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 276

post #4126 of 4970
Quote: luisdent (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post
 

 

I think the main advancement has been fitting multiple drivers into earphone that still fit in your ears.  However, the sound doesn't necessarily improve with more drivers.  However, if etymotic took the er4s and added a sub bass driver that would be a pretty darn amazing feat.   If that would allow the earphones to not struggle in any one area and thus allow them to fine tune the treble even further (very slight), you would have the perfect iem.  Alas, I have yet to hear such an IEM.  I'm speaking of universals.  I have no desire to spend a lot of money on a custom iem i can't hear first and can't know how it will ultimately feel and sound.  And I've yet to read a review from someone who loves the er4s that describes any of them sounding better.  I think the technology exists to make a better iem, but no one has done it yet.

 

 

I don't think Etymotic would stray from the Olive-Welti diffuse field target curve and I wouldn't want them too either. Matching that target curve has been their niche and they do it very well. I look forward to the day they release something other than what my grandma would want.

post #4127 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreyka View Post



I don't think Etymotic would stray from the Olive-Welti diffuse field target curve and I wouldn't want them too either. Matching that target curve has been their niche and they do it very well. I look forward to the day they release something other than what my grandma would want.
I'm not talking about any such thing. I'm talking about closing that 8% gap. Filling in that slight sub bass rolloff and tweaking the treble within 1.5 db margins, like my eq settings. They are very slight, but add up to make a noticeable improvement. 8% is 8%! Or whatever percent the had left to achieve. ;-)
post #4128 of 4970
May I know what's your point of reference when you are tweaking your "reference EQ" of your ER4S? Looks like you must have a very good point of reference in order to achieve that luisdent.
Edited by Francisk - 3/17/14 at 8:44pm
post #4129 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

May I know what's your point of reference when you are tweaking your "reference EQ" of your ER4S? Looks like you must have a very good point of reference in order to achieve that luisdent.
I don't claim it's perfect, but i use multiple graphs from multiple sources, comparisons to studio monitor speakers and also my general experience mixing and mastering music.

I've isolated the general regions that each graph seems to agree deviates from the reference curve. I've then gently adjusted those frequencies to come to or closer to flat. I adjusted the bass based on graphs, but have tweaked it up and down, as that varies more with tips. I think i found a level/curve that is fairly accurate and works with each tip. Sort of an average.

Having compared this with studio monitors that i have seen measure flat, as well as other speakers, it is very apparent that it is closer to flat in a studio monitor sense. With all this said, the changes are very small. A good way to hear them is to use my eq without the bass adjustment and switch between eq and no eq. You should hear the treble open up a bit and sound mote natural and transparent. Or eq with the bass and treble adjustments and switch between that and the bass eq without treble adjustments. Either way.

The only catch would be changes based on insertion depth, however the areas i've adjusted seem to appear pretty consistently across users and graphs. And if you have a proper depth per rin's suggestion, there should be minimal to no insertion depth differences between users.

Lastly, not everyone agrees on bass level. Some say the +6db should apply. I'm not sure which i prefer, but i've aimed for a balanced bass level somewhere between that sounds transparent. Techno has appropriate thump and sub bass, while other lighter music will see no bleed or negative affect from the bass at all.

I recommend people try it for a while and see what they think. At a minimum my bass level is now a single point (i'll post it again later) so it is easy to adjust level if you desire... :-)

Hope that answers your question. :-) More than anything, i'm simply pursuing what i consider the perfect response. Everyone may not agree, but for me this is strongly related to a flat graphed response similar to OW.
Edited by luisdent - 3/18/14 at 7:11am
post #4130 of 4970
I admire your persistence in your quest for perfect flatness however using your studio monitor as a point of reference may not be the most accurate way no matter how flat your studio monitor's specs claims it to be. You need to take into account the standing waves of your studio acoustic environment that will very much affect the frequency response coming out of your studio monitor speakers. To have accurate equalization, an accurate point of reference is of utmost importance, if not it's like chasing after a cloud. Please don't get me wrong, It's perfectly fine for one to adjust the EQ to their own perceived flatness to taste but to claim that it's the closest to total flatness setting (which you have countlessly done in many of your previous posts over several threads) is simply misleading. Anyone who understands audio should know that an accurate reference point is the only way to do proper EQ compensation.

If there's anything I can't stand, it's definitely some self righteous fool who thinks he knows everything.

Edited by Francisk - 3/18/14 at 10:03am
post #4131 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

I admire your persistence in your quest for perfect flatness however using your studio monitor as a point of reference may not be the most accurate way no matter how flat your studio monitor's specs claims it to be. You need to take into account the standing waves of your studio acoustic environment that will very much affect the frequency response coming out of your studio monitor speakers. To have accurate equalization, an accurate point of reference is of utmost importance, if not it's like chasing after a cloud. Please don't get me wrong, It's perfectly fine for one to adjust the EQ to their own perceived flatness to taste but to claim that it's the closest to total flatness setting (which you have countlessly done in many of your previous posts over several threads) is simply misleading. Anyone who understands audio should know that an accurate reference point is the only way to do proper EQ compensation.

