[Selenium]

Regarding sound stage and the ER4 at least I find that at times it can sound quite wide or tall. It's not almost always like this like say the FX700 and EX1000 for instance but seems to depend on the recording which I guess relates to imaging.

 

[Pianist]

Etymotic HF series have a really accurate soundstage - their great resolving capability allows them to reproduce all of the important locational cues in recordings really well, meaning that whatever sense of space a recording provides or doesn't provide will be audible through the Etys. They just don't boost soundstage artificially. I think the HF series have superior soundstage accuracy to most other headphones I heard - IEMs like FX700, e-Q7, e-Q5, RE0, RE262, RE272, Audeo PFE, Ety's own ER4P and most other IEMs I tried sound like 3 blobs in the head compared to the HF series IMO. Of course, those other IEMs have their own merits, but when it comes to accurate soundstage reproduction, they all lose to the Etys hands down IMO.

 

[eke2k6]

I can agree that the imaging in the HF3 is superb.
 
However, there's usually more to a track than imaging. I won't pretend to be an expert, or that I know how to explain what I'm hearing from the HF3 is a lack of immersion into the recording. For instance, the Carmina Burana track I posted simply sounds "grander" on the other two iems in terms of dynamics, power, and just sheer space. The effect is almost an inverse of my ASG-1, where I need to boost the treble to get the full picture of the recording, despite it having amazing imaging, a huge sound stage, and power.
 
Again, I'm not an expert. Just saying what I hear.

 

[Pianist]

To each their own. HF2 sounded plenty grand enough for me. I also have HD650, DT990 Pro and HE-500 full-sized cans and HF2 sounded just fine in direct comparison - certainly not tinny, nor lacking power and dynamics in any way. It may not be as dynamic as the best headphones, but it is sufficiently dynamic to not be perceived as lacking in this area IMO, at least not to my ears. I did find that in order to get a full bass response out of them, they need to be inserted pretty deep and with the right tips for a tight seal, otherwise they will certainly sound somewhat tinny and lacking power in the bottom end and fullness in the mids.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

To each their own. HF2 sounded plenty grand enough for me. I also have HD650, DT990 Pro and HE-500 full-sized cans and HF2 sounded just fine in direct comparison - certainly not tinny, nor lacking power and dynamics in any way. It may not be as dynamic as the best headphones, but it is sufficiently dynamic to not be perceived as lacking in this area IMO, at least not to my ears. I did find that in order to get a full bass response out of them, they need to be inserted pretty deep and with the right tips for a tight seal, otherwise they will certainly sound somewhat tinny and lacking power in the bottom end and fullness in the mids.

 
If you look back a few pages, this is exactly what I was telling bobeau.
 
IMO, everything is relative. That's why I like to have benchmarks when I get new phones. I had them deep enough to scrape my eardrum (not quite), and I found good bass response, power, and dynamics. Same with the olive and atrio tips. The issue only arises when you do a direct comparison. Remember I was perfectly happy using them as my main headphones for over a week. They also have their merits over the other phones which is why, in the TL;DR sound section, I declared them all equal.

 

[gnarlsagan]

I can agree that the imaging in the HF3 is superb.

However, there's usually more to a track than imaging. I won't pretend to be an expert, or that I know how to explain what I'm hearing from the HF3 is a lack of immersion into the recording. For instance, the Carmina Burana track I posted simply sounds "grander" on the other two iems in terms of dynamics, power, and just sheer space. The effect is almost an inverse of my ASG-1, where I need to boost the treble to get the full picture of the recording, despite it having amazing imaging, a huge sound stage, and power.

Again, I'm not an expert. Just saying what I hear.

"Grander" is most likely an effect of more bass and longer decay. Imo most people seem to aim for that sound because of the bassy echoey nature of live events.

 

[james444]

Quote:

That's an interesting theory and it makes sense to me that reconstructing 3D sounds could be a widely varying personal phenomenon. 
 
You're right about the FX700 having a very large soundstage comparatively (which I had forgotten about), but it does fall under the realm of enormous bass and very little isolation. From what I've read about the IE8 it also has a massive bass hump. The EX1000 sounds much more flat but again the isolation is quite low. 
 
I agree that those three iems are good examples of a wide soundstage, but I would add that their lack of isolation negates the very benefit they are supposed to provide being iems rather than open headphones; that being the ability to provide high fidelity audio in a noisy environment outside of one's home. I realize some people don't desire isolation for safety or conversational reasons, but imo the music definitely takes a hit.
 
I guess any closed audio system will suffer in the sound staging department, iem or full-size. I wonder if something like the Smyth Realiser would work with iems. A similar DSP might be the best option to gain sound stage while retaining a flat sound sig and good isolation.   

 
Completely agree with that, I'd love to hear a pair of IEMs that has both, great isolation and out-of-head spaciousness at the same time. I even went for customs in quest of this (based on certain claims I read), but found that they pretty much follow the same rules as universals.
 
The inbuilt DSPs (BBE, ...) I've heard so far, all skew the sound sig too much, something more sophisticated like the Smyth Realiser would really be interesting...
 
Quote:

Etymotic HF series have a really accurate soundstage - their great resolving capability allows them to reproduce all of the important locational cues in recordings really well, meaning that whatever sense of space a recording provides or doesn't provide will be audible through the Etys. They just don't boost soundstage artificially. I think the HF series have superior soundstage accuracy to most other headphones I heard - IEMs like FX700, e-Q7, e-Q5, RE0, RE262, RE272, Audeo PFE, Ety's own ER4P and most other IEMs I tried sound like 3 blobs in the head compared to the HF series IMO. Of course, those other IEMs have their own merits, but when it comes to accurate soundstage reproduction, they all lose to the Etys hands down IMO.

 
Let's not confuse soundstage size / out-of-head experience / forward projection with imaging / positioning. I don't doubt that the latter is excellent with the Etys, the same applies to my UERM and other well balanced closed phones. But the former is consistently more convincing with open phones, at least in my perception.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

"Grander" is most likely an effect of more bass and longer decay. Imo most people seem to aim for that sound because of the bassy echoey nature of live events.

 
It may be, but I find it enjoyable on most of my tracks.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

 
Let's not confuse soundstage size / out-of-head experience / forward projection with imaging / positioning. I don't doubt that the latter is excellent with the Etys, the same applies to my UERM and other well balanced closed phones. But the former is consistently more convincing with open phones, at least in my perception.

 
Which open headphones do you have in mind James? I understand that the out-of-the-head experience is important too, but for me, imaging comes first and soundstage size is second, because imaging is mostly a product of technical ability, while bigger soundstage is much more subjective and is usually either a byproduct of colorations, increased technical ability, the nature of the design (open, closed, in-ear, etc) or a combination of any of these. Soundstage size is much more dependent on psychoacoustics than imaging is.
 
I find that most open back cans and most other headphones I tried can't image well enough to sound as convincing to me as the Etys - most sound too diffuse/unfocused to allow me to recreate the feeling of live performance with my imagination. And actually, I find that open backs tend to have more of this problem of lacking focus, probably due to their open nature and how they spread out sounds as a result. Closed cans tend to sound better defined on the macro level to my ears. The really great open backs, like K702. HD650, HE-500, T1, SRH1840 or HD800 can provide an even more realistic, out-of-the-head experience than the Etys with a similar imaging ability, but only the very best can do this and they all cost significantly more than Ety HF series and require far better sources and amps, often costing as much or more than the headphones themselves. Etys, on the other hand, are perfectly satisfied with a Sansa Clip. Actually, I don't even think some of the high end cans, like HE-500 and HD650 are quite as good as the Etys in imaging - they sound bigger, yes, but not quite as well defined and focused and the result is that they don't give me much more sense of realism than the Etys do. HD650 and HE-500 provide realism through other means though - the former have that big, but tight bass response and liquid mids with great texture that add to the sense of realism, while HE-500 has that Ortho speed/transients, clarity and transparency that most dynamics and armatures can't match. But overall, the sense of realism that Ety HFs can provide to my ears rivals that of the top end full-sized open back cans I tried, although perhaps I would think otherwise if I tried the cans with better sources and amps.. When it comes to IEMs, only ER4S, Westone 4, and SE535 seem to compete with the Etys in imaging and realism from my experience. Out of full-sized cans, only HD800, T1 and SRH1840 sounded clearly superior to me in this regard - others: maybe yes, maybe not depending on circumstances.

 

[atomikn00b]

Quote:

Conclusion​

 ​

When I first got the HF3, it impressed the hell out of me. I didn't have anything to compare it to, but now that I have iems that are equal in technical ability, I'm inclined to agree than the Ety's are more of a tool than a normal listening device. I think I'll still keep them around for when I want a blast of clarity. 
 
As far as the GR07 MKII vs the XBA-3 goes, you really couldn't go wrong with either. Both have about equal technical prowess, and both have slight advantages over each other. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide what your priorities are.
 
 
I'm going to bed now.

So wait.  In your view.
The cheaper gr07 are basically as good as the more expensive xba-3 depending on your priorities?

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

So wait.  In your view.
The cheaper gr07 are basically as good as the more expensive xba-3 depending on your priorities?

 
Yup. So is the HF3.

 

[atomikn00b]

hmmm....
When comparing the xba-3 and the gr07 mkII, which one had better subbass quantity and which one was more prone to sibilance/harshness?

 

[eke2k6]

The GR07 has more sub-bass. The XBA-3 has smoother vocals, but is harsher with some aspects of the treble. Read the review, especially the City and Colour song.

 

[dweaver]

I would agree with Eke on the vocals and treble in regards to the Gr07 MKII and the XBA3. I actually prefer the harsher treble of the XBA3 which is why I never kept the MKII very long. As for sub bass I think they are pretty similar going from memory but the XBA3 has a bit more mid-bass which may mask the sub-bass. This isn't to say it has a mid-bass hump like a lot of other IEM's but it does have more mid-bass presence than the GR07.

Technically speaking I would also agree with Eke that each of the IEM's he reviewed are good options depending on what you want. Each has it's own merits and weaknesses regardless of price.

 

[goodvibes]

I agree with James here. While I don't look or need grand scale from my IEMs and am happy with good focus as long as not too miniturized, there is definitely a difference in perspective relative to better open full size. The reason I don't get too worked up about it is because all headphones have an artificial perspective for me and as long as it isn't noticable scaled down, I'm OK if they sound informative/correct enough get the musical message across.