[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by russdog That would be true if they were making them, but they're not. Evidently, they're just getting parts from Ety. Nobody seems to know exactly what's what with these things, but all the reports indicate that they are different in both sound and efficiency, which supports the idea of 2 different drivers from Ety.

EXACTLY!!!

 

[bungle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by epithetless But more significantly, the iM616 has distinctly less bass and warmth next to the Bass-Moded iM716. In fact, I'm surprised to find it sounds closer to the iM716 in HD mode.

Photohead - do you agree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by epithetless On another note, I recently received a bag of long-stemmed Ety tri-flange sleeves, trimmed the stems down, snipped off the top flanges, and replaced those godawful Altec tri-flanges that came with my iM716s.

Is there (I should think) a similar effect on the iM616s?

EDIT: Is it true the microphonics are less on the iM616s, too?

 

[vYu223]

Can the difference in impedance possibly have any affect on the sound? Has anyone tried the iM616s with an Ety P to S cable? Maybe THEN the 'phones would sound more similar, if not the same? Just a wild guess.

 

[jSatch]

This whole issue regarding the heritage of the iM616/716 from the Ety line, their similarities, etc has all been thoroughly mulled over ad nauseum.

If you are interested in the Gone with the Wind version, see:
“Altec Lansing IM716 equals Ety ER4s” by Old Dave (OP);
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ght=im716+Dave

It is my opinion that the iM716 is derived from the ER4series, and the iM616 the ER6i series, as originally promoted by Altec in the Mac Paris Expo ('05). That is not fact, simply my opinion based on the information available.

Other factors, the iM616/ER6i have low impedances (16 Ohms), are easy to drive (not a factor solely due to impedance, but the driver parameters as well), are low in microphonics and lower SQ than the ER4 series. (Look at ER6i vs ER4 comparisons- the ER6i appears not to have as wide a freq response as it’s older sibling, and the bass hump is just that, not bass extension- kind of like a bass port in a home speaker system- at least that is what has been reported in this site by others).

The iM716/ER4s have higher microphonics, higher impedances (even in the ER4P), extended freq ranges, and improved SQ, relative to the ER6i. Less is known about the iM616.


Regarding Mr. Wilson's comments, some posts regarding the reasoning and legal ramifications of this argument can also be seen on "Etymotic ear phones" by drarthurwells (OP), http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ighlight=im716

Let's move on, shall we?

 

[epithetless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungle Is there (I should think) a similar effect on the iM616s?

Replacing the stock Altec Lansing triflanges with shortened Ety tri-to-bi-flanges naturally improved the fit and comfort of the iM616s as much as it did with the iM716s. It didn't boost/reveal the bass as much as I would have hoped for, though. With the same well-fitting tips, the iM616 still exhibits less bass prominence for me than the iM716 in Bass Mode. I should state that I was coming at my comparison from a context of really wanting to like the iM616s as much as -- if not more than -- the Bass-Moded iM716s. So many things about the iM616s appeal to me: the color, the podlessness, the weight reduction (sans pod), the functional shirt clip, and (to a lesser degree) the price...but I can't justify plugging them into my ears when the sound I prefer comes from their stark white iBrothers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungle EDIT: Is it true the microphonics are less on the iM616s, too?

To be honest, I haven't noticed a difference between the cable microphonics of the iM616 and iM716. This may have to do with the fact that their sheathings are of the same gauge and material. As it is, I've taken to using an ER6i-like shirt clip on my iM716s, above the pod, both to keep them stable and to join the wires at a higher point. With this clip, as long as the cables don't bow out too much and brush on my shirt, microphonics isn't really a problem.

 

[russdog]

Thanks for doing everybody's homework, jSatch. Really. It's helpful when somebody goes to the trouble to do that. (I know you shouldn't have to, that everybody should look for themselves, but who are we kidding?) Anyway, thanks...

 

[SilverCans]

Any chance someone with both models uses a "p->s" converter on the im616, even if it is home made, I'd like to know if that is what makes the difference in sound/bass.

 

[KenW]

Very interesting thread. I doubt we'll ever get a definitive answer to all the questions but really, it makes no difference to me. I got 'em at a good price and they make nice workout partners. They also do a great job of isolating and making the yardwork seem a bit less dreary. I'm betting they'll go quite well with the jetskis, too. So versatile and for less than $70. Not bad....not bad at all!

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by russdog Thanks for doing everybody's homework, jSatch. Really. It's helpful when somebody goes to the trouble to do that. (I know you shouldn't have to, that everybody should look for themselves, but who are we kidding?) Anyway, thanks...

No worries russdog.

It was an old thread. Not so easy to find anymore with all the new threads popping up on the topic. It is, however, the classic thread that got everyone interested in these little Ety clones (or not clones??

).

Anyway, the point, as per KenW (above), is that we will likely never get a definitive answer.

Thanks to BushGuy (iM716 “modded” thread) at least we now know what is in the little pod, and it ain’t very pretty.

 

[seagrasser]

Thanks for doing this comparison,

I just got a pair of the IM616's (listening to them at the moment). For me the repesent a great compromise in performance/value and portability. They may be a little lean in bass department, but hey are leaps and bounds ahead of the stock phones.

They have what I would call a solid sound with no glaring faults or praises. They sound "good," don't really require an amp, and are very portable (using them with a sansa e250 with no problems).

I really pondered getting the 716's but decided to head toward the no fuss, no muss route and staying ultra portable. I don't think I will regret it.

Cheers and thanks for the comparison.

Jason
AKA
Seagrasser

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverCans Any chance someone with both models uses a "p->s" converter on the im616, even if it is home made, I'd like to know if that is what makes the difference in sound/bass.

SilverCans,

I guess you are making the analogy with the ER4P (bass bumped up, better with bass deficient portables) to ER4S (flatter freq response, better mated with home hi-fi).

If true, the p -> s converter (which adds resistance) will decrease the bass, not increase it.

I don't know if that is what you were looking for.

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverCans I called Altec Lansing's tech support line today about the im616 vs im716. I specifically asked him what the differences were between the two and he said the only difference was the inline "controller" (as he called it). I pressed him about the drivers and he said they are the same. Then I asked him what was the advantage of having the "controller" in the im716, he said for noise cancellation and stuff . I thought to myself, what the heck is he talking about noise cancellation, that's not what everyone here says. After that, I asked again how does he know the drivers are the same, his response was "I know because we use these in the office all the time". That said, I'm not sure if he really knows what he is talking about, which made me wonder if what he told me about the drivers is indeed true. Tomorrow I will email my questions in hope someone else from A.L. answers and will call (hopefully I get someone else)

Yeah, doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. Altec has so many products I doubt he's an expert on them all.

His answer could also be what he's instructed to answer for that query. As alluded to earlier, there may be a legal issue of what Altec is allowed to disclose, or more importantly not disclose, regarding the phones and their Ety heritage.

 

[bungle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jSatch Other factors, the iM616/ER6i have low impedances (16 Ohms), are easy to drive (not a factor solely due to impedance, but the driver parameters as well), are low in microphonics and lower SQ than the ER4 series.

I don't want to drag this back up, but until now there wasn't a lot on the iM616, so how was it known that it had lower microphonics and SQ? I read most of that thread and don't remember anyone having them, but do remember seeing these statements made.

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungle I don't want to drag this back up, but until now there wasn't a lot on the iM616, so how was it known that it had lower microphonics and SQ? I read most of that thread and don't remember anyone having them, but do remember seeing these statements made.

iLounge directly compared the iM716 to the ER4P, and the iM616 to the ER6i. PCMag.com, if memory serves me, did the same. The reasons for these comparisons were obvious at the time, but have been clouded (by Ety) for obvious reasons.


http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ipo...arphones-ipod/

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ipo...arphones-ipod/

(or page 48 of the iLounge Holiday Buyers Guide- link is on above sites)


Note- I just checked out PCMag.com's review:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1897750,00.asp

They preferred the iM616 to the ER6i, and compared it to the ER4P. The difference between the ER6i and iM616 could be attributed to the shell and/or wires (which can affect the sound),

OR, this, as with everything else, is still up in the air.

 

[bungle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jSatch iLounge directly compared the iM716 to the ER4P, and the iM616 to the ER6i. PCMag.com, if memory serves me, did the same. The reasons for these comparisons were obvious at the time, but have been clouded (by Ety) for obvious reasons.

Yeah, at first I thought you meant the compared them A/B. After reading it seems that they had some knowledge ahead of time about the 716/ER4 616/ER6i relationship. Except it almost seems they're saying the 616 has more cord noise than the ER6i.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jSatch Note- I just checked out PCMag.com's review: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1897750,00.asp

Pretty favorable review. I pretty much agree, except I've never heard any other IEMs. The case is goofy. I use mine only with my iAudio G3 and I do EQ the bass up.

Maybe we'll never have a definite answer, but even if they were the same drivers I would think the pod would change the sound anyway. (Need to compare a 716 with a pod-ectomy to a 616.) I didn't want a pod, and for 44 bucks now the 616 is a steal. It was good for the 60 I paid. Having two modes and the price of the 716 (when available on Amazon) is also a great deal. Hopefully the prices aren't just to liquidate the stock because Etymotic cut off the deal with AL for some reason.