[tseliottt]

Quote:

 
ER4P was $199 forever.  So you are okay with them adding a certificate and charging $299?  It's a yes or no answer.
 
There is no such thing as "matching drivers."  It's marketing mumbo jumbo.  Drivers are already purchased to tight specifications with any differentiations undecernable to the ear.  What is the point?

It's not a yes or no question if your premise is wrong. Which it is.
 
 

This is from the 2001 website, when I bought my pair.
 
$280.
 
They're not adding a certificate and charging $300. It's always been $300. What they did, like I said, is cut a few features regular consumers didn't need, and offered a cheaper version.
 
So tell me. Is there something wrong with releasing a more affordable version? It's a yes or no answer.

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

Has anyone compared an ER4PT &75ohm adapter with ER4S? Do they sound identical..........NO Difference at all?
 
So in other words ER4PT + adapter = ER4S

 
 

 
I'm pretty sure that grey thing in the middle with the clip attached is the 75-ohm resistor you find in the adapter.  And I've talked with etymotic before and they said it is exactly the same as the er4s in every way with the adapter.  With those two things, I'd feel pretty confident in assuming they are identical.

 

[Inks]

they are identical...

 

[audionewbi]

I have been recently comparing the F111 against the ER4S, while I do not consider the F111 an identical cloning of the ER4S however soundwise I consider it a worthy upgrade. If you guys have a chance to get the F111 at a good price and like to be able to use your idevices I really think F111 is the only IEM than can replace your ER4S with much better improved fitting and sound.

 

[maguire]

Nice to know they are identical, that means your probably better off getting the P version + adapter and you then can get both P&S signatures.    

 

[luisdent]

Nice to know they are identical, that means your probably better off getting the P version + adapter and you then can get both P&S signatures.    

Nah. The 4s is superior to the p. so why would I ever want rolled off treble? hahaha But seriously, the only reason the p exists is to sacrifice a little quality so portable devices can power them better. However, I find the er4s is still better with portables and only requires more power now and then depending on the music.

But then, I got these for the highest possible quality, so I also use my c5 amp to get that extra little bit of quality from any earphone. Basically, I suppose it depends on your needs. I find that I would never sacrifice the treble. If I didn't want to carry my amp, which never happens, I'd use my pfe112 with portables. They are extremely similar to the er4s frequency response and are more sensitive.

Although they have slightly different overall traits, if the er4s is in the 90%+ accuracy range, I think the pfe112 is right there with it, while the er4p is in the 80% area... So personally the p ain't happenin' for me. ;-P

 

[kmhaynes]

Quote:

Nah. The 4s is superior to the p. so why would I ever want rolled off treble? hahaha But seriously, the only reason the p exists is to sacrifice a little quality so portable devices can power them better. However, I find the er4s is still better with portables and only requires more power now and then depending on the music.
....

 
I would say the ER-4P sacrifices a bit of SOUND quality, but not DRIVER quality.  Etymotic has confirmed that the ER-4P and 4S use the same drivers -- the 4S just has the added inline 75-ohm resistor. 

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Although they have slightly different overall traits, if the er4s is in the 90%+ accuracy range, I think the pfe112 is right there with it, while the er4p is in the 80% area... So personally the p ain't happenin' for me. ;-P

 
 Based on the Innerfidelity measurements, PFE is actually less accurate than even ER4P:
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/EtymoticER4PT.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudeoPFE121GrayFilter.pdf

 

[Inks]

Not only that IFs graphs assume a reference plane fit that can't be achieved in the real world. The PFEs are prakier and have audible distortion in the mids. ADDIEMs blow it away in terms of being more flat, smoother, more fleshed out

 

[luisdent]

Not only that IFs graphs assume a reference plane fit that can't be achieved in the real world. The PFEs are prakier and have audible distortion in the mids. ADDIEMs blow it away in terms of being more flat, smoother, more fleshed out

Have you heard the pfe "112" ? I've had this conversation with others and first there is a debate about the measured distortion and second there is a debate about the audible threshold of distortion. Some claim 1-1.5%, while double blind testing has shown as high as 3% is required to be audible with any music passages.

I don't know the best way to test this, but I have done online distortion forced blind testing and my pfe112 did better than my er4s. So how does that make sense? I still think the er4s sound better, but I'd never take the er4p over the pfe if those were my only choices. I still go back and forth between the pfe and 4s to this day primarily because of easy fit and comfort.

But there is such a small difference in frequency response that its hard to choose. The bigger difference is that the pfe have a wider stereo spread and things stand out more as being distinct. But the 4s are still wide but sound more in front of you like speakers would. But the 4p sound muffled compared to either. The pfe have a bit more bass, but depending on your er4s fit, this is very slight. And some people prefer more bass on their etys. Anyway, I have both and listen to both every day. They are very similar from a frequency standpoint with the pfe being ever so slightly bassier and brighter around 10khz.

I also believe that anyone tested blind with distortion tests wouldn't hear it with the pfe. I can't guarantee the 121 or other models are the same as the 112 technically even though that is the assumption from audeo.

 

[Pianist]

I think PFE can't quite match the Etys. To my ears, both the HF series and ER4 have a more even, more controlled, higher resolution treble, sharper imaging, a more realistic timbre and punchier bass.

 

[Inks]

Have you heard the pfe "112" ? I've had this conversation with others and first there is a debate about the measured distortion and second there is a debate about the audible threshold of distortion. Some claim 1-1.5%, while double blind testing has shown as high as 3% is required to be audible with any music passages.

I don't know the best way to test this, but I have done online distortion forced blind testing and my pfe112 did better than my er4s. So how does that make sense? I still think the er4s sound better, but I'd never take the er4p over the pfe if those were my only choices. I still go back and forth between the pfe and 4s to this day primarily because of easy fit and comfort.

But there is such a small difference in frequency response that its hard to choose. The bigger difference is that the pfe have a wider stereo spread and things stand out more as being distinct. But the 4s are still wide but sound more in front of you like speakers would. But the 4p sound muffled compared to either. The pfe have a bit more bass, but depending on your er4s fit, this is very slight. And some people prefer more bass on their etys. Anyway, I have both and listen to both every day. They are very similar from a frequency standpoint with the pfe being ever so slightly bassier and brighter around 10khz.

I also believe that anyone tested blind with distortion tests wouldn't hear it with the pfe. I can't guarantee the 121 or other models are the same as the 112 technically even though that is the assumption from audeo.

I've owned then twice. I would question the test you took. I do a simple sine wave test and its apparent, even with a sax solo, the midrange sounds simply odd (with critical listening). Even ADDIEMs that graph with less distortion have audible distortion.

PFEs have a nasty 8k and slightly subdued 10k, much peakier iem than the ER4s IME. Phonak made a huge mistake making the nozzle so short, prevents the deep insertion required

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

I've owned then twice. I would question the test you took. I do a simple sine wave test and its apparent, even with a sax solo, the midrange sounds simply odd (with critical listening). Even ADDIEMs that graph with less distortion have audible distortion.

PFEs have a nasty 8k and slightly subdued 10k, much peakier iem than the ER4s IME. Phonak made a huge mistake making the nozzle so short, prevents the deep insertion required

 
Depth is the problem.  You need to use the foam tips and insert them deeply.  Just like the ety they can be easily inserted much deeper than you would think.  This cuts the treble peak down more than half and I don't hear any subdued treble at all nor peakiness.  I find the treble boost they have to be slight.  With the silicon they are too peaky, but I don't use those.  I'd say silicon = peaky, foam = less peaky, foam inserted deeply = no peakiness, but just a slightly more forward treble.
 
Take a look at these graphs.
 
The silicon tips indeed have a peak around 8-9khz and 16-17khz
 
 

 
The foam eliminates the high peak completely and cuts the 8-9khz peak in half making it less of a peak and more of a slight hump.  This is what attributes to the slightly  more forward treble and distinctness.
 

 
Now the er4p is more smooth in its response, but to me the cut at 7-8khz or so is much more noticeable as being muffled.  I even find it more muffled than the graph seems to make it look.  I would rather have a bit more treble then less personally.  Plus the pfe is a much more level low end in the sub area.  In reality I don't hear much difference in the bass with a deep ety fit.  but the pfe112 does has a tad more sub.  I find the etys tighter sounding in the bass a bit though.  Just a tad.
 

 
Now compare that to something more expensive like the westone 4r and look how similar the pfe and etys really are.  The 4r is boosted so much in both treble and mid bass.  I still didn't find them as "v" shaped as the look on the graph, but reducing those areas to a flat line using eq did in fact result in an almost perfect ety like sound.
 
 

 
Needless to say.  er4p smooth and accurate but sightly muffled.  pfe112 better bass and smooth all the way up to the treble where it is only slightly more erratic than the er4p but brighter rather than muffled.  However, pfe trumps the ety in comfort a million times over for me.  I abuse my ears every time i use the etys.  It's worth it. haha.  But I'd prefer a more comfortable fit like the pfe 112.  They dissaper in my ears, even really deeply fit and I forget I'm wearing them.  The etys get more uncomfortable the longer I wear them.
 
So, long story short, the differences are not that great, but I prefer the pfe over the er4p personally.  I would ask what test you use to compare the distortion of the pfe to the ety?  A sine wave is fine, but that doesn't tell you much about music passages, as very few songs are solid sine waves.  Second, unless it is a properly setup test, I can't take anyone's word for them "hearing" something unless it seems very likely.  Can you send me the file for me to hear with mine?  I'm not saying you don't hear it, but I'd like it proven before I believe it 100%.  I've done a lot of testing, and I can say the ety are more "smooth", but listening to what distortion is, I can never hear any at any level with the pfe.  Also, I'll post a link to the test I did when I find it in a minute...

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

I've owned then twice. I would question the test you took. I do a simple sine wave test and its apparent, even with a sax solo, the midrange sounds simply odd (with critical listening). Even ADDIEMs that graph with less distortion have audible distortion.

PFEs have a nasty 8k and slightly subdued 10k, much peakier iem than the ER4s IME. Phonak made a huge mistake making the nozzle so short, prevents the deep insertion required

 
PFE has over 1% distortion only at extremely high 90+ db volume levels though. I am sure that it normal, solid volumes, like 70-80 db, the distortion will be under 1% and inaudible. Also, I don't think that critical listening can be done at 90+ db spl anyways. In order to appreciate fine details in music, the volume has to be reasonable - I would say 80 db max for headphones.

 

[Inks]

Depth is the problem.  You need to use the foam tips and insert them deeply.  Just like the ety they can be easily inserted much deeper than you would think.  This cuts the treble peak down more than half and I don't hear any subdued treble at all nor peakiness.  I find the treble boost they have to be slight.  With the silicon they are too peaky, but I don't use those.  I'd say silicon = peaky, foam = less peaky, foam inserted deeply = no peakiness, but just a slightly more forward treble.

Foam helps but housing just limits depth, deepest I can get is 3mm off the reference plane and I'm able to go deeper than any other headfi friends I know, the nozzle is simply too short. The sine wave test did it for me as in the critical listening, it's not uber high distortion, but enough to throw off the signal a bit