[AnyDave]

  That's the same reason why I dislike the ER4P the most, the reduced highs. My preference is still the ER4B with Etymotic red filters. With proper deep insertion, the bass on the ER4B is precise and tight though not as warm as the ER4P. I've never found the ER4B's treble over powering which many people complained about....maybe it's because I'm using the red filters. Does the ER4SR even come close to the ER4B with red filters? I love changes as long as it's a good change.

 
Well, I'll admit that I've never actually measured the ER4Bs with the red filters, although I'm somebody here would've checked years ago during the original development.
 
The the ER4B actually has more high frequency information than the ER4S although the higher resistance red filter might tame that down slightly (it'd also damper the primary resonance).  The ER4SR/XR have similar high frequencies, but they would be closer to the ER4S than the ER4B, at least with the stock filters.

 

[luisdent]

First of all thanks tremendously for taking the time to answer so many questions. i'm excited no matter what and will buy both to at least see which i like better, if not to keep both.

I will tell you this. I'm a huge advocate of correcting earphones with EQ and find i can get incredible results with the help of graphs and reference monitors. And after all this time i find with the grey foam tips seated properly i use my er4s all the time with no eq. I used to use a little eq, but the er4s is the only earphone ever that I'm satisfied with having no EQ.

With that said, to make it truly reference (as a studio monitor goes), i always found the bass started to dropp off around roughly 50-70hz. I use an eq that puts the bass about +5db at and below 50hz. But i always felt it should return to 0db boost no later than around 80-100hz at most. It's a very specific curve that i could never get with passive electronic components due to the shelving rate. So I'm very interested to hear the new models!

Also, i found the 7-8khz had a very small dip that i would boost with a narrow band a few db and then the 2-3khz region was ever so slightly boosted and i took that down a touch.

All of these changes are slight at most. But the resulting sound was just that much more impressive. Not to be impatient, but can you tell us roughly "how" your new reference model more closely matches the target reference? Did you further smooth any of those areas i mentioned? Or slightly improve sub bass response? Or is the 10khz+ region more linear?

Also, will these use the same filters stock? (Ie green er4s filters)

I understand if you can't answer all of this. So I'll let you get to all the other questions and won't keep bugging you here if so...

 

[robm321]

  On one hand I am happy that the new models are indeed new; on the other hand I kind of sad that this might be the end of an era.

 
Indeed.

 

[Francisk]

   
Well, I'll admit that I've never actually measured the ER4Bs with the red filters, although I'm somebody here would've checked years ago during the original development.
 
The the ER4B actually has more high frequency information than the ER4S although the higher resistance red filter might tame that down slightly (it'd also damper the primary resonance).  The ER4SR/XR have similar high frequencies, but they would be closer to the ER4S than the ER4B, at least with the stock filters.

Thanks for the clarification. Even though the ER4SR/XR high frequencies would be closer the ER4S, I'd still like to try the new ER4SR?XR. I assume that ER4SR/XR are still on stock green filters. I'll wait patiently for the ER4SR/XR final release and see if I'd like it better than my ER4B with red filters. Thanks for all the useful information for all Etymotic fans here.

 

[AnyDave]

First of all thanks tremendously for taking the time to answer so many questions. i'm excited no matter what and will buy both to at least see which i like better, if not to keep both.

I will tell you this. I'm a huge advocate of correcting earphones with EQ and find i can get incredible results with the help of graphs and reference monitors. And after all this time i find with the grey foam tips seated properly i use my er4s all the time with no eq. I used to use a little eq, but the er4s is the only earphone ever that I'm satisfied with having no EQ.

With that said, to make it truly reference (as a studio monitor goes), i always found the bass started to dropp off around roughly 50-70hz. I use an eq that puts the bass about +5db at and below 50hz. But i always felt it should return to 0db boost no later than around 80-100hz at most. It's a very specific curve that i could never get with passive electronic components due to the shelving rate. So I'm very interested to hear the new models!

Also, i found the 7-8khz had a very small dip that i would boost with a narrow band a few db and then the 2-3khz region was ever so slightly boosted and i took that down a touch.

All of these changes are slight at most. But the resulting sound was just that much more impressive. Not to be impatient, but can you tell us roughly "how" your new reference model more closely matches the target reference? Did you further smooth any of those areas i mentioned? Or slightly improve sub bass response? Or is the 10khz+ region more linