[catscratch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EXpidia AIt's not the cost issue to me as much as it's the thought of plunking down the $220 on headphone technology that was designed 10 years ago.

Ummm... Sony MDR-R10's were designed 25 years go and are still among the top 5 best headphones in the world. The Sennheiser Orpheus is more than 10 years old, and has yet to be surpassed or equalled (Qualia 010 aside, which is still debatable), in either price or sound quality. And the "newer" CD format can't touch the quality of older Vinyl, while the new mp3 formats are a lot worse than CD...

New technologies don't necessarily improve sound. Obsolescence in audio isn't the same thing as in computers, and works on a different time-frame. Advancements in headphone technology are slow, and possible usually only after break-throughs in diaphragm materials, which cannot be easily planned or foreseen ahead of time.

Armature drivers are probably the most recent technology out there, and the one that - in my opinion - will be growing the most. Their unparalelled practicality, combined with their impressive sound, is a very alluring package, and will be even more so when the price drops. The ER-4P is actually the newest technology that you could buy in headphones.

I'd say that you buy them from someplace with a return policy, and let your ears decide if they were a worthy investment.

 

[EXpidia]

is that ER4-p still list for $330 yet prices have dropped to $199. That's a big price drop. Seems to me when that happens it may mean new units are around the corner and they are clearing out stock.

Let's face it, if I wash my car-It rains! So I know as soon as I spring for $200+ I assure you a new model will be out in a few days

After reading all the reviews pro and con seems to me the noisy rubbing cable would be due for an upgrade. The weight from what I read could be lightened (reviewers noted without the clip they pulled out with movement) and I'm always moving around a lot with my Ipod (car, gym, walking etc) so I was hoping for an impending upgrade of those two frequent complaints.

It's the noise isolation properties that really piques my interest with the ER-4p's as I hate screaming babies on the plane in the airport or on a train or people yakking away on the plane or people in airports on the cellphone talking real loud. So when I read how great they sounded and they block the noise, too, I had to have them. But what if they were to block out my wife too

It's not the sound of them that I was most concerned with . . . I'm using a 10 year old folding Sony Walkman headset now that still sounds great, but they are free to me and not a $200 outlay with phones that I've never even heard yet.

I just didn't want to see the ER-4p's updated in the very near future because many sites won't take them back (I know some have 30 day exchange priv. but they are not usually the ones deep discounting them). The shipping charges really add so fast one might be better to buy at a brick and mortor store rather than trying to make exchanges on the net anyway.

I suppose even if an upgrade was around the corner on the ER-4's 10 year old technology the new units certainly won't be selling for $199 when they first come out.

I'll try a search maybe deeper on ask jeeves or google for ER-4p's at a discount and then go directly to the online store. Maybe they will be cheaper if they don't have to pay a shopping site like pricegrabber a percentage for the listing in their shopping search engine.

It would be great if someone in their surfing came across ER-4p's around $200 "in stock" and not a NY store. If one could email or PM me I'd appreciate it.

Thanks again for all your comments, definitely a higher level of knowledge and experience on this site from some of the other sites I've been too.

 

[Jimothy]

Check the Head-Fi sponsors' sites, they usually have good prices along with great service and whatnot.

 

[crypt@]

$330 is MRSP, I got mine @$189 mid last year. If $200 is nudging the otherside of the budget, why not try the ER6 instead? Or alternatively, the shure or westone etc. which don't have as big a cable noise issue than etys? Being IEMs they will still isolate better though may not be as much as etys.

 

[viator122]

Be careful regarding any CDs or other audio equipment that's more than 10 years old. If you have any, it's obsolete and you'll need to replace them. I can take that stuff off your hands if you like, and I'll only charge you the shipping costs.

 

[BANGPOD]

EXpidia --

As has been said, older technology is not more primitive...

We have not moved on from the CD yet, so everything is still current.
If you keep your philosophy, you will never be able to buy used equipment.
Some on the best electronics out there are ironically also the oldest ones.

I had a Muse 2 Plus DAC that was between ten and fifteen years old!

