[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibis99 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Spyro, since the price difference between the UM3x ans ER4s is about $200 would you consider the ER4s close enough to the UM and save $200

That's a tough call. It really depends on your budget. I owned ER6i's, ER4P's (twice) and the S-cable. The lack of weight and oomph with the presentation, and terrible microphonics always had me eventually selling them off. HF5 fixes one of those two problems (better ergonomics/better cable). The UM3X is my serious rock out intense listening IEM. I could never see parting with them. I had been using TFPro10's for working out and while they do work fine with complys, they still have a pretty big profile and are a bit cumbersome. But they sound excellent. I just figured the HF5 is a much better alternative for working out. The bass still extends deep. It just lacks weight. It's really the only real negative aspect of the Ety (IMHO).
Etys definitely lacks the weight of UM3X but that pristine clean sound was so nice to listen to once again. I would prefer to answer your question by saying if I only had $200 or less to spend on one IEM, it would definitely be an Ety. I'd live with "lighter" bass with everything else it does so well.

UM3X is warmer and weightier than Ety but still very cleanly detailed. A great product! They are similar in that they are both very balanced and neutral and smallish soundstages, exceptional instrument separation but the UM3X is heavier and a bit warmer sounding (in a very good way!).

 

[ibis99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a tough call. It really depends on your budget. I owned ER6i's, ER4P's (twice) and the S-cable. The lack of weight and oomph with the presentation, and terrible microphonics always had me eventually selling them off. HF5 fixes one of those two problems (better ergonomics/better cable). The UM3X is my serious rock out intense listening IEM. I could never see parting with them. I had been using TFPro10's for working out and while they do work fine with complys, they still have a pretty big profile and are a bit cumbersome. But they sound excellent. I just figured the HF5 is a much better alternative for working out. The bass still extends deep. It just lacks weight. It's really the negative aspect of the Ety (IMHO). Etys definitely lacks the weight of UM3X but that pristine clean sound was so nice to listen to once again. I would prefer to answer your question by saying if I only had $200 or less to spend on one IEM, it would definitely be an Ety. I'd live with "lighter" bass with everything else it does so well. UM3X is warmer and weightier than Ety but still very cleanly detailed. A great product! They are similar in that they are both very balanced and neutral and smallish soundstages, exceptional instrument separation but the UM3X is heavier and a bit warmer sounding (in a very good way!).

Great explanation of the differences Spyro. Thank You.

 

[peli_kan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nc8000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you consider superior by the ER4 cable ?

Thicker cabling, more durable strain reliefs.

 

[nc8000]

From the 1/8" jack to the resistor pod the ER4 cable is thicker but from the pod to the transducers it is thinner. The strain relief I have no idea about. The HF cable is more flexible, loses the resistor pod and is less microphonic.

 

[Spyro]

I received my "cobalt" HF5's this morning and spent about 20 min with them unamped with my nano.

I am really impressed! The cable absolutely mops the floor with the ER4P cable. Every bit as good as the Westone cable IMHO. The 3 flange tips sound perfect. Not steely or shrill at all. Perhaps slightly warmer (in a good way) than ER4P. While ER4P has the perfectly matched and tested armatures, I would say this is marketing hype and that 98% of us could not discern a difference anyway.

No, HF5's are not as good as UM3X but I would definitely consider it a poor man's UM3X. I'd actually probably take them over UM2's. Very clean and detailed sounding with a touch of warmth that I never detected on ER4P (from memory). Yes, the bottom end is a little light but I am using the "rock" eq setting which adds a little weight to the presentation that makes it very tolerable.

For $115 delivered from B & H Photo, I am quite impressed.

 

[CENTRAL]

The HF5s have grown on me in a gigantic proportion over the last few months...

I ended with the small shure olives as fave tips and a great partnership with my ipod!

Bass is full and pulpable, voices just exquisite and highs extended, vivid and smooth...

Best purchase ever for me, I was just about ready to return them when I first heard them...

 

[Spyro]

With ER4P at an efficient 27 ohms and made for use out of portable sources, anybody have an opinion why HF5 was made at 16 ohms? Just curious...

 

[Anaxilus]

Well Spyro my 2 cents:

The ER4P was never 'made' for portable use. It was adapted from the 4S as an after thought when Ety basically said 'Oops! people want iPods huh!' The 'P' IMO was a quick fix to meet a emerging market demand in their eyes. The 16ohm mark seems to be the magic number for many a manufacturer now. HF5, JVC FX700, Shures, etc. I actually prefer what Grado did w/ the GR8 at 120 ohms and 118db. They sound great out of an ipod and amazing amped from what I hear.

 

[Killercrush]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaw2ek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Never heard ER4P. However, in less than a year, I've had the sound tubes crumble on two HF5s, my original and their replacement. I like the sound: I'm wearing them now, having used a bit of teflon sealing tape to hold the rmainder of the sound tube together. Haven't heard of anybody else with this issue. It may be the way I treat them, so take it with a grain of salt.

The same happened to me this week, a bit of heatshrink will take care of that I'm pretty positive.

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well Spyro my 2 cents: The ER4P was never 'made' for portable use. It was adapted from the 4S as an after thought when Ety basically said 'Oops! people want iPods huh!' The 'P' IMO was a quick fix to meet a emerging market demand in their eyes. The 16ohm mark seems to be the magic number for many a manufacturer now. HF5, JVC FX700, Shures, etc. I actually prefer what Grado did w/ the GR8 at 120 ohms and 118db. They sound great out of an ipod and amazing amped from what I hear.

Yea, I would agree with that!

 

[ethan961]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well Spyro my 2 cents: The ER4P was never 'made' for portable use. It was adapted from the 4S as an after thought when Ety basically said 'Oops! people want iPods huh!' The 'P' IMO was a quick fix to meet a emerging market demand in their eyes. The 16ohm mark seems to be the magic number for many a manufacturer now. HF5, JVC FX700, Shures, etc. I actually prefer what Grado did w/ the GR8 at 120 ohms and 118db. They sound great out of an ipod and amazing amped from what I hear.

I could imagine why the ER4P would be an afterthought, the ER4 came out in 1991.