[billydelyons]

  Coaxial input is for DACs. There is no such thing as an amp with coaxial input.

 
Now that I think about it, I believe you are right:
the coax output of the DX50 would send a digital signal, so the portable amp receiving that signal would need to have a DAC.
 
Understood and many thanks for your comment.

 

[luisdent]

 Amping is overrated if the source is good to begin with, many times i bet it's placebo

 
I completely agree.  I think a lot of times it is placebo type affects.  In fact, I don't think anyone should go out and buy a c5 just to improve their fuze.  I think the difference is small enough that most people might be disappointed (unless they think the difference is even greatee because of placebo type effects) for the price.  However, there is a difference that is easy for me to hear.  Part of the reason I would argue this isn't placebo, is because I honestly thought it didn't sound better for a while.  However, now with my flatter eq and longer listening sessions with the er4s the difference is more apparent.
 

 

Man, the er4s are amazing. Especially with the c5. I'm listening to the alan parsons project right now in bed. They always sound amazing in bed. It's like the relaxing allows me to focus even better or something. Anyhow, with just my small eq these things are so transparent it's ridiculous. I really hear things close to my studio monitors. I keep debating if i should just sell my pfe112. They're so good, but these are indeed better. Mmmmmmm....

lusident, don't you find C5 (due to its opamp) a little bit to slow and less airy? Although I've never heard C5 and I know that implementation of a given opamp is the most crucial aspect of the sound of a given amp, but on my DIY Amp there is a difference in sound between OPA2227 (as I understand this opamp is used in C5) and for example AD8610 (which was used in C421 and currently is used for example in Leckerton Audio UHA-4); OPA2227 have very good bas but does not have this amount of air, instrument separation and neutrality which AD8610 have.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm looking for a new amp for my iMod and my ER4s. I want to have very neutral amp wich does not change much in the audio signal which comes from iMod.

 
Here's the thing.  The C5 doesn't make a big difference with the er4s.  In fact it makes a very small difference.  I find the er4s is less source dependent than most iems.  Not that the sound isn't different between sources, but just not as great a difference as other iems can be.
 
However, with that said, the c5 does improve the sound, and I do prefer it over the fuze alone.  I think the difference is small enough that it might be hard for some people to hear it.  I'd be really curious if you can hear it gnarl over the amp you have.
 
I would say the opamp is the opposite of how you described it Krismarzyk.  I know john at jds has done a great implementation of the whole design, so maybe that is why it fares better than other amps with the same opamp?  I don't know.  But i get the opposite result.  The c5 opens up the sound a tad and if anything gives more air.  It basically makes the music sound ever so slightly more dynamic, clear and "light" sounding.  Not light from lack of bass or anything.  The frequency response sounds identical.  It's more that the treble sounds a bit less congested or more effortless.
 
I can't stress enough that this is a small change.  I believe it is there and easy for me to hear, but it's not something I'd say "yeah go buy the amp it sounds so much better".  However, there are some songs where I notice the lack of treble openness more when I'm not using the amp.  I can volume match the devices and do a quick plug change and easily hear the difference.  But after a lot of listening I think I know what to listen for.  If you just jump in you might think "what's different".
 
Although, as one thing gnarl mentioned, I think it might be easier for some people to "feel" the track and not a/b one little part.  Not that you shouldn't do that too, but I definitely get more of a "wow... this does sound good" feeling with the amp.
 
So again, small difference.  VERY small difference.  But I personally feel as though I can hear it.  And I think if you listen to the c5 you might hear it too if you focus on those things.  I don't know how to prove it isn't placebo other than to say that I'm very aware of that sort of effect and I'm very familiar with "listening" for things in audio.  I record and mix my own music and sometimes get picky down to .5 db changes and very slight panning changes, eq, etc. that I can hear.  So although no one is perfect, I really do believe this is a real difference.  But beyond that I can only say you'd have to try it yourself and see what you think.  Is it worth $180 or so to upgrade to the c5 with a sansa player?  I'd say no.  But i already have one. hehe.  And I do prefer it.  From a lesser device?  Definitely....

