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 83

post #1231 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

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 out tips, inserted them a certain way or used filters (i have not).

 

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 all 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 customer get 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 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

 

Put the adapter aside, I don't have a graph for it, but the differences will effect the 2-5k range dip (impedance vs frequence graph shows this: http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/10/ultimate-ears-ue900-general-analysis.html).  So it'll make the dip slightly worse without the adapter.  Still, everything else is linear with the HF5 graph and ER4PT graph as well. 

 

So put the impedance adapter aside for a second.  We don't actually need one.  That said, it's still quite linear once the pinhole bore is filled.  It fills itself if you don't clear out your ears daily (the norm of the people in the world don't do this daily, so it's assumable). 

 

That's all I'll say about it.  I've obviously hit a sensitive spot, I'm sorry.

 

EDIT: actually, I do have a graph for it, I posted it already...  It's RAW not compensated. If you compensated it, it'll look very similar to the one I showed you before (with the 100 ohm adapter), although not exact (effects the 2-5k range). 


Edited by tinyman392 - 4/6/13 at 10:27pm
post #1232 of 4658

There comes a certain point where you realize that no argument will change your opponent's mind. Anything after that is just posturing, and a pissing match.

 

I don't subscribe the the head-fi cliche that "we all hear differently". If the differences were so drastic, science and medicine would have a hell of a time keeping up with the individual variations in the human anatomy.

 

What I do believe is that we each appreciate different things. Some appreciate what a particular presentation.sound brings to the table. The rest do not. 

 

Each person has to have the epiphany for himself, and no amount of arguing will change that. Such is human nature.


Edited by eke2k6 - 4/6/13 at 10:36pm
post #1233 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

Put the adapter aside, I don't have a graph for it, but the differences will effect the 2-5k range dip (impedance vs frequence graph shows this: http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/10/ultimate-ears-ue900-general-analysis.html).  So it'll make the dip slightly worse without the adapter.  Still, everything else is linear with the HF5 graph and ER4PT graph as well. 

 

So put the impedance adapter aside for a second.  We don't actually need one.  That said, it's still quite linear once the pinhole bore is filled.  It fills itself if you don't clear out your ears daily (the norm of the people in the world don't do this daily, so it's assumable). 

 

That's all I'll say about it.  I've obviously hit a sensitive spot, I'm sorry.

 

EDIT: actually, I do have a graph for it, I posted it already...  It's RAW not compensated. If you compensated it, it'll look very similar to the one I showed you before (with the 100 ohm adapter), although not exact (effects the 2-5k range). 

 

Not sensitive, I just think it's frustrating trying to compare things back and forth when everyone one is using illogical comparisons.  I agree the pinhole thing is a reasonable assumption if it fills naturally, however that isn't guaranteed.

 

But as for the graphs, I can't say how every person measures and views a certain graph, but I can just say from experience that I know the goldenears graphs match what I hear in every situation.  They usually show the measured and perceived response for each phone as well.  Neither phone being discussed is actually flat.  Again, I'm not saying that they are really far from flat.  But flat and close to flat aren't the same thing.  The ety's aren't even flat, but they are the closest to flat.  So I've never call them flat.  They aren't.  But in the same way, the ue900 are not the ety's level of flatness, and as such I will never say that they are. :)  That's all I'm trying to say.  If anyone disagrees, they are saying the ue900 is closer to flat than the ety er4s.  I just disagree based on graphs and actual sound.

 

What does this even matter to someone who has listened to them both?  If he likes the ue900 so be it.  But I think this has flared up because of dislike of the etys.  I even checked his profile to see what phones he uses and noticed other threads that he posted on, basically knocking the bass of the ety:

 

 

Quote:

.....still laughing....

 

Ety fans need to listen to the UE900 to understand that their "can only have 1 driver in any IEM" mentality is 20 years dated.

 

Things like that aren't only rude but not accurate.  As can be seen by this thread we are in, many people love the ety bass.  So why not constructively compare them using science, detailed listening examples, graphs and just plain intelligent conversation? :-o

post #1234 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

There comes a certain point where you realize that no argument will change your opponent's mind. Anything after that is just posturing, and a pissing match.

 

I don't subscribe the the head-fi cliche that "we all hear differently". If the differences were so drastic, science and medicine would have a hell of a time keeping up with the individual variations in the human anatomy.

 

What I do believe is that we each appreciate different things. Some appreciate what a particular presentation.sound brings to the table. The rest do not. 

 

Each person has to have the epiphany for himself, and no amount of arguing will change that. Such is human nature.

