[ulnevrgtit]

^ have tried, and like EQu but never could get into using eq

 

[i2ehan]

The only real advantage the W4 has over the PFE232 is the midrange, which I feel has slightly more presence, and offers better clarity and overall definition. In nearly all other aspects, the PFE232 takes the very best of the W4, and  pushes it to the next level, especially pertaining to the highs, in which case there is just no competition. I'm sure you'll come to love them, my friend.

 

[Naim.F.C]

Personally I can't listen to my W4's without the EQ. Without them they are just a tad too dark, veiled and also laid back or timid for me. High's don't sparkle enough and there's this weird cloudiness that the EQ really helps to clean up. Post EQ I can hear a lot more by way of instrumental separation and soundstage.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
^ Thanks i2ehan, ill keep an eye out. Do the PFE232 sound pretty similar to the W4 otherwise?
I've really come to appriciate the W4s for all that they are and started looking elsewhere for what little their not. I'm getting my TF10s reshelled and have been considering some FX700s.  I'll definitly take a closer look at the PFE232

Bass-wise, the 232s provide much more in quantity, but a little more in quality.  I did find that the 4s bass as sufficient for most things, but the deeper bass was somewhat lacking.  The 232s fix that entirely.  Impact wise, the 232s have a much larger body which can create more perceived impact.  Heading over to the mids, the W4s come to life improving upon most of hte 232's aspects including detailing, clarity, and energy (both vocal and instrumental).  However, the 232s do two things better than the 4s, timbre and soundstage (It's pretty large soundstage).  On the high end, both provide great detailing and clarity, however, the 4s have more of an aggressive edge to them which may be too "hot" for some, but tolerable for myself.  The 232s portray all the sparkle, clarity, and detailing while not burning off your ear.

 

[MxChino]

Quote:

Bass-wise, the 232s provide much more in quantity, but a little more in quality.  I did find that the 4s bass as sufficient for most things, but the deeper bass was somewhat lacking.  The 232s fix that entirely.  Impact wise, the 232s have a much larger body which can create more perceived impact.  Heading over to the mids, the W4s come to life improving upon most of hte 232's aspects including detailing, clarity, and energy (both vocal and instrumental).  However, the 232s do two things better than the 4s, timbre and soundstage (It's pretty large soundstage).  On the high end, both provide great detailing and clarity, however, the 4s have more of an aggressive edge to them which may be too "hot" for some, but tolerable for myself.  The 232s portray all the sparkle, clarity, and detailing while not burning off your ear.

 
This right here has me very excited for tomorrows delivery of my pfe232's. Yet still a little nervous because the w4 midrange is just so nice, and I love the instrument seperation. 

 

[i2ehan]

The W4 is still among my top favorite universals, and coupled with the right seal and tips (Earsonics biflanges, in my case), I've personally never found the need to EQ it. Though I can appreciate where others might. 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
This right here has me very excited for tomorrows delivery of my pfe232's. Yet still a little nervous because the w4 midrange is just so nice, and I love the instrument seperation. 

LOL, yeah, I do miss the W4s clarity in the midrange, separation really isn't too much of a problem since the 232's soundstage makes up for that.


Quote:

The W4 is still among my top favorite universals, and coupled with the right seal and tips (Earsonics biflanges, in my case), I've personally never found the need to EQ it. Though I can appreciate where others might. 

I never really EQ any of my headphones.  Although many can use one (none of these being discussed though)
 

 

[ulnevrgtit]

Quote:

Personally I can't listen to my W4's without the EQ. Without them they are just a tad too dark, veiled and also laid back or timid for me. High's don't sparkle enough and there's this weird cloudiness that the EQ really helps to clean up. Post EQ I can hear a lot more by way of instrumental separation and soundstage.

 

To each their own. I'd rather let universal IEMs at this level be what they are and if they dont suit me sell them and get something else that does...there is plenty of variety out there.  I think if you always use an eq you'll always need/want an eq.
 
Regarding the W4s, to me they are good at everything and great and somethings.  For the few areas where they are mearly great good I'm looking around.

 

[Naim.F.C]

To be fair, I don't generally EQ my headphones (not my full size one's anyway), but a few of the IEM's really need it to bring out a more reference level of sonic presentation imo. I've used a few of the more expensive universals now (Monster Copper, SE535 etc), and most need EQ'ing imo. Especially the Monster Copper Pro's and Westone 4's. For some reason they seem a tad bit murkier or darker than the others played default. Especially compared to my T1's and LCD-2's.
 
Un EQ'd, I still feel the W4's are a world apart from the LCD-2's in imaging and overall detailing, but post EQ, it's much more comparable, though still not on par, mainly on micro details, bass detail and texture. Certainly a heck of a lot closer. Weirdly though, the W4 does maintain what seems like a larger soundstage and some excellent instrumental separation, but I'd have to do direct A/B comparisons to be sure.
 
Maybe I'll do an SE535/W4/Copper pro vs LCD-2/T1 comparison at a later date. Pre and Post EQ.

 

[i2ehan]

Bass-wise, the 232s provide much more in quantity, but a little more in quality.  I did find that the 4s bass as sufficient for most things, but the deeper bass was somewhat lacking.  The 232s fix that entirely.  Impact wise, the 232s have a much larger body which can create more perceived impact.  Heading over to the mids, the W4s come to life improving upon most of hte 232's aspects including detailing, clarity, and energy (both vocal and instrumental).  However, the 232s do two things better than the 4s, timbre and soundstage (It's pretty large soundstage).  On the high end, both provide great detailing and clarity, however, the 4s have more of an aggressive edge to them which may be too "hot" for some, but tolerable for myself.  The 232s portray all the sparkle, clarity, and detailing while not burning off your ear.

Mirrors my own thoughts, all except the last bit. In fact, I don't think I've heard them ever described that way before. I found them no different than |joker| described, and I quote:
 

The treble of the W4, too, achieves a compromise between the other Westone models. It is not as hot and exciting as that of the W3, nor is it as dull and lazy as that of the UM3X. Instead, it is smooth and inoffensive, with good extension and solid presence across the range. Detail is excellent as well and while the W4 isn’t nearly as sparkly or energetic as the ATH-CK10 or Fischer DBA-02, I can’t image anyone taking offense with its treble, either. It is definitely a sweet-sounding earphone on the whole, though, so those who are after something crisp and edgy will want to stick to the W3 or go with another brand.

 
The above description is exactly how I hear the W4, and always have from day one. Nonetheless, it could be a number of things, so I trust that you're merely telling it as you hear it, my friend.

 

[i2ehan]

To be fair, I don't generally EQ my headphones (not my full size one's anyway), but a few of the IEM's really need it to bring out a more reference level of sonic presentation imo. I've used a few of the more expensive universals now (Monster Copper, SE535 etc), and most need EQ'ing imo. Especially the Monster Copper Pro's and Westone 4's. For some reason they seem a tad bit murkier or darker than the others played default. Especially compared to my T1's and LCD-2's.

I know many will disagree with me on this, but apples and oranges, my friend. 

 

[ulnevrgtit]

^ x2...totally agree

 

[Naim.F.C]

Imo the main goal of both IEM's and headphones should be to aim towards replicating as realistic or accurate sound as possible (with added house sound colour if desired). In this respect, whilst they are completely different tools, they still share similar principles and an end goal. So I do feel they can be compared. Heck, sometimes they cross over surprisingly close. I myself haven't really taken much of a foray in to customs, but from friends who have, I've been informed things get even tighter.
 
Point being, irrespective of whether I'm wearing IEM's or Cans, when wearing or listening to them, I want them to make me feel like (depending on the recording) I have been transported to a live performance or recording of the track, to the studio itself, right up in-front of the artist, in the concert hall etc etc. The delivery method is a non issue besides in respect to technical limitations. But idealistically, both IEM's and headphones, even speakers too, strive towards the same thing.
 
Quote:

I know many will disagree with me on this, but apples and oranges, my friend. 

 

 

[treal512]

Quote:

Mirrors my own thoughts, all except the last bit. In fact, I don't think I've heard them ever described that way before. I found them no different than |joker| described, and I quote:
 
 
The above description is exactly how I hear the W4, and always have from day one. Nonetheless, it could be a number of things, so I trust that you're merely telling it as you hear it, my friend.

+2
 
This is a large reason for me keeping the W4s for so long now. Very smooth and non-fatiguing. I could name a dozen hot IEMs no where near W4's signature.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

 

Hi, long time lurker, had the W4's for a month or two now, gonna try to be helpful for once...
 
Have you tried the biflanges included with the Earsonics SM3? They apparently also sell them separately as accessories on their website, don't exactly remember the cost (I stole a couple of them from my friend who had extras from his SM3's). They fit onto the W4 just fine, and give a really balanced sound, probably even more so than the Olives. You could also try the Sony Hybrids, there was a mod that involved cutting off the stems from the stock tips to fit the Hybrids. I think there's some pics somewhere in this thread, too scared to mutilate my own tips when the Olives and biflanges fit me just fine. But like what HeadphoneAddict said earlier, custom tips are probably the best way to go if you want the best fit. (Edit: forgot about Sensorcom tips, looks painful, but people report good fit and sound, bit pricey)
 
As for the others who had a problem with the highs, again, its probably the tips. But if all of them give you the same issue, try not to put the tips as far as you can down the stems, 3/4 or 2/3 's all the way down should allow the nozzle to reach further into your ears and give a better seal. I also felt that the highs became a bit softer, probably because the sound has to travel a further distance in due to the extra spacing.
 
Oh, I also want to ask any UM56 owners around here, whether the vinyl or silicone would be a better bet. Should the different materials impact the sound in any way? Which ones would be more comfortable?

I had vinyl ones, and lost them, so replaced them with silicone.  I think I prefer the vinyl - they're not quite as comfortable as the silicone, but they're easier to insert and they don't slip off the sound nozzle as easily as silicone.