 

[palmfish]

If you reread my post, I specifically said I do not want to use the DX50 solely as a transport, but want to use the DX50's internal DAC to feed an external amp.

Theres no need for me to reread your post. Using the coax out of your DX50 means you are bypassing its internal DAC - in other words, using it as a transport.

 

[puskuruk]

What do you think ad8620+wm8741 modded x3 with er4s?

 

[palmfish]

I wasnt going to say anything until I tried it, but I took advantage of the tip posted earlier and bought the P to S adapter from eBay for my HF5.

Based on the descriptions Ive read here, it has the same effect of the HF5. Namely, it reduces the upper bass bloat and adds clarity to the midrange. Overall a much cleaner, clearer sounding presentation.

I can heartily recommend it for the HF Series.

 

[luisdent]

I wasnt going to say anything until I tried it, but I took advantage of the tip posted earlier and bought the P to S adapter from eBay for my HF5.

Based on the descriptions Ive read here, it has the same effect of the HF5. Namely, it reduces the upper bass bloat and adds clarity to the midrange. Overall a much cleaner, clearer sounding presentation.

I can heartily recommend it for the HF Series.

 
This makes sense.  I think the hf5 is very similar to the er4p, so the difference should be similar as well.  I just think it isn't as perfectly refined.  But I bet it's pretty darn close compared to other IEMs.

 

[palmfish]

I have still never hear the ER-4, but it's all the comments about how close the ER-4 and HF5 are that prompted me to give it a try.

More listening... The adapter affects the treble too. Treble has more sizzle - not necessarily in a good way. Its very recording dependent whether the adapter improves or worsens the sound overall for me.

 

[luisdent]

I have still never hear the ER-4, but it's all the comments about how close the ER-4 and HF5 are that prompted me to give it a try.

More listening... The adapter affects the treble too. Treble has more sizzle - not necessarily in a good way. Its very recording dependent whether the adapter improves or worsens the sound overall for me.

 
I had the hf5 and I think the er4s is better.  I didn't think the hf5 was bad, but the er4s is smoother overall if you match the treble levels .  So the treble being boosted on the er4s isn't probably as bad.  Although, the green filters have a slight bump in the 2k region, so that could put some people off.  The red filters remove this completely.  EQ really makes the green filter shine though.  I'm talking a few adjustments, all roughly 1.5db adjustments.  So good............  So good.

 

[palmfish]

Yes, if I had to describe the HF5 with adapter I would say it sounds a little "rough." It would definitely be better if it was smoother. Without the adapter, it doesnt sound rough (the bloated upper bass assures this), but It suufers from lack of clarity.

Its funny, I never noticed the lack of clarity before. It wasnt until I heard those damn AKG's that Ibecame dissatisfied with the HF5.

Fortunately, I really dont like using IEM's (heresy!) except for when I travel, so I dont feel too tempted to upgrade. I think I paid maybe $70 for my HF5's so Im happy with that.

 

[luisdent]

Yes, if I had to describe the HF5 with adapter I would say it sounds a little "rough." It would definitely be better if it was smoother. Without the adapter, it doesnt sound rough (the bloated upper bass assures this), but It suufers from lack of clarity.

Its funny, I never noticed the lack of clarity before. It wasnt until I heard those damn AKG's that Ibecame dissatisfied with the HF5.

Fortunately, I really dont like using IEM's (heresy!) except for when I travel, so I dont feel too tempted to upgrade. I think I paid maybe $70 for my HF5's so Im happy with that.

 
Which akg?

 

[eke2k6]

I have still never hear the ER-4, but it's all the comments about how close the ER-4 and HF5 are that prompted me to give it a try.

More listening... The adapter affects the treble too. Treble has more sizzle - not necessarily in a good way. Its very recording dependent whether the adapter improves or worsens the sound overall for me.

 
LOL! I had the opposite reaction to the adapter! 
 
 

  I just got a genuine ER4P to ER4S adapter in the mail, and I've been using it all morning on my HF5.
 
The differences are exactly what have been described going from P to S.
 
On first listen and A/B, my reactions could be summed up as: "Wow, that's a lot clearer"
 
My final conclusion was "why would anyone want to listen to music with this?"
 
It's like someone locked up the HF3 in an underground cellar for months, until it lost every bit of character it had. 
 
As for the ER4S vs HF5 graphs, they don't nearly tell the full story. The ER4S may extend slightly further, but quantity seems lacking to my ears. The HF5 sounds like a sub-bass monster in comparison. I also find the HF5's treble response to be better. I hear much more tizz and sharpness with the S. Now the HF5's treble isn't the most full-bodied around, but the S is just not appealing to me. I see why you guys have been switching filters and adding EQ.
 
 
All this assumes that the adapter really does emulate the ER4S from the HF5. I hope not.
 

 

[luisdent]

Regarding my c5 with the sansa players.  I was looking around and found this, ironically from john at jds labs:
 
post #4
 
The last point he makes sounds like it could be the culprit.  The er4s is fine out of the fuze, but it does require near max volumes on quiet music or 75% on "average" music.  On some very quiet tracks I hit the max of the fuze and it isn't loud in my er4s.  I am using eq, so i precut the eq by about 8db.  But even still, the fuze runs at high volumes on really quiet music either way (which is some of the best mastered music).  The c5 could be allowing the fuze to offload the audio without the demand of the earphones causing the device draw to be less than optimal quality.  Just a theory.
 
I asked him about distortion as well.  I'll see what he says.  After talking with gnarl, I'm starting to think the difference I'm hearing might be improved thd.  This would also go with how I said some people might not notice it as much, because it is a small difference.  Maybe this isn't the reason, but it seems a likely possibility.  At least that the c5 is letting the fuze deliver power without as much strain thereby increasing overall quality.  Anyhow, talking about this also made me realize something about the pfe.
 
I always say the distortion isn't very audible if at all, and while I still sort of agree that is the case, that most people wouldn't hear it, I think it is definitely there.  No matter how much eq I use, even though it greatly improves the pfe112 overall, I can never really get it to the perfection of the er4s in terms of clarity and smoothness.  I'm starting to actually "hear" this (or not hear it) the more I use eq on them.  I'm thinking it is the distortion that is keeping me from attaining my goal of perfection in the fact that it just can't get any smoother than the distortion allows it to be.
 
I wouldn't let this dissuade people from the pfe112.  In terms of frequency response (especially with eq) it really sounds good.  But so far, I've never found anything that touches the er4s.  In fact, with my newest eq settings and the c5, I highly doubt anything would come close for me.  It is like a real studio monitor in my ears.  The eq i use opens the treble up a tad more by smoothing it out and making it actually sound more spacious a bit.  This shows the power of a little eq.  I most of the "opening" of the treble is actually from eq cuts and not boosts.  By cutting the two "problem" areas the rest of the treble is more easily heard.  Again, slight difference, but really makes them more transparent.  And the sub bass boost is perfect at filling in the bass on tracks that have it and not affecting anything else.
 
I have to say, right now I'm a really happy man with my audio setup.  For once I don't feel the need to keep searching.  I probably always will because I enjoy it, but I'm poor at the moment and it doesn't bother me that I can't "keep looking" for a better iem.  I'm not sure one exists.  And even if it does, I'm sure it's a lot more expensive and custom, which I'm not looking for.  I love my er4s and so should you! hahaha  Every time I listen to music now I'm really enveloped and just get lost in it.  It's just so good.

 

[palmfish]

Which akg?

K3003

 

[palmfish]

LOL! I had the opposite reaction to the adapter! 

Reading your comments, I think we have the exact same reaction. The difference is perhaps that I really hate the "bloated" sound of forward mids and perhaps you like the "warm and smooth" sound of forward mids.

 

[luisdent]

 

LOL! I had the opposite reaction to the adapter! 
 

Reading your comments, I think we have the exact same reaction. The difference is perhaps that I really hate the "bloated" sound of forward mids and perhaps you like the "warm and smooth" sound of forward mids.

 
Get the er4s and red filters and enjoy neutral mids. hehe  Or green filters with a tad of eq to reduce the 2k region by about 1.5db