU think might sound better?


Edited by Spyro - 4/6/13 at 7:38pm
post #1217 of 4677
firstly a 15 foot square room will sound awful but if it were to be that room then for sure the 6" bookshelf will do a far better job of representing music that 4 8" dual speakers which will overpower the room an be an aural assault.

Then you have a whole bunch of time delay issues between all those drivers in a small space. What your describe enforces my point rather than negates it! The smearing of the acoustic space would be dreadful with that many drivers fighting each other to deliver a convincing representation of music.

Plugging multiple drivers into a plastic case is not the same as a well designed multi driver loudspeaker, far from it!
post #1218 of 4677

luisdent, the UE900s are flat under what conditions? If you make a IEM that's ruler flat it will sound scooped in the upper mids to most listeners based on 50 years of studies.


Edited by markanini - 4/6/13 at 8:26pm
post #1219 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyro View Post

OK, no problem with any of that. (Other than thinking a single BA driver can fulfill all the duties of a multi-driver) .So it sounds like you agree that at least dual drivers are an improvement over anything that Ety offers?  I would agree too.  My JH5 is still the best sounding IEM I have owned in 10 years including better than W4  (asterisk * with JH16).

 

(a few posts above)..... UE900 IS pretty neutral.  An ever so slight sub-bass boost certainly does not screw up the sound (still laughing...) but only makes it sound  neutraly realistic!

 

I think you misunderstood me slightly.  I don't think that dual drivers are necessarily an improvement "over anything that ety offers".  In fact I think the ety er4s is an improvement over most multi-drivers I've heard.  However, a multi driver isn't necessarily worse either.  It comes down to how the drivers are used.  One driver can (and I believe in this case "does") sound better than multiple drivers.  While technically I'm sure multiple drivers CAN sound better than one, thus far I haven't heard that situation.  The situation I have heard is that multiple drivers DO sound better when they are used to COLOR the sound, not when neutrality is desired.  In other words, when coloration is desired (i don't desire it) they handle the coloration better and thus sound better "colored".  I don't mean that the "sound better than the non-colored", but simply they allow the coloration to work well without ruining other areas because of it.

 

Regarding the UE900.  No matter what perception you have of it, it is not neutral.  I believe you can have a non-neutral earphone that sounds "natural".  That does not mean it is neutral.  Look at this graph of the UE900:

 

http://en.goldenears.net/15522

 

Even on their graph page they SHOW you what is needed to make it neutral down in the accudio graph.  Lower everything from 50hz to 1khz, raise 2khz to 7khz and lower 8hz to 10khz.  All rough figures there, but you get the point.  That is about as V-shaped as they get.  In fact, it is very similar to the 4R, which I see you have based on your profile.  I don't mean it sounds the same, but that it has boosted low and high areas creating a v-shape.  The boosted areas differ though.

 

While there are things that can make these sets "seem" flat or at least "natural", they are not neutral in the studio monitor sense of the word.  Use a parametric EQ and flatten and raise the sections indicated on that graph page. You WILL be closer to neutral.  If you don't like it, you don't like neutrality in the frequency response.  This doesn't mean that you don't like neutral if you don't like the ety.  Don't take it the wrong way.  The ety isn't perfectly neutral either.  But it is a lot closer than the ue900.

 

There's nothing wrong with that.  You might prefer a V-shape to a neutral curve for an earphone, because you find it sounds more like a speaker.  That doesn't mean someone else does.  I don't want to hear any arguments against the graphs either. :-P No matter what graph you look at, compared to phones that are different as well as phones that are similar, it falls in the V-shape category.  And graphs DO correlate to the actual sound you hear, at least the goldenears graphs do.  They may not paint the whole picture, but almost all of it in almost every case.  Especially the goldenears.  Of all the IEMs I have used, in every case possible I compared their sound to the goldenears graphs, and in every single case the graphs almost perfectly matched the sound I expected from them.  There were a few small sound properties that a frequency graph can't show, such as the separation and the speed, but overall the general "frequency" sound was extremely similar to the graph.

 

Anyhow, the point is, the ue900 is a nice earphone, it has a high quality sound, but it is not flat.  You may prefer the non-flatness and find it more natural, realistic, pleasing... whatever.  But it is not flat.