It was the best sounding medium that I have ever heard music through.

With that view, you could be missing out on the perfect solution for yourself!

BANGPOD

 

[EXpidia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by viator122 Be careful regarding any CDs or other audio equipment that's more than 10 years old. If you have any, it's obsolete and you'll need to replace them. I can take that stuff off your hands if you like, and I'll only charge you the shipping costs.

Great, I've got this 64 Rio MP player, new in box (purple), paid over $200 I think 2 years ago, never used (Daughter didn't want to deal with downloading back then). Make me an offer, this is great, I figured I'd have to wait 20 years to unload it as a classic.
I'd be happy to pay the shipping to you.
Should hold a ton of your CD's!!!

 

[EXpidia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crypt@ $330 is MRSP, I got mine @$189 mid last year. If $200 is nudging the otherside of the budget, why not try the ER6 instead? Or alternatively, the shure or westone etc. which don't have as big a cable noise issue than etys? Being IEMs they will still isolate better though may not be as much as etys.

I read the reviews and the ER-6i is a great deal for $100. I'm sure they sound great but I know ME! and I'd be selling them on Amazon a week later because I know (from the reviews) that the ER-4p's are going to sound better and I would never be happy knowing that. I do like the look of the ER-6's better (look higher tech with those clear housings). And I've read they have quieter cables. I just figured since the 4p's are made for portable players they should have quieter cables, hate to see them switch to soon (like the day after I buy them).
But as many have noted, after 10 years this is a company that is not too quick to bring innovation to their units.
Of course you can say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but from my view the Ipod's were not even invented yet as of a few years ago and I don't see much innovation with this company to try and keep up with what techies are demanding. Seems Shure is turning out new units frequently. Anyone willing to pay $330 for a pair of headphones should expect something newer than 10 year old technology.

But this is why I asked the question here, so I could be pushed over to the other side by people who already own them. There are plenty of negative comments out there on these units too as to them not being worth the money as I'm sure everyone is aware of.

I'd probably spring for the converter cable too with the 4p's so I could use them with my amplified home stereo system and have the best of both worlds which the ER-6's would not give me that same level of sound (from what I've read) so to me it would be like buying two sets of headphones one for home, one for Ipod, but only paying for one set (I can justify anything, after all who deserves the ER-4p's more than me, ha ha)

Sounds like a decent rational . . . I might have pass this two for one idea off to my Wife someday if she asks me how much I paid for them. I'll just stall my answer off until she's had a couple of glasses of wine

 

[EXpidia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BANGPOD EXpidia -- As has been said, older technology is not more primitive... We have not moved on from the CD yet, so everything is still current. If you keep your philosophy, you will never be able to buy used equipment. Some on the best electronics out there are ironically also the oldest ones. I had a Muse 2 Plus DAC that between ten and fifteen years old! It was the best sounding medium that I have ever heard music through. With that view, you could be missing out on the perfect solution for yourself! BANGPOD

The first DVD player I bought about 5 years ago costs me over $1100, now when I bought a new TV they threw in a DVD player that plays more disks than the Sony ever did.
Bought a Sony DVD burner 6 months ago now they have double sided DVD technology which holds a lot more recordings.
And Cd's will be downsized by all, kinda like those tiny Cd's AOL sends out now instead of the larger ones.
Too bad I tossed all my 8 track equipment 10 years ago. Seems like some of you would still like to listen to 8 tracks.

I'm not trying to be an instigator here, I'm only trying to get a little support for in my mind jumping on 10 year old headphone designs that are a pretty hefty cash outlay.

One poster did have a poignant comment that maybe the technology was so good 10 years ago that I'll have a unit that will hold it's value that much longer. This would be true if they still sold for $330, but when they dropped to $199 as fast as they have over the past year that alerts me that new stuff may be lurking just around the corner, but as I said in another thread it won't be introduced for $199, I'm pretty sure of that.
Thx for your post

 

[catscratch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EXpidia The first DVD player I bought about 5 years ago costs me over $1100, now when I bought a new TV they threw in a DVD player that plays more disks than the Sony ever did. Bought a Sony DVD burner 6 months ago now they have double sided DVD technology which holds a lot more recordings. And Cd's will be downsized by all, kinda like those tiny Cd's AOL sends out now instead of the larger ones. Too bad I tossed all my 8 track equipment 10 years ago. Seems like some of you would still like to listen to 8 tracks. I'm not trying to be an instigator here, I'm only trying to get a little support for in my mind jumping on 10 year old headphone designs that are a pretty hefty cash outlay.

