[luisdent]

I for one find the goldenears methodology and graphing to be perfect.  The treble of the er4s is the best in ear monitor treble I've ever heard, the bass of the pfe112 is the best in ear bass i've ever heard.  Some people will argue they aren't bassy enough, but deep enough and sealed well the pfe can emit any low frequency practically off the charts.  If someone made a pfe112 in style and bass with the treble accuracy of the er4s, in my opinion you would have a perfect earphone bar none.  I never need more bass than the pfe112 but the er4s is lackin sometimes.  The quality makes up for it, but it's still not perfect.  The pfe treble is great when proper tip/insertion combo is made, but still not as flat as the er4s.
 
There are a lot of opinions, but with all my years of real studio monitor listening in music studios that have been treated and setup properly, the closest thins i've ever heard that compare in ear have been the things closest to a flat line on a goldenears graph.  All the other graphs I've seen, no matter how they're made, show humps that may be accurate in measurement, but don't reflect what you hear.  I've seen headphones that look like they'll be mid heavy that sound perfectly flat from mid to super treble.  I don't understand all the graphing techniques, but that doesn't make sense to me for observing sound through visuals.  I've compared over 30 IEMs and everyone that I had that was graphed by goldenears was perfectly represented as to how they sound.  That's just my opinion.  They do go by the +6db bass rule, but I find that interesting, because most die hard graphers claim the pfe112 lacks bass or that the er4s lacks a lot of bass.  On goldenears graphs the pfe112 is practically perfect bass and the er4s is only a tad lower than a non compensated (+6) bass reference.
 
Anyhow, I'd be curious to hear any earphones that are closer to a flat line all throughout on a goldenears type graph.  If anyone knows one please tell me.  For now I like my er4s pfe112 combo.  Ha.  The er4s absolutely rocks acoustic guitars, jazz, etc.  The pfe are excellent at those as well but excel where more bass is needed like BT or other electronic music...

 

[gnarlsagan]

Quote:

I for one find the goldenears methodology and graphing to be perfect.  The treble of the er4s is the best in ear monitor treble I've ever heard, the bass of the pfe112 is the best in ear bass i've ever heard.  Some people will argue they aren't bassy enough, but deep enough and sealed well the pfe can emit any low frequency practically off the charts.  If someone made a pfe112 in style and bass with the treble accuracy of the er4s, in my opinion you would have a perfect earphone bar none.  I never need more bass than the pfe112 but the er4s is lackin sometimes.  The quality makes up for it, but it's still not perfect.  The pfe treble is great when proper tip/insertion combo is made, but still not as flat as the er4s.
 
There are a lot of opinions, but with all my years of real studio monitor listening in music studios that have been treated and setup properly, the closest thins i've ever heard that compare in ear have been the things closest to a flat line on a goldenears graph.  All the other graphs I've seen, no matter how they're made, show humps that may be accurate in measurement, but don't reflect what you hear.  I've seen headphones that look like they'll be mid heavy that sound perfectly flat from mid to super treble.  I don't understand all the graphing techniques, but that doesn't make sense to me for observing sound through visuals.  I've compared over 30 IEMs and everyone that I had that was graphed by goldenears was perfectly represented as to how they sound.  That's just my opinion.  They do go by the +6db bass rule, but I find that interesting, because most die hard graphers claim the pfe112 lacks bass or that the er4s lacks a lot of bass.  On goldenears graphs the pfe112 is practically perfect bass and the er4s is only a tad lower than a non compensated (+6) bass reference.
 
Anyhow, I'd be curious to hear any earphones that are closer to a flat line all throughout on a goldenears type graph.  If anyone knows one please tell me.  For now I like my er4s pfe112 combo.  Ha.  The er4s absolutely rocks acoustic guitars, jazz, etc.  The pfe are excellent at those as well but excel where more bass is needed like BT or other electronic music...

 
I really really recommend the Fitear F111. I think you'd love it. They're blowing my mind today. 

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

 
I really really recommend the Fitear F111. I think you'd love it. They're blowing my mind today. 

 
Holy crap.  $1000?  I'll stick with the er4s haha.  Although it's funny, I have a pfe112, pfe012 (same as 112 if i put the grey filters in) and the er4s.  All together I probably paid $600 or so.  ugh.   haha.

 

[gnarlsagan]

No they're $595 new. Got mine used for $500. Seriously worth it in my opinion. And they sound awesome with just a Fuze (or clip). Slightly different take on a flat response, and to me is probably better than any other iem out there along with the ER4S. It's hard to find fault with it.

 

[luisdent]

No they're $595 new. Got mine used for $500. Seriously worth it in my opinion. And they sound awesome with just a Fuze (or clip). Slightly different take on a flat response, and to me is probably better than any other iem out there along with the ER4S. It's hard to find fault with it.

Can i borrow yours? Hahaha

 

[Inks]

lol in regards to the previous comments
 
ER4S isn't that accurate, it lacks bass and has too much 1-3k [which narrows it's soundstage], the Olive-Welti curve shows this. [it also caps at 17k]. Still far better than a lot of IEMs out there, but that needs to be made clear. Hmm matter of fact the flattest itteration may be the ER4P+33ohms+red/orange knowles dampers
 
A graph will show if the FETG111 kept some of the great attributes of the ER4 and improved in some, obviously if it doesn't hold a candle to it, the graph will show. 
 
