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 251

post #3751 of 4659

Here is an updated eq table with both q values and bandwidth values:

 

ER4S (Green Filters/Triple Flange Tips)

LDURF (LuisDent Uber Reference Flatness) EQ Settings  ;-) hehe

 

Q Values:

Hz dB Q
40 6 1
50 4.5 1
320 -1 1.5
2000 -1.5 2.5
6300 1.5 3
7100 2 3.6
8000 1.5 3
12000 -1 1

 

 

Bandwidth Values:

Hz dB BW
40 6 1.38
50 4.5 1.38
320 -1 0.94
2000 -1.5 0.6
6300 1.5 0.47
7100 2 0.39
8000 1.5 0.478
12000 -1 1.38

Edited by luisdent - 1/29/14 at 8:25pm
post #3752 of 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

ER4S Green Filter EQ - URF (Uber Reference Flatness)  ;-)

Hz dB Q
40 6 1
50 4.5 1
320 -1 1.5
2000 -1.5 2.5
6300 1.5 3
7100 2 3.6
8000 1.5 3
12000 -1 1

Finally put some greens in and tried your eq. Damn. It's like having the body of the reds with the clarity of the greens. Without EQ the mids are just slightly too forward for me, but taking just a dB or so off of 2k makes it perfect. I see exactly what you're doing here. Mids are pulled back slightly, treble is pushed forward a bit, and it shows. It's a subtle difference, but instruments are clearer sounding, and mids aren't masking detail quite as much.

Why did you take 1dB off of 320Hz though? Was it to even out the boost and low q value at 50Hz and 40Hz? Also, why the -1.5dB at 2k instead of closer to 3k? Just curious is all.

Overall I'm really enjoying this setup. It really squeezes out the last bit of quality from these things. I'll have to compare the reds with their simpler eq, but I think they might not sound quite as clear.
post #3753 of 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

ER4S Green Filter EQ - URF (Uber Reference Flatness)  ;-)
 
Hz dB Q
40 6 1
50 4.5 1
320 -1 1.5
2000 -1.5 2.5
6300 1.5 3
7100 2 3.6
8000 1.5 3
12000 -1 1

Finally put some greens in and tried your eq. Damn. It's like having the body of the reds with the clarity of the greens. Without EQ the mids are just slightly too forward for me, but taking just a dB or so off of 2k makes it perfect. I see exactly what you're doing here. Mids are pulled back slightly, treble is pushed forward a bit, and it shows. It's a subtle difference, but instruments are clearer sounding, and mids aren't masking detail quite as much.

Why did you take 1dB off of 320Hz though? Was it to even out the boost and low q value at 50Hz and 40Hz? Also, why the -1.5dB at 2k instead of closer to 3k? Just curious is all.

Overall I'm really enjoying this setup. It really squeezes out the last bit of quality from these things. I'll have to compare the reds with their simpler eq, but I think they might not sound quite as clear.

 

I found the red not as smooth and clear overall in some ways.  The green have the boosted mid treble area, but they are overall "smoother" in the treble.  Without eq what the reds do is lower some key treble ares (in a good way overall), but leaves the upper treble where it is with the greens, which was is pretty flat.  This makes it relatively higher in comparison to some of the lowered red treble.  In essence it almost makes a higher spike (small, but uneven nonetheless).  Believe it or not I cut the 320hz area because I hear the slightest bit of veil their (-1db :-P ).  this is probably because of the bass eq points, however, I don't find it absolutely necessary.  it's just the result of hours and hours of listening and tweaking.  It sounds "just right" like that for me.  But if there was one band i had to get rid of it would be that.

 

As for the 2khz area, when I was originally looking at the different graphs out there to start with to narrow down the areas i would later tweak, I found most graphs show it precisely between 2.2khz and 2.6khz depending on the graph.  however, I found there was very very little difference at that level between the settings, but overall to my ears cutting the 2khz area actually sounds a bit more neutral. Cutting the 2.6khz for instance is almost more brightness lost, but the difference is so very slight I would think most people wouldn't readily hear it.  Either one you pick i think it would fit the overall eq "profile" the same and have the same general effect.  For me I just settled on 2khz.

 

Again, give it some real time and difference music.  I find it is so incredibly satisfying to listen to, that I have had my er4s in my ears more lately than ever.  I don't ever want to listen to my mh1 despite the better comfort.  And every time I hear the er4s treble I hear the flaws in the mh1 treble more.  I still highly praise it for it's value and place it with the best, but the er4s is that much better no question.  The depth of the er4s with this eq is so flat that it blows my mind how some songs are just unbelievably spacious, but not thin at all.  You can just hear so deep into the atmosphere of the song it's like you get lost in it.  To me that REALLY makes me want to listen to music and draws me in.  The overall presentation is just so smooth with these dang earphones it's crazy.  And the bass adjustment just gives everything the realistic, more studio quality, low foundation for the music to stand on.  If etymotic made an er4 earphone with the sound i get with this eq (without using eq) I would pay a TON of money for it. haha :-P

 

One other note.  Apparently the mac has a better eq built-in.  I just found it searching through the presets.

