Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/
I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:
5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.
4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.
3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]
2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]
1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]
Etymotic ER4SR
Source:
Review sample.
Miscellaneous:
Really nice unboxing experience with many accessories such as an amply large, protective carrying case, several different ear tips, a “certificate of performance” that shows the individual in-ears’ frequency response, channel matching, serial numbers, sensitivity and measured total harmonic distortion.
“SR” stands for “Studio Reference”.
While the ER-4S’ shells were made of plastic, the ER4SRs’ are made of metal and appear visually subjectively more premium. The unique serial number is still engraved into each shell.
Build quality seems to be very good.
Instead of the 2-pin connectors similar to the ones from Sennheiser’s HD 6x0 series headphones used on the ER-4S, the ER4SRs’ cables now come with MMCX connectors that are rotation-locked wherefore they seem quite reliable and durable.
The new cable is definitely an improvement over the older one as it is more flexible and softer while it still appears sturdy. Another good thing about it is that it has now finally got an incorporated chin-slider.
Although the y-splitter doesn’t contain any resistors anymore (the crossover components are now inside of the shells instead), it has still got that cylindrical shape as an homage to the previous generation where the bulky shape was necessary to carry the resistors (and in case of the ER4B also the capacitors).
On the other hand, the side indicators are now more difficult to find as there is no red dot on the right hand side’s connector anymore.
Twisted conductors above the y-splitter.
Rather high microphonics when worn down, but that can be fixed by guiding the cable over the ears and using the chin-slider (or alternatively using the included shirt clip).
One Balanced Armature driver per side.
Sound:
Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it onto the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).
Tonality:
Flat studio neutral; lifeless and uncoloured.
The ER4SR, to my ears when performing sine sweeps, listening to noise signals, music and spoken word, just sound as they are advertised – studio reference neutral flat.
Just like my ER-4S, the new ER4SR just don’t have any colouration at all to my ears and come the closest to my personal perception of uncompromised neutrality, and are therefore the flattest and most lifeless, most uncoloured, most accurate and realistically tuned in-ears that I have ever heard, wherefore they, along with my ER-4S, are also by far my favourite choice for serious music listening from my CD rig; their tuning just seems to match my ears’ HRTF extremely well wherefore I choose them over my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Ultimate Ears Reference Remastered to-go and my InEar ProPhile 8, three sets of in-ears that are among the most neutral on the market but in comparison still tuned more for a “natural neutral” instead of “uncompromised studio neutral” tonality, purely based on my personal tonal preferences.
Generally, there is not much that I could really think of about writing here, since the mostly audibly flat and lifeless, neutral tuning could be more or less summarised in just one sentence.
The bass is just flat without any sort of lift and extends flat down into the real sub-bass without any real roll-off. Etymotic, just as with the ER-4S. No warmth, no body, but definitely not lacking – just uncompromised flat.
The midrange is just generally flat and direct, without any of the relaxation dips in the upper mids that is found on almost any other set of in-ears, wherefore the ER4SR are quite merciless here and purely raw, without trying to create any sort of recession to create an even slightly laid-back fatigue-free long-term listening effect.
While, to my ears, the ER-4S still showcase just a little of lift in the presence range, this area has been toned down very slightly on the ER4SR wherefore they sound even a bit more accurate to my ears here.
The treble, just like on the ER-4S, is simply among the most realistic and evenly tuned regardless of price, wherefore the ER4SR manage to create an incredibly realistic, accurate response here as well.
The only area, when performing sine sweeps, that is just a little below neutral in quantity to my ears, is the one around 7 kHz, but this is nothing that’s really audible when listening to music.
Extension past 10 kHz is good and not lacking to my ears.
To summarise, the ER4SR are truly worthy successors to the ER-4S and come extremely close to my personal perception of an uncompromised, lifeless, uncoloured, flat studio neutral tuning with an excellently realistic and even tuning that is rarely achieved by other in-ears, especially in the treble. Therefore it is no surprise that I personally really love them.