GE's graph are a big joke..the most bogus compensation I've seen that has no scientific backing, only their raw graphs are helpful and even then, they're not specific about their methodology. 

 

[james444]

Quote:

Is your definition of accurate, well, uh, accurate?
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-new-criterion-will-be-added-to-dataset.html?m=1

Maybe we should start saying accurate to your preferred compensation.

 
X2
 
Quote:

 
Regardless of what type of compensation you believe is the accurate one, you still need to take a look at measurements to see how the frequency response of a headphone compares to one of the predefined objective accuracy curves.

 
No offense meant (seriously!), but the bolded part made my day. 

 
Quote:

ER4S isn't that accurate, it lacks bass and has too much 1-3k [which narrows it's soundstage], the Olive-Welti curve shows this.

 
I dread the day when we'll start having FOTM compensation curves on head-fi... 

 
Just joking, but more than anything the new Olive-Welti curve demonstrates that scientific findings are far from unshakeable (or "unimprovable", if you will) and any kind of fundamentalist attitude in that regard is most uncalled-for.

 

[music_4321]

 
 
Quote:

 
A graph will show if the FETG111 kept some of the great attributes of the ER4 and improved in some, obviously if it doesn't hold a candle to it, the graph will show. 

 
Is the FETG111 a new IEM, or is it a very old and now discontinued one?
 
Quote:

 
I dread the day when we'll start having FOTM compensation curves on head-fi... 

 
   )

 

[Inks]

Actually Rin and I had hoped downsloaping DF curve far before the olive curve, our criticisms of the ER4 were long before posted, specifically by me somewhere in these forums. FOTM of compensations it's one the dumbest things I've heard (guess Music didn't get it?) regardless, DF is still the ISO standard and that hasn't changed. What was flat on the DF curve is still fairly flat on the Olive curve, vice versa, the FX700, K3003, PF, etc are still far from both...lol. Yes small things arent so certain they never are but a iem with a good FR is going to share a response similar to BOTH, the rest can be left for taste

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

Actually Rin and I had hoped downsloaping DF curve far before the olive curve, our criticisms of the ER4 were long before posted, specifically by me somewhere in these forums. FOTM of compensations it's one the dumbest things I've heard (guess Music didn't get it?) ...

 
music_4321 did get it — he just happened to find james444's humour, in this particular instance, brilliant.

 

[tomscy2000]

I vote for the Piano-Forte mountain sloping compensation curve!

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

I vote for the Piano-Forte mountain sloping compensation curve!

 
Hear, hear!

 

[Hutnicks]

Quote:

 
Hear, hear!

Serratus or Ural variant?

 

[zowki]

ER4S isn't that accurate, it lacks bass and has too much 1-3k [which narrows it's soundstage], the Olive-Welti curve shows this. [it also caps at 17k]. Still far better than a lot of IEMs out there, but that needs to be made clear. Hmm matter of fact the flattest itteration may be the ER4P+33ohms+red/orange knowles dampers

Spot on. The 1k-3k boost is really bothersome to my ears. The rest of the frequency spectrum sounds fine to me though. What are red/orange knowles dampers?

 

[pacman46]

I for one find the goldenears methodology and graphing to be perfect.  The treble of the er4s is the best in ear monitor treble I've ever heard, the bass of the pfe112 is the best in ear bass i've ever heard.  Some people will argue they aren't bassy enough, but deep enough and sealed well the pfe can emit any low frequency practically off the charts.  If someone made a pfe112 in style and bass with the treble accuracy of the er4s, in my opinion you would have a perfect earphone bar none.  I never need more bass than the pfe112 but the er4s is lackin sometimes.  The quality makes up for it, but it's still not perfect.  The pfe treble is great when proper tip/insertion combo is made, but still not as flat as the er4s.

There are a lot of opinions, but with all my years of real studio monitor listening in music studios that have been treated and setup properly, the closest thins i've ever heard that compare in ear have been the things closest to a flat line on a goldenears graph.  All the other graphs I've seen, no matter how they're made, show humps that may be accurate in measurement, but don't reflect what you hear.  I've seen headphones that look like they'll be mid heavy that sound perfectly flat from mid to super treble.  I don't understand all the graphing techniques, but that doesn't make sense to me for observing sound through visuals.  I've compared over 30 IEMs and everyone that I had that was graphed by goldenears was perfectly represented as to how they sound.  That's just my opinion.  They do go by the +6db bass rule, but I find that interesting, because most die hard graphers claim the pfe112 lacks bass or that the er4s lacks a lot of bass.  On goldenears graphs the pfe112 is practically perfect bass and the er4s is only a tad lower than a non compensated (+6) bass reference.

Anyhow, I'd be curious to hear any earphones that are closer to a flat line all throughout on a goldenears type graph.  If anyone knows one please tell me.  For now I like my er4s pfe112 combo.  Ha.  The er4s absolutely rocks acoustic guitars, jazz, etc.  The pfe are excellent at those as well but excel where more bass is needed like BT or other electronic music...

I've been thinking about getting the pfe232 ..I've read alot about the 112 ..and from what I've read alot of people who like the etys likes the 112 too..what is the difference in sound between the 112 and the 232 ?? Besides alot of money lol those things ain't cheap holy crap lol..I do love my etys..and I find that when I use the complys or the soft ones that come with the etys..not too sure what they are called...that I get a great seal without any of the pain..plus I'm getting lots of bass with them..more then with the tri tips.. Are the 112s more flat and more accurate then the 232s.. Thank you for your input.