Originally Posted by Spyro
This is not thread crapping as I have purchased ER6i once, ER4S once, ER4P 3 times and HF5 once so Ety has my respect and my money over the years.....but...
HOW ACCURATE IS IT?
I HAVE sat in studios with musicians playing.
I could pick a bunch of different IEM's but what I hear is much closer to a fuller SE535 of type of sound than a ER4...PERIOD. I don't know what else I could say.
Is the disconnect having the speaker pick-ups directed right into the instruments versus a broader range of the room itself getting the room acoustics involved? Ety presentation sounds wired directly to the skull which is NOT what it sounds like when I am sitting live in the studio. Can anyone explain this?
Should we be differentiating between total reproduciton right to the skull versus a "live" type presentation as an audience participant which would give more space to the presentation and less claustrophobic?
P.S. By the way, Etymotic should think about changing the Dennis Smith endorsement (Police sound engineer) on their website for ER4. The 40 year old band is as outdated as their IEM's are. Even U2 or REM would be only 20 years old.
You want someone to explain why sitting "live in the studio" sounds different than "sounds wired directly to the skull"? Seriously? First of all, no one "sitting live" in a studio will hear what finally gets put together and mixed and adjusted and sent out to the world! In fact, you might not even hear all the instruments at once if you're sitting around the studio during recording sessions! No one, not even the musicians, will hear, live in the studio, what the final product will be! Right?
I mean, not unless the recording session is indeed attempting to capture a "live" sound--maybe even quite literally, especially in the case of something like a string quartet or orchestra or solo cello or whatever. Then maybe there are two mics placed out in the audience on a T bar.
Or . . . maybe even inside a dummy head to capture a BINAURAL recording.
Take such a binaural recording, put the ER-4B's (or ER-4S's) in your ears properly, plug them into good equipment . . . and . . . you will hear something VERY MUCH like what you heard sitting in the audience. Leaving felt bass aside, of course.
But, the point is that you are grossly conflating different things in your post here!
I can remember endless discussions and arguments, back in the day, in Stereophile magazine and in other places, about the "standard" to which Hi Fi equipment and recordings were to be measured. There was the "live performance" standard, of course. But then what about electronic music? And what about the simple fact that even acoustic music is almost always multiply mic'd and mixed and processed and mastered into something that is not what someone "sitting live in the studio" would have heard?
I am a pianist and a piano tuner / technician. I trained for years to learn how to tune and voice pianos, not to mention repair, rebuild, and refinish them. I have a highly trained ear (I always tune by ear, never with an electronic tuner) and I know what a piano should sound like. And the ER-4S is very very good at creating a convincing, accurate, even, and faithful rendition of a piano (assuming the source recording is good). I know this, better than most people. Of course, really good speakers would do even better . . . but I assume we're limiting ourselves to headphones here.
All this other stuff about the sound "presentation" and "sound stage" and all that--all of it is really on THE RECORDING SIDE of things. I mean, heck, we could do the whole Bose thing and have speakers firing backwards, side-ways, etc., and try to create more of a sound stage or ambiance or whatever--and people may even LIKE such a thing--but it is something ADDED AFTERWARDS and it has nothing whatsoever to do with fidelity. If you like it, great! But it's not what a Studio Monitor is designed to do. Nor, I hardly need add, what an In Ear Monitor is designed to do.
If you don't like how the Ety's pair with your music library recordings, that's totally understandable and not something that anyone can or should argue with. But to imply that this lack of "fullness" means a lack of fidelity and accuracy via some notion of what a "live studio" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) sounds like is confused, confusing, and highly problematic.
As for The Police sound engineer and his endorsement, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that human hearing and the nature of sound hasn't changed since his endorsement. Fidelity doesn't become "outdated". Bands don't become outdated. Not if they are iconic, classic, amazing bands. We're still using a tuning that J.S. Bach championed centuries ago (equal temperment). And we're still listening to (and loving) music even older than that. If J.S. Bach could give a rave from the grave, saying how great recorded organ music sounded through the ER-4S's, I think it might be worth mentioning and KEEPING posted on the Ety web site! LOL!