The fact that one technology changes very quickly over the years doesn't mean that all technologies change just as quickly. Yes, the CD format will be phased out by digital formats as is already happening right now, cassette has been phased out by DVD which in turn will be phased out by something else. This, however, doesn't mean that there will be headphones around the corner that will sound far and beyond anything that we're heard so far. Look at what has happened to headphones over the last 10 years: dynamics (and electrostatics) have become miniaturized and armature drivers - your so-called old technology - have gradually spread from hearing aids to professional musician circles, and now into the upper echelons of discriminating consumers. Has something radically new appeared that has changed the nature of headphone technology? Not really. Canalphones are IMO the biggest innovation, and as you pointed out, the technology is 10 years old, if not more.

I think your Ety's will last you a very, very long time. The fact that you buy them today for $199 while two years down the line they will cost $149 shouldn't deter you from owning a great product. The depreciation involved is nothing next to that found in most electronic devices.

The next advances in playback technology will probably revolve not only around the recording medium, i.e. data formats, but around new(er) recording methods. Binaural technology is something that I'd like to see take off, as it is a pretty cheap and effective solution to headphone soundstage problems. I think that most of these innovations are market-driven. Recording companies are interested in changing formats every 10 years or so in order to make you re-purchase your music collection; hence the significant drive to develop newer, different formats. Are they necessarily better? Only in terms of practicality. However, I don't see an innovation that will make you want to re-purchase your current collection of speakers and headphones.

P.S. I'm interested to see if Stax will continue developing their SR-001 system. The current iteration sounds fantastic, but has practicality problems. I guess the biggest difficulty is in creating a power source that can charge the membrane and stators to a 580V bias while still being lightweight and portable. I don't think that there's a whole lot of room for improvement there without a substantial breakthrough in battery technology. At least they should work on it's tonal balance and the comfort of those damn eartips... ouch!

[Edit: A very good analogy is cameras and lenses. Digital cameras are improving incredibly fast, 5 mega-pixels was top of the line 2 years ago, and now you have consumer 8 MP cameras and DSLR's with up to 16.7 MP, and digital-backs up to 30+ MP. On the other hand, lenses have basically stayed more-or-less the same. A Canon L lens from 20 years ago, before the digital age ever started, is still optically very close to the new generation of lenses, save for utility innovations like USM (ultra-sound motor) and better auto-focus. There's simply little room for improvement, and little enough need to improve. With audio, your player is your camera, and your headphone is your lens. There's not much in it to radically improve, without a significant technological advancement.]

 

[EXpidia]

[Edit: A very good analogy is cameras and lenses. Digital cameras are improving incredibly fast, 5 mega-pixels was top of the line 2 years ago, and now you have consumer 8 MP cameras and DSLR's with up to 16.7 MP, and digital-backs up to 30+ MP. On the other hand, lenses have basically stayed more-or-less the same. A Canon L lens from 20 years ago, before the digital age ever started, is still optically very close to the new generation of lenses, save for utility innovations like USM (ultra-sound motor) and better auto-focus. There's simply little room for improvement, and little enough need to improve. With audio, your player is your camera, and your headphone is your lens. There's not much in it to radically improve, without a significant technological advancement.][/QUOTE]

Thx Catscratch . . . all very well said, especially the comparison between camera and the lens. Just the other day I was walking through a camera store and when I saw those long lenses in the case I was thinking to myself that I wish I had never sold that long telephoto Canon lens I had when I was a kid 40 years ago, it was huge and would still work great today as well as it did back then, probably even better as to the quality of the optics then vs now.