 

Very well said, and basically what I brought up in the last few posts.  Someone may like a sound.  That doesn't make it more accurate.  Ultimately, it is the listener's taste.  As you said, they have to have the epiphany themselves, you can't force it.  I agree with the "not agreeing" about all hearing differently.  That is hogwash.  We listen and hear the same exact thing (unless we have hearing loss), but we interpret things based on assumptions, beliefs, attention, etc.  So I think a large amount of opinion comes from this interpretation of the sound.  What bothers me is that instead of agreeing and being happy with what you prefer, people try to say that is is worse or better or more or less accurate.

 

Find an IEM you like and enjoy it.  But if you're going to discuss it, do it in a way that helps others.

post #1235 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

Not sensitive, I just think it's frustrating trying to compare things back and forth when everyone one is using illogical comparisons.  I agree the pinhole thing is a reasonable assumption if it fills naturally, however that isn't guaranteed.

 

But as for the graphs, I can't say how every person measures and views a certain graph, but I can just say from experience that I know the goldenears graphs match what I hear in every situation.  They usually show the measured and perceived response for each phone as well.  Neither phone being discussed is actually flat.  Again, I'm not saying that they are really far from flat.  But flat and close to flat aren't the same thing.  The ety's aren't even flat, but they are the closest to flat.  So I've never call them flat.  They aren't.  But in the same way, the ue900 are not the ety's level of flatness, and as such I will never say that they are. :)  That's all I'm trying to say.  If anyone disagrees, they are saying the ue900 is closer to flat than the ety er4s.  I just disagree based on graphs and actual sound.

 

What does this even matter to someone who has listened to them both?  If he likes the ue900 so be it.  But I think this has flared up because of dislike of the etys.  I even checked his profile to see what phones he uses and noticed other threads that he posted on, basically knocking the bass of the ety:

 

 

 

Things like that aren't only rude but not accurate.  As can be seen by this thread we are in, many people love the ety bass.  So why not constructively compare them using science, detailed listening examples, graphs and just plain intelligent conversation? :-o

 

OK, I'm just going to end saying this.  Just because the GoldenEars compensation is what you hear doesn't mean its what everyone hears.  I could have sworn the 6 dB effect was debunked a while back...  As you stated, it's all just perceived; it's subjective. 

 

More drivers != more quality/better neutrality.  This is in agreement with you.

 

You do make a pretty bold statement though.  You say he's knocking the Etymotic because he's biased against them.  I can agree with the morality behind that statement.  Question back to you, have you heard the UE 900?  I've heard the Etymotic HF5 and EtyKids (not the ER4, but Rin says they measure the same, so I've heard something close to it).  I've got no problems with either of those IEMs either. 

 

I just made the statement that the pinhole bore plays a major role in the way the IEMs sound.  They fill naturally with time, so they will get closer to the neutral line.  Even so close to measure extremely close to the HF5/ER4.  Decay differences make the UE 900 sound a lot bassier than the HF5 though... 


Edited by tinyman392 - 4/6/13 at 11:01pm
post #1236 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

OK, I'm just going to end saying this.  Just because the GoldenEars compensation is what you hear doesn't mean its what everyone hears.  I could have sworn the 6 dB effect was debunked a while back...  As you stated, it's all just perceived; it's subjective. 

 

More drivers != more quality/better neutrality.  This is in agreement with you.

 

You do make a pretty bold statement though.  You say he's knocking the Etymotic because he's biased against them.  I can agree with the morality behind that statement.  Question back to you, have you heard the UE 900?  I've heard the Etymotic HF5 and EtyKids (not the ER4, but Rin says they measure the same, so I've heard something close to it).  I've got no problems with either of those IEMs either. 

 

I just made the statement that the pinhole bore plays a major role in the way the IEMs sound.  They fill naturally with time, so they will get closer to the neutral line.  Even so close to measure extremely close to the HF5/ER4.  Decay differences make the UE 900 sound a lot bassier than the HF5 though... 

 

I didn't say !=   I said not necessarily equal to.  And as the for the graphs whether or not you believe in the 6db boost, which I don't think it enough of a difference to even be relevant in this case, the goldenears graphs match the sound.  I disagree about what everyone hears not matching the graph.  I think they match what everyone hears perfectly, but as was recently said, what everyone hears and what everyone perceives/interprets is not the same thing.  If you take the ue900 graph and eq the response accordingly to make it a flat line on their graph, it will sound almost identical to the er4s if you eqd that as well to a flat line on their graphs.  The same thing goes for the 4r if you did it to that.  I know, because I've actually done it with multiple IEMs.  I didn't do it with my UE, because I didn't keep them long enough.  I hadn't started using eq and accudio before at that point.  But with every IEM I did use accudio with, I also matched a parametric EQ to the graphed settings to make it a flat line to make sure accudio wasn't doing anything else to the sound.  In every case they sounded the same with only slight differences in stereo width, dynamics, etc.

