[Gino]

Yes, it is a true single ended triode design operating in class a. Uses WE 417A = 5842 tubes. It puts out around .3wpc. Plenty of power to drive the IEMs. It is a proprietary design (I was told) by a local audiophile here in Manila. I used an Alps vol control, star grounding, and Blackgate caps for a very clean signal.

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gino Yes, it is a true single ended triode design operating in class a. Uses WE 417A = 5842 tubes. It puts out around .3wpc. Plenty of power to drive the IEMs. It is a proprietary design (I was told) by a local audiophile here in Manila. I used an Alps vol control, star grounding, and Blackgate caps for a very clean signal.

Top flight components across the board. Beauty.

Lucky bast***, I don't think they even make those precious, sensual, liquid blackgates anymore.

Enjoy the end of the golden age my friend. iPods have taken over. The McDonalds of audio.

I want one of those tubular amps Bro.

Very, very sweet.

 

[stmpjmp]

I will conceed that the ER4 > the IM716 in the catagories of SQ, accessories, and looks but if the ER4 would run you $185 whereas the IM716 is only $70 at Amazon right now, it would have to sound $115 better and I just dont see that being the case. Of course, some people need the top flight IEM so the IM716 doesnt really enter into the equation as it doesnt meet the bare need. However, anyone looking towards their first IEM or a backup should not pass on this deal IMO.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jSatch As kwkarth states, taking out the filter will destroy it. I believe this is done on the iM716 by stabbing a hole in it to pull it out. The ER4's have a tool to unscrew the filter (I think), and drarthurwells posted a DIY review as how to clean your own. Filterless earphones can have adverse effects on the sound as well. Please see Don Wilson's comments (post #125, Etymotic ER-4P's, NEW LOOK??) regarding the posted freq response curves. His feeling was that the filter may have been missing in the ER4S curve leading to aberrant high freq peaks, relative to the other ER4 models. Very clever.

Art: If you regularly keep the latex tip clean, than ear wax and debris may never be able to get to inside the driver tube (that the tip fits on).

Every few days of use, use small jewel screwdriver, or toothpick tip, and insert it about 2 to 3 mm (1/8 of an inch max) inside the opening of the latex tip and ream out the inside of the hole to clean the opening. Careful not to insert too far to avoid touching the tip of the driver tube inside.

About every week or two, remove the tip and soak in a detergent solution (grease cutting dishwashing liquid) for a few hours. Ream out the inside of the wet tips with a toothpick before you let them soak. Then rinse thoroughly and allow to dry for six hours or more before putting back on the earphone driver tube.

I haven't had to replace a filter on my ETYs for over a year, since following this procedure of keeping the latex tips clean. You can even clean and reuse filters - pry them out with a needle and tweezers - soak them in a detergent solution - rinse thoroughly - blow them out to dry using a syringe or hair dryer on a cold setting - then let air dry for 10 hours or more - then reinsert in the same position they were originally in.

 

[jSatch]

Dear stmpjmp,

You have some excellent, very practical points that sometimes in pursuit of perfection get lost along the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmpjmp I will conceed that the ER4 > the IM716 in the catagories of SQ, accessories, and looks

First of all, SQ is subjective. All components are designed around compromises. The ER4P is considered fuller (more bass and mid-bass) and less detailed than the ER4S. This slight shift is accomplished via higher in-line resistance in the 4S (thus the P to S converter cable). The iM716 is considered to have a bit more bass and mid-bass still over the ER4P, again at the possible expense of upper end detail. Another slight shift in freq response.

For me, this is a good trade-off. The iM716 gives me plenty of detail in the treble (I really don’t see how anyone can say the symbols are rolled off- they shimmer to my ears- and with digital audio cut-off at 16K, well... good enough), without being overtly analytical and with a pretty good balance through the freq range. I’ve been experimenting with DIY foamies to actually get a better low-end response. Tipping the balance further up the freq range would not be productive, at least not for me.

Music lovers and audiophiles do not generally look at the same cues.

Importantly, you have to ask yourself, where will I be primarily using these? If you were using these primarily for your home audiophile Hi-Fi, the ER4S would clearly be a better choice. However, I would prefer full sized cans, not IEMs at home for serious listening in a quiet environment. If you are to use these in portable applications, such as on an airplane, bus, in the gym, etc, with a noisy environment, a fuller bass response, not treble detail, is preferable. At least that has been my experience, and why the damned little HD/Bass pod can come in handy, in spite of how much I disdained it at first.