 

 

Quote:

When thinking Ety versus a UE900.  Think sitting in a 15ft square sound room with the worlds best 6" bookshelf speakers (ER4)  versus  four (4) 8" dual speakers in each corner of the room.

 

Which do YOU think might sound better?

 

Unfortunately, this is another irrelevant comparison.  The speakers you are referring to could be v-shaped speakers.  "Best" doesn't mean flattest.  Some people prefer a different frequency response.  If all else is equal I wouldn't call a v-shape speaker "worse" than a flat speaker, unless you are going for accuracy and neutrality.  Also, I can almost guarantee the bookshelves will sound better due to acoustics, etc.  But this isn't a fair comparison either.  You're relating the size and number of a speaker driver to the size and number of an earphone driver.  Who says the ety is equivalent to a 6" driver?  Why not an 8" or a 4"?  The acoustic chamber that is your ear also is much different than a room.  There are a lot of factors, but basically the two technologies are similar but also very different.

 

Based on the quality of the ety, even if more drivers were necessary to get the utmost perfect quality, I can't believe that with the ety's 90+% accuracy rating (which i agree with), you would need any more than two drivers at most.  So why more?  Why four?  (read my previous reasoning) :-P


Edited by luisdent - 4/6/13 at 8:57pm
post #1220 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by markanini View Post

luisdent, the UE900s are flat under what conditions? If you make a IEM that's ruler flat it will sound scooped in the upper mids to most listeners based on 50 years of studies.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here?  Can you reference the studies?  Most people prefer a v-shape.  That scoops the mids.  A flat curve would make them appear more forward or raised...


Edited by luisdent - 4/6/13 at 8:58pm
post #1221 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

I have one question.  Does anyone else get jaw pain after listening to these for a while.  It doesn't matter how deep they are either.  But if I listen to them for more than say 20 minutes my just slowly starts to ache and then it hurts a while afterwards.  I'm not 100% sure it's the earphones or something else, so I thought I'd ask.  I did have a tooth filling recently, but it's not just near that tooth that hurts it's my whole jaw.  And it seems to correspond with my listening times... :-/

I've worn my ER4s hours and hours on end while splitting wood by hand and the only thing hurting is everything but my jaw.
post #1222 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlovestory View Post

Baby oil and, uh, personal lubricant works wonder when applied to ER-4's tips before insertion. tongue_smile.gif

Yes, but exactly WHERE is the insertion point?
post #1223 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinkr View Post


I've worn my ER4s hours and hours on end while splitting wood by hand and the only thing hurting is everything but my jaw.

 

Hahaha.  Yeah, I'm thinking it's my teeth.  I'm going to wait until I know my filling sensitivity is gone before making any judgements...

post #1224 of 4677
You cant compare speakers and earphones.

Speaker drivers are large and so it is much more difficult for one driver to accurately produce a full range of frequencies (tweeters are rigid and about 1" in diameter while woofers are 8+" and have relatively long excursion). Speakers require a lot of power, use heavy magnets and large voice coils to generate the SPL needed to fill a room. Speakers usually have multiple drivers in order to allow each driver to remain flat within its ideal operating freq range (woofers = bass, tweeters = treble).

Headphones on the other hand do not require multiple drivers simply because volume is relatively tiny and power requirements are very small. With such low SPL and small size, the typical headphone driver can easily reproduce the entire freq range of human hearing. The ER-4 is rated from 20 Hz - 16kHz, which is pretty much the range of human hearing and the covers the freq range of every musical instrument on the planet. The freq response graph of the ER-4 clearly shows that it is extremely linear across its entire range, so there is no need for multiple drivers.

For an automotive analogy, consider a Vespa scooter compared to an 18 wheel tractor trailer rig. The Vespa only needs one gear because it is small and lightweight so the powerband of the motor is sufficient for all road speeds without gearing. The 18 wheeler on the other hand, has many gears because the size and weight of the rig demands it. Without low gears, the truck could not launch from a standarill, and without high gears, it could not travel at fast speeds.
Edited by palmfish - 4/6/13 at 9:34pm
post #1225 of 4677
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

I think you misunderstood me slightly.  I don't think that dual drivers are necessarily an improvement "over anything that ety offers".  In fact I think the ety er4s is an improvement over most multi-drivers I've heard.  However, a multi driver isn't necessarily worse either.  It comes down to how the drivers are used.  One driver can (and I believe in this case "does") sound better than multiple drivers.  While technically I'm sure multiple drivers CAN sound better than one, thus far I haven't heard that situation.  The situation I have heard is that multiple drivers DO sound better when they are used to COLOR the sound, not when neutrality is desired.  In other words, when coloration is desired (i don't desire it) they handle the coloration better and thus sound better "colored".  I don't mean that the "sound better than the non-colored", but simply they allow the coloration to work well without ruining other areas because of it.

