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 246

post #3676 of 4934

well the reason i asked this question is becuase i have the ER4P & ER4S and just got in the ER4PT

 

My rig is iriver ihp-140 optical out>custom sys-concepts optical cable>Ibasso db2 boomslang Optical in>Male Hirose toxic silver poison to RSA male Balanced Cable>RSA SR71B Balanced between the Amp and DAC.

 

i got my S adapters like a week or so ago, but never opened up the package as i just planned on selling them, so i open up the package to give the adapters a look as i wasnt going to use them, but just wanted a look, to my suprise AWWN sent me a 100ohm 3.5mm Adapter.

 

So i decided i was going to A/B the ER4P & plug the 100ohm adapter into my ER4PT essentially making them A ER4PT+S considering the PT are very linear match drivers, 

 

so i A/B tested and the ER4PTS with the ER4s

 

the ER4PTS seemed to be more resolving,more resolution, the upper extension was clearer and more smooth, everything is just more vivid. its like the er4s but with a layer of resolution peeled back exposing even more resolution across the frequency spectrum.

 

i was listening to DIDO ''here with me'' and i was completely blown away at how clear,crisp,airy, everything was over the er4s.

 

the reason i brought up that question about the linear driver matching of the PT, is that if you take that into consideration that the driver have greater linear matching and how close the PT is without the adapter, then you take that linear driver matching and add the 100ohm adapter your taking the stock PT from 86% accuracy to 92% accuracy, but then what about the added driver matching that has to farther add to the accuracy right? 

 

maybe i am crazy but looking at it objectively and then listening to it subjectively, i believe there is a jump in sound quality. how much i donno, but to my ear it sounds phenomenal, where as i didnt get that same impression using the same equipment with the er4s.

 

And no im not saying it outshines the S, but what about if you add a S adapter? you have to take into consideration the linear driver matching being better than the S and already close to the S, then add the S adapter and wonder what you are working with now.


Edited by Mooses9 - 1/22/14 at 6:45pm
post #3677 of 4934

OK i see what you're saying now. You're thinking because of the verified matched drivers you're getting a little better with the PT+S adapter model, instead of the standard P model with S adapter. Correct? I can certainly understand that, though I think it could be pretty difficult to make out that little discrepancy in the drivers, but I dont have a PT so I could be wrong. I have the P version with S adapter. Soon as I finish building some amps for some fellas here I am going to build a TRRS (balanced) terminated ER4S with Awwan's adapters and see how it fares in that mode on the HM-901. I hope it turns out good!

post #3678 of 4934

you guys might need to take a kit kat here.

 

er4p + adapter = er4s

er4pt = er4p + channel matching graph on a nice piece of paper

 

yeah I know you're all amazed by my mad math skillzzz.

 

 

 

 

see the pretty green line graph from ETY's website? p and pt is the same thing and always was.

 

 

now about the channel matching:

ETY does this channel matching on every pair of the er4 series. the ONLY difference between p and pt is that they give you the printed graph.

 

of course there can be minor differences from a pair to another those are 2 physical drivers made separately. ETY takes time to put together drivers that are close from one another (within the model series in stock). other IEM brands usually just assume the drivers to be within the specs given by knowles of whatever and don't check if taking the first or the 8th in the box will make a difference in matching the pair.

 

all this to say that it is possible that one pair of er4 is a little better matched than another pair, but the difference in anycase will be smaller than pretty much any other IEM you can buy and it has nothing to do with having a PT on the box.

so my opinion is that you're going a little wild here, or maybe your adapters are different enough to make an audible difference.

post #3679 of 4934
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

 

now about the channel matching:

ETY does this channel matching on every pair of the er4 series. the ONLY difference between p and pt is that they give you the printed graph.

 

of course there can be minor differences from a pair to another those are 2 physical drivers made separately. ETY takes time to put together drivers that are close from one another (within the model series in stock). other IEM brands usually just assume the drivers to be within the specs given by knowles of whatever and don't check if taking the first or the 8th in the box will make a difference in matching the pair.

 

all this to say that it is possible that one pair of er4 is a little better matched than another pair, but the difference in anycase will be smaller than pretty much any other IEM you can buy and it has nothing to do with having a PT on the box.

so my opinion is that you're going a little wild here, or maybe your adapters are different enough to make an audible difference.

That is what I thought too, but was giving him the benefit of doubt :P

post #3680 of 4934
Well I don't disagree I look at everything subjectively.

Who's to say it's not the optical out making the sound slightly better or the dac or low pass freq opamp in the dac or the amp or the interconnect ect ect ect

Put all that together one pair of s p or pt will sound sonically different from rig to rig.

