New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Earsonics EM4 - Page 4

post #46 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aero Dynamik View Post

 

 

You’re welcome! Glad to hear! beerchug.gif

 

Now I’m going to listen a lot more before I continue writing about my experiences. Eventually I’ll try to compare and write about all the various audiophile aspects of the sound compared to the SM3s. For that I’ll be using “The Ultimate Demonstration Disc - Chesky Records' Guide To Critical Listening”. However, I want to tuck a couple of hundred hours of EM4 listening into my brain before starting that endeavor.

 

I'd wish more head-fiers would write about their EM4 experiences. What happend to Guidostrunk?! confused_face_2.gif


SOunds like a plan! I'll just sit here and wait..patiently...with bated breath...no rush....LOL

 

post #47 of 94

Thanks for the reviews Aero Dynamik 

EM4 doesnt sound like a safe choice...I was about to order the EM3 PRO, then I saw this thread...I guess it's gonna be a long time before I see some EM4 vs EM3 comparsions.

 

By the way, does anyone know frank's email address?


Edited by tupac0306 - 11/1/11 at 5:19am
post #48 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post

Thanks for the reviews Aero Dynamik 

EM4 doesnt sound like a safe choice...I was about to order the EM3 PRO, then I saw this thread...I guess it's gonna be a long time before I see some EM4 vs EM3 comparsions.

 

By the way, does anyone know frank's email address?


Didn't his email address used be on the websites under Contact? Seems like it isn't there anymore. I suppose there's no harm emailing any other other addresses at this link tho ----> http://earsonics.com/contact.htm

 

Agree with you on EM4 not being a safe choice, for now. When more people start getting them and more reviews / comparos start pouring in, it will be better. I'm really hoping it will turn out to be just what I've been waiting for! biggrin.gif

 

post #49 of 94
post #50 of 94
post #51 of 94

 



Google translate sucks (at least in this context)! Is there any audiophile who can translate the review to English?

 

Yes, do wait for more reviews! I'm still not really satisfied with my EM4s. If there is something that I think the EM4s do better than the SM3s it is the realism of the sound, especially for acoustic music (I used to play the violin professionally myself). As you all know, sounds in real life can be pretty penetrating. Especially with electronic music such as Kraftwerk, it feels like the ear drums are under attack. The SM3s are so much warmer and hi-fi.

post #52 of 94

Called franck today! He is extremely helpful. And explain everything in details with good french-englishwink.gif

 

But he told me full shell or not full shell won't change the sound. it's just for better isolation.

 

Got my ear impressions for free today:). Still stuck between EM3 and EM4. I am leaning to EM3 which is safer IMO cuz I hate airy highs/treble.

 

 

post #53 of 94

Well, if it may be of any help (sorry, I'm not really familiar with sound description in english).
 

Introduction

 

Earsonics, one of the major agents on the market in universal and custom IEMs for professional and retail, sells, since 2004, highly prized products.

The flagship, EM3-PRO came out in 2006, with 3 drivers / 2 ways technology, still being considered as a reference, suffered from competition with new technology and their own flagships.

Earsonics' philosophy was not to take part in the race for number of drivers just to impress and fill technical data, but is more looking into delivering the most "accurate"/life-like reproduction of sound, which is what technology was created for.

Nonetheless, the company had to show it could face competition, being up-to-date, technologically speaking, but using it to express it's vision of what sound reproduction should be.

Thus, the EM4 with its 4 drivers / 3 ways.

 

Packaging

 

Once again, Earsonics offers a very simple packaging, without any superficial accessory.

Acrylic box, cleaning tool (a Pelican or Otterbox would have been great).

 

Presentation

 

Let's first explain how this product was created : 

Impedance, sensitivity and need of power : 

- 4 drivers / 3 ways : home made, not similar to competition.

- As one of the drivers needed air, the IEMs are not filled fully, that driver being separated in an empty part of the IEM (but still the shell is thick enough not to break), allowing future upgrades.

- These should be fine on any setup : they worked on impedance and sensitivity. Higher impedance and higher sensitivity than usual so that "weak" DAPs will not lack bass (and to increase DAP's autonomy)

- Working on stability of impedance with power : being able to sound great on amplified setups, listening at high volume without distortion or tonal imbalance.

 

Balance of spectrum

- clean and "tensed" lower-mids, for a deeper and clearer reproduction (the last octaves of low frequencies not being covered by the low frequencies for a more organic sensation (don't really get this part...)). Clarity in mid-mids for a listening experience close to full-size headphones.