 

Regarding the UE900.  No matter what perception you have of it, it is not neutral.  I believe you can have a non-neutral earphone that sounds "natural".  That does not mean it is neutral.  Look at this graph of the UE900:

 

http://en.goldenears.net/15522

 

Even on their graph page they SHOW you what is needed to make it neutral down in the accudio graph.  Lower everything from 50hz to 1khz, raise 2khz to 7khz and lower 8hz to 10khz.  All rough figures there, but you get the point.  That is about as V-shaped as they get.  In fact, it is very similar to the 4R, which I see you have based on your profile.  I don't mean it sounds the same, but that it has boosted low and high areas creating a v-shape.  The boosted areas differ though.

 

While there are things that can make these sets "seem" flat or at least "natural", they are not neutral in the studio monitor sense of the word.  Use a parametric EQ and flatten and raise the sections indicated on that graph page. You WILL be closer to neutral.  If you don't like it, you don't like neutrality in the frequency response.  This doesn't mean that you don't like neutral if you don't like the ety.  Don't take it the wrong way.  The ety isn't perfectly neutral either.  But it is a lot closer than the ue900.

 

There's nothing wrong with that.  You might prefer a V-shape to a neutral curve for an earphone, because you find it sounds more like a speaker.  That doesn't mean someone else does.  I don't want to hear any arguments against the graphs either. :-P No matter what graph you look at, compared to phones that are different as well as phones that are similar, it falls in the V-shape category.  And graphs DO correlate to the actual sound you hear, at least the goldenears graphs do.  They may not paint the whole picture, but almost all of it in almost every case.  Especially the goldenears.  Of all the IEMs I have used, in every case possible I compared their sound to the goldenears graphs, and in every single case the graphs almost perfectly matched the sound I expected from them.  There were a few small sound properties that a frequency graph can't show, such as the separation and the speed, but overall the general "frequency" sound was extremely similar to the graph.

 

Anyhow, the point is, the ue900 is a nice earphone, it has a high quality sound, but it is not flat.  You may prefer the non-flatness and find it more natural, realistic, pleasing... whatever.  But it is not flat.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, this is another irrelevant comparison.  The speakers you are referring to could be v-shaped speakers.  "Best" doesn't mean flattest.  Some people prefer a different frequency response.  If all else is equal I wouldn't call a v-shape speaker "worse" than a flat speaker, unless you are going for accuracy and neutrality.  Also, I can almost guarantee the bookshelves will sound better due to acoustics, etc.  But this isn't a fair comparison either.  You're relating the size and number of a speaker driver to the size and number of an earphone driver.  Who says the ety is equivalent to a 6" driver?  Why not an 8" or a 4"?  The acoustic chamber that is your ear also is much different than a room.  There are a lot of factors, but basically the two technologies are similar but also very different.

 

Based on the quality of the ety, even if more drivers were necessary to get the utmost perfect quality, I can't believe that with the ety's 90+% accuracy rating (which i agree with), you would need any more than two drivers at most.  So why more?  Why four?  (read my previous reasoning) :-P

 

 

 

He's using this graph as a source, not the GoldenEars graph.  Rin has been able to show, objectively, that as the pinhole bore on the UE 900 fills, the UE 900 becomes nearly neutral.  Although Rin says it'll reach the linearity of the ER4 (he states this specifically), I don't think it reaches the linearity of my HF5.  The graph is below, note, the pinhole bore is filled to create this. 

 

I hope this can get rid of any confusion on why people perceive the UE 900 to be near neutral. Note, the above graph is not compensated for.  Compensated graphs are available on Rin's blog.

 

I will say one thing though, I don't agree that more drivers = better headphones. 

 

EDIT:

 

Second note to keep in mind.  The GoldenEars website uses the 6 dB rule for their compensation while I don't think Rin does.  It may create different compensated graphs.  The raw graph for GoldenEars' measurements (to compare to the above graph in the post) is in their second graph with their "neutral" line. 