That has to be taken into consideration
post #3681 of 4934
So what's up with the graphs i posted? I'm inclined to say i think the s is superior, but that graph i posted is interesting and not what i expected..,
post #3682 of 4934

I think the ER-4PT is simply the new "iteration" of the ER4. Not in that it's any different than the ER4P, but simply that it comes with all the accessories and dongles. Being the S adapter, tons of extra tips, little carrying box, FR graph, etc. It's the whole package dealio. I'm not sure if the ER4P (which isn't being sold anymore technically) came with all these accessories but I'm guessing it didn't.

 

Also, FWIW, I think the ER4PT can be hit or miss with the S adapter. While it does increase resolution and clarity tenfold, it can be a bit too brutal for a lot of recordings that I like to listen to.

post #3683 of 4934
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
 

Would someone here do me a favor and test this L/R channel test and see if you get crosstalk - basically test with only one phone in your ears and tell me if you hear sound only for that channel. I did a cable swap and I'm getting quite a bit of crosstalk (~30%) and I want to know if it's normal.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hTvJoYnpeRQ#t=16

Hi Astro, I think this SOS Magazine article (link below) will give you a better explanation of the crosstalk experience we're all experiencing with our headphones & IEMs. Hope this helps.

 

Link to the SOS article: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul13/articles/qanda-0713-1.htm

post #3684 of 4934

Thanks for helping me out with the crosstalk. It's assuring to know that it's normal. :etysmile:

post #3685 of 4934
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

So what's up with the graphs i posted? I'm inclined to say i think the s is superior, but that graph i posted is interesting and not what i expected..,

but keep your graph in mind, and now add the S adapter to it. is it a S or better than a S? better is better even if its by a small margin imo

completely agree.

 

i can go the other way to, i also have the er4p and the er4pt surely doesnt sound anything like the er4p IMO.

 

i guess if people want to not look at the graphs and use subjective reasoning as their reasoning and disguard objective reasoning then i guess that is what they are going to do.

 

what i find funny is people say that ety linear matches all their drivers.....while if you look at the compairson in the graph i post the that is showing the S linear matching on the graph its not as accurate as the pt linear matching is. if you look at the matching for the S from 10-20k its totally not linear.

 

its whatever though, im just posting my expierences with all the ety's. YMMV

post #3686 of 4934

sure, but maybe with another pair measured, the S would be better matched instead? it's hard to tell from 1 graph of one pair. and it's not like ETY guys spend 3days to match each driver with the perfect one. they do a better job than most. that's about it.

 

still am interested in hearing differences between the P and the PT. if they had change "ZE formula" don't you think they would have communicated about it a little?

both your phones have "not so old" filter? that would surely play a part.

 

I sold my last er4 blaming the evil 3.666khz for my coming and going tinnitus, and for being fed up with the cable noise.

result, I'm having a fix of hf5 because cold turkey would be too hard but clearly that's not the same as the real dope. and there is no medicinal ER4 in my country, we live in dangerous times.

post #3687 of 4934
Yeah I actually just replaced both pairs with new filters.
post #3688 of 4934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooses9 View Post

 

i can go the other way to, i also have the er4p and the er4pt surely doesnt sound anything like the er4p IMO.

 

 

Mind explaining? Would you say the PT is closer to the P or S in terms of treble presentation? Or rather, how much different do you find it to be from the ER4P?

post #3689 of 4934

The S, P, B, PT are all identical as far as driver and housing.  The only difference is the resistor in the split.  The P and PT differ only in that the PT comes with the P>S and airplane adapter.  That's it, that's all folks :P

post #3690 of 4934
Quote:
Originally Posted by OJNeg View Post
 

 

Mind explaining? Would you say the PT is closer to the P or S in terms of treble presentation? Or rather, how much different do you find it to be from the ER4P?

i personally feel the pt is closer to the S than the P, like i said when i listened to the pt and the p i thought of the S more, when i listened to the pt with s vs the S i thouht the pt with the adapter was better sonically. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post
 

The S, P, B, PT are all identical as far as driver and housing.  The only difference is the resistor in the split.  The P and PT differ only in that the PT comes with the P>S and airplane adapter.  That's it, that's all folks :P

so graphs showing Linear Pairing means nothing? im not saying graphs are all be all, but it is a way to measure linear pairing And frequency response....we are going to just overlook that and throw it all in one basket and call everything the same. when you compare the PT vs S linear pairing and notice a difference in the matching of the drivers i mean forget the PT S AND P as a name and just look at the chart and compare and contrast. the graphs luisdent showed, show'd the PT closer to S in frequency response than closer to the S.

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...