Heir Audio 4.Ai - Appreciation/Impression/Review Thread - Page 108

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

 

No, I haven't written between the two --- it's a bit superfluous in my opinion; in general, with the 4.A, you get the benefits of the custom fit, which are not to be diminished. Basically, isolation improves, comfort improves (though the 4.Ai is very comfortable already), and insertion depth improves. Insertion depth, along with isolation, can improve things quite a bit, namely with regard to vocal body, bass/treble extension, detail retrieval, and overall cohesion. I've commented before about the differences between the 4.A and the 4.Ai on this thread before and perhaps in other threads, but you'll have to go digging for them.

I already read all of them, actually. I was more interested in 4.A vs 334, than 4.A vs 4.AI; but from your description, it seems you would give the edge to 334.

ToGo! 334 > 4.Ai.

Possibly the same from 334 vs 4A.

The 4.Ai is a very very nice universal, but the waters between the two are quite wide. 

For the price, you can't beat what you get with the 4.Ai. Hands down, it is the most beautiful machine I've seen, and it performs very well. But, you do get what you pay for with FitEar. It's up to you. I'd be 100% happy if I owned the 4.Ai but I don't. I have to send it back to Taiwan today. Bugger. 

The 3.Ai shouldn't be ignored, either. It has a slightly more coherent midrange, though a slightly aggressive mid-upper bass (which is no problem from my end). 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge 

I already read all of them, actually. I was more interested in 4.A vs 334, than 4.A vs 4.AI; but from your description, it seems you would give the edge to 334.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge   I already read all of them, actually. I was more interested in 4.A vs 334, than 4.A vs 4.AI; but from your description, it seems you would give the edge to 334.

Well all the things I wrote about the 4.Ai vs the 334 apply to the case of the 4.A vs 334; the edge ultimately goes to the 334, but the difference is much, much smaller. I personally prefer the 4.A for its tauter bass response. The 334 has a more spongy, natural response, but that's not to my own preference, because it can sometimes smear details. For midrange, the 334 is still king. I haven't heard anything quite like it. I like its midrange just as much as any high-end STAX or souped-up HD800, but I definitely won't be dropping $1350 for it anytime soon or ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

 

Well all the things I wrote about the 4.Ai vs the 334 apply to the case of the 4.A vs 334; the edge ultimately goes to the 334, but the difference is much, much smaller. I personally prefer the 4.A for its tauter bass response. The 334 has a more spongy, natural response, but that's not to my own preference, because it can sometimes smear details. For midrange, the 334 is still king. I haven't heard anything quite like it. I like its midrange just as much as any high-end STAX or souped-up HD800, but I definitely won't be dropping $1350 for it anytime soon or ever.

Spongy bass is a big no-no for me. Reminds me of the SM3. Except, the SM3 also had spongy lower mids. Too much exaggerated decay in that region. To me, it's absolutely terrible for vocals... veiled, chubby, and lacking any kind of clarity whatsoever. People tend to think that a lush midrange is good for vocals, and maybe to them it is; but from my experience with the sm3, I am now allergic to lushness. If the 334 or STAX's midrange is anything like that, then I'm not interested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge 

Spongy bass is a big no-no for me. Reminds me of the SM3. Except, the SM3 also had spongy lower mids. Too much exaggerated decay in that region. To me, it's absolutely terrible for vocals... veiled, chubby, and lacking any kind of clarity whatsoever. People tend to think that a lush midrange is good for vocals, and maybe to them it is; but from my experience with the sm3, I am now allergic to lushness. If the 334 or STAX's midrange is anything like that, then I'm not interested.

LOL the SM3 has NOTHING on either the 4.Ai or 334. No need to worry.

People always so mad about the SM3  but that's okay, Tzar time will be nigh for me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosshorn   People always so mad about the SM3  but that's okay, Tzar time will be nigh for me!

For the record, I actually enjoy the SM3, but I completely acknowledge its limitations. It's clearly veiled compared to both the 4.Ai and 334. I too am interested in the Tzar 350.