Frequency Response:
ER-4S-Compensation
The ER4SR were measured with the non-modified triple-flange ear tips in both graphs as I did not save the other measurements and didn’t bother to re-measure them. Due to the resulting slightly different insertion depth into the coupler, the graphs shows a bit less upper treble quantity than they would actually have, as it’s really just the upper mids/presence range where the ER4SR differ slightly from my ER-4S.
ProPhile 8-Compensation
Resolution:
Very high. Probably the best single-BA implementation that I know of, and superior to some multi-BA models.
Typically for a single-driver design, coherency is perfect.
Even distribution of the resolution across the whole frequency range.
Nimble, fast, tight and controlled bass. High quality. Outperforms some of the other single-BA in-ears in terms of speed and tightness, although ultimately not as tight and controlled as some multi-BA implementations when pushed to the limits by the recording; comparable speed but a little softer in comparison. There are, however, some multi-BA implementations that are noticeably softer and slower – so absolutely nothing to criticise here and about the most technical single-BA implementations I know of in the lows.
Very high midrange resolution and speech intelligibility without “cheating” by presence range elevations found implemented into some w-shaped in-ears’ tuning. Very authentic.
Excellent transient response and precise note separation in the high frequencies. Highly natural as well thanks to the very even treble response.
It is generally remarkable what the ER4SR manage to put out in terms of tonal range/extension, bass quality, resolution and authenticity – just like their predecessors, they show that a well-implemented and -tuned quality single Balanced Armature driver doesn’t lack behind its similarly priced multi-driver competitors.
In some categories, there are multi-driver in-ears (such as my UERM and ProPhile 8) that can somewhat beat the Ety in terms of partial resolution or bass speed, transparency and control when the recording is extremely demanding, however there are very few in-ears at this price point that deliver such an excellent overall package where nothing lacks behind – there is really hardly any flaw in terms of resolution.
Soundstage:
Neither the largest nor the smallest. “Averagely large”, as it usually the case with a flat neutral tuning without any strategically placed elevations or recessions.
Authentic and three-dimensional with just as much depth as spatial width to my ears.
Precise imaging without any blur/fog. No bleeding of single instruments/tonal elements into each other. The ER4SR even manage to render some of the perceived “empty space” around and between them really well; to my ears even a little better than the ER-4S since the newer generation in-ears remain a bit better separated and more controlled sounding with more complex and fast recordings.
Generally convincing and realistic.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Comparisons:
Etymotic ER-4S:
Only very small differences when it comes to tuning: the ER4SR are slightly less forward in the presence range and will therefore appear slightly less fatiguing over time; to me they are even a little more realistically tuned here than my ER-4S. Slightly less level around 10 kHz as well.
Pretty much equal when it comes to resolution. In comparison, though, the ER4SR appear to be just a slight bit softer in the lows, but as a result also just a little more visceral.
To my ears, the ER4SRs’ soundstage appears to be just a touch wider than the ER-4S’, with a slightly cleaner imaging (instrument separation), which is mostly audible with faster and more complex recordings.
InEar ProPhile 8:
To my ears, the ER4SR represent more of a “sterile studio reference neutral” tuning whereas the ProPhile 8 fall more into the range of being “naturally neutral” tuned.
That said, the ProPhile 8 have around 3 dB more bass than the ER4SR and sound warmer in the fundamental range and lower mids, but are a bit less “warm” than the ER4XR and have also got slightly less bass.
The ER4SR are slightly more forward/intimate sounding in the mids whereas the ProPhile 8 present the middle frequencies in a comparatively more relaxed way due to the more recessed presence range, but with still accurate timbre and no audible colouration.
Both are very even, realistic and accurate in their treble reproduction, which is something not too many in-ears achieve.
In terms of resolution, precision, bass speed and tightness, the ProPhile 8 are ultimately ahead, which is the most audible during very fast and complex, dense music, but not as strikingly obvious otherwise most of the time. So to say, the ProPhile 8 don’t yet “cave in” when the ER4SR already start to do.
Regarding perceived soundstage, that of the ProPhile 8 isn’t even all that much larger to my ears but only somewhat, but as with the resolution, the In-Ear in-ears are ahead when it comes to imaging precision and remain cleaner, better separated when the track is densely arranged and/or very fast.
Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:
In terms of flatness and accuracy, I hear the ER4SR as superior to my UERM that have about 3 dB stronger bass quantity, are more relaxed in the presence range in comparison, and brighter past 10 kHz due to the peak that they have there, and which also makes their treble response come across as ultimately less even and realistic compared to the Etymotic (and UERR to-go), although that’s criticism on a rather high level.
As a result, the ER4SR are even more critical to the recording and even less forgiving, and more sterile sounding (which is something that I consider a very positive aspect while others may not).
While I prefer the ER4SRs’ even flatter, less forgiving, more sterile tuning, when it comes to bass speed, control, micro details and note separation, I definitely perceive the UERM as audibly superior, as they have more detail headroom for the recording to pushing them to their limits.
The same as for the resolution can be said about the soundstage that appears to be a good bit larger than the ER4SRs’ and “gives in” less early in comparison when very dense and fast arrangements are played back.
Shure SE425:
The Shure are somewhat more on the mid-centric side of neutrality compared to the Etymotic.
The SE425 are comparable to the ER4SR in the bass department but have got slightly more upper bass and lower root quantity. To my ears, the Shures’ midrange is somewhat more emphasised.
The SE425 have got somewhat less level in the highs, however just slightly. They start to roll of very early, though, even below 10 kHz, whereas the ER4SR extend well above that.
The ER4SR resolve better (higher detail retrieval and transparency) and seem to have the cleaner transient response.
The Shures’ soundstage is quite small and congested in comparison to that of the ER4SR, and the Ety also feature the better instrument separation.
Etymotic ER2SE:
Highly comparable to almost similar tuning, with the ER2SE having minimally more bass quantity, minimally less presence range quantity, and slightly less level at 10 kHz. The ER2SE, unlike the ER4SR, are closer to neutral around 7 kHz, though, when performing sine sweeps.
In terms of technical perception, the dynamic driver Etys are just a smidgen behind the BA Etys to my ears when it comes to ultimate note separation, but this only shows rarely when the in-ears are stressed by very busy, dense and bast sound material. Most of the time, they are remarkably close to the point of being near-indistinguishable.
Slightly “softer” bass presentation compared to the BA Etys but on its own very tight and controlled. Attacks and impact better/easier perceived when compared to the single-BA Etys.
In direct comparison, the single-BA Etys appear to have a bit of “grain” in the midrange compared to the dynamic driver Etys that do not.
Larger perceived soundstage than the single-BA Etys and highly precise as well, but starts to become “foggy”/gives in earlier with spatially very crowded, densely arranged tracks with many tonal elements at the same time, wherefore the ER4SR are my choice with spatially more crowded, more demanding recordings/arrangements.
Etymotic ER4XR:
The XR have got ca. 3 dB more quantity around 100 Hz and ca. 4 dB more than the SR around 50 Hz, and a little less than 5 dB at 30 Hz – not much, but enough to make them sound a bit bassier and have a bit more perceived body/texture and a little more lower midrange/fundamental range warmth in comparison, albeit without affecting the midrange balance.
The XR that I have on hand are slightly more relaxed in the presence range, but have got a bit more quantity around and above 10 kHz (definitely not to degree of an emphasis, but just enough to make them have slightly more perceived subtle super treble sparkle/”air”).
Generally, the difference is definitely mainly in the lows.
Both sets of in-ears are equal to me when it comes to resolution and bass quality, with the exception that the ER4SR, when compared directly to the XR, sound ever so slightly cleaner in the lows.
Both have got an almost identical soundstage reproduction, with the ER4XRs’ being ultimately just ever so slightly less deep and minimally less precise in terms of separation in direct comparison.
Conclusion:
Highly Recommended.
Uncompromised, flat, uncoloured, lifeless “studio neutral” tuning with a flatness (especially in the treble) and realism that is only rarely achieved.
High technical performance as well (ultimately below that of my UERM and ProPhile 8, but the ER4SR, as a whole package, still outperform many other multi-driver in-ears in the 500$ range or are at least similarly precise when it comes to technicalities, and moreover have that uncompromised flat neutral tuning in addition).
As a result, together with my ER-4S, they are also my personal favourites for serious CD listening.
Photos:
I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:
5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.