If there's anything I can't stand, it's definitely some self righteous fool who thinks he knows everything.

That last part is a little personal and unneeded to prove your argument. What about using tones to find peaks and bumps in FR and compensating with eq? That method seems to me to be the most reliable, and could be used by anyone to achieve a flat response. Using a reference sound in this case doesn't provide a backbone reference, just a general direction towards which to steer eq decisions.

Graphs are another useful starting point to consider when pursuing a "reference" eq. The dips and peaks shown are good places to start looking for dips and peaks heard using tones.

I don't think luisdent is claiming that his eq is reference for everyone. It is reference for him, and others are welcome to try it to see if it might be reference for them as well. People with similar HRTF and similar fit can share eq settings remarkably well imo.
post #4132 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

That last part is a little personal and unneeded to prove your argument.

Yes I totally agree with you but before you crucify me, you should also read some of his posts that surely points in the direction of an attention seeking and self righteous human being.

Quote:
What about using tones to find peaks and bumps in FR and compensating with eq? That method seems to me to be the most reliable, and could be used by anyone to achieve a flat response. Using a reference sound in this case doesn't provide a backbone reference, just a general direction towards which to steer eq decisions.

That's my point, how can any studio monitor in an acoustically untreated room be used as a reference point. Go figure.

Quote:
Graphs are another useful starting point to consider when pursuing a "reference" eq. The dips and peaks shown are good places to start looking for dips and peaks heard using tones.

Yes, an accurately measured graph will definitely be a good starting point.

Quote:
I don't think luisdent is claiming that his eq is reference for everyone. It is reference for him, and others are welcome to try it to see if it might be reference for them as well. People with similar HRTF and similar fit can share eq settings remarkably well imo.

I'm sure anyone who understands audio will know that his self proclaimed EQ setting that he advertises all over is inaccurate. There's definitely a big difference between a person who's genuinely helping the community and someone whose ego is bigger than his head. I wonder who he's trying to fool all this while. Someone should do this community a favor and point out the truth.
Edited by Francisk - 3/18/14 at 12:46pm
post #4133 of 4970
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

..you should also read some of his posts that surely points in the direction of an attention seeking and self righteous human being.
...

I'm sure anyone who understands audio will know that his self proclaimed EQ setting that he advertises all over is definitely inaccurate. There's definitely a big difference between a person who's genuinely helping the community and someone whose ego is bigger than his head. I wonder who he's trying to fool all this while. Someone should do this community a favor and point out the truth.

 

 

 

...

 

 

In all seriousness.. I feel you're reading a little too far into lusident's post.  I've followed this thread for a while (I don't own an ER4S, though), and his comments never came of as 'egotistical' or righteous to me.  He's seems genuinely excited about the ER4S and the EQ tweak he's discovered to improve them (for him).. good for him (and those who've tried them).. and cool by me.

post #4134 of 4970
I'm very sorry indeed if my opinion upsets all luisdent's worshippers but I beg to differ. I'm simply pointing out the truth. I can understand that not everyone can accept the truth. Anyway, life goes on so let's move on. It's not the end of the world.
Edited by Francisk - 3/18/14 at 12:44pm
post #4135 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

Someone should do this community a favor and point out the truth.

 

The truth is that there is no truth. People's listening abilities vary. HRTFs vary. Volume preferences vary. All of these have an influence on perceived frequency response. If anything, there are many truths.

post #4136 of 4970
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

I'm very sorry indeed if my opinion upsets all luisdent's worshippers but I beg to differ. I'm simply pointing out the truth. I can understand that not everyone can accept the truth. Anyway, life goes on so let's move on. It's not the end of the world.

 

LOLZ.

 

(Backhanded) Apology Accepted!

post #4137 of 4970
Of course james444, so does opinions differ too
post #4138 of 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

There's definitely a big difference between a person who's genuinely helping the community and someone whose ego is bigger than his head. I wonder who he's trying to fool all this while. Someone should do this community a favor and point out the truth.

 

When someone does something they thought was great, and they tell everyone about it because they're happy? We call that 'being human'. There is nothing wrong with being happy, and telling people about it. And out of all the methods available to the average hobbyist, he's picked a pretty good one to pursue. He has helped some people, other people preferred something different, and that's OK.

 

Of course, raining on someone else's parade is pretty human too.