Actually, I find midrange detail better on the SM3, but the dynamic range of treble vs midrange and bass is less on the SM3. The 4.Ai is a more sparkly, sharp listen and makes sense to fans of slight v-curve frequency responses and/or CK10 esque sound. Count me among that number. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

 

LOL the SM3 has NOTHING on either the 4.Ai or 334. No need to worry.

See I've come to love the SM3's sound, but am looking for more clarity. Hopefully the 350 will seduce me just as much :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosshorn 

People always so mad about the SM3  but that's okay, Tzar time will be nigh for me!

I'm not mad at the SM3 or Earsonics, at all. I was, however, for a while disappointed at my own silliness for not having resold it before the housings fell apart and the right driving unit finally stopped producing sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

 

For the record, I actually enjoy the SM3, but I completely acknowledge its limitations. It's clearly veiled compared to both the 4.Ai and 334. I too am interested in the Tzar 350.

I still don't understand how people do. It has this obnoxious quality what I would call the "vocal teleportation effect." The singer appears a certain distance away when singing a mid-to-high note, and then when a low-to-mid note comes, he/she is instantly in front of and with the thick sound almost wrapped around you. My gr07 and formerly owned re0 have none of that nonsense, and I hope the 4.ai doesn't, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosshorn 

See I've come to love the SM3's sound, but am looking for more clarity. Hopefully the 350 will seduce me just as much :)

Goodluck on your search. I personally can't imagine how any headphone can sound like the SM3 while having clarity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo   Actually, I find midrange detail better on the SM3, but the dynamic range of treble vs midrange and bass is less on the SM3. The 4.Ai is a more sparkly, sharp listen and makes sense to fans of slight v-curve frequency responses and/or CK10 esque sound. Count me among that number. 

I'm also in the camp that likes the subtle v-curve, but it might be that I'm used to the custom shell of the 4.A, as I find its lower midrange boost enough, whereas the the SM3 has too much, which takes away from the overall experience. Detail levels, to me, are superior on the 4.A, and I'm not talking about the sharper treble. I can hear deeper into a recording, and hear the subtle rustle of leaves or background noises/chatter in a recording studio accidentally (or intentionally) left in. Of course, it might very well be because of the difference between custom shells and universal giving me more even isolation and correct insertion depth. I can no longer verify how it is with the 4.Ai, as the unit I listened to is the one that you have in your hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge 

I still don't understand how people do. It has this obnoxious quality what I would call the "vocal teleportation effect." The singer appears a certain distance away when singing a mid-to-high note, and then when a low-to-mid note comes, he/she is instantly in front of and with the thick sound almost wrapped around you. My gr07 and formerly owned re0 have none of that nonsense, and I hope the 4.ai doesn't, either.

Oh, that quirk is sort of why I like it. It's a bit silly and gimmicky, but for the vocal-centric monitor, the SM3 and the UM3X have that weird quality of isolating vocals away from the mix and lifting them right in front of your ears. It's quite good for stage performers who need to know whether their vocal onset (in the fundamental formants of voice, which is in the lower midrange) is in time with the instrumentals, etc.

I'm definitely excited to move on though :) and I agree about the build quality :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

 

Oh, that quirk is sort of why I like it. It's a bit silly and gimmicky, but for the vocal-centric monitor, the SM3 and the UM3X have that weird quality of isolating vocals away from the mix and lifting them right in front of your ears. It's quite good for stage performers who need to know whether their vocal onset (in the fundamental formants of voice, which is in the lower midrange) is in time with the instrumentals, etc.

It's not so much the placement of vocals as it was the constant repetitive teleporting back and forth that I find very annoying. Sure, singers do move around on stage. What they don't do is go from standing 7 feet away to right smack in your face within .0002 seconds, and then spring right back a second later; and then repeat this 200 more times within the entirety of the song. The same is also true for guitar and piano. Anyways, I shall just concede that some people simply like heavily colored sounds.