4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.
3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]
2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]
1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]
Etymotic ER4SR
Source:
Review sample.
Miscellaneous:
Really nice unboxing experience with many accessories such as an amply large, protective carrying case, several different ear tips, a “certificate of performance” that shows the individual in-ears’ frequency response, channel matching, serial numbers, sensitivity and measured total harmonic distortion.
“SR” stands for “Studio Reference”.
While the ER-4S’ shells were made of plastic, the ER4SRs’ are made of metal and appear visually subjectively more premium. The unique serial number is still engraved into each shell.
Build quality seems to be very good.
Instead of the 2-pin connectors similar to the ones from Sennheiser’s HD 6x0 series headphones used on the ER-4S, the ER4SRs’ cables now come with MMCX connectors that are rotation-locked wherefore they seem quite reliable and durable.
The new cable is definitely an improvement over the older one as it is more flexible and softer while it still appears sturdy. Another good thing about it is that it has now finally got an incorporated chin-slider.
Although the y-splitter doesn’t contain any resistors anymore (the crossover components are now inside of the shells instead), it has still got that cylindrical shape as an homage to the previous generation where the bulky shape was necessary to carry the resistors (and in case of the ER4B also the capacitors).
On the other hand, the side indicators are now more difficult to find as there is no red dot on the right hand side’s connector anymore.
Twisted conductors above the y-splitter.
Rather high microphonics when worn down, but that can be fixed by guiding the cable over the ears and using the chin-slider (or alternatively using the included shirt clip).
One Balanced Armature driver per side.
Sound:
Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it onto the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).
Tonality:
Flat studio neutral; lifeless and uncoloured.
The ER4SR, to my ears when performing sine sweeps, listening to noise signals, music and spoken word, just sound as they are advertised – studio reference neutral flat.
Just like my ER-4S, the new ER4SR just don’t have any colouration at all to my ears and come the closest to my personal perception of uncompromised neutrality, and are therefore the flattest and most lifeless, most uncoloured, most accurate and realistically tuned in-ears that I have ever heard, wherefore they, along with my ER-4S, are also by far my favourite choice for serious music listening from my CD rig; their tuning just seems to match my ears’ HRTF extremely well wherefore I choose them over my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Ultimate Ears Reference Remastered to-go and my InEar ProPhile 8, three sets of in-ears that are among the most neutral on the market but in comparison still tuned more for a “natural neutral” instead of “uncompromised studio neutral” tonality, purely based on my personal tonal preferences.
Generally, there is not much that I could really think of about writing here, since the mostly audibly flat and lifeless, neutral tuning could be more or less summarised in just one sentence.
The bass is just flat without any sort of lift and extends flat down into the real sub-bass without any real roll-off. Etymotic, just as with the ER-4S. No warmth, no body, but definitely not lacking – just uncompromised flat.
The midrange is just generally flat and direct, without any of the relaxation dips in the upper mids that is found on almost any other set of in-ears, wherefore the ER4SR are quite merciless here and purely raw, without trying to create any sort of recession to create an even slightly laid-back fatigue-free long-term listening effect.
While, to my ears, the ER-4S still showcase just a little of lift in the presence range, this area has been toned down very slightly on the ER4SR wherefore they sound even a bit more accurate to my ears here.
The treble, just like on the ER-4S, is simply among the most realistic and evenly tuned regardless of price, wherefore the ER4SR manage to create an incredibly realistic, accurate response here as well.
The only area, when performing sine sweeps, that is just a little below neutral in quantity to my ears, is the one around 7 kHz, but this is nothing that’s really audible when listening to music.
Extension past 10 kHz is good and not lacking to my ears.
To summarise, the ER4SR are truly worthy successors to the ER-4S and come extremely close to my personal perception of an uncompromised, lifeless, uncoloured, flat studio neutral tuning with an excellently realistic and even tuning that is rarely achieved by other in-ears, especially in the treble. Therefore it is no surprise that I personally really love them.
Frequency Response:
ER-4S-Compensation
The ER4SR were measured with the non-modified triple-flange ear tips in both graphs as I did not save the other measurements and didn’t bother to re-measure them. Due to the resulting slightly different insertion depth into the coupler, the graphs shows a bit less upper treble quantity than they would actually have, as it’s really just the upper mids/presence range where the ER4SR differ slightly from my ER-4S.
