If you still love Etymotic ER4, this is the thread for you...
Jul 29, 2016 at 6:32 PM Post #8,926 of 19,186
 


Yes, I've seen things like that. You can also do some wizardry in programs like audacity to invert phase and such to compare waveforms in a similar fashion. Essentially you can remove the sonic waveforms that are identical and you are left with what is different... However, the difference in a CD like keane is obvious enough not to need such a program in my opinion.



This all has its genesis back in the days of hafler effect and the reasonably astute  work Mark and guys like Bob Carver did to demiystify the trade which apparently went unheeded.

You can look at all the cascacde and FR response graphs in the universe. Go over to that "other site" and they will smother you with them. Essentially it means nothing. Sorry folks, but even the most mediocre driver on the market today will reproduce a single signal accurately. Put a complex piece of music through it and quite quickly you see where it falls apart and cannot handle transients or winds up masking frequencies. Response graphs do nothing to make that clear . A differentialling software on the other hand does exactly that. It tells you where the source and output differ. Pretty standard scientific analasys right now in every discipline from medicine to mechanical engineering, cripes even the food service folks use it to do batch QC. Yet audio still wants you to buy something based on some clown in his basement with a 2 dollar mic recording a signal through a piece of perfboard on a pc which is most likely compromised by the far easter porn sites he vistits on an hourly basis.

Take a differentialling piece of software. Do a rip of your CD, SACD, whatever source then do a capture of your playback system rendering it, and you will have a much better picture of what is going on in your world, rather than guessing how it compares to some picture of someone elses.

thats 3 cents worth.:)


No one has to guess. I uploaded a sample file. It's not minor differences or complex mathematical reasoning I'm preaching. I'm just showing obvious dynamic compression in an appropriate way with waveforms and audio files the most reasonable way possible.

And inverting phase tricks in a DAW is probably similar to what some of those "differential" apps are doing. :p ...not sure what you mean by all if this. This is just a simple way to show the improvement of dynamics when a master is not overly compressed. It is not an attempt to compare other differences (although I don't believe there are any with this album). Listen to the songs. Go buy the SACD and CD and listen however you wish to, the difference is obvious enough that i could hear either version anyday of the week in my er4sr without knowing which is which and i could identify them.

So I'm not sure what you meant by the talk about drivers and frequency graphs? No one was talking about that currently. Did i miss something? :p
 
Jul 30, 2016 at 3:49 AM Post #8,927 of 19,186
 
That was always my main point. SACD is inaudibly different from CD in my opinion... IF the master is identical. I don't believe DSD adds anything, despite the technical fanciness. For archiving music? Sure. But I'd just use 24/96 for that. or 24/192. But for listening, CD is excellent when the audio on it is excellent. :)
 
Think of it this way, whether it was from the CD or SACD, both of those waveforms are from the audio AFTER it was recorded to the computer. So it is no longer DSD fanciness.... and you can see and hear it is better than the CD.


Yes and usually with SACDs the same mastering is used for the CD layer. Sadly not in this case. Someone has thought "this is an SACD - we can use the full dynamic range". This approach could (and should) have been applied to the CD, instead we got "hey this is good I can turn everything up to 11". The vinyl has a dynamic range almost as good as the SACD and this is because of the limitations of the format. There is much to be said for early CDs, when they just used the vinyl mastering - we even got the quad encoding as a direct transfer.
Back to topic - the ER4 variants are perfect for high dynamic range recordings because of the excellent isolation - when a pin drops, it is against a black background.
 
Jul 30, 2016 at 10:10 AM Post #8,933 of 19,186
Last night I listened to Piano (Ludovico Enaudi). The XR didn't sound that great to me (probably same on SR, no bass related here). Found the notes too rounded and not very clear, also thought sound was a bit thick for Piano.
 
My mind started to wonder around. Like I said before before, I have experience evaluating sound changing Knowles acoustic dumpers (filters), specifically 330, 680, 1K, 1.5K Ohms.
 
So, I tried the Knowles filters in XR. Don't fit by a really small amount in diameter (Knowles "capsules" - the green thing in Ety "filter"/damper that encapsulate the real filter inside - are thicker). So, no luck then. I would have a variety of filters to try.
 
