[koudairanger]

Just to be clear, every single earphone we make is tested before it's packaged. They all have to pass set test limits and we have a channel matching specification at 1kHz. This is common practice in the earphone industry.

The difference with the ER4 is that we match the channels tightly from 100Hz to 10kHz. This is not common practice in the earphone industry. We also provide individualized certifications that show the measurements for that pair of earphones. It's one of the things that makes the ER4 different from our other models.

I hope that helps clarify it.

These days, the manufacture and testing is done in Vietnam. We've worked with this company for a while now but only migrated the ER4s there in the past couple years. The earphones are built, tested and matched with the same process that we used before the move. We also have not made any material changes to the product.

Yeah I just want to mean manual testing/signed, will edit.

 

[AnyDave]

Yeah I just want to mean manual testing/signed, will edit.

It's totally cool. I just figured I could a bit of clarity since I have an inside view.

 

[koudairanger]

It's totally cool. I just figured I could a bit of clarity since I have an inside view.

Have you guys been changing your pricing strategies a bit? Even though I don't think you guys have any deterioration in quality (you cannot say er4sr is more crude than original ER4), but It is obvious that you guys are giving deep cut to your prices, is it because of new model under way? Or what...

 

[CK Moustache]

That would be Karen, who is one of our production people in Elk Grove Village.

Thanks.

 

[AnyDave]

Have you guys been changing your pricing strategies a bit? Even though I don't think you guys have any deterioration in quality (you cannot say er4sr is more crude than original ER4), but It is obvious that you guys are giving deep cut to your prices, is it because of new model under way? Or what...

We did drop the price $50 when we moved it to Vietnam. There were some aggressive sales around Christmas, but I don't believe that's permanent.

 

[koudairanger]

We did drop the price $50 when we moved it to Vietnam. There were some aggressive sales around Christmas, but I don't believe that's permanent.

Wow I should take the chance to grab another pair of er4xr after I sold them last year then, thanks.

 

[koudairanger]

Wow, another 10$ reduced from 139$
I already bought it for 139
Edit: adorama give a me 10$ coupon for the difference, a big shoutout for them.

 

[koudairanger]

Got my other pair of both ER4SR and XR.
Just as mentioned they were changed to vietnam.
The interior box was literally same thing, the new version outer box mentions that it comes with "foam,Daul(I think it's a typo of dual) and 3-flange tips"
Edit:found the 2 flange tips inside the pouch.
One othy thing I noticed is that their quality control standard were still "within 1dB" on IEC60318-4 in their certificate of performance. The difference is that they omitted the frequencies over 10kHz.
@EtyDave just my personal questions about the QC standard change, is it because over 10kHz is usually considered "no guarantee area"?

 

[AnyDave]

Got my other pair of both ER4SR and XR.
Just as mentioned they were changed to vietnam.
The interior box was literally same thing, the new version outer box mentions that it comes with "foam,Daul(I think it's a typo of dual) and 3-flange tips"
Edit:found the 2 flange tips inside the pouch.
One othy thing I noticed is that their quality control standard were still "within 1dB" on IEC60318-4 in their certificate of performance. The difference is that they omitted the frequencies over 10kHz.
@EtyDave just my personal questions about the QC standard change, is it because over 10kHz is usually considered "no guarantee area"?

For purposes of matching, it's always been 10kHz. That spec goes back to the beginning of the ER4. We test beyond that, we just don't match beyond that.

We actually use the same GRAS couplers in Vietnam that we did in our Elk Grove Village facility prior to the migration so there was no need for a spec or testing change.

 

[Jitu13]

Got my other pair of both ER4SR and XR.
Just as mentioned they were changed to vietnam.
The interior box was literally same thing, the new version outer box mentions that it comes with "foam,Daul(I think it's a typo of dual) and 3-flange tips"
Edit:found the 2 flange tips inside the pouch.
One othy thing I noticed is that their quality control standard were still "within 1dB" on IEC60318-4 in their certificate of performance. The difference is that they omitted the frequencies over 10kHz.
@EtyDave just my personal questions about the QC standard change, is it because over 10kHz is usually considered "no guarantee area"?

There doesn't seem to be anything in 20-100 hz also (which was present before).
@EtyDave is it the same reason as above?

 

[AnyDave]

There doesn't seem to be anything in 20-100 hz also (which was present before).
@EtyDave is it the same reason as above?

Yes, the matching range was always 100Hz - 10kHz. It's been that way for decades.

The graph has obviously changed a bit since the beginning, but that's just the printout, not a fundamental change to the way we're matching them.

 

[koudairanger]

Yes, the matching range was always 100Hz - 10kHz. It's been that way for decades.

The graph has obviously changed a bit since the beginning, but that's just the printout, not a fundamental change to the way we're matching them.

Ah sorry to brought this up again.
When I talk with my friend about this, we both notice the sensitivity change in the qc report.(like the picture I posted earlier)
Are we again missing some aspects of the sensitivity? 10dB is quite obvious, while I cannot hear difference when mix&match old/new er4sr

 

[robm321]

The computer and phone your posting this on wasn't assembled in the US and you have no problem with that, so...

 

[AnyDave]

Ah sorry to brought this up again.
When I talk with my friend about this, we both notice the sensitivity change in the qc report.(like the picture I posted earlier)
Are we again missing some aspects of the sensitivity? 10dB is quite obvious, while I cannot hear difference when mix&match old/new er4sr

Sorry for the late reply, I've been out of town at the NAMM show and I'm just catching up.

I'm not exactly sure I'm following what the question is. Is there a sensitivity mismatch between channels or do you have a graph where the published sensitivity was lower? There were some where the printout was 6dB lower because the test was at 100mV (which is typical for most earphone tests we do) and 200mV, which is what the ER4 historically has been tested at.

 

[koudairanger]

Sorry for the late reply, I've been out of town at the NAMM show and I'm just catching up.

I'm not exactly sure I'm following what the question is. Is there a sensitivity mismatch between channels or do you have a graph where the published sensitivity was lower? There were some where the printout was 6dB lower because the test was at 100mV (which is typical for most earphone tests we do) and 200mV, which is what the ER4 historically has been tested at.

Got my other pair of both ER4SR and XR.
Just as mentioned they were changed to vietnam.
The interior box was literally same thing, the new version outer box mentions that it comes with "foam,Daul(I think it's a typo of dual) and 3-flange tips"
Edit:found the 2 flange tips inside the pouch.
One othy thing I noticed is that their quality control standard were still "within 1dB" on IEC60318-4 in their certificate of performance. The difference is that they omitted the frequencies over 10kHz.
@EtyDave just my personal questions about the QC standard change, is it because over 10kHz is usually considered "no guarantee area"?

Sorry for the late reply, I've been out of town at the NAMM show and I'm just catching up.

I'm not exactly sure I'm following what the question is. Is there a sensitivity mismatch between channels or do you have a graph where the published sensitivity was lower? There were some where the printout was 6dB lower because the test was at 100mV (which is typical for most earphone tests we do) and 200mV, which is what the ER4 historically has been tested at.

Yeah that’s what I’m curious about, the graph comparison I posted last year looks interesting now, since both of them indicated a 200mv drive, while sensitivity result was different for around 6dB.
If it’s just an error in the printing of sensitivity definition, I think that could explain though.