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 ER2XR
Source:
Review sample.
Miscellaneous:
Just like on the ER3XR as well as ER4XR, "XR" stands for "Extended Response", indicating a moderately boosted bass compared to the flatter tuned SE (respectively SR) models.
One dynamic driver per side; closed shells.
Come with the same accessories as the ER3XR (almost the same small pouch case as that of my ER-4S and the ER3 series, one pair of green replacement filters along with a filter removal tool made of metal, one shirt clip, one pair of cylindrical foam tips, and last but not lest two pairs of differently sized silicone tips – that’s definitely a bit disappointing compared to the ER4 series’ amount of accessories, but still okay).
Same black cardboard case inside the outer paper sleeve. Somewhat rubber-like surface finish as known from the ER3 series, however without any shiny black “ER2” written on it.
Small blue shells that are made of metal. Same size as those of the other new ER series in-ears. Very beautiful blue colour – personally, this is definitely my favourite colour among the various new ER series in-ears.
Good build quality.
It’s nice that each shell has the serial number as well as model number on it in white (the same is true for the ER3 and new ER4 series in-ears).
Removable cables with non-rotating (small notch that prevents that) MMCX connectors.
Nice blue y-splitter that’s made of metal, too.
A chin-slider is present.
Side indicators unfortunately only small and difficult to see in dimly lit environments – coloured indicators would have been better.
Fairly supple and flexible cable.
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).
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:
Sub-bass elevation with diffuse-field-oriented midrange and treble neutrality. In other words, neutral midrange as well as treble combined with a really nicely integrated elevation of the lower midbass and especially sub-bass that the lows’ main focus lies on. Harman-like, if you will.
In the midrange and treble, the ER2XR follow the ER2SEs’ tonality almost exactly, which means that the ER2XR are highly linear and realistic sounding, which I cannot only confirm by listening to music (and performing acoustic measurements) but also when listening to sine sweeps that reveal a very even, linear tonal response without any unevenness, sudden peaks or dips; instead, the ER2XR, just like Etymotic’s other models that I am familiar with (ER-4S, ER4SR, ER4XR, ER3SE, ER3XR, ER2SE), show remarkable upper midrange and treble neutrality and evenness to my ears that is only very rarely achieved by other in-ears, resulting in a highly natural and realistic treble timbre reproduction (which is also the reason why I prefer my ER-4S and the ER4SR over the various other, much more expensive, technically more proficient in-ears that have a more or less neutral sound signature as well, for stationary music listening).
Therefore the ER2XR also closely resemble the ER4XRs’ midrange and treble tuning, with slightly greater upper midrange and treble quantity compared to the ER3XR, and slightly less upper midrange/presence range quantity compared to the ER4SR.
While the ER2XR have got a bass elevation, it is implemented extraordinarily well, as it avoids bleeding into the midrange and instead mostly stays out of it (it starts to climb around 600 Hz and reaches its climax nicely low, in the true sub-bass).
Compared to the ER3XR, the ER2XR have got a smidgen less lower midrange/upper fundamental range warmth, while they are just a tad warmer in this range than the ER4XR. Generally, it is quite remarkable how close all of the three XR in-ears are tuned between 100 Hz and 500 Hz, with a tuning difference of only between around 1 dB (ER2XR compared to ER3XR / ER3XR compared to ER4XR) to around 2 dB (ER4XR compared to ER2XR) between each other.
The bigger differences in the bass start below 100 Hz – while the ER3XR and ER4XR show a more or less similar response between 20 Hz and 90 Hz, the ER2XR add a few decibels on top and have got their highest bass amplitude at a lower frequency than the two other XR in-ears (the ER2XR peak really nicely low at around 30 Hz with an elevation of around 8.5 dB compared to the ER4SR/my ER-4S), which makes them the bassiest and especially most sub-bass oriented in-ears out of the three.
While there is fortunately no bass bleed into the midrange, there’s nonetheless a bit of gentle, pleasant warmth/body that doesn’t interfere with the midrange but stays mostly out of it, added to the lower fundamental range. Sure, the elevation is not exclusive to the sub-bass (almost no in-ears’ bass elevation is truly sub-bass exclusive, and out of those I have, the closest to that would be my Earsonics ES3) but already features an upper bass elevation of around 5 dB at 100 kHz compared to the central midrange at 1 kHz, however the ER2XR already do such a tremendously great job and come nicely close to a “true subwoofer effect” by peaking no higher than at around 30 Hz wherefore they do not sound thick or midbassy and also do not have an unnecessarily strong upper bass kick or punch, but a nice, “driving” sub-bass elevation from down below that really only shows up when the track actually reaches this low.
As a result of all, the ER2XR sound highly natural, realistic and accurate, but also feature a really nicely implemented elevation of the lower bass on top.
On a personal note, before I ever listened to the ER2XR for the first time, I didn’t expect too much from them but thought that I would prefer the ER2SE for recreational, non-flat-neutral listening, so the question was: is a sub-bassy model from Etymotic really necessary?
