Ety MC5
Aug 25, 2010 at 4:05 PM Post #181 of 202

Alucard77

New Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Posts
21
Likes
11
For those of you judging the sound out the box, I say give it some time.  I have had my Mc5s for about 1 month now, with 4 hour listening a day (5 days a week).  My Mc5s sound a lot better now then they did first out of the box.  So judge the bass and so on after 100 hours.
 
Aug 25, 2010 at 4:30 PM Post #182 of 202

hpaddict

New Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Posts
25
Likes
11
I guess that would explain why the Shure sleeves made the treble sharper on my HF5's, as they have slightly bigger openings than the Ety tri-flanges.  It seems like a lot of people like using the Shure sleeves with the Ety HF5/2, but I found it made the treble a little too sharp.  Is it just because people prefer that type of sound, equating it to a "clearer" sound?

 
Quote:
Beat me Anaxilus. What he said. And here's my less scientific view.
 
Also can't agree that tips don't change sound. The circumference of the sound tube, for example, can alter treble response (larger the tube, the more treble emphasis). I have the HF-2s now (replaced the MC5s) and they sound fine much different with my custom sleeves than they do with my triple flanges or even the foamies. Tips do change sound, but I also agree that ear canal shape is also a critical factor in how you hear IEMs. Which is why I guess the custom tips and the Etys work so well for me. No other tip is even close in terms of SQ for that IEM.



 
Aug 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM Post #183 of 202

slaters70

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 7, 2010
Posts
832
Likes
11
You mean the Shure olives? I don't think they have very large openings, so they should not effect the treble, in terms of making it more pronounced. In fact, with the narrow Ety sound tube, no tips will have really wide openings, compared to canalphones/dynamics, for example. I am not sure, but when I look at the opening differences between say the Ety foamies and the olives (I have an old pair here), the difference is slight. But I guess it could be enough to cause the highs to be too sharp. Are the sibilant (sssss sound) or just too sharp? There is a difference. I have the HF-2s in right now, with the custom sleeves, the Touch/LOD/amp, and they sound great. My advice to anyone who loves the Ety sound is to go for the custom deal.
 
 
Aug 25, 2010 at 5:36 PM Post #184 of 202

kmhaynes

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Posts
1,999
Likes
263
Has anybody tried the Comply P-Series tips with the ER4 / HF5 / MC5 phones?  Curious about the fit on the Ety's.  You can get a pack of 10 from the EarPlugStore.com for $23.
 
Aug 25, 2010 at 5:38 PM Post #185 of 202

slaters70

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 7, 2010
Posts
832
Likes
11
I have some here, and they fit. I can try them on the HF-2s later, if you want. I have the short ones, or the thin ones, can't remember. But they will fit on the Ety nozzles, but now sure of the sound.
 
Aug 25, 2010 at 5:46 PM Post #186 of 202

kmhaynes

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Posts
1,999
Likes
263


Quote:
I have some here, and they fit. I can try them on the HF-2s later, if you want. I have the short ones, or the thin ones, can't remember. But they will fit on the Ety nozzles, but now sure of the sound.


OK -- I was mainly curious about the fit on the nozzle.  I may order a set to try before ordering 10.  The white Ety tri-flange fits pretty tightly, and I may get used to it.  The smaller smoky color tri-flange is too small, not a good seal.  And that gray mushroom slider???  Really??? 
 
Aug 25, 2010 at 6:14 PM Post #188 of 202

hpaddict

New Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Posts
25
Likes
11
I mean the Shure black foam tips, which I believe are referred to as olives, so I think we're talking about the same thing.  The opening is definitely bigger because I can see the entire nozzle of the HF5 through it.  From what I remember, the sound wasn't more silibant, it just sounded sharper to my ears.
 
I recently upgraded my tower speakers with DIY kit (encore upgrade for the av123 x-sls speakers) that many people claim greatly improved the sound.  To me it made the sound "sharper", so maybe I just have sensitive eardrums that prefer not as pronounced treble.  :)  I can see how the sharper sound could equate to a cleaner/clearer sound, but my ears get fatigued after prolonged listening.

I'm going to try out the Shure olives again this weekend just to make sure...
 
Quote:
You mean the Shure olives? I don't think they have very large openings, so they should not effect the treble, in terms of making it more pronounced. In fact, with the narrow Ety sound tube, no tips will have really wide openings, compared to canalphones/dynamics, for example. I am not sure, but when I look at the opening differences between say the Ety foamies and the olives (I have an old pair here), the difference is slight. But I guess it could be enough to cause the highs to be too sharp. Are the sibilant (sssss sound) or just too sharp? There is a difference. I have the HF-2s in right now, with the custom sleeves, the Touch/LOD/amp, and they sound great. My advice to anyone who loves the Ety sound is to go for the custom deal.
 



 
Aug 28, 2010 at 7:13 PM Post #189 of 202

FlurkingShnit

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Posts
198
Likes
0
Count me as another very impressed user of these IEMs. I owned the er-4p's for years but stopped using them for a while when the cables became damaged through normal wear and tear. I went to different IEMs over the years (Denons mostly) but ended getting these when my prior Denons stopped working in one channel. Pushing music from foobar2000 w/ Asio to my E7 has been a revelation. The bug has bit me again. Have mercy on my wallet.
 