ProPhile 8-Compensation
Resolution:
Very high. Probably the best single-BA implementation that I know of, and superior to some multi-BA models.
Typically for a single-driver design, coherency is perfect.
Even distribution of the resolution across the whole frequency range.
Nimble, fast, tight and controlled bass. High quality. Outperforms some of the other single-BA in-ears in terms of speed and tightness, although ultimately not as tight and controlled as some multi-BA implementations when pushed to the limits by the recording; comparable speed but a little softer in comparison. There are, however, some multi-BA implementations that are noticeably softer and slower – so absolutely nothing to criticise here and about the most technical single-BA implementations I know of in the lows.
Very high midrange resolution and speech intelligibility without “cheating” by presence range elevations found implemented into some w-shaped in-ears’ tuning. Very authentic.
Excellent transient response and precise note separation in the high frequencies. Highly natural as well thanks to the very even treble response.
It is generally remarkable what the ER4SR manage to put out in terms of tonal range/extension, bass quality, resolution and authenticity – just like their predecessors, they show that a well-implemented and -tuned quality single Balanced Armature driver doesn’t lack behind its similarly priced multi-driver competitors.
In some categories, there are multi-driver in-ears (such as my UERM and ProPhile 8) that can somewhat beat the Ety in terms of partial resolution or bass speed, transparency and control when the recording is extremely demanding, however there are very few in-ears at this price point that deliver such an excellent overall package where nothing lacks behind – there is really hardly any flaw in terms of resolution.
Soundstage:
Neither the largest nor the smallest. “Averagely large”, as it usually the case with a flat neutral tuning without any strategically placed elevations or recessions.
Authentic and three-dimensional with just as much depth as spatial width to my ears.
Precise imaging without any blur/fog. No bleeding of single instruments/tonal elements into each other. The ER4SR even manage to render some of the perceived “empty space” around and between them really well; to my ears even a little better than the ER-4S since the newer generation in-ears remain a bit better separated and more controlled sounding with more complex and fast recordings.
Generally convincing and realistic.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Comparisons:
Etymotic ER-4S:
Only very small differences when it comes to tuning: the ER4SR are slightly less forward in the presence range and will therefore appear slightly less fatiguing over time; to me they are even a little more realistically tuned here than my ER-4S. Slightly less level around 10 kHz as well.
Pretty much equal when it comes to resolution. In comparison, though, the ER4SR appear to be just a slight bit softer in the lows, but as a result also just a little more visceral.
To my ears, the ER4SRs’ soundstage appears to be just a touch wider than the ER-4S’, with a slightly cleaner imaging (instrument separation), which is mostly audible with faster and more complex recordings.
InEar ProPhile 8:
To my ears, the ER4SR represent more of a “sterile studio reference neutral” tuning whereas the ProPhile 8 fall more into the range of being “naturally neutral” tuned.
That said, the ProPhile 8 have around 3 dB more bass than the ER4SR and sound warmer in the fundamental range and lower mids, but are a bit less “warm” than the ER4XR and have also got slightly less bass.
The ER4SR are slightly more forward/intimate sounding in the mids whereas the ProPhile 8 present the middle frequencies in a comparatively more relaxed way due to the more recessed presence range, but with still accurate timbre and no audible colouration.
Both are very even, realistic and accurate in their treble reproduction, which is something not too many in-ears achieve.
In terms of resolution, precision, bass speed and tightness, the ProPhile 8 are ultimately ahead, which is the most audible during very fast and complex, dense music, but not as strikingly obvious otherwise most of the time. So to say, the ProPhile 8 don’t yet “cave in” when the ER4SR already start to do.
Regarding perceived soundstage, that of the ProPhile 8 isn’t even all that much larger to my ears but only somewhat, but as with the resolution, the In-Ear in-ears are ahead when it comes to imaging precision and remain cleaner, better separated when the track is densely arranged and/or very fast.
Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:
In terms of flatness and accuracy, I hear the ER4SR as superior to my UERM that have about 3 dB stronger bass quantity, are more relaxed in the presence range in comparison, and brighter past 10 kHz due to the peak that they have there, and which also makes their treble response come across as ultimately less even and realistic compared to the Etymotic (and UERR to-go), although that’s criticism on a rather high level.
As a result, the ER4SR are even more critical to the recording and even less forgiving, and more sterile sounding (which is something that I consider a very positive aspect while others may not).
While I prefer the ER4SRs’ even flatter, less forgiving, more sterile tuning, when it comes to bass speed, control, micro details and note separation, I definitely perceive the UERM as audibly superior, as they have more detail headroom for the recording to pushing them to their limits.
The same as for the resolution can be said about the soundstage that appears to be a good bit larger than the ER4SRs’ and “gives in” less early in comparison when very dense and fast arrangements are played back.
Shure SE425:
The Shure are somewhat more on the mid-centric side of neutrality compared to the Etymotic.
The SE425 are comparable to the ER4SR in the bass department but have got slightly more upper bass and lower root quantity. To my ears, the Shures’ midrange is somewhat more emphasised.
The SE425 have got somewhat less level in the highs, however just slightly. They start to roll of very early, though, even below 10 kHz, whereas the ER4SR extend well above that.
The ER4SR resolve better (higher detail retrieval and transparency) and seem to have the cleaner transient response.
The Shures’ soundstage is quite small and congested in comparison to that of the ER4SR, and the Ety also feature the better instrument separation.
Etymotic ER2SE:
Highly comparable to almost similar tuning, with the ER2SE having minimally more bass quantity, minimally less presence range quantity, and slightly less level at 10 kHz. The ER2SE, unlike the ER4SR, are closer to neutral around 7 kHz, though, when performing sine sweeps.
In terms of technical perception, the dynamic driver Etys are just a smidgen behind the BA Etys to my ears when it comes to ultimate note separation, but this only shows rarely when the in-ears are stressed by very busy, dense and bast sound material. Most of the time, they are remarkably close to the point of being near-indistinguishable.
Slightly “softer” bass presentation compared to the BA Etys but on its own very tight and controlled. Attacks and impact better/easier perceived when compared to the single-BA Etys.
In direct comparison, the single-BA Etys appear to have a bit of “grain” in the midrange compared to the dynamic driver Etys that do not.
Larger perceived soundstage than the single-BA Etys and highly precise as well, but starts to become “foggy”/gives in earlier with spatially very crowded, densely arranged tracks with many tonal elements at the same time, wherefore the ER4SR are my choice with spatially more crowded, more demanding recordings/arrangements.
Etymotic ER4XR:
The XR have got ca. 3 dB more quantity around 100 Hz and ca. 4 dB more than the SR around 50 Hz, and a little less than 5 dB at 30 Hz – not much, but enough to make them sound a bit bassier and have a bit more perceived body/texture and a little more lower midrange/fundamental range warmth in comparison, albeit without affecting the midrange balance.
The XR that I have on hand are slightly more relaxed in the presence range, but have got a bit more quantity around and above 10 kHz (definitely not to degree of an emphasis, but just enough to make them have slightly more perceived subtle super treble sparkle/”air”).
Generally, the difference is definitely mainly in the lows.
Both sets of in-ears are equal to me when it comes to resolution and bass quality, with the exception that the ER4SR, when compared directly to the XR, sound ever so slightly cleaner in the lows.
Both have got an almost identical soundstage reproduction, with the ER4XRs’ being ultimately just ever so slightly less deep and minimally less precise in terms of separation in direct comparison.
Conclusion:
Highly Recommended.
Uncompromised, flat, uncoloured, lifeless “studio neutral” tuning with a flatness (especially in the treble) and realism that is only rarely achieved.
High technical performance as well (ultimately below that of my UERM and ProPhile 8, but the ER4SR, as a whole package, still outperform many other multi-driver in-ears in the 500$ range or are at least similarly precise when it comes to technicalities, and moreover have that uncompromised flat neutral tuning in addition).
As a result, together with my ER-4S, they are also my personal favourites for serious CD listening.
Photos:
All this on a IEM with a single BA set up.