- High-mids home-made (like other Earsonics IEMs), never being aggressive, being at their right place.

- Highs are thin and extend high for a more natural texture, closer to full-size dynamic driver.

- Larger soundstage, out of the head, and more frontal (thanks to a specific work on spectral balance, and respect of phase, using a home-made process to make the stereo image more airy)

The EM4 are aiming to be Hi-Fi and balanced, with warmth and being full-size-like organic.

It is a kind of mix of the spectral dimension of EM2 and EM3 (the benefits from both united in the EM4) with a new spatial presentation, more full-size (more airy, larger stereo image)

 

Critical listening

 

Setup

Player : Studio V (Wave files) + iBasso Pelican PB2

 

Listening test

I had the chance to listen many times to Earsonics products, and the EM4 tickled my curiosity. But I was worried about the loss of the so particular sound of Earsonics, because of the tendency on acoustic signature.

I was soon reassured by finding the Earsonics particularity in sound, even before interviewing the constructor. It was the perfect mix of EM2 and EM3-PRO, and the name, though simple, fits it.

 

The will for details, the rigour of the EM2, the warmth and spatialization of the EM3 all concur to a very well finished EM4.

Thus a very high definition, astonishing details, and I'm weighing my words. 

Sounds stream out in space with impressive intensity, accuracy in reverb and spatial placement.

The high sensitivity of these IEM allows to hear the ending notes much longer than on any IEM I heard.

Air literally flows between instruments.

Added to a tonal accuracy across the whole spectrum, you get "hitting" bass, with "skin" presence (I don't really get that part...), very natural mids/higher mids that point out every detail in vocals, and "Lopezian" highs (I guess these are Franck Lopez special/Earsonics highs?) that already satisfied many users, but for those who have already heard EM3-Pro, try to imagine even better, with an increased dynamic, and even higher resolution.

Soundstage has not been spared either : soundstage is larger, but mainly in depth, vocals are forward (it has already been mentioned with EM3, but here it is so well mastered).

However, a tendency becomes reality : bass-heads should pass... No over-boomy bass, no "feeling" of the bass. These are more for people looking for a very accurate reproduction, IEMs that transcribes music with a big M (don't really know what he means) without any other consideration.

 

Conclusion

 

EM4 has raised the bar very high. A great ability to create a natural atmosphere.

A very realistic soundstage, in width and depth. I had never heard such a soundstage before.

 

Bass revealing a "skin" aspect, giving the sound an organic reproduction.

One of the best (if not the best) ability to transcribe the notes extinctions due to the extreme sensitivity of EM4.

A very extended frequency response.

IEMs that are the perfect mix of EM2 and EM3-Pro, allowing musician and music-lover to both enjoy these.

 

Only con : the very high cost of these, willing to provide a 100% "Made in France" product. This spoils a bit the experience, but if you can afford it, you won't regret it, just go. It is rare to find such an expertise in a sole IEM.

 

Notation

Subjective dynamic : 5/5

Timbre accuracy : 5/5

Quality/price ratio : 4/5

Global rating : 4,9/5

 

davidsylvain38@gmail.com

Link to the test (in French) : http://www.tellementnomade.com/earsonics-em4-le-test/


Edited by Damnegy - 11/7/11 at 1:33am
post #54 of 94

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post

Called franck today! He is extremely helpful. And explain everything in details with good french-englishwink.gif

 

But he told me full shell or not full shell won't change the sound. it's just for better isolation.

 

Got my ear impressions for free today:). Still stuck between EM3 and EM4. I am leaning to EM3 which is safer IMO cuz I hate airy highs/treble.

 

 


You should then definitely go for the EM3-PROs!  (See my next post!)

post #55 of 94

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damnegy View Post

Well, if it may be of any help (sorry, I'm not really familiar with sound description in english).
 

...

 

(I'll just finish later today, no time for that)

 

Absolutely brilliant! Thank you very much!

 

Do please finish it!

post #56 of 94

I’ve altogether spent a couple of hours listening to Stravinsky’s:” L’Histoire Du Soldat” from the Chesky’s: “The Ultimate Demonstration Disc” over and over, going back and forth between the SM3s and the EM4s. With this particular piece of music, I now definitely prefer the EM4s, which sound airy, clean, detailed, and above all, realistic. Furthermore, the width, height, and depth between the instruments sound just perfect, like being in front of a real orchestra. Mind you, during the first hour or so I felt the SM3s were superior. Now, in comparison, the SM3s sound like a damper has been placed on the music, the soundstage is too much in the face, and the instruments too close to each other.