Aug 29, 2010 at 7:30 AM Post #190 of 202

plonter

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Posts
3,446
Likes
31
I have two questions regarding the ETY's.  I am considering getting a pair of MC5 for myself as a initial entry into etymotic world.    my questions are:
 
1.I am a little of a basshead and a decent bass output is important to me as well as clear highs and mids.   in case that the mc5 won't supply enough amount of bass,would it be ok if i will boost the bass a little?  I don't want to ruin them by doing so.
 
2.do i need to push the tri-flange tips all the way inside? (until they are not shown at all from the outside)
 
Aug 29, 2010 at 9:54 AM Post #191 of 202

FlurkingShnit

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Posts
198
Likes
0


Quote:
I have two questions regarding the ETY's.  I am considering getting a pair of MC5 for myself as a initial entry into etymotic world.    my questions are:
 
1.I am a little of a basshead and a decent bass output is important to me as well as clear highs and mids.   in case that the mc5 won't supply enough amount of bass,would it be ok if i will boost the bass a little?  I don't want to ruin them by doing so.
 
2.do i need to push the tri-flange tips all the way inside? (until they are not shown at all from the outside)



I personally don't think it's necessary to boost the bass on the MC5's at all. Then again I haven't been a "basshead" like that since high school. It's up to your personal preference, but you definitely wouldn't damage them by employing bass boost (unless perhaps you pushed them way past unsafe listening levels?). I will say the bass boost on the E7 definitely can add more "punch" to certain tracks without distorting the sound signature of the Etys. It's definitely the best bass boost I've ever heard on any device (though I haven't heard many admitedly). However with that said, most of the time I leave it turned off since I feel the mc5's don't need it.
 
As for your second question, I find that over time the rubber flange tips soften with use. I don't have to insert them that deep anymore to get a good seal as well as good isolation. I have them in right now and I would say that a little less than 1/2 of the third flange is still sticking out.
 
Can't wait to compare the sound of these to my er-4p's when they come back from Etymotic (being repaired).
 
Aug 29, 2010 at 12:23 PM Post #192 of 202

David58117

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Posts
314
Likes
14


Quote:
Count me as another very impressed user of these IEMs. I owned the er-4p's for years but stopped using them for a while when the cables became damaged through normal wear and tear. I went to different IEMs over the years (Denons mostly) but ended getting these when my prior Denons stopped working in one channel. Pushing music from foobar2000 w/ Asio to my E7 has been a revelation. The bug has bit me again. Have mercy on my wallet.


Did you ever replace the cable?  There's an "upgraded" one on ebay for $80.
 
Aug 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM Post #193 of 202

FlurkingShnit

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Posts
198
Likes
0


Quote:
Did you ever replace the cable?  There's an "upgraded" one on ebay for $80.



I bought a replacement cable from xin feng's website (whatever happened to that guy? I'd love to have a supermini IV!) and used it for a while but for some reason that escapes me, I ended up switching back to the the original. Don't think I'll be replacing the cable again this time when I get it back from Etymotic. Can't wait to compare between the mc5 and the er-4p.
 
Aug 30, 2010 at 6:00 PM Post #194 of 202

Anaxilus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Posts
12,065
Likes
337
K, so I've been ABing the ER4S and MC5 quite a bit.  A few observations:
 
1-Bass on the MC5 in general appears more rounded and fuller, no suprise there.  I think it is a bit light but nothing like the RE0.  Oddly the ER4S seems to hit a little lower and harder on certain songs.  But its a thinner type of bass but not overly so.  It's acceptable since it meshes w/ the overall presentation.  I don't find the ER4S to be as thin sounding as some of its competitors as a reference.
 
2-The mids such as vocals stand out more on the MC5 due to the highs and lows kind of being pushed further into the background.  On the ER4S you can hear every detail clearly and on the same level plane w/ the exception of sub bass.  The MC5 has the detail but it's less upfront and more pushed in the background.  It's not necessarily veiled but sounds deliberately positioned back for the sake of better imaging.  IMO its too far back and hampers the more extreme details like cymbal crashes and percussion. 
 
3-The MC5 does come off as having that more 'neutral' sound in its presentation but the extremes are not tonally accurate IMO.  When a cymbal sounds like someone has their hand on it or its partially covered in dynamat that is inaccurate.  
 
As I swapped back and forth I kept wishing for a happy medium between the clarity, detail, treble energy and better bass slam of the ER4S with the MC5's rounder, fuller body and price tag.  Then it occured to me, pull the damn filters out!  For the most part the filterless MC5 has gained more of that ER4S character.  It's not perfect.  Some sharper notes might appear to at times to come off harsh and a touch bright.  The bass now has more decay but its in no ways sloppy.  In general I find the better clarity, detail retrieval and more accurate timbre worth the trade off.  I wish they would just tune these things w/o the filters.  Dang, I should try the ER4S filters, forgot about that!  They are green and the MC5 filters white.
 
If anyone would care to try these filterless and/or swapping w/ the ER4, let us know your impressions.
 
Plus I can always put the old filters back w/o issue.
 
Aug 30, 2010 at 6:20 PM Post #195 of 202

supersleuth

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Posts
471
Likes
17
Anaxilus, what tips are you using on your MC5? I found that the Ety foams or (god help us) those horrible gliders killed the treble but that there is plenty of good, smooth treble extension with triflanges. Even then I find that if I shove them TOO far in that also makes the sound darker- just far enough to get a good airtight seal is optimal (of course that's still pretty far!).
 
They are still not as quite detailed as my SR80 but plenty detailed enough to make me very happy for portable use at the price.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top