Edited by higbvuyb - 3/18/14 at 7:10pm
post #4139 of 4970

Francisk, my only intention has been to offer eq settings that I have created as best as possible, using the best of my ability, for others to try.  I've never claimed they are perfectly reference nor that I am superior in some way in what I do.  And I never intended any of what you said.  I'm sure if you found any posts of mine to sound ego-centric that it could be shown that was not the intent.

Getting tone and emotion across in writing is not always easy, and misunderstandings and miscommunication are very easy to come by because of this.  But everyone is entitled to their opinion whether it be of my eq or myself.

In regards to the eq, the changes I make are fairly "generic" in nature.  They are based off of multiple graphs from different sources that identify "common" problem areas with the er4s.  I consider the er4s practically the best IEM i've heard, so therefore I consider these "flaws" to be fairly small.  As such, you can see my eq changes are pretty small.  Here is the current setting I'm using and an explanation of why I chose each setting:

ER4S (Green filters)

Hz

20

350

2000

7200

13000

dB

10

-1

-1

2

-2

BW

3

1.9

1.3

.4

.89

Q

.4

.7

1.1

3.6

1.6


The biggest change is the additional sub bass.  Although, the corner frequency is 10db, 20hz is pretty low and reaching the limit of audibility for most people.  However, using that point and values generates a curve that restores the sub bass "roll off" shown in many graphs from trusted sources.  If you plot my bass eq you will find it provides 7db at 40hz and 5.5db at 50hz and then quickly returns to zero boost.  Some people might have different preferences, and in this way may not prefer my eq bass setting.  However, it doesn't stray far from any target curve.  In fact, it's sort of an average of using the +6db rule and not using the rule, whether you agree with that rule or not.  I personally find it adds a more firm foundation to the music with the er4s without sacrificing any other region's quality.  It can give an electronic sound a firm kick and sub impression, while rendering an acoustic guitar track with no additional sense of "bassiness".

Regarding the treble, the 2-3khz region is very commonly regarded as being too "hot" or boosted.  Again, using graphs and listening, I pinpointed this area to be roughly 2khz.  Some people might prefer to shift this up a bit, like gnarlsagan.  Nothing wrong with that.  Music is usually for enjoyment, so all that matters is that it sounds good to you when you listen so you can enjoy it to the fullest.  In fact, I love feedback like that, because I can try the change myself and see if I personally enjoy it more.  The last two points just help further smooth the treble in the same way.  The change is very slight, and if you use the same tips, filters, depth, etc., a quick a/b should reveal the treble "opens up" just a tad and the bass sounds more level with the rest of the spectrum.

If that isn't the case for you, then by all means don't use the eq.  I have no degree, and I live in an apartment that is not professionally acoustically treated.  But I do have studio monitor speakers that are well regarded, and I have over 15 years of experience mixing and mastering my own music as well as others.  I am just taking the results of the time and effort I put into trying to improve the response of the er4s as much as possible and offering it to anyone who might find it useful.  I've explained my methods as they are, not describing them as the true way to perfect flatness.  I'm just using the resources, knowledge and experience I have as best as I can to offer what I can.  First and foremost, I do it because I enjoy it and I love great sound.  I've said it time and again, I love the er4s.  I think it's the best IEM out there personally.  Is it perfect?  No.  Am I perfect?  No.  But I know I enjoy the heck out of listening to the er4s, and I hope others can get as much enjoyment from it as I do.


Edited by luisdent - 3/18/14 at 8:17pm
post #4140 of 4970
Quote:
Francisk, my only intention has been to offer eq settings that I have created as best as possible, using the best of my ability, for others to try.  I've never claimed they are perfectly reference nor that I am superior in some way in what I do.  And I never intended any of what you said.  I'm sure if you found any posts of mine to sound ego-centric that it could be shown that was not the intent.

 

In this community, we're all here because we're all passionate about the same thing...audio...and we're here to share our knowledge therefore do not disregard other people who are doing exactly the same. Always keep your ego in check. You may PM me if you want to clarify this and spare our friends here from any further confusion.

 

Quote:

Getting tone and emotion across in writing is not always easy, and misunderstandings and miscommunication are very easy to come by because of this.  But everyone is entitled to their opinion whether it be of my eq or myself.

In regards to the eq, the changes I make are fairly "generic" in nature.  They are based off of multiple graphs from different sources that identify "common" problem areas with the er4s.  I consider the er4s practically the best IEM i've heard, so therefore I consider these "flaws" to be fairly small.  As such, you can see my eq changes are pretty small.  Here is the current setting I'm using and an explanation of why I chose each setting:

ER4S (Green filters)

Hz

20

350

2000

7200

13000

dB

10

-1

-1

2

-2

BW

3

1.9

1.3

.4

.89

Q

.4

.7

1.1

3.6

1.6


The biggest change is the additional sub bass.  Although, the corner frequency is 10db, 20hz is pretty low and reaching the limit of audibility for most people.  However, using that point and values generates a curve that restores the sub bass "roll off" shown in many graphs from trusted sources.  If you plot my bass eq you will find it provides 7db at 40hz and 5.5db at 50hz and then quickly returns to zero boost.  Some people might have different preferences, and in this way may not prefer my eq bass setting.  However, it doesn't stray far from any target curve.  In fact, it's sort of an average of using the +6db rule and not using the rule, whether you agree with that rule or not.  I personally find it adds a more firm foundation to the music with the er4s without sacrificing any other region's quality.  It can give an electronic sound a firm kick and sub impression, while rendering an acoustic guitar track with no additional sense of "bassiness".