 

Again, back to your last post.  Even if they measure close to the er4p/hf5, what does that matter?  Those sound noticeably different than the er4s. :-P

post #1237 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

I didn't say !=   I said not necessarily equal to.  And as the for the graphs whether or not you believe in the 6db boost, which I don't think it enough of a difference to even be relevant in this case, the goldenears graphs match the sound.  I disagree about what everyone hears not matching the graph.  I think they match what everyone hears perfectly, but as was recently said, what everyone hears and what everyone perceives/interprets is not the same thing.  If you take the ue900 graph and eq the response accordingly to make it a flat line on their graph, it will sound almost identical to the er4s if you eqd that as well to a flat line on their graphs.  The same thing goes for the 4r if you did it to that.  I know, because I've actually done it with multiple IEMs.  I didn't do it with my UE, because I didn't keep them long enough.  I hadn't started using eq and accudio before at that point.  But with every IEM I did use accudio with, I also matched a parametric EQ to the graphed settings to make it a flat line to make sure accudio wasn't doing anything else to the sound.  In every case they sounded the same with only slight differences in stereo width, dynamics, etc.

 

Again, back to your last post.  Even if they measure close to the er4p/hf5, what does that matter?  Those sound noticeably different than the er4s. :-P

 

You can believe that everyone hears the same, go for it.  I know better than that.  Human nature is just different.  Everyone, for example, has a different resonant frequency, that would effect compensation.  Regarding the 6 dB effect, the GoldenEars graphs use that to compensate (~6 dB boost is said to be neutral for sub-bass as stated by the 6 dB effect).  Rin's graphs don't use the 6 dB effect.  Etymotics would actually fail with the 6 dB effect. 

 

I haven't heard the ER4S, so I really can't comment on that, all I know is that it has a little more treble if I'm not mistaken :p 

 

Regarding !=, you didn't say it, I do.  It probably would be better if I used ! => or =!>

post #1238 of 4658

Some of you are majorly confused about what's flat. Flat doesn't exist for headphone the same way as it does for speakers! Manufactureres try to match the headphones responce to the sound of flat speakers in a live room, that's how Etymotic, Sennheiser, Sony, Shure etc end up with a 15dB peak at 3KHz(Look at raw graphs). This still doesn't mean you can make a flat headphone the same way you can make flat speakers. Due to anatomical variances, every set of ears would require a different responce to sound flat, manufactureres deal with averages.

Here's some weekend reading: http://almin.memberclicks.net/assets/Documents/WinterSymposia/InvitedPapersWS2012/adapting%20villchurs%20loudspeaker%20copying%20demos%20to%20earphones-alma%20ws%202012.pdf page 23-37


Edited by markanini - 4/7/13 at 7:03am
post #1239 of 4658
I'm not sure its anatomy that brings about the debate in hearing differences, as it is in the interpretation of what the ears pass to the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post
(...)

I don't subscribe the the head-fi cliche that "we all hear differently". If the differences were so drastic, science and medicine would have a hell of a time keeping up with the individual variations in the human anatomy.

(...)

post #1240 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by markanini View Post

Some of you are majorly confused about what's flat. Flat doesn't exist for headphone the same way as it does for speakers! Manufactureres try to match the headphones responce to the sound of flat speakers in a live room, that's how Etymotic, Sennheiser, Sony, Shure etc end up with a 15dB peak at 3KHz(Look at raw graphs). This still doesn't mean you can make a flat headphone the same way you can make flat speakers. Due to anatomical variances, every set of ears would require a different responce to sound flat, manufactureres deal with averages.

Here's some weekend reading: http://almin.memberclicks.net/assets/Documents/WinterSymposia/InvitedPapersWS2012/adapting%20villchurs%20loudspeaker%20copying%20demos%20to%20earphones-alma%20ws%202012.pdf page 23-37

 

Don't most compensated graphs account for the resonance peak? 

post #1241 of 4658
I have the shures 535 clear and the er4p and as good as the 535 sounds.. And they do sound rather amazing.. I find myself grabbing the etymotics more often.. I think overall the shures handle separation better for different stuff.. The etys just sound more smother to Me for some reason.. And the shures have three drivers compared to the one driver of the er4s..
post #1242 of 4658
^ same here. I only break out the Shures every once in awhile.
post #1243 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

Don't most compensated graphs account for the resonance peak? 

Yes, but they all use different a compensation curve.

post #1244 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by markanini View Post

Yes, but they all use different a compensation curve.

 

That they do, that they do.  It's one of the reasons I've stopped reading compensation curves and compared raws to that exact curve you linked to. 

post #1245 of 4658
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

That they do, that they do.  It's one of the reasons I've stopped reading compensation curves and compared raws to that exact curve you linked to. 

Hey, a clever guywink_face.gif

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...