[vYu223]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellsprout /img/forum/go_quote.gif i mean that they scale really well with a clean signal source and good amplifier, but on lower end equipment, they don't sound nearly as good, because being exceptionally detailed, they tend to reveal all the "misrecordings" u don't really want to hear

Yea... listening with my ER4P's + P>S cable (ER4P-24) through the headphone out on my iPod makes it sound like iPoo.

 

[theBigD]

bellsprout, i agree with you er4s is probably better than er6s, but not twice as good. no more drivers does not equal more accurate sound but it does add more soundstage, which is something i crave. you are also right, it is unfair for me to compare them to excellent expensive open headphones like akg 701s, but dammit i want someone to miniaturize these things so i can shove them in my ears and get high quality sound with incredible soundstage without looking like a freak in public!

 

[vYu223]

I agree... ER-4S sound + UM2 design = perfection.

EDIT: Nevermind. I think I misread your post

 

[bellsprout]

i find that source and amplifier have a greater effect on sound stage than the headphone. er-4 from ipod headphone out, has a small sound stage, whereas um2 sounds bigger, but the sound stage is more "echo-like" than spacious. a broken in supermicro iv has a huge soundstage, and it's not an echo - rather, a realistic sense of space and instrument positioning.

of course, er-4 isn't twice as good as er-6 - diminishing returns is shocking. no sum of money paid towards audio gear can be deemed justifiable purchase imo

 

[TDFiend]

i have been listening to my music at 192 AAC through itunes with the vbr checked. i think the er4p would sound great with just a bit more bass and fullness if thats a word. i thank you all for the feedback i have found it most helpfull. and yeah the er4p is more clear and crisp then the ipod earbuds. i guess i just feel let down with the bass. and having to crank the volume up real loud on them to make them sound full is not that cool either.

 

[germanium]

I have the ER4P with a P to S converter & the only difference between the P & S versions is a very subtly reduced midbass & lower midrange with the S version compare to the P version & the sensitivity is lower on the S version. I get better bass extension with the S version as a result. It is not a huge difference & they remain very accurate to the source as to be nearly indistinguishable in a live mike feed in either version. That is how subtle the difference is the S being more accurate than the P but only by small margin.

These one of the few headphone that were designed to provide a true reference that could be used to mix & master music with & be able to make EQ judgements with them. This and be able to do this in a live recording situation even monitoring in the same room as the artists which would be impossible normally.

 

[vYu223]

I don't know... I think I hear a kind of "veil" with the ER-4P's... Something just isn't right with the treble. The ER-4S seems to remove the veil and make everything sound normal again.

 

[germanium]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vYu223 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know... I think I hear a kind of "veil" with the ER-4P's... Something just isn't right with the treble. The ER-4S seems to remove the veil and make everything sound normal again.

I believe the veil you refer to in the fact that the slightly increased midbass & lower midrange on the P version makes the upper mids & lower treble sound slightly softer. I do not hear this as a veil as the information is still there. To me the difference is very subtle. I definatly don't hear a veil in the treble in either version. All the differences to me reside below about 2 KHz. top end extension is equal on both version to my ears.

If you are using a different source or amp for the different versions then the difference may be more pronounced & may cause the difference in treble extension you seem to report.

 

[melomaniac]

hey, you say you
"have been listening to my music at 192 AAC through itunes with the vbr"
- and that's most likely the issue: source quality. once you get higher quality sound into your iPod, you will also very likely be able to tell how much better it is on the nice IEMs compared to the basic apple earphones.

with lossy compression, you will inevitably get distortion artifacts, fuzzy gurgling, hiss. your 192 kbit/sec VBR (1MB for 42 seconds) is barely acceptable at best. if you actually like the music you listen to, then 320 kbit/sec VBR (1.6MB for 42 seconds) is acceptable, but once you're willing to spend on nicer earphones, you should also be willing to assign a bit more space to better quality sound. okay, at least 60% more.

 

[vYu223]

germanium, what type of source are you using, and what kind of files are you using - lossless or lossy?

 

[Lou Erickson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by theBigD /img/forum/go_quote.gif i want someone to miniaturize these things so i can shove them in my ears and get high quality sound with incredible soundstage without looking like a freak in public!

Wait... you're telling me that walking around with wires coming out of your ears does not make you look like a freak?

I always felt it was the other way around.

 

[Demonmnky]

I would definately start ripping some CDs into ALAC and see if that makes a difference to your ears.

If you don't like the sound of the Ety's I recommend going cheaper to the ER6i's or some Westone UM1's or something. The ER4's will point out every flaw in your system from source to your ears. It may not be worth the $$ to you to get a clean sound. You should just go for some fun cans and enjoy your music.

 

[BANGPOD]

You need to start using lossless source material on your ipod -- you are welcome.

 

[germanium]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vYu223 /img/forum/go_quote.gif germanium, what type of source are you using, and what kind of files are you using - lossless or lossy?

For the quality tests I was using a Zoom H4 self contained recorder with direct mike feed. not a recording but a recording was made during these sessions at an uncompressed 24 bit 96KHz. It was very lifelike though the mikes do hear space differently though but the timbre was dead on. The mikes were really super sensitive to background noise also.