But my mind didn't give up and thought: How about if I put the Knowles "filter paper" of 1K Ohms that is inside his metalic "capsule" inside the "capsule" of the Etys dampers. I ruin two sets (pairs) of filters (one Knowles and one Ety) but...Done! And better than I thought, these matched very well, almost fells like a store buy.
 
Now to the sound...I already have changed filters now back and forth, from my DIY and original Etys green, two times, to compare. I prefer my DIY in the direction of classical, acoustical, piano!, some slow music with more acoustic instruments: it has a little bit thinner timbre, sound has more resolution, more clarity, more transparency, the notes have more front attack (more bite) and don't feel so rounded anymore. I prefer. Like I said, the piano before was a bit thick and too rounded for my taste, and lacking clarity. I really like the new sound! Especially because I bought XR to these kind of genres.
 
So, using a 1000 Ohms DIY filter now. I believe the stock green are 1500 Ohms. So, this was a very specific move from me. From my experience with the Knowles dampers, this was what I thought it would do, why I lowered one size. Just was expecting to see if it suits my taste on XR or not. It does suit my tasted and I'll be keeping it for now. Until I go back to original filters in the future to do a new comparison to see how my mind reacts to it.
 
@Aero Dynamik It's because of your post in DN-2000J thread that I decided to go XR instead of it. Thanks for that. If you want me to send you a DIY pair free for you to try, send me a PM :wink: I read some of your posts, I guess you will really like it.
 
Jul 31, 2016 at 12:56 PM Post #8,934 of 19,186
  Last night I listened to Piano (Ludovico Enaudi). The XR didn't sound that great to me (probably same on SR, no bass related here). Found the notes too rounded and not very clear, also thought sound was a bit thick for Piano.
 
My mind started to wonder around. Like I said before before, I have experience evaluating sound changing Knowles acoustic dumpers (filters), specifically 330, 680, 1K, 1.5K Ohms.
 
So, I tried the Knowles filters in XR. Don't fit by a really small amount in diameter (Knowles "capsules" - the green thing in Ety "filter"/damper that encapsulate the real filter inside - are thicker). So, no luck then. I would have a variety of filters to try.
 
But my mind didn't give up and thought: How about if I put the Knowles "filter paper" of 1K Ohms that is inside his metalic "capsule" inside the "capsule" of the Etys dampers. I ruin two sets (pairs) of filters (one Knowles and one Ety) but...Done! And better than I thought, these matched very well, almost fells like a store buy.
 
Now to the sound...I already have changed filters now back and forth, from my DIY and original Etys green, two times, to compare. I prefer my DIY in the direction of classical, acoustical, piano!, some slow music with more acoustic instruments: it has a little bit thinner timbre, sound has more resolution, more clarity, more transparency, the notes have more front attack (more bite) and don't feel so rounded anymore. I prefer. Like I said, the piano before was a bit thick and too rounded for my taste, and lacking clarity. I really like the new sound! Especially because I bought XR to these kind of genres.
 
So, using a 1000 Ohms DIY filter now. I believe the stock green are 1500 Ohms. So, this was a very specific move from me. From my experience with the Knowles dampers, this was what I thought it would do, why I lowered one size. Just was expecting to see if it suits my taste on XR or not. It does suit my tasted and I'll be keeping it for now. Until I go back to original filters in the future to do a new comparison to see how my mind reacts to it.
 
@Aero Dynamik It's because of your post in DN-2000J thread that I decided to go XR instead of it. Thanks for that. If you want me to send you a DIY pair free for you to try, send me a PM :wink: I read some of your posts, I guess you will really like it.

All for the Art! Good work mdiogofs!!! 
wink.gif

 
If I didn't know any better I would have thought you were speaking about the DN-2000J treble (low volume). Well, wow, if these already (more than) excellent sound characteristics of the ER4XR can be improved upon with a reasonably maintained bass and mid-range response I'd be quite, or rather very excited about it. It would perhaps be another step away from neutral, but what is scientifically neutral and what we subjectively experience as neutral isn't always the same anyway.
 
Absolutely, and very generous of you! I'll PM you as soon as I've submitted this post! Thanks!
 
Jul 31, 2016 at 8:57 PM Post #8,937 of 19,186
  All for the Art! Good work mdiogofs!!! 
wink.gif

 
If I didn't know any better I would have thought you were speaking about the DN-2000J treble (low volume). Well, wow, if these already (more than) excellent sound characteristics of the ER4XR can be improved upon with a reasonably maintained bass and mid-range response I'd be quite, or rather very excited about it. It would perhaps be another step away from neutral, but what is scientifically neutral and what we subjectively experience as neutral isn't always the same anyway.
 