Besides, portability means a DAP, ie, an iPod of sorts. These are the McDonald’s of audio. They are really good for what they are; fun, convenient, portable. But they are NOT Hi-Fi. Sorry. Not even mid-fi. Using an iPod to evaluate differences in portable headphones certainly has its merit, as that is where these phones will be primarily used. But keep in mind, most of the phones discussed on Head-Fi probably show up the limits of the DAP, and not the other way around. Also, phones designed specifically for this application will try to compensate for some of the deficiencies of DAPs and may sound less than optimal plugged into a home system.

Take a look at these graphs and you'll see what I mean:

http://home.comcast.net/~machrone/pl...playertest.htm

This would be completely unacceptable in home system, of any price above that of a boom-box.


Quote:

Originally Posted by stmpjmp Of course, some people need the top flight IEM so the IM716 doesnt really enter into the equation as it doesnt meet the bare need. However, anyone looking towards their first IEM or a backup should not pass on this deal IMO.

Again, I think the 'need' for a top flight IEM really depends upon where you will use it, and whether your ego has any say in the matter.


Quote:

Originally Posted by stmpjmp ....but if the ER4 would run you $185 whereas the IM716 is only $70 at Amazon right now, it would have to sound $115 better and I just dont see that being the case.

Excellent point!!!!! (although such talk is heresy in these parts)

Is the ER4 worth ~2.5X the price of the iM716? Considering the the depreciation of value as you move up the audio chain, I would tend to say yes, at least for those who 'need' the ER4s. Those who own them feel they may be better constructed, and the wires alone could theoretically account for the vast difference in price. But for my applications, and more importantly for the phones being driven by an iPod, probably not.

Well, at least, not yet.

I suspect my ego will debate this 'practicality aesthetic' in a future post.

'till then-

 

[Squibbles]

Well, I did it. I bought it. $73 including overnight shipping. Will get here tomorrow. I don't have anything to lose, right? I can always resell.. maybe for a profit.

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squibbles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I did it. I bought it. $73 including overnight shipping. Will get here tomorrow. I don't have anything to lose, right? I can always resell.. maybe for a profit.

Lucky you.

Here in the future the prices have risen above $100.

But to make the most of them, go to the following post.
These mods are very easy, will cost less than $10, but will greatly change the audio quality of your phones.

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...m716+podectomy

Enjoy

 

[Ace o' Spades]

I would just like to mention that I am getting some great synergy with my Hot Rodded iM716s (47 Ohm) and my PIMETA. Something about the combo makes me smile.

 

[maclion]

ohh, after 3 days review (since I order on Dec 3), finally finished.

 

[antonyfirst]

The ER4P are clearer and more detailed than the modded iM716 I owned. The '4P are also more sterile sounding, all instruments are placed at the same point/volume. The iM716 are more musical and warmer than the ER4P, so out of a portable (like an iPod) they might be preferred. If one could count on a powerful equalizer/amp, though, the ER4P/S show all their power and best the Altec.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antonyfirst /img/forum/go_quote.gif The ER4P are clearer and more detailed than the modded iM716 I owned. The '4P are also more sterile sounding, all instruments are placed at the same point/volume. The iM716 are more musical and warmer than the ER4P, so out of a portable (like an iPod) they might be preferred. If one could count on a powerful equalizer/amp, though, the ER4P/S show all their power and best the Altec.

What resistors were used on im716? I have 68Ohm podectomized im716 and honestly cannot say that ER-4S is in any way superior to them. I am A/B-ing both of them out of GS-1 right now, SPL volume matched, and the only difference between two is very slight hint of warmth on Altec, that must be due to lesser impedance as they are 2 clicks away on GS-1 DACT or better broken in triple-flanges.
To hear any difference out of portable would be even more difficult.

EDIT: Actually ER-4S do have a slightly better details, must be the result of upped treble. Altecs seem to smear some very tiny subtle details and do not extend that high. But the difference is hardly discernible.

 

[facelvega]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT /img/forum/go_quote.gif What resistors were used on im716? I have 68Ohm podectomized im716 and honestly cannot say that ER-4S is in any way superior to them. I am A/B-ing both of them out of GS-1 right now, SPL volume matched, and the only difference between two is very slight hint of warmth on Altec, that must be due to lesser impedance as they are 2 clicks away on GS-1 DACT or better broken in triple-flanges. To hear any difference out of portable would be even more difficult. EDIT: Actually ER-4S do have a slightly better details, must be the result of upped treble. Altecs seem to smear some very tiny subtle details and do not extend that high. But the difference is hardly discernible.

His sig says 41 ohm resistors, which could explain practically the whole difference between your experiences.