Edited by tinyman392 - 4/6/13 at 9:41pm
post #1226 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

 

 

He's using this graph as a source, not the GoldenEars graph.  Rin has been able to show, objectively, that as the pinhole bore on the UE 900 fills, the UE 900 becomes nearly neutral.  Although Rin says it'll reach the linearity of the ER4 (he states this specifically), I don't think it reaches the linearity of my HF5.  The graph is below, note, the pinhole bore is filled to create this. 

 

I hope this can get rid of any confusion on why people perceive the UE 900 to be near neutral. Note, the above graph is not compensated for.  Compensated graphs are available on Rin's blog.

 

I will say one thing though, I don't agree that more drivers = better headphones. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the pinhole?  "as it fills"?  Do you need to fill the hole with something?  Maybe I'd understand if I saw the original post?  I thought the pinhole was a permanent acoustic tuning device implemented by the company.  So I assume you mean modifying it?

 

As for the graph, I can't speak for every graph, but without modification I believe the goldenears graph is very accurate.  Also, I don't want anyone to misinterpret my statement to mean it has insane bass and treble.  Far from it.  I simply mean it is not flat. :-P  As you said here in this post, it isn't flat and even with the pinhole filled it still isn't "as flat" as the er4s.  Simply put, it's not flat.  It's also not a horrendous v-shape monster drastically far from flat. :-P

 

From Rin's blog:

"If someone is interested in a neutral tonality from UE900, hook up a 100-ohm adapter, block the pinhole, and insert the IEM nice and deep. That will yield the flattest, and widest frequency response".

 

A 100ohm adapter?  That is pretty big factor separate from the IEM itself.  That's like saying the er4p is flat.  It isn't until you add the 75ohm adapter. :)  Which is fine if you want to do that.  But comparing the phones themselves is a different thing. :)  Just saying...


Edited by luisdent - 4/6/13 at 9:47pm
post #1227 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the pinhole?  "as it fills"?  Do you need to fill the hole with something?  Maybe I'd understand if I saw the original post?

 

As for the graph, I can't speak for every graph, but without modification I believe the goldenears graph is very accurate.  Also, I don't want anyone to misinterpret my statement to mean it has insane bass and treble.  Far from it.  I simply mean it is not flat. :-P  As you said here in this post, it isn't flat and even with the pinhole filled it still isn't "as flat" as the er4s.  Simply put, it's not flat.  It's also not a horrendous v-shape monster drastically far from flat. :-P

 

You haven't seen a raw Ety graph have you?  It's nowhere near "flat".  It's actually got quite a large spike in the 5k range.  As I stated, the graph is not compensated yet.  When compensated it gets very close to flat. One both of Rin's graphs below, the grey line is the raw line.  The colored lines are the compensated ones (which is what you'd theoretically hear).

 

Compare the compensated graphs from the HF5: http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2013/04/etymotic-research-hf-3-er-4-equivalent.html with this one: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I-BVxCTOTh0/UId1BP5uyWI/AAAAAAAACVc/IoWabJ8kQ3k/s1600/custom.png

 

It has a drop in the 2-5k range, otherwise, it's quite linear in contrast with the HF5. 

 

As for the pinhole nozzle being filled.  You can fill it with anything.  Place a piece of tape over it, fill it with wax, or let your ear wax inevitably fill it (the latter causes an effect that sounds very similar to burn in, but isn't).

 

EDIT: can't really compare compensations, but Tyll's graph (http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/EtymoticER4PT.pdf) shows the ER4PT having a similar dip after the 2k region that the UE 900 does on Rin's graph.  They both use similar compensations.


Edited by tinyman392 - 4/6/13 at 9:51pm
post #1228 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

You haven't seen a raw Ety graph have you?  It's nowhere near "flat".  It's actually got quite a large spike in the 5k range.  As I stated, the graph is not compensated yet.  When compensated it gets very close to flat. One both of Rin's graphs below, the grey line is the raw line.  The colored lines are the compensated ones (which is what you'd theoretically hear).

 

Compare the compensated graphs from the HF5: http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2013/04/etymotic-research-hf-3-er-4-equivalent.html with this one: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I-BVxCTOTh0/UId1BP5uyWI/AAAAAAAACVc/IoWabJ8kQ3k/s1600/custom.png

 

It has a drop in the 2-5k range, otherwise, it's quite linear in contrast with the HF5. 