Absolutely, and very generous of you! I'll PM you as soon as I've submitted this post! Thanks!

Sure, I remember you said in the Earsonics SM64 thread that you really appreciated its sound. And I realized you had no filters at all and you didn't knew, you said you bought it  used. I tried the 330, 680 (stock), 1K and 1.5K Ohms with it. I'm now using 1K with SM64. See, I'm doing the inverse that I'm doing here with the XR, I changed 680 to 1K in SM64. That my preference with that IEM with the music I like to used them, with a thicker, rounder and a bit darker sound. But not that much, I tried the 1.5K and found it making too much of an impact on the characteristics I said before. Stayed with 1K.
 
In here, I'm doing the inverse in XR: changing the 1.5K (stock) to 1K Ohms. I'll get a less thicker, rounder and darker sound. Hence, a bit more aggressive, thinner and resolute sound. If you liked SM64 without filter, You'll really like this, and this is not as extreme as that with the SM64. Here you are still on the 1K Ohms. I have a neutral DAP and this is still not bright nor sibilant. It has still a bit rounded sound, but a bit more aggressive on upper mids and highs. You get maybe a bit less natural sound but a bit more bite and clarity on notes.
 
I did this just because I felt I liked a bit more bite in the piano notes. I was getting the impression they were too rounded for my taste and lack note bite. Just that. XR is tuned like this for a reason. But in the end, preference prevails.
 
Just a bit fast knowledge about acoustic dampers. From Innerfidelity:
 
In-tube Sound Damping Filters
Similar in effect to decreasing tube diameter, damping filters restrict airflow within the tube and generally reduce response in the 1kHz to 8kHz region. In the graph below, you may just be able to make out that these filters, because they act as resistive elements, are calibrates in Ohms!
 


Read more at http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/how-balanced-armature-receiversdrivers-work#iEFYJtIyMzS6kU6I.99
 
An example of effect in Shure SE535:
 

 
Also found this on the ER4S, with not specifying the filter impedances but if you study the examples above you'll get there. Actually, I'll do that: I believe stock is the green color (1.5K Ohms) and the you have brown (1K), white (680), grey (330), black - no dampening, and on the other "side" of stock filter signature: red is 2200 I guess (I'm don't know bigger impedances and colors by memory (nor experience) and don't want look for it now but you get the point). Going north from stock filter, you'll get more clarity, more micro details, and a thinner sound. Going south from stock filter, you'll get a more darker, mellow and rounder sound.
 

 
 
So, Knowles acoustic damper don't fit. I removed the filter paper in one of those and used it with a green capsule of Ety filters (removing previously the filter "paper" that it's inside). It's quite simple, I used a toothpick to push the "paper" out. This a filter from Knowles and his "filter paper" taken out (some still got the "paper" inside as you can see):
 

 
 
But I have to be sincere. I do these things because I think something is not up to my likes. Most of the times I'm looking unconsciously for something. In this case, and for the music I'm using the XR (classical, acoustic, piano, genres like this), I come to the conclusion the bump in bass is taking out a bit of clarity for me. I guess I use a lower filter impedance to get a perception of more clarity and bite because the bump in bass is giving me the perception of less clarity. But I actually like the natural and real sound of the Etys and this findings are leading to get the SR instead.
 
Jul 31, 2016 at 9:28 PM Post #8,938 of 19,186
 
All for the Art! Good work mdiogofs!!! :wink:

If I didn't know any better I would have thought you were speaking about the DN-2000J treble (low volume). Well, wow, if these already (more than) excellent sound characteristics of the ER4XR can be improved upon with a reasonably maintained bass and mid-range response I'd be quite, or rather very excited about it. It would perhaps be another step away from neutral, but what is scientifically neutral and what we subjectively experience as neutral isn't always the same anyway.

Absolutely, and very generous of you! I'll PM you as soon as I've submitted this post! Thanks!

Sure, I remember you said in the Earsonics SM64 thread that you really appreciated its sound. And I realized you had no filters at all and you didn't knew, you said you bought it  used. I tried the 330, 680 (stock), 1K and 1.5K Ohms with it. I'm now using 1K with SM64. See, I'm doing the inverse that I'm doing here with the XR, I changed 680 to 1K in SM64. That my preference with that IEM with the music I like to used them, with a thicker, rounder and a bit darker sound. But not that much, I tried the 1.5K and found it making too much of an impact on the characteristics I said before. Stayed with 1K.

In here, I'm doing the inverse in XR: changing the 1.5K (stock) to 1K Ohms. I'll get a less thicker, rounder and darker sound. Hence, a bit more aggressive, thinner and resolute sound. If you liked SM64 without filter, You'll really like this, and this is not as extreme as that with the SM64. Here you are still on the 1K Ohms. I have a neutral DAP and this is still not bright nor sibilant. It has still a bit rounded sound, but a bit more aggressive on upper mids and highs. You get maybe a bit less natural sound but a bit more bite and clarity on notes.

I did this just because I felt I liked a bit more bite in the piano notes. I was getting the impression they were too rounded for my taste and lack note bite. Just that. XR is tuned like this for a reason. But in the end, preference prevails.

Just a bit fast knowledge about acoustic dampers. From Innerfidelity:

In-tube Sound Damping Filters

Similar in effect to decreasing tube diameter, damping filters restrict airflow within the tube and generally reduce response in the 1kHz to 8kHz region. In the graph below, you may just be able to make out that these filters, because they act as resistive elements, are calibrates in Ohms!





Read more at http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/how-balanced-armature-receiversdrivers-work#iEFYJtIyMzS6kU6I.99

An example of effect in Shure SE535:




Also found this on the ER4S, with not specifying the filter impedances but if you study the examples above you'll get there. Actually, I'll do that: I believe stock is the green color (1.5K Ohms) and the you have brown (1K), white (680), grey (330), black - no dampening, and on the other "side" of stock filter signature: red is 2200 I guess (I'm don't know bigger impedances and colors by memory (nor experience) and don't want look for it now but you get the point). Going north from stock filter, you'll get more clarity, more micro details, and a thinner sound. Going south from stock filter, you'll get a more darker, mellow and rounder sound.





So, Knowles acoustic damper don't fit. I removed the filter paper in one of those and used it with a green capsule of Ety filters (removing previously the filter "paper" that it's inside). It's quite simple, I used a toothpick to push the "paper" out. This a filter from Knowles and his "filter paper" taken out (some still got the "paper" inside as you can see):





But I have to be sincere. I do these things because I think something is not up to my likes. Most of the times I'm looking unconsciously for something. In this case, and for the music I'm using the XR (classical, acoustic, piano, genres like this), I come to the conclusion the bump in bass is taking out a bit of clarity for me. I guess I use a lower filter impedance to get a perception of more clarity and bite because the bump in bass is giving me the perception of less clarity. But I actually like the natural and real sound of the Etys and this findings are leading to get the SR instead.

I agree about the xr and piano music. David Benoit "american landscape" and probably all his other albums, sounds amazin with the sr. Like a real piano in a real room. The xr sound great but it loses a bit of that "hear into the room" transparency.
 
Jul 31, 2016 at 10:26 PM Post #8,939 of 19,186
I agree about the xr and piano music. David Benoit "american landscape" and probably all his other albums, sounds amazin with the sr. Like a real piano in a real room. The xr sound great but it loses a bit of that "hear into the room" transparency.


Yeah, maybe that is what I'm talking about. Glad my findings are geting me somewhere. Thanks for sharing that!
 
Aug 1, 2016 at 9:50 AM Post #8,940 of 19,186
Has there been any comparison of the ER4SR to the UERM? I'm a bit curious between the two since the UERM has been my favorite iem I've heard.
 
I was going to pull the trigger on an ER4S on ebay for $175 this weekend however I learned of the existence of the ER4 updates. I definitely didn't expect Etymotic to ever update the ER4 line since it's been around for so long. I pulled the trigger on the ER4SR. I typically favor neutral earphones and the ER6i was my first experience with Etymotic earphones. I'm assuming this will be a good choice for me however I've never had the chance to hear the ER4S so I'm hoping this is it. I've had so many earphones that were very close for me but not hit in on the mark exactly. The cable on the ER4S turned me off and that it was difficult to replace since you either had to DIY, pay for an expensive recable or send it back to Etymotic to repair it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top