 

The realism is the most striking difference. Try this analogy; imagine two pictures portraying an interesting object (the recording) in the exact same way, but in two different lightings (SM3/EM4). The SM3s put the light straight on the object, erasing a lot of ugly, but also a lot of beautiful fine details. The EM4s, on the other hand, put the light from the side, making every little detail stand out.

 

This picture should give you an idea of what I mean.

SM3vsEM4.jpg

 

I wish I could say the above for all music that I listen to, but unfortunately I still feel that the reality becomes too harsh with a lot of recordings, especially electronic ones. The EM4s are so sensitive I suspect they may require acoustic audiophile recordings to shine the way they were intended to.


Edited by Aero Dynamik - 11/3/11 at 4:13am
post #57 of 94

Thanks Aero! This explains perfectly. So I guess I am a EM3 PRO kind of person. I hate airy treble, airy highs, especially on poor recordings which might make EM4 sounds really harsh and bright. I prefer more liquid, fuller, organic mids/highs. Also the reproduction of the music is important for me. I would like my IEMs to be more forgiving on bad recordings. Soundstage isnt a big issue for me because of the genres I listen to.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aero Dynamik View Post

I’ve altogether spent a couple of hours listening to Stravinsky’s:” L’Histoire Du Soldat” from the Chesky’s: “The Ultimate Demonstration Disc” over and over, going back and forth between the SM3s and the EM4s. With this particular piece of music, I now definitely prefer the EM4s, which sound airy, clean, detailed, and above all, realistic. Furthermore, the width, height, and depth between the instruments sound just perfect, like being in front of a real orchestra. Mind you, during the first hour or so I felt the SM3s were superior. Now, in comparison, the SM3s sound like a damper has been placed on the music, the soundstage is too much in the face, and the instruments too close to each other.

 

The realism is the most striking difference. Try this analogy; imagine two pictures portraying an interesting object (the recording) in the exact same way, but in two different lightings (SM3/EM4). The SM3s puts the light straight on the object, erasing a lot of ugly, but also a lot of beautiful fine details. The EM4s, on the other hand, puts the light from the side, making every little detail stand out.

 

This picture should give you an idea of what I mean.

SM3vsEM4.jpg

 

I wish I could say the above for all music that I listen to, but unfortunately I still feel that the reality becomes too harsh with a lot of recordings, especially electronic ones. The EM4s are so sensitive I suspect they may require acoustic audiophile recordings to shine the way they were intended to.



 

post #58 of 94

Thanks for that most interesting analogy/metaphor, Aero Dynamik. I can clearly see your point but I don't think that a plus in contrast is automatically and under all circumstances better.

 

Imagine using the picture settings of your TV. Starting from a lifeless and bland picture an increase in contrast (or in saturation of colors) unanimously will be seen as an improvement. Then there's a zone of individual preference where some folks may prefer to further turn up the contrast/saturation while others may think that doing so will start making things look unnatural. Finally any setting near the the top of the range will undoubtedly lead to a general consensus that the TV picture no longer is natural and good.

 

While in acoustics this may not be completely the same I think that there, too, is a zone of correctness and adequacy that doesn't extend to the technically possible top of contrast.


Edited by chi2 - 11/3/11 at 4:16am
post #59 of 94


     Quote:

Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post

Thanks Aero! This explains perfectly. So I guess I am a EM3 PRO kind of person. I hate airy treble, airy highs, especially on poor recordings which might make EM4 sounds really harsh and bright. I prefer more liquid, fuller, organic mids/highs. Also the reproduction of the music is important for me. I would like my IEMs to be more forgiving on bad recordings. Soundstage isnt a big issue for me because of the genres I listen to.

 

Based on what you say, you should definitely go with the EM3-PROs. They’ve been described as a better version of the SM3s, and if that is the truth, there is no way you can go wrong with them. I find the SM3s to really be one of a kind and just love them. See my review of the SM3s.

post #60 of 94

Haha and this thread is for??

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravihome View Post

Hey Guys.

  super exciting news, Earsonics has just launched their new claim to the best custom in ear monitor title, the Earsonics EM4.

I am very interested and am seriously considering getting one (poor wallet).  and for information u can click on this url.

http://musingsofahungryaudiophile.blogspot.com/2011/10/earsonics-em4.html

kkkk



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: