[luisdent]

Quote:

You don't realize it luisdent, but you're getting totally owned by Inks. He's is providing evidence, all you have to offer is assertions. No offence.

 
That's funny.  haha.  I love how people interpret non-scientific "scientific" results.  If that's owned, than he's owning the hell out of me. ha  Goldenears has very thorough information on their graphing methods, which is a form of evidence, no?  He's arguing over things that aren't scientifically proven facts.  It's quite the opposite.  His information on these properties is theory and speculation based on different opinions.  The same could be said for goldeneras.  None of it is proven.  I'm providing evidence just as much as he is, only I've been giving more details with each post.  But the information is only as good as the effort the user puts into evaluating it.
 
I've simply been explaining how in real life usage I've proven to myself and offer this as assistance to others, that goldenears graphs are extremely accurate in their visual interpretation of sound.  I haven't claimed that either graphing method is fact or even better than the other, but that I find goldenears is logically and visually more understandable when listening and comparing earphones. 

 

[robm321]

They sound very neutral to me. I'm not hearing any spikes, just attenuation in the sub bass. I wouldn't worry so much about measurements. Unless a tiny mic was shoved in your ear canal, the measurements are not specific to your ears.

So, if they sound peaky, then they are peaky to you. If they sound flat & neutral (as they do to me), then they are neutral.

 

[markanini]

luisdent, even if your criticism was valid youre not providing the level of evidence that would make your assertion justified("look at GEs site"). Again I have no desire to make a personal attack, if you would find some independent and corroborating evidence for your side that would make the discussion far more interesting.

 

[palmfish]

Does this "conversation" really need to continue here? I dont see it coming to a conclusion and feathers are getting ruffled.

 

[music_4321]

Since this is a thread meant (mostly) for those whose favourite IEM is the ER4, my comments will very likely be ignored and/or frowned upon by most, but as a fellow HF'er, and seeing there seem to be interesting (and intelligent) aspects being discussed, I thought I'd share the following:

I decided to purchase the Golden Ears Accudio app this morning (£2.49) and decided to try my AGK K3003 with it. I did not like what I heard and much preferred the stock K3003 sound, which is very, very close sonically to my full-sized HD800s (FWIW, I know of at least 5-6 other people who have owned / auditioned both and who also seem to find such sonic similarities between both the Senns & AKGs).

This little experiment only reinforced the questioning I've been having for quite sometime of so-called flat(-tish) / reference / neutral / ideal FR graphs specifically for IEMs  (ie not for full-sized headphones). If I hadn't first tried the K3003s in London 1.5 years ago and only gone by the several FR graphs I've since seen for the K3003s, I would have come to the conclusion the K3003s (using the reference filter) are rather bass-heavy phones, when in actual fact they are not — if you own the ER4 / F111, and are very happy with them, then you'd most likely think so (!). The HD800 FR graph, by contrast, shows a fairly flat / linear curve, which is pretty much how the Senns sound to me, and pretty close to what I hear in the real world — the HD800s sound very different to the F111s. That was the reason I sold my ER4S-type IEMs (F111s) in the end, because, ultimately, as good & refined as they were, they didn't quite render music as realistically as my AKGs, FI-BA-SS, or FI-BA-SB (aka Heaven S).

My view, and I really don't mean any offence to all those who love the ER4 in this thread (and lurkers alike), is that this love is the result of a combination of: the influence of what people have read over the years—read: the ER4 is the ultimate reference IEM—and the simple fact that we can easily get used to many phones' sound sigs given (a bit of) time, the brain, after all, does wonders to adapt and compensate / fill in the gaps; I know this has happened to me in the past — haven't we all loved some 'crappy' phones before we 'knew better'? (Not too keen on the term "audiophile" and, therefore, I honestly don't consider myself one, or like to be called one — perhaps after this post (many) people may well think, "It shows you're not". I'm cool with that.)

 

[gnarlsagan]

Thanks for those impressions music_4321. I used to have the GR07, which has much less bass than the K3003. Compared to the HD800, I heard the GR07 as having more bass. I also heard the FXT90 as having similar but still more bass. I used to have an FAD as well, and I could hear audible distortion at higher volumes.

I think this just shows that we all hear differently. Fit can have a bigger effect on sound than we think sometimes imo. Everyone has a different HRTF.

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

Since this is a thread meant (mostly) for those whose favourite IEM is the ER4, my comments will very likely be ignored and/or frowned upon by most, but as a fellow HF'er, and seeing there seem to be interesting (and intelligent) aspects being discussed, I thought I'd share the following:

I decided to purchase the Golden Ears Accudio app this morning (£2.49) and decided to try my AGK K3003 with it. I did not like what I heard and much preferred the stock K3003 sound, which is very, very close sonically to my full-sized HD800s (FWIW, I know of at least 5-6 other people who have owned / auditioned both and who also seem to find such sonic similarities between both the Senns & AKGs).

This little experiment only reinforced the questioning I've been having for quite sometime of so-called flat(-tish) / reference / neutral / ideal FR graphs specifically for IEMs  (ie not for full-sized headphones). If I hadn't first tried the K3003s in London 1.5 years ago and only gone by the several FR graphs I've since seen for the K3003s, I would have come to the conclusion the K3003s (using the reference filter) are rather bass-heavy phones, when in actual fact they are not — if you own the ER4 / F111, and are very happy with them, then you'd most likely think so (!). The HD800 FR graph, by contrast, shows a fairly flat / linear curve, which is pretty much how the Senns sound to me, and pretty close to what I hear in the real world — the HD800s sound very different to the F111s. That was the reason I sold my ER4S-type IEMs (F111s) in the end, because, ultimately, as good & refined as they were, they didn't quite render music as realistically as my AKGs, FI-BA-SS, or FI-BA-SB (aka Heaven S).

My view, and I really don't mean any offence to all those who love the ER4 in this thread (and lurkers alike), is that this love is the result of a combination of: the influence of what people have read over the years—read: the ER4 is the ultimate reference IEM—and the simple fact that we can easily get used to many phones' sound sigs given (a bit of) time, the brain, after all, does wonders to adapt and compensate / fill in the gaps; I know this has happened to me in the past — haven't we all loved some 'crappy' phones before we 'knew better'? (Not too keen on the term "audiophile" and, therefore, I honestly don't consider myself one, or like to be called one — perhaps after this post (many) people may well think, "It shows you're not". I'm cool with that.)

 
This is understandable.  Accudio makes the k3003 flatter, but most people prefer more bass and treble.  The k3003 is a very nice "V-shaped" earphone, so not having any major "spikes" that stand out, this can be preferable to some.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Everyone has their own preference.  That doesn't make a flat response any less flat though.  You may simply prefer a non-flat response.
 
I'm not directing this at you, but a lot of people seem to get offended because you say their earphone isn't flat.  It's like they think you're saying their earphone isn't good.  Quite the opposite.  The 4r is an excellent earphone, but I "prefer" the flatness of the er4s.  So who cares if it isn't flat?  If you like it, you like it.  Be happy with your earphones.  I don't get why people have to argue about the flatness as if, because they like it, it has to be what flat really should sound like...
 
Quote:

luisdent, even if your criticism was valid youre not providing the level of evidence that would make your assertion justified("look at GEs site"). Again I have no desire to make a personal attack, if you would find some independent and corroborating evidence for your side that would make the discussion far more interesting.

 
 
Ironically, that's just what the other user is doing.  What more do you want?  I'm pointing you to their site which gives information on their graphing position.  If you want the reasoning, there it is.  What other corroborating evidence are you looking for, and what has the other user given as such?
 
 
 
Quote:

They sound very neutral to me. I'm not hearing any spikes, just attenuation in the sub bass. I wouldn't worry so much about measurements. Unless a tiny mic was shoved in your ear canal, the measurements are not specific to your ears.

 
That's my whole point.  For me goldenears matches the sound of the er4s... not peaky.  For the other user his graphs might match his impression.  I'm not sure.  But the er4s is tough because it suffers so much from fit issues.  I would definitely call it peaky with an improper fit/tip.  Otherwise, it is perfectly smooth to me with a dropoff in the sub bass.
 
As for the mic issue, the graphs are an "aid" not a representation of exactly what you will hear.  This is also EXACTLY why I prefer goldenear's graphs.  In COMPARING different earphones, the graphs have been perfectly consistent in their differences.  So no matter WHO listens to the earphones, the reference between them will show the same differences.  In other words.  If you listen to the 4r and find the mid bass is too much, you can know that the er4s has less mid bass by comparing their graphs.  Assuming a proper seal/fit you will hear the same difference as graphed.  It might not sound the same to user #2, but the difference between the two (i.e. the amount of mid bass difference) will be the same for user #2.  That is the point of any graph, and his graphs show this same information, but in a different way.  The golden ears graphs essentially act like a parametric eq.  So they are simple and easy to read.  That is the point.  
 
So they use a different methodology, but the results are consistent and easy to understand.  I don't know what more you could want in a graph of frequencies.
 
Quote:

Does this "conversation" really need to continue here? I dont see it coming to a conclusion and feathers are getting ruffled.

 
I agree.  It doesn't.  If anyone wants to start a graphing comparison thread I'd be glad to continue the debate there.  Otherwise, this is an er4s thread.  So let's talk about that.  While we can discuss graphs when relevant, I won't post another thing here specific to this debate.  So let me know if you open any new threads.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

I'm not directing this at you, but a lot of people seem to get offended because you say their earphone isn't flat.  It's like they think you're saying their earphone isn't good.  Quite the opposite.  The 4r is an excellent earphone, but I "prefer" the flatness of the er4s.  So who cares if it isn't flat?  If you like it, you like it.  Be happy with your earphones.  I don't get why people have to argue about the flatness as if, because they like it, it has to be what flat really should sound like...

Exactly. I've enjoyed non-flat bassy headphones before, namely the GR07; but too many people are confusing what they're perceiving as natural, as what is really accurate. Perceived naturalness and accurate are not the same. For example, if the mastering somehow made a track sound like it's lacking bass, then a bassy headphone would be able to compensate for that, making it sound more realistic. However, that doesn't mean the headphones are accurate, themselves; it simply means it may be more appropriate than a truly accurate headphones for that particular recording. Furthermore, some people just gravitate towards a meatier sound, and so they would perceive that as being more natural. Many have used a live venue as an example to argue that the ER4S isn't realistic; fine, but I personally don't want my IEMs to try to mimic a live concert, as it then will try to overcompensate by having extra bass, which would expand the perceived SS but will also have the negative effect of interfering with other regions of the spectrum. You will never get an IEM that produces realistic gut-pounding bass as in a live or speaker setting, and trying to make it do so will always result the overcompensation that I just mentioned, which is especially annoying if you're like me and favor a pristine upfront midrange.

 

[eke2k6]

Ok, here's my 2c on this "flatness" business.
 
I've heard a lot of phones, thanks to the generosity of fellow members and the malleability of my diet. Of all of them, the Etymotics I've heard may be among the flattest in terms of FR. Yet, they manage to be among the bottom tier of accuracy... to my ears.
 
IMO, accuracy goes far beyond the loudness of a frequency, which is what a FR graph shows. Dynamic range, soundstage capability, attack and decay, etc. all play vital roles in portraying music.
 
For me, the biggest knocks against the Ety range are: 1) small dynamic range, 2) lack of natural bass, especially sub-bass, 3) too fast decay.
 
I view the Etys as a a factory that emphasizes in quantity output, in that it seems like they are just trying to push out as many notes as possible without a care for true transparency into the recording.
 
Think I'm crazy? Tell me how my HD600, which actually measures flatter than the ER4S due to the absence of that massive 2k spike, sounds much more true to the recording? I have a recording of a classical performance from my school's orchestra. I listened to it on the ER6, and it sounded almost nothing like the live performance. In comparison, the HD600 almost transports me there.
 
 
 

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

IMO, accuracy goes far beyond the loudness of a frequency, which is what a FR graph shows. Dynamic range, soundstage capability, attack and decay, etc. all play vital roles in portraying music.
 
For me, the biggest knocks against the Ety range are: 1) small dynamic range, 2) lack of natural bass, especially sub-bass, 3) too fast decay.

 
I can agree with that, especially on decay, except for #2 (its bass is almost perfectly accurate imo) and soundstage. I wouldn't put these anywhere near the bottom tier in terms of accuracy. I think you just lean heavily towards bassy headphones. To my ears, I disagree with your impression of the GR07 having more realistic soundstaging than the ER4S. I think that's subjective. The GR07 to me, had slightly bloaty sound which made its SS appear slightly artificial.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

 
This is understandable.  Accudio makes the k3003 flatter, but most people prefer more bass and treble.  The k3003 is a very nice "V-shaped" earphone, so not having any major "spikes" that stand out, this can be preferable to some.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Everyone has their own preference.  That doesn't make a flat response any less flat though.  You may simply prefer a non-flat response.
 
I'm not directing this at you, but a lot of people seem to get offended because you say their earphone isn't flat.  It's like they think you're saying their earphone isn't good.  Quite the opposite.  The 4r is an excellent earphone, but I "prefer" the flatness of the er4s.  So who cares if it isn't flat?  If you like it, you like it.  Be happy with your earphones.  I don't get why people have to argue about the flatness as if, because they like it, it has to be what flat really should sound like...

 
You seem to have missed the main point of my post. Yes, the Accudio app supposedly makes phones 'flat', flat according to Golden Ears' ideal reference curve / graph. BUT, the real point of my post is that the HD800 is fairly flat (according to all graphs you see), which is exactly how I hear them, and, according to several K3003 & HD800 owners, including myself, the FR of both is remarkably similar / close (unlike the new $1,000 Senn flagship IEM, the IE800 (!!), a fairly bassy phone that has little in common with the HD800), hence my on-going reservations / questioning of FR graphs specifically for IEMs.

So, this is not about whether I like a more bassy (or so-called 'fun' / V-shaped) sound sig or not, but about what those graphs actually say / mean in the real world. In the world of IEMs there are more variables to be taken into account (tips, ear shapes, vented vs non-vented IEMs, insertion, etc.; for instance, I sometimes hear an IEM closer to the raw data in a graph than the compensated data. FWIW, though perhaps relevant to the discussion, I'm someone who's usually very fortunate in the sense that I normally get a great fit (and seal when the IEM in question is meant to offer good isolation) and the 'intended' SQ of the IEM with stock tips (usually medium ones even), and, over the years, have also tried many different tips to test / hear diff sonic differences, which, of course, are there and can vary a great deal.

 

[vwinter]

Quote:

Many have used a live venue as an example to argue that the ER4S isn't realistic; fine, but I personally don't want my IEMs to try to mimic a live concert, (1) as it then will try to overcompensate by having extra bass, (2) which would expand the perceived SS but will also have the negative effect of interfering with other regions of the spectrum. (3) You will never get an IEM that produces realistic gut-pounding bass as in a live or speaker setting, and trying to make it do so will always result the overcompensation that I just mentioned, which is especially annoying if you're like me and favor a pristine upfront midrange.

 
(1), (2), and (3) are assumptions.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

 
(1), (2), and (3) are assumptions.

1 is an assumption indeed, I admit. 2 is a tendency rather than a rule. 3 is a fact; excess bass will always appear to encroach upon midrange in proportion to its excessiveness.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eke2k6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
For me, the biggest knocks against the Ety range are: 1) small dynamic range, 2) lack of natural bass, especially sub-bass, 3) too fast decay.

 
I disagree with all of these points. ER4 doesn't have a small dynamic range to my ears. I listen to a lot of music with a wide dynamic range and the Etys handle those variations in volume just fine IMO. They are not as crazy dynamic as a well amped HE-500 for example, but they are sufficiently dynamic IMO. Regarding bass, I also disagree, because I think that Etys have some of the tightest, most detailed lows out there and the quantity is sufficient IMO. As for excessively short decay - is that even possible? I know there is such thing as an overly long decay, when headphones produce sounds that are actually not there on the recording, due to improper, overly resonant housing designs or high distortion levels. But excessively short decay? Perhaps a headphone lacking in resolution, either due to low quality driver or too much damping, could be said to have excessively short decay because of its inability to reproduce those last bits of harmonics, making the sound incomplete. However, Etys are definitely not lacking in resolution IMO and are able to reproduce all of the harmonics, subtle reverbs, etc, that are on the recording, so I don't understand how their decay can be too short. It is as short as what's on the recording IMO - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

 
I disagree with all of these points. ER4 doesn't have a small dynamic range to my ears. I listen to a lot of music with a wide dynamic range and the Etys handle those variations in volume just fine IMO. They are not as crazy dynamic as a well amped HE-500 for example, but they are sufficiently dynamic IMO. Regarding bass, I also disagree, because I think that Etys have some of the tightest, most detailed lows out there and the quantity is sufficient IMO. As for excessively short decay - is that even possible? I know there is such thing as an overly long decay, when headphones produce sounds that are actually not there on the recording, due to improper, overly resonant housing designs or high distortion levels. But excessively short decay? Perhaps a headphone lacking in resolution, either due to low quality driver or too much damping, could be said to have excessively short decay because of its inability to reproduce those last bits of harmonics, making the sound incomplete. However, Etys are definitely not lacking in resolution IMO and are able to reproduce all of the harmonics, subtle reverbs, etc, that are on the recording, so I don't understand how their decay can be too short. It is as short as what's on the recording IMO - nothing more, nothing less.

Accurate decay is not something I never quite understood. I just know that the SM3 has waaay too much decay and sounds to me like mud, whereas the ER4S is quite dry sounding. Perhaps accurate decay is somewhere in between. I don't know... :/