The ER2XR would not serve me as some of my main in-ears for stationary music listening anyway (in-ears such as the Etymotic ER4SR, my ER-4SR, InEar ProPhile 8, Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors and few others take this spot), as I prefer a flatter, more neutral presentation for that.
For recreational music music listening and recreational in-ear use, however, Etymotic’s bass-elevated ER2 model is simply fantastic; yep this is exactly the right word for these in-ears. They deliver that high midrange and treble neutrality and realism but at the same time, of course only when the audio signal reaches that low, provide a pleasant, fun sub-bass boost that doesn’t interfere with the midrange.
So, coming back to the initial question – are sub-bassy Etymotic in-ears really necessary? I think they definitely are; they are not simply just a comparably tuned alternative to the ER4XR or ER3XR, but are instead absolutely a fully qualified stand-alone alternative with that extra sub-bass lift. And I have to admit that I like and enjoy them
much more than I had thought, in fact to the point that I would go even further to say confidently enough that regardless of price, the ER2XR have become some of my all-time favourite in-ears for non-neutral, recreational listening due to how well their fun sub-bass elevation is implemented, while the lower midrange, midrange and treble feature the high Etymotic neutrality that I am familiar with and personally hear as the closest to my perception of “flat neutral”.
Frequency Response:
ER-4S-Compensation
The ER2XR 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 the ER2XR would actually have.
ProPhile 8-Compensation
Resolution:
Very nice, natural timbre and note decay.
Very coherent, but that’s not really a too big surprise given they are single-driver in-ears and since the ER4 and ER3 series in-ears as well as the ER2SE and my ER-4S sound very coherent, too.
High midrange resolution and speech intelligibility. Fine details are revealed nicely.
Clean note and treble separation, although ultimately not fully on the same level as that of the single-BA Etymotic models from the ER4 and ER3 line as well as my ER-4S. This, however, gives the ER2XR a bit more “character” rather typical for dynamic driver in-ears, and sounds highly natural while still clean and precise.
Despite being subjectively just a bit less resolving than the single-BA Etymotic models, the ER2XR do not have any “grain” in the midrange when compared to them – something that’s also true for the ER2SE, and is probably due to that the dynamic drivers used in the ER2 series have less distortion than the BA drivers in the other Etymotic models (not that they had high distortion either, but perhaps that is the reason for this perception – not that the BA model Etymotic in-ears sounded grainy in the mids (they are
far from that), but in a direct side-by-side comparison, there is just that extra “something” to the ER2 series’ dynamic driver midrange presentation).
Perceived lower midrange and fundamental range as well as bass resolution slightly behind that of the ER2SE to my ears; otherwise they resolve pretty much similarly well.
The bass softens just a bit towards sub-bass and loses a bit of texture, but doesn’t really lose any control.
The lows are precise and generally pretty tight and fast, but ultimately a bit less tight than Etymotic’s bass-elevated BA models (ER3XR and ER4XR), with transients that are generally just a bit on the softer side in direct comparison. The ER2XRs’ subjectively perceived bass “texture”, however, even in the bass range where the three XR models are mostly similarly tuned, is more perceptible and feels different; the general presentation of the dynamic driver is just a bit different and adds a slight “something” to the ER2XR that could be described as having more “character”, something that could be definitely perceived as more “natural” by many people.
Either way, just as with the tuning, in terms of technical qualities, the ER2XR deliver extraordinarily high performance.
Soundstage:
Compared to Etymotic’s other single-BA in-ears from the ER3 and ER4 line as well as my ER-4S, the ER2XRs’ soundstage appears subjectively larger in all dimensions to my ears, especially in terms of perceived spatial width (not by much, but still).
It sounds generally three-dimensional and therefore authentic as well as realistic with a believable front projection. (The ER2XR are even also good with the portrayal of elements that are behind the listener – if they are present on the recording.)
When it comes to imaging and precision, the ER2XR do not show any real weakness either and place instruments and tonal elements accurately on the imaginary stage, with clean instrument separation and a soundstage that still remains mostly intact even with busy, fast and dense music material, even though the ER2SE’s stage remains just a tiny bit cleaner in comparison due to their flatter, more neutral bass tuning that puts less “stress” on the driver in busy and demanding situations (in addition, due to their flatter tuning, there is of course also less subjective frequency masking, which is the main reason for this impression). Nevertheless, the ER2XRs’ imaging is precise as well, although when compared to the single-BA Etymotic in-ears, both new ER2 series models give in just a little earlier with very densely arranged, busy tracks.
Largest and most three-dimensional soundstage among all Etymotic in-ears to my ears (pretty much similarly perceived spatial width as the ER2SE, however more perceived spatial depth, probably an impression that’s caused by the sub-bass-focused elevation in the lows).
Almost perfectly circular to my ears; just a little wider than deep (slightly oval).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Comparisons:
Shure SE846 (white Treble Filters):
Both in-ears have got a comparable tuning and clearly head into a similar direction in terms of sound, but still have some differences in their tonality.
