inks said:

Nah, just a bit at most,like 272 to 262. That price is mostly because of it's flagship status. 
 
If they can get that treble to extend more and have more presence, it will be the dynamic IEM to beat though.

Click to expand...

inks said:

That's how it usually is IME. The FAD SS is only marginally better than the Heaven series yet more than double in price , the ER4 is only marginally better then the HF series yet double it's price, etc.

Click to expand...

vwinter said:

I've been thinking this for a while actually, but this is as good a time to say it as any because it is gaining traction here on Head-Fi as a measure:

Using binaural recordings to make judgements about soundstage characteristics is flawed IMO. All you are doing is testing an IEMs compliance and receptiveness to a specific algorithm that allows the perception of binaurally recorded space.

And further, it has no relevance or correlation to "performance" or characteristics in regard to soundstage with stereo recordings.

Click to expand...

tinyman392 said:

 
Tell me something, how does Etymotic measure "accuracy"? 

Click to expand...

fnkcow said:

That would be a shame, considering such a wide gap in price between the two if only for a marginal improvement.
Almost seemed like Dr. Fang Bian has so much confidence in the difference in quality between them to be priced as such. Afterall, he widened the price gap so much more than the RE-262 ($149) and RE-272 ($249)

Click to expand...

theta alpha 1 said:

http://www.etymotic.com/technology/hwmra.html
 
With microphones inside the ears of dummy heads.

Click to expand...

tigon_ridge said:

I haven't heard the ER4B, but if it's anything like its siblings, then its decay is probably still quite dry. I find that it hurts the 4S's musicality quite a bit. When it comes to binaural recordings, I'm not so picky. I got goosebumps when using the HD650 to listen to binaural recordings, and I doubt the HD650 is considered an accurate headphone.

Click to expand...

tinyman392 said:

 
The thing I was pointing at is the target curve...  It's Etymotic's personal target curve.  Their accuracy score isn't a standardized one and it's based on their own created curve.  Of course their IEMs will pass cause it's their curve, they make the rules on this accuracy score, not someone else.  Although it's true there is some science behind this curve, there is science behind every curve that's been used (from Etymotics, to the standardized DF curves, to the Olive one that Rin and Inks have been talking about lately).  None of the curves have any more support over one another, why's Etymotic the standard all of a sudden? 
 
Now, you still haven't answered my question, how do we calculate the score?  Note, I actually know the answer to this, I'm curious to know if you do.  Seems right now like you don't.  Following something a manufacturer claims, a standard, blindly will get you nowhere nowadays. 
 
You have to keep in mind that Etymotic created all of this.  The way the accuracy score is calculated, Etymotic made.  The curve it's measured against, Etymotic made (although it is similar to other compensation curves).  Of course an Etymotic will score well on it, the company made the rules of the game. 
 
BTW, the HiFiMan RE272 has been shown to be as neutral as the ER4s...  So they technically both should be easily around 90% accuracy.

Click to expand...

tigon_ridge said:

Okay this is just ridiculous. I refuse to believe that I just paid $99 for these. I've had these things in my ears for the last "I don't know how many" hours, and I can't find a legit reason to take them out. THESE ARE NOT $99 IEM's! They're IMO on the caliber of $500+ IEM's, but somehow made available miraculously for the money-starved audiophiles. Do not let the price fool you! I am nominating the RE-400 for the "head-fi all-time best bang for the buck" award.
 
I have never heard better sounding treble! That's saying a lot since I've heard both the RE0 and the ER4S, which are both touted for their treble performance. The RE-400's treble is so effortless. Smooth. Realistic. Detailed. Shows no signs of dips or spikes. I have never heard better sounding bass! This is coming from having heard the GR07, touted for its supposedly some-of-the-best bass quality. The RE-400 may or may not have the GR07's control at the lowest lows (I don't really know because I haven't tested this, since I don't listen to genres where sub-bass is of any priority), but what it definitely does have better than the GR07 is slightly more accurate decay. The GR07, to my ears, is slightly bloated. The RE-400, after burn-in, shows its bass prowess in my most bass-demanding track that I keep around solely for testing bass quality: Infected Mushroom - Heavyweight. Make no mistake - the RE-400 can rumble when the track calls for it... and can do so at high volume without at trace of clipping! Its attack is also no slouch here, easily competing with the GR07 in this regard. These are mesmerizing in the lows, and deathly seductive in the mids and highs.
 
Soundstage... Sure the ER4S, I must admit, has really pathetic soundstage for a $300 IEM... but I simply don't recall an IEM that does soundstage as convincingly as the RE-400. I don't recall the GR07 having the 3D, layered presentation that RE-400 renders. I also don't recall the GR07 producing an out-of-head feel like the RE-400 does. Soundstage on the RE-400 is big, life-like, yet beautifully intimate. You're right there with the singer, but he/she isn't in your head.
 
Treble... oh wait - didn't I already write about this? I think I might need to control my enthusiasm... Alright, if you bump up the 8kHz-20kHz range by 2-4 dB with equalization, you'll definitely enjoy the bit of extra brightness. Without this enhancement, the RE-400 may be viewed as ever so slightly relaxed in treble. With the bump, they still have less treble energy than the ER4S, which to me has just a bit too much sometimes. Both quantity and quality-wise, the RE-400 nailed it.
 
Midrange?u Gently liqid. Able-bodied, yet not so much so that it sounds like the monstrosity that is the SM3, which literally butchers vocals in a gruesome manner. 99% of my music collection is vocal, so midrange accuracy is very very important to me. Let me repeat, very very very... I do feel like these could use a little nudge in the upper-mids and lower trebs, which with EQ made it possible and vocals more accurate. 9/10 without the equalization, 9.5 with.
 
Bump up its sub-bass and they will obey effortlessly without clipping.
 
Ohmygawd, the soundstage!! ... okay, I need to get a grip. Just get these!! Best $100 I've ever spent. Period.

Click to expand...

poetic said:

Glad you enjoy the RE-400, my impression of the GR07's is completely the opposite of yours. But the RE-400 are really good for it's price and definately a worthy spent IEM.

Click to expand...

theta alpha 1 said:

Quote:

tinyman392 said:

 
The thing I was pointing at is the target curve...  It's Etymotic's personal target curve.  Their accuracy score isn't a standardized one and it's based on their own created curve.  Of course their IEMs will pass cause it's their curve, they make the rules on this accuracy score, not someone else.  Although it's true there is some science behind this curve, there is science behind every curve that's been used (from Etymotics, to the standardized DF curves, to the Olive one that Rin and Inks have been talking about lately).  None of the curves have any more support over one another, why's Etymotic the standard all of a sudden? 
 
Now, you still haven't answered my question, how do we calculate the score?  Note, I actually know the answer to this, I'm curious to know if you do.  Seems right now like you don't.  Following something a manufacturer claims, a standard, blindly will get you nowhere nowadays. 
 
You have to keep in mind that Etymotic created all of this.  The way the accuracy score is calculated, Etymotic made.  The curve it's measured against, Etymotic made (although it is similar to other compensation curves).  Of course an Etymotic will score well on it, the company made the rules of the game. 
 
BTW, the HiFiMan RE272 has been shown to be as neutral as the ER4s...  So they technically both should be easily around 90% accuracy.

Click to expand...

 
Ok I get it they made the rules of their own sport, now let's not complicate this the idea of what they're aiming at is very simple, in the first sentence of the link I provided.
 
"A perfect recording of a live performance played through earphones with 100% accuracy would produce the same sound at the eardrum as the live performance."
 
Since people are buying the Hifiman RE-600 instead of the ER-4B I must assume
 
A)  They don't want the same sound as the live performance, colouration sounds better.
 
B)   They want the same sound, and the RE-600 comes closer, for one reason or another not discussed.

Click to expand...

gozzer said:

I,ve had these since march and I'm still in honeymoon phase.

Click to expand...

theta alpha 1 said:

If you think binaural recordings are a novel trick or illusion which shouldn't be confused with and / or shouldn't be used to gauge soundstage performance you may want to start a thread on the topic.

It's also a bit mysterious why high-end IEM soundstage should be important at all, when headphone and speaker soundstage is better, if you are referring to the physical distance of the cones.

Click to expand...

tigon_ridge said:

What part of the impression exactly? Do we not agree that the GR07 has excellent bass? I think it has large soundstage, but it's rather one dimensional, if my memory serves me right. It isn't layered like the RE400. Also, the RE400 has a little more height to its soundstage. I think to say that it's just really good for its price doesn't do it enough justice. I seriously believe Hifiman made an error in their pricing, unless their goal isn't to maximize profit; in which case, more power to them! All I know is that whenever I play Heavyweight by Infected Mushroom, I feel everything that I remember feeling from the GR07, minus the teenie tiny bit of bloat. Each bass slam hits hard; attack speed is all there and you can literally feel the visceral vibrations in your head. The point is that the quality and dynamic range of the GR07's bass are all there in the RE-400. By "bloat" I mean that the GR07 has a bit more extended bass decay; and imo, the RE-400's bass decay is just "perfect." It doesn't interfere with vocal clarity, which I cannot say for the GR07 at all. I think for $140 the GR07 is really good for its price... for the current price of the 400s, IMO, they might as well defy the very laws of physics.

Click to expand...

tigon_ridge said:

...IMO, they might as well defy the very laws of physics.

Click to expand...

lwien said:

 
I was just thinking about this last night after giving the 400's another listen just through a Shuffle.    I cranked up HeavyWeight myself and thought, "How in the hell could I get something that sounds this delicate while at the same time, sounding so fracking dynamic out of the combined size of a Shuffle and and the 400's.    How is that even possible?

Click to expand...