[luisdent]

Even more specifically than recreating instruments accurately... I believe the standards for loudspeakers and reference sound stems from the desire to have "reproducible" sound. In other words, someone should be able to mix and produce a song and be able to predict what that song will sound like on another audio system. So then the goal should be that everyone follow the reference standard as much as possible from both the mixing standpoint and the listening standpoint.
 
This doesn't always happen, but it's the only way to get reproducible results. The issue is that most people don't care if they are hearing what the artist intended for them to hear. Otherwise, we wouldn't have greatly compressed crap audio masters. The point being, we have to deal with the fact that not everyone is going to hear what we intend them to hear (as musicians). But by following the reference target of a flat studio monitor sound as agreed upon by engineers and audio professionals all over the world, we can at least be consistent in sound as much as possible. And for the people who do care about the sound quality, they can expect great results when following the same standards in their listening environment/equipment.
 
For instance, when I mix my music I always rely on the flattest possible equipment I have access to, being my studio monitors. They may not be perfect, but as the closest thing to perfectly flat that I have, using them as my mixing reference point is the only way I can ensure people will hear what I want them to hear. Granted they might not have reference equipment, but that doesn't really matter, because the closer their equipment is to being reference the closer the end result will be to what I intended them to hear. If I just mixed them on my ex85lp with no EQ I would be using less bass than I should on every song and to other people that aren't using the ex85 the bass would be thin. It might sound good to some people, but I wouldn't be able to reasonably ensure the end result a user would have. But by using the studio monitors their equipment might add extra bass, but it will add extra bass in the same amount bass is added to every other song they listen to. Essentially leading to a consistent end result for the way they prefer their music to sound. The closer their equipment and environment is to reference, the closer the song will sound to the original way I intended it to sound (as much as my monitors allow).
 
As a musician/engineer, if the money and capability existed, I would take the next step and have the flattest monitors I could afford as well as a professionally treated room to ensure accuracy.

 

[gnarlsagan]

It's okay guys get it all out now, because we'll be having this conversation again when luisdent receives his Tenore.

 

[luisdent]

It's okay guys get it all out now, because we'll be having this conversation again when luisdent receives his Tenore.

Bwahahaha. I really, truly hope that is the case.

 

[luisdent]

I would also like to add, in complete seriousness, that even though I prefer the 272 for music listening, I really don't consider it superior in accuracy to the er4s. As a monitoring tool and an earphone in general it is incredible. And I hold it as one of the highest standards. I just personally really enjoy listening to the 272. For all I know I'll get used to the 272 and I will like it even more or maybe find the er4s is better again as the flaws of the 272 set in for me. I don't know. I've only had them a few days. Just sayin' the er4s still rocks as much as ever.
 
And it has to say something about this little etymotic wonder that we use it as a basis of comparison for everything. Does it not?

 

[Pianist]

  Even more specifically than recreating instruments accurately... I believe the standards for loudspeakers and reference sound stems from the desire to have "reproducible" sound. In other words, someone should be able to mix and produce a song and be able to predict what that song will sound like on another audio system. So then the goal should be that everyone follow the reference standard as much as possible from both the mixing standpoint and the listening standpoint.
 
This doesn't always happen, but it's the only way to get reproducible results. The issue is that most people don't care if they are hearing what the artist intended for them to hear. Otherwise, we wouldn't have greatly compressed crap audio masters. The point being, we have to deal with the fact that not everyone is going to hear what we intend them to hear (as musicians). But by following the reference target of a flat studio monitor sound as agreed upon by engineers and audio professionals all over the world, we can at least be consistent in sound as much as possible. And for the people who do care about the sound quality, they can expect great results when following the same standards in their listening environment/equipment.
 
For instance, when I mix my music I always rely on the flattest possible equipment I have access to, being my studio monitors. They may not be perfect, but as the closest thing to perfectly flat that I have, using them as my mixing reference point is the only way I can ensure people will hear what I want them to hear. Granted they might not have reference equipment, but that doesn't really matter, because the closer their equipment is to being reference the closer the end result will be to what I intended them to hear. If I just mixed them on my ex85lp with no EQ I would be using less bass than I should on every song and to other people that aren't using the ex85 the bass would be thin. It might sound good to some people, but I wouldn't be able to reasonably ensure the end result a user would have. But by using the studio monitors their equipment might add extra bass, but it will add extra bass in the same amount bass is added to every other song they listen to. Essentially leading to a consistent end result for the way they prefer their music to sound. The closer their equipment and environment is to reference, the closer the song will sound to the original way I intended it to sound (as much as my monitors allow).
 
As a musician/engineer, if the money and capability existed, I would take the next step and have the flattest monitors I could afford as well as a professionally treated room to ensure accuracy.

 
+1 I agree completely. Well put.

 

[luisdent]

I may sound like an idiot in saying this (perhaps I am). But without even a thought about it I have been comparing the er4s to the 272 this whole time using comply tips on the er4s. I go back and forth all the time for comfort reasons, but needless to say I just popped on some of the biflange tips gnarlsagan recommended and things are a bit different. The differences in soundstage and note thickness and all of that is the same, but I can say now with 100% confidence that the silicon tips do pull out more details than the comply tips. I'll have to do more comparisons with these (I had used up m last tri flange ety tips recently and switched to comply in the meantime).
 
Anyhow, presentation differences aside, I think these tips put the er4s on a better level in terms of frequency response. The 272 appear a tad darker in comparison. Still more open and 3d and whatnot from what I can tell, but these open up the er4s more than the comply tips did. I've seen graphs, even from innerfidelity I believe, that show the comply didn't affect frequency response much at all. I have to completely disagree. After being used to them and comparing them to the 272 side by side, the silicon tips are noticeably more extended. I've said this before, but it's more noticeable now more than ever because of the detailed comparisons I'm doing with another earphone as a baseline.
 
Anyway, I'll listen more and get back with details, but it basically sounds like the er4s is a bit more extended and that makes them a bit more open sounding with the silicon tips. If comfort is an issue use the comply tips, but it stinks that they have such an effect on the sound. And I always make sure to roll the foam back past the nozzle and insert them deeply, etc. They just simply dampen the highs a bit, and even the bess impact a tad.
 
Again, I have to apologize for my ignorance here. Even the other day I told gnarlsagan I thought the 272 had surprisingly good bass even though it bled into the mids a little bit. Come to find out I had my darn c5 bass boost on the whole time (before any of these reviews). But for me, the er4s is often times hard to deal with using the silicon tips, so personally it might come down to the 272 vs the er4 with comply anyway. But time will tell. I do have to say one final thing. The bass with the er4s and these silicon tips is superb. Enough so that I don't need eq. I can see why some people might have thought eq was unnecessary in the past. Where I was using comply most of the time, and I think those act like a bass trap in a room by absorbing some frequencies. Because sub bass is definitely stronger with these tips. Very impressed there...
 
*commence slapping*
 
UPDATE: Upon examining these biflange tips gnarlsagan recommended, they has a much larger opening for a sound bore. In every iem I've ever used, this normally affects the treble. I might be wrong, but if I had to guess I would say this could one reason these tips sound as different as they do? The ety tips have a smaller opening... Interesting at a minimum.
 
DOUBLE UPDATE (oh my gooood!): With the silicon tips I would say I can hear how the micros details are ever so slightly better. Just a hair, but they are a little more clear. However, the soundstage, depth and body of instruments is still as I described it with the 272. Strictly speaking of micro details though, er4s wins by a hair on the few tracks I just tested. 272 wins for what I would refer to as "imaging".