 

Everything is well and good above but you have overlooked the most important part. What good is an EQ if it introduce distortion to the music you're listening to (much worse if it's a piece of music you're mixing or mastering on). Instead of boosting, it's a much better practice to cut, unless you really don't have any other choice (forensic audio). That way you can avoid unnecessary distortion eg. if you want to boost 10dB at 20Hz, invert the boost by cutting the other frequency bands by 10dB and retain the 20Hz at 0dB (do the same inversion for the other frequency bands you want to alter). That way you can be sure that you won't be introducing any distortion to the signal path. As we all know most if not all commercially released tracks have already undergone loads of EQ'ing, compression and limiting due to the loudness war in the music business. Many tracks are already at it's peak level and sad to say many are at the level of distortion already and top that up with an extra 10dB of boost from your EQ....what do you get???....Ultimate Distortion. I'll definitely avoid this at all cost unless you love distortion. Another point is that whenever you apply EQ to a certain frequency band however narrow bandwidth que you apply, the neighboring bands will be affected as well, therefore another disadvantage.

 

As we all know, all drivers have it's physical limitations therefore we can't completely fix that with EQ. We may be able to tame peaks and spikes with EQ compensation but we can't boost whatever frequency that the driver is not physically able to reproduce to a certain level in the first place. Therefore forcing a driver to reproduce a certain frequency that it's not made to reproduce is just like forcing your little kitten to roar like a tiger. Honestly I have been trying every way to improve my ER4S with EQ but I finally have come to the point of living with the limitations of all the headphones that I own and make the best of it. I'm not saying that ER4S is an incapable IEM but let's face it, it's a single BA IEM and it's sure as hell the best single BA IEM that I've ever come across to date. It's sound quality can actually put some multi BA drivers IEM that cost a lot more to shame. That being said, it's not without it's limitation but I can live with that. To me it's advantages far outweighs it's limitation.

 

Quote:
Regarding the treble, the 2-3khz region is very commonly regarded as being too "hot" or boosted.  Again, using graphs and listening, I pinpointed this area to be roughly 2khz. Some people might prefer to shift this up a bit, like gnarlsagan.  Nothing wrong with that.  Music is usually for enjoyment, so all that matters is that it sounds good to you when you listen so you can enjoy it to the fullest.  In fact, I love feedback like that, because I can try the change myself and see if I personally enjoy it more.  The last two points just help further smooth the treble in the same way.  The change is very slight, and if you use the same tips, filters, depth, etc., a quick a/b should reveal the treble "opens up" just a tad and the bass sounds more level with the rest of the spectrum.

 

I totally agree with EQ compensation to tame peaks and spikes and of course tips, filters and insertion depth do play a role too.

 

Quote:
If that isn't the case for you, then by all means don't use the eq.  I have no degree, and I live in an apartment that is not professionally acoustically treated.  But I do have studio monitor speakers that are well regarded, and I have over 15 years of experience mixing and mastering my own music as well as others.  I am just taking the results of the time and effort I put into trying to improve the response of the er4s as much as possible and offering it to anyone who might find it useful.  I've explained my methods as they are, not describing them as the true way to perfect flatness.  I'm just using the resources, knowledge and experience I have as best as I can to offer what I can.  First and foremost, I do it because I enjoy it and I love great sound.  I've said it time and again, I love the er4s.  I think it's the best IEM out there personally.  Is it perfect?  No.  Am I perfect?  No. But I know I enjoy the heck out of listening to the er4s, and I hope others can get as much enjoyment from it as I do.

 

Are you sure that your Alesis studio monitors are well regarded in all the professional studios??? I know they sound decent enough but do yourself a favor and checkout some of the monitors in the market today. You don't know what you're missing my friend. That being said, there's no perfectly flat studio monitors unless you're willing to work in the anechoic chamber.

 

15 years of experience mixing and mastering for which album and which artiste??? Honestly this is not a who's who community as far as I can remember. I really don't care if you mix and master for Beyonce and the likes, I will still state the same.

 

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate and admire your passion in music and audio...I too have the same passion...therefore it still goes back to the first point of this post.


Edited by Francisk - 3/19/14 at 5:23am
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...