While the upper bass presence at 100 Hz is almost identical on both in-ears, the ER2XR have got slightly more quantity in the root above it up to around 450 Hz, and have got a sub-bass boost that is a bit stronger and peaks a bit deeper, giving them an even somewhat stronger “subwoofer effect” than the SE846.
The Shures’ upper mids and presence range are somewhat more in the background wherefore their upper mids are a bit darker than the Etymotics’.
To my ears, the Shures’ middle treble around 5 kHz is more in the background in comparison, which gives them a more relaxed presentation. The upper treble (cymbals) are somewhat more forward on the SE846. Super treble extension past 10 kHz is definitely better on the Etymotic.
The Etymotic beat my Shure when it comes to upper midrange and treble linearity as well as realism and timbral accuracy.
Voices are more realistic on the Etymotic whereas they have a more relaxed, darker character on the Shure due to their comparatively more relaxed upper midrange, presence range and middle treble.
The biggest difference however is the upper treble – while the Shure render cymbals brighter than the ER2XR, they don’t sound fully right, and that’s not because they are brighter, but because they appear as if they decayed faster (over-dampened), since they lack the upper tones and reverb as the SE846s’ super treble extension is pretty limited; in comparison, cymbals appear to decay correctly on the ER2XR and have got that reverb, decay and the upper tones that they are supposed to have, as the Etys’ super treble extension is better.
Bass tightness and sub-bass definition are ultimately superior on the Shure when both in-ears are compared directly, but surprisingly not by much.
If fast music tracks are played, the Shure remain a bit better controlled and more focused in the bass and mids than the ER2XR, although the difference is smaller than one may expect.
In terms of speech intelligibility, the Ety are ahead due to their tuning as their entire midrange is more neutral, however the Shures’ retrieval of micro details in the mids is better in direct comparison.
It is a different story, though, when it comes to treble details: here, the Etymotic are audibly somewhat ahead, as the Shure simply lack information and sound softer, less precise and less clean when it comes to treble separation.
The Etys’ soundstage appears subjectively larger to me. The Shures’ is more circular to my ears while the Etys’ is slightly more oval in comparison.
In terms of imaging, the Shure are only minimally more precise in direct comparison. With dense, fast and complex music material, the Shures’ stage remains a bit more intact.
While my Shure are a bit ahead in terms of technical performance in the lows and mids (but lose in the treble), the ER2XR beat them when it comes to midrange and treble accuracy, linearity as well as timbre in these frequency ranges, and are generally not that far behind
at all when it comes to technical performance, so I personally ultimately prefer the Etymotic (more than “just slightly”) and also think that generally, as a whole package, they are the better in-ears (and this even while neglecting the fairly big price difference between the two).
Etymotic’s Single-BA In-Ears (ER-4S, ER4SR, ER4XR, ER3SE, ER3XR):
A lot has already been written in my main review and sound analysis above, so here is just a small summary:
Identically great, highly linear and flat-neutral midrange and treble response with realistic timbre – no sudden dips or peaks wherefore the sound is highly authentic and realistic.
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.
Moondrop Starfield:
My Starfield sound somewhat bassier and warmer to me but are generally heading into a highly comparable direction when it comes to tuning.
As such, the Moondrop have a slightly more relaxed presence range in comparison while they sound highly authentic in the mids as well, although with some more lower midrange/fundamental range warmth than the ER2XR, but are a bit brighter in the middle treble than the Etymotic.
In terms of treble extension past 10 kHz, the ER2XR offer more subtle “air”.
While far from “wonky” or bad, the Starfield appear to be just somewhat less linear and refined in the treble tuning than the ER2XR.
Technical performance is close enough but I would ultimately place the ER2XR just somewhat higher than the Starfield. While their advantage in the treble is only fairly small, the biggest difference is in the lows where the Etymotic in-ears are less soft whereas the Starfield have got the slightly softer bass attack and slower, more lingering decay in comparison, wherefore they start to give in/show their limits just a bit earlier on tracks that are demanding and fast in the bass, while most of the time the performance is close enough.
Generally, I hear the ER2XR as the slightly more refined, more linear, more authentic sounding version of the Starfield, and would place them ultimately somewhat higher, whereas the Starfield have got the advantage of a more common, less deep insertion/wearing style (for what it is worth, the vented Starfield naturally offer audibly lower passive exterior noise isolation than the closed shell ER2XR).
Simply put, while the Starfield get a “Recommended”, the ER2XR place the bar just a bit higher and get that rare “Highly Recommended”.
Conclusion:
Highly Recommended.
The ER2XR just do
so much right in terms of tuning, frequency response evenness and therefore perceived realism/authenticity, and soundstage, to the point of being pretty much flawless:
Very high midrange and treble accuracy as known from Etymotic and loved by me, combined with a fun bass elevation that concentrates mainly on the true sub-bass and doesn’t interfere with the midrange, which is something that not many in-ears achieve. This all, combined with the good technical performance as well as the subjectively most three-dimensional soundstage among the ER-4S, ER4, ER3 and ER2 line, make the ER2XR a fantastic choice of in-ears and even places them among my personal all-time favourites for non-flat, recreational use regardless of price.
Photos: