or Connect
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 665

post #9961 of 9965

This makes it easier to see the differences.


Edited by TrantaLocked - Yesterday at 5:10 pm
post #9962 of 9965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post
 

There's very little difference between the ER4SR and the ER4S unlike what many have hyped about how much better the ER4SR is. Here's the measurement from Speakerphone's blog.

 

 

I personally find that the ER4XR is a better buy for those who already own the ER4S. It complements one another.

 

There's little difference on that graph, which only measures frequency response (and nothing else). 

 

Frankly that does not tell us much, as we all expected the SR to be very similar to the S in terms of sound signature. But there are many other aspects of sound to consider if we want to judge the overall SQ of an earphone, and all the graphs and frequency response data are just little pieces of the puzzle.

 

To me the SR is a great improvement in musicality, smoothness, detail, imaging, etc (but the graphs won't show that). 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrantaLocked View Post
 

So is it worth it for me to return the XR and try the SR? Basically I find the ER4S very balanced but slightly lacking body and punch, XR too masking of details but great body, ER4P is pleasing but too accentuated in the mids. Is the SR any massier than the ER4S? 

 

It's a matter of perception. To me the SR is in between the S and the XR in terms of 'body', slightly closer to the S maybe. Some people might find that it's the right amount of warmth (I do), some may find it too cold sounding. Whether it is worth returning the XR for the SR? I don't know. Both have their qualities IMO.

post #9963 of 9965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post
 

 

There's little difference on that graph, which only measures frequency response (and nothing else). 

 

Frankly that does not tell us much, as we all expected the SR to be very similar to the S in terms of sound signature. But there are many other aspects of sound to consider if we want to judge the overall SQ of an earphone, and all the graphs and frequency response data are just little pieces of the puzzle.

 

To me the SR is a great improvement in musicality, smoothness, detail, imaging, etc (but the graphs won't show that). 

 

 

 

It's a matter of perception. To me the SR is in between the S and the XR in terms of 'body', slightly closer to the S maybe. Some people might find that it's the right amount of warmth (I do), some may find it too cold sounding. Whether it is worth returning the XR for the SR? I don't know. Both have their qualities IMO.

That sounds promising. Does the ER4S sound any more natural/real or detailed in certain frequencies or is the SR definitively as or more detailed?

post #9964 of 9965
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrantaLocked View Post
 

That sounds promising. Does the ER4S sound any more natural/real or detailed in certain frequencies or is the SR definitively as or more detailed?

 

The resolution of the SR is better at every level. Better detail in the highs, more concise bass, cleaner mids. The only thing that you might find lacking coming from the S is the slightly lusher sounding midrange of the latter, which isn't more detailed, but rounder and smoother if that makes sense.

post #9965 of 9965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post
 

 

The resolution of the SR is better at every level. Better detail in the highs, more concise bass, cleaner mids. The only thing that you might find lacking coming from the S is the slightly lusher sounding midrange of the latter, which isn't more detailed, but rounder and smoother if that makes sense.

I assume you mean the part of the 2-3 KHz hump they lowered a bit with the SR. That's fine; 4SR is more accurate there. It should slightly unveil the rest of the mid range, which is a good thing.

 

I'm pretty set on at least trying out the ER4SR, but it means I'll have to return the XR. If it sounds more balanced than the S then I'd live with the lack of sub bass.  

 

As a parting comment on the ER4XR: Great overall sound. A bit of bass bloat veiling other frequencies relative to the ER4P/S, taking away from the airiness you'd expect from an ER4, and an overall very smooth and dream-like sound as a result. Treble sounded very balanced on its own, and the veiling extent depends on the DAC/AMP. Guitar in general sounded very good but maybe a touch too smooth for my liking. Vocals sound excellent as well, maybe one of the best parts about this earphone.

 

A lot of those details that sound truly present and real and textured in the ER4S--almost like you could reach your hand out and grab the drum stick patting down on a snare--sound more homogeneous and veiled with the ER4XR. It's easier to spacially imagine how a detail is mechanically operating with the ER4S. The XR is probably less veiled than most in ear headphones, but relative to even the ER4P, it's veiled. While the XR makes the baseline quality good for anything you listen to (meaning nothing will sound too cold), it does make certain detail and realism sacrifices. I don't know how these problems could be solved but do think it's possible. One point of inaccuracy I've noticed all ER4 earphones have is at the 500-1000 Hz range, not sloping up as ideally. Maybe that and some adjustments to the bass would make the XR better with detail while still having the fuller presentation. 

 

__

 

Found something. I was looking at the listening room true speaker response graph from one of Tyll's articles. Initially I sort of just went along and agreed with the best fit line they chose, but looking at it again, if you take an average per octave then smooth the curve a bit, the response looks strikingly like the compensated graph of the HD 650/HD 600. Sub bass roll off does in fact seem to make sense for neutrality if you take into account all of the sub bass and not just the giant peak at 40 Hz. Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong though. What that graph does show is the response of a speaker in a normal listening space is spiky as hell in the bass region, and really hard and probably stupid to try to emulate with a headphone. 

 

What seems tricky is the 100-400 Hz region. There's a valley between 200-400 but an increase between 100-200. The sub bass spike is also interesting and I know I can hear it when I listen to loudspeakers. I just didn't expect it to be such a lone wolf 45 Hz spike, but it makes sense. 


Edited by TrantaLocked - Today at 3:30 am
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...