 

 

MUCH easier to have all the bands in one audio unit.  Same exact sound quality and settings, again verified with my ab switch.  Loving it!


Edited by luisdent - 1/29/14 at 9:09pm
post #3754 of 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post
 

Hoshiyomi, it's always a good practice to cut offending frequencies than boost all of the frequencies you have listed above for proper EQ compensation.


Analog EQ, yes, but digital EQ...? Not sure if it really makes a difference as long as care is taken to prevent clipping, and the filter is designed sensibly.

post #3755 of 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoshiyomi View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post
 

Hoshiyomi, it's always a good practice to cut offending frequencies than boost all of the frequencies you have listed above for proper EQ compensation.


Analog EQ, yes, but digital EQ...? Not sure if it really makes a difference as long as care is taken to prevent clipping, and the filter is designed sensibly.

 

As long as you cut the overall gain by the same amount as your maximum boost you should be fine.  The quality is the same.  I actually usually take another db or two off just because some frequency boosts, if close enough, can be additive and make the gain a bit higher.  Basically just cut to avoid clipping though.  :)


Edited by luisdent - 1/29/14 at 9:12pm
post #3756 of 4659

To avoid digital EQ distortion I'd suggest that you pull all the frequencies down by the same amount of boost you apply eg. instead of boosting 6db on 40Hz you might want to retain 0db for 40Hz and pull the rest of the frequencies down by -6dB and then apply the same principle on the rest of the EQ bands. That way you avoid unforeseen signal clipping of the applied EQ bands. General principle of EQ is to cut, not boost unless there's no other choice. Just my 2 cents worth of basic EQ knowledge.


Edited by Francisk - 1/29/14 at 10:51pm
post #3757 of 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

To avoid digital EQ distortion I'd suggest that you pull all the frequencies down by the same amount of boost you apply eg. instead of boosting 6db on 40Hz you might want to retain 0db for 40Hz and pull the rest of the frequencies down by -6dB and then apply the same principle on the rest of the EQ bands. That way you avoid unforeseen signal clipping of the applied EQ bands. General principle of EQ is to cut, not boost unless there's no other choice. Just my 2 cents worth of basic EQ knowledge.

Setting the gain to -6dB in this case should have the same effect yes?
post #3758 of 4659

Yes, it's the same effect as boosting the frequencies but without any possibility of distortion


Edited by Francisk - 1/30/14 at 2:11am
post #3759 of 4659

I got the Shure adaptors for the ER-4. Fit is fantastic, but I'm experiencing channel imbalance and a change in sound quality (initial impression: a lot more bass). Not sure if I have a bad pair or if there are QC issues with this AW Audio product. Perhaps the Westone adaptors don't have this issue, anyone want to comment?

post #3760 of 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by shureThing View Post
 

I got the Shure adaptors for the ER-4. Fit is fantastic, but I'm experiencing channel imbalance and a change in sound quality (initial impression: a lot more bass). Not sure if I have a bad pair or if there are QC issues with this AW Audio product. Perhaps the Westone adaptors don't have this issue, anyone want to comment?


How long have you had your ER4? For me channel imbalance occurred from fitting issue, this took me a few days to understand how deeply ER4S needs to be inserted.

post #3761 of 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by shureThing View Post
 

I got the Shure adaptors for the ER-4. Fit is fantastic, but I'm experiencing channel imbalance and a change in sound quality (initial impression: a lot more bass). Not sure if I have a bad pair or if there are QC issues with this AW Audio product. Perhaps the Westone adaptors don't have this issue, anyone want to comment?


Did you connect the cables the correct way round? You might have inverted polarity. Try reversing the cable connections and check if you a hear a difference.

 

You can do a polarity test here:

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_polaritycheck.php

post #3762 of 4659
I am going to have to try this out on my rockboxd iriver ihp 140
How do these settings sound for other iems
post #3763 of 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by zowki View Post
 


Did you connect the cables the correct way round? You might have inverted polarity. Try reversing the cable connections and check if you a hear a difference.

 

You can do a polarity test here:

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_polaritycheck.php

Awesome test... just found out I had my adapters backwards ;)  Sound much better now

post #3764 of 4659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooses9 View Post

I am going to have to try this out on my rockboxd iriver ihp 140
How do these settings sound for other iems
they are specifically designed to correct frequency imperfections of the er4s. However, as the setting is mostly a sub bass boost it would probably sound very good on any phone that you wanted more bass...
post #3765 of 4659

spent the afternoon using the ER4s with the new Ebay adapters and the Westone cable behind the ear and have to say everything I didn't appreciate about the oems is now fixed ;)  Makes a huge difference in perceived weight, micro phonics, and comfort.  Red filters, black double flanges someone on here recommended cut down to flush the stem and filter tip and these adapters and westone cable all add up to a great experience across the board both sound and comfort. Def recommended.

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...