 

[OJNeg]

  I may sound like an idiot in saying this (perhaps I am). But without even a thought about it I have been comparing the er4s to the 272 this whole time using comply tips on the er4s. I go back and forth all the time for comfort reasons, but needless to say I just popped on some of the biflange tips gnarlsagan recommended and things are a bit different. The differences in soundstage and note thickness and all of that is the same, but I can say now with 100% confidence that the silicon tips do pull out more details than the comply tips. I'll have to do more comparisons with these (I had used up m last tri flange ety tips recently and switched to comply in the meantime).
  Again, I have to apologize for my ignorance here. Even the other day I told gnarlsagan I thought the 272 had surprisingly good bass even though it bled into the mids a little bit. Come to find out I had my darn c5 bass boost on the whole time (before any of these reviews). But for me, the er4s is often times hard to deal with using the silicon tips, so personally it might come down to the 272 vs the er4 with comply anyway. But time will tell. I do have to say one final thing. The bass with the er4s and these silicon tips is superb. Enough so that I don't need eq. I can see why some people might have thought eq was unnecessary in the past. Where I was using comply most of the time, and I think those act like a bass trap in a room by absorbing some frequencies. Because sub bass is definitely stronger with these tips. Very impressed there...
  DOUBLE UPDATE (oh my gooood!): With the silicon tips I would say I can hear how the micros details are ever so slightly better. Just a hair, but they are a little more clear. However, the soundstage, depth and body of instruments is still as I described it with the 272. Strictly speaking of micro details though, er4s wins by a hair on the few tracks I just tested. 272 wins for what I would refer to as "imaging".

 
I think you're hearing what I'm hearing now, luis. Like I said, when it's on, it's on. I find the more of my library I go through with the ER4S, the more details I am able to extract. I do consider the tri-flanges to be the ER4S at its best. In terms of (1) bass extension/impact and (2) detail retrieval. Anything else doesn't cut it for me, including customs w/ filters.
 
Keep listening and comparing. Go through some music that you haven't listened to in a while, but you know well. I think you'll come around and agree that the ER4S is in a league of it's own when it comes to resolving microdetail.
 
But I do understand what you're saying when you talk about the ER4S's subpar spacial properties. The way I would describe it is that you hear every bit of the reverb on the recording, but it's unnatural, because it doesn't sound like actual reverb!!! It lacks any semblance to what reverb were to actually sound like if you were to stand there in a live acoustic environment. But I don't consider this to be its fault. It simply an inherent fault with having an accurate IEM (and I think deep insertion into the canal plays a part). IME, some IEMs can be tuned differently tonally in order to create a better sense of space, but they'll ultimately sacrifice true accuracy to the source signal. I'm not saying the RE272 does this (it's honestly been too long for me to remember the specifics), but that's just my experience with other IEMs that do sound more spacious.

 

[Nachkebia]

Oh wait. You didn't mention which IEM it is. lol If you are talking about ER4, then the above applies. If you are talking about RE400, then I felt exactly the same as you sometimes when using the small, dual-single flange hybrid black tips. Try tips with a larger opening. I get good results with the large/long bi flanges personally.

i meant ER4, thanks for that... will try other tips. any recommendations?

 

[eyal1983]

The best tips I ever tried with the ER4S are:
the stick triple flanges (gray) => not so comfy, but excellent and tame treble.
and
Comply P-foams => those are the comfiest, best isolation, and tame treble
 
... and I have tried a LOT of tips.

 

[luisdent]

O.k. I've been listening back and forth, and I think the er4s wins technically and frequency wise. However, the re272 wins in imaging and realism. It's sort of a tough call for me. The er4s definitely sounds more reference with the silicon tips. Flatter, more even all around, attacks, transients, whatever you can name, it all seems a bit more precise on the er4s with silicon. I'm really surprised the foam makes such a big difference in more than one way with the frequency response. Having the treble extend better and the bass hit with more impact brings out those small differences in the overall sound more. However, listening to the re272 just sounds more realistic to me in spacial presence and instrument texturing? I want the er4s with the imaging of the re272. Maybe the zero tenore I have coming will be just that. I'm having more and more doubts about the re400 as it is essentially warmer. More even in the treble perhaps, but we'll see.
 
If I had to rate them, I'd say the er4s wins again! With appropriate tips. However, for listening and comfort the re272 is almost more enjoyable for me. I just like the imaging, depth and form factor better. I think the difference in imaging and realism is more important to me than the difference in the other aspects, at least for simply listening to music for enjoyment. But that's why you buy both right!? hehe. Well, that is if the re272 were available still anywhere on the planet.

 

[Pianist]

  O.k. I've been listening back and forth, and I think the er4s wins technically and frequency wise. However, the re272 wins in imaging and realism. It's sort of a tough call for me. The er4s definitely sounds more reference with the silicon tips. Flatter, more even all around, attacks, transients, whatever you can name, it all seems a bit more precise on the er4s with silicon. I'm really surprised the foam makes such a big difference in more than one way with the frequency response. Having the treble extend better and the bass hit with more impact brings out those small differences in the overall sound more. However, listening to the re272 just sounds more realistic to me in spacial presence and instrument texturing? I want the er4s with the imaging of the re272. Maybe the zero tenore I have coming will be just that. I'm having more and more doubts about the re400 as it is essentially warmer. More even in the treble perhaps, but we'll see.
 
If I had to rate them, I'd say the er4s wins again! With appropriate tips. However, for listening and comfort the re272 is almost more enjoyable for me. I just like the imaging, depth and form factor better. I think the difference in imaging and realism is more important to me than the difference in the other aspects, at least for simply listening to music for enjoyment. But that's why you buy both right!? hehe. Well, that is if the re272 were available still anywhere on the planet.

 
I do hear RE400 as warmer than ER4 and RE272, but you can always use some EQ to even them out if you'll want to, right? I personally like RE400 stock because I consider a reasonably warm sound with somewhat emphasized bass and mids very enjoyable to listen to. RE400 is not strictly accurate, but I do find it very natural sounding. ER4 sound is like a strictly balanced, neutral studio recording while RE400 sound is more like a very good quality live recording without that strict balance, clarity and accuracy that a studio recording can have, but with more natural warmth and presence. In other words, I find RE400 colored, but very pleasantly so and mildly enough not to decrease accuracy too much.

 

[luisdent]

A little warmth can be relaxing and not too bad if things are very smooth and gradual. However, my search is for an iem i don't have to eq. i'll have my re400 tomorrow.

 

[proedros]

A little warmth can be relaxing and not too bad if things are very smooth and gradual. However, my search is for an iem i don't have to eq. i'll have my re400 tomorrow.

 
i don't think you're gonna like it when compared with the 272 and maybe you should try the noble audio N4

it seems to be like an improved er4s/re272 - or that's the impression i am getting (and i am usually right on my hunches)

when/if  i gather 400$ and my 2 pairs of re272 both break down , it will be my next iem (unless i go custom)

 

[luisdent]

 

A little warmth can be relaxing and not too bad if things are very smooth and gradual. However, my search is for an iem i don't have to eq. i'll have my re400 tomorrow.

 
i don't think you're gonna like it when compared with the 272 and maybe you should try the noble audio N4

it seems to be like an improved er4s/re272 - or that's the impression i am getting (and i am usually right on my hunches)

when/if  i gather 400$ and my 2 pairs of re272 both break down , it will be my next iem (unless i go custom)

 
What I like about the 272 is the fact that while it isn't as bright and even as the er4s technically, it has a very nice crispness that sounds very realistic. I'm not sure warmth could retain that. So you mean you won't sell me your 272s?

 

[proedros]

   
What I like about the 272 is the fact that while it isn't as bright and even as the er4s technically, it has a very nice crispness that sounds very realistic. I'm not sure warmth could retain that. So you mean you won't sell me your 272s?

 
lol - you seem like a real cool guy , so if i ever decide to sell them i will give you a heads-up

i haven't tried the er4s and i am sure they are good and probably even 'better' than the 272 but i fear fit issues , so i will stay put with my 272s

the 272 is a very nice,detailed and relaxing iem (no sibilance whatsoever, musical, not to much in your face, spacious and airy although it is a bass-shy but i take care of that with the bass boost on my arrow 4g)

btw , i think that an amp improves the 272 generally