 

As for the pinhole nozzle being filled.  You can fill it with anything.  Place a piece of tape over it, fill it with wax, or let your ear wax inevitably fill it (the latter causes an effect that sounds very similar to burn in, but isn't).

 

EDIT: can't really compare compensations, but Tyll's graph (http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/EtymoticER4PT.pdf) shows the ER4PT having a similar dip after the 2k region that the UE 900 does on Rin's graph.  They both use similar compensations.

 

You're showing a graph with the 100ohm adapter and a pinhole blocked.  I'm comparing the stock er4s to the stock ue900.  :-P  As rin said himself, which I quoted, they are brought to be much "closer" to being flat with those two changes.  This in itself is Rin saying without those changes they are even further from being flat.  That's all.

post #1229 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

You're showing a graph with the 100ohm adapter and a pinhole blocked.  I'm comparing the stock er4s to the stock ue900.  :-P  As rin said himself, which I quoted, they are brought to be much "closer" to being flat with those two changes.  This in itself is Rin saying without those changes they are even further from being flat.  That's all.

 

Still, your statement was that the UE 900 wasn't close to neutral when replying to Spyro.  You made the assumption that Spyro was using a stock UE 900.  How can you be certain that the pinhole bore hasn't been filled naturally with use (ear wax has its way of finding itself in the oddest of places, like the pinhole nozzle of my UE 900) and running with a source with 100 ohm output impedance (or just the 100 ohm impedance adapter; EG a P->S adapter)?  Without knowing this, you can't make the assumption that his UE 900 is not neutral. Only reason why I brought up the UE 900's neutrality in the first place.

post #1230 of 4677
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

Still, your statement was that the UE 900 wasn't close to neutral when replying to Spyro.  You made the assumption that Spyro was using a stock UE 900.  How can you be certain that the pinhole bore hasn't been filled naturally with use (ear wax has its way of finding itself in the oddest of places, like the pinhole nozzle of my UE 900) and running with a source with 100 ohm output impedance (or just the 100 ohm impedance adapter; EG a P->S adapter)?  Without knowing this, you can't make the assumption that his UE 900 is not neutral. Only reason why I brought up the UE 900's neutrality in the first place.

 

Oh my goodness.  You're really going to go there. :-P  Are you serious?  :-o  I can't make those assumptions.  And I shouldn't have to.  If you say that, than I can tell you that everything he said is complete bologna, because I could have my ety using a different filter, tips and an amp with a custom bass boost mod to make the er4s the exact signature of the phone he likes.  That's ridiculous.  If you or he had said that in the first place we could have compared them on that level.  Otherwise, why would someone assume otherwise?  Sorry to be blunt, but that's absurd.  We've clearly indicated if we modded our tips, inserted them a certain way or used filters (i have not).  No one indicate any changes to their ue900...

 

You can't compare an er4p to another headphone and then later say "oh yeah i'm using the 75 ohm adapter". Then you're essentially comparing the er4s, not the er4p in terms of your mod.  And as it is understood among hi-fi IEM users and manufacturers, device output impedance that changes an IEM is not designed as a desired trait.  In other words, IEMs are designed for output impedance as close to zero as possible to get the sound that was intended by the manufacturer.  There is no other way to make sure a customer gets a consistent controllable sound.  Most manufacturers will tell you they designed their IEM for a 0ohm output impedance if you simply ask them.  I know.  I have.

 

As for sources, again, most people know you need to get as low of an output impedance as possible and they strive for this.  That isn't to say someone can't get an amp with a higher impedance in order to try to get a certain characteristic.  But you can't use that as an argument unless you specify all of those details to begin with.

 

Continuing like this is pointless.  People aren't using valid arguments or comparisons.  If you want a certain sound, fine.  If you want to compare a certain sound, find.  But do it relatively and logically.  Fine, he has a modded, plugged hole, impedance adaptered, deep tipped ue900.  Yes it's "closer" to flat now. :-P

 

Further, that is like me saying "the ety's have incredibly loud boomy bass".  Someone would buy them and be pissed off.  Oh, I forgot to mention, I filtered them, used tips from the westone 4r and have the maximum bass boost on my zo2...


Edited by luisdent - 4/6/13 at 10:28pm
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...