 

[crypt@]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EXpidia ... Of course you can say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but from my view the Ipod's were not even invented yet as of a few years ago and I don't see much innovation with this company to try and keep up with what techies are demanding. Seems Shure is turning out new units frequently. Anyone willing to pay $330 for a pair of headphones should expect something newer than 10 year old technology....

The economic of scale works in Apple's favour (read: revenue), and subsequently Apple's marketing arm is likely to be freer than Etymotic. It follows then Apple may have more $ to dress up the "new technologies" featured in the various iPod models. In reality right from its first gen. iPod (Oct/Nov 2001 - with 5GB HD) Apple has not showcased anything new:
Mar 1998, the first flash based (32MB) player, Saehan-Eiger Labs MPMan (Eiger Labs MPMan F10/F20.) F10 expandable to 64MB internal, F20 expandable by SmartMedia (32MB)
May 1998, the first disk based (2.5" 4.86GB HD) player, Compaq's Remote Solutions Personal Jukebox PJB-100 (lic. and prod. by HanGo Nov 1999)

Between 1998 and 2005, the significant jump is manufacturing rather than technology, the real difference is capacity increase by miniaturisation. E.g. In place of 32MB flash, we now see 4GB (SD cards); and 4.86GB 2.5" HD evolved to 60GB packed inside 1.8" HD. I, with limited imagination cannot see where this "technology" will benefit the etys.

Searching through the various makes (shure, westone, ultimate ears, sensaphonics), the trend I see is that top models are not revised as such, rather new models are introduced to fill in the gaps (better return in the long run) between the top and basic models.

So, fear not. As long as you can justify the cost against:
Audio quality
Cable introduced noise (as compared with other makes)

, then you will be

 

[EXpidia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crypt@ The economic of scale works in Apple's favour (read: revenue), and subsequently Apple's marketing arm is likely to be freer than Etymotic. It follows then Apple may have more $ to dress up the "new technologies" featured in the various iPod models. In reality right from its first gen. iPod (Oct/Nov 2001 - with 5GB HD) Apple has not showcased anything new: Mar 1998, the first flash based (32MB) player, Saehan-Eiger Labs MPMan (Eiger Labs MPMan F10/F20.) F10 expandable to 64MB internal, F20 expandable by SmartMedia (32MB) May 1998, the first disk based (2.5" 4.86GB HD) player, Compaq's Remote Solutions Personal Jukebox PJB-100 (lic. and prod. by HanGo Nov 1999) Between 1998 and 2005, the significant jump is manufacturing rather than technology, the real difference is capacity increase by miniaturisation. E.g. In place of 32MB flash, we now see 4GB (SD cards); and 4.86GB 2.5" HD evolved to 60GB packed inside 1.8" HD. I, with limited imagination cannot see where this "technology" will benefit the etys. Searching through the various makes (shure, westone, ultimate ears, sensaphonics), the trend I see is that top models are not revised as such, rather new models are introduced to fill in the gaps (better return in the long run) between the top and basic models. So, fear not. As long as you can justify the cost against: Audio quality Cable introduced noise (as compared with other makes) , then you will be

Comments well taken . . . and I just realized that the happy face at the end of your comments has canal phones coming out of his head- I thought before he just had skinny arms, ha ha

 

[seeberg]

Grado SR60's are around a decade old in their design, yet they still sound fresh to the point that timelining their quality versus the latest by other companies is a waste of time. If ER6i's existed ten years ago, it would not change my mind in the least to show how much I enjoy them. Some things are simply timeless, and newer tech never guarantees better tech, to put it simply.

But don't take my word for it, relax and decide for yourself and be

!

My two cents, but now I'm broke,
Abe

 

[EdipisReks]

who's to say that Etymotic hasn't been innovating, just behind the scenes? the current generation ER-4x's may very well be using better drivers than the original units, you would just be unable to tell due to the fact that they are using the same casings. anyway, it's a moot point, to me, as i think the ER-4P/S sound significantly better than the newer Shure line, including the E5. any new models that come out, from any company, aren't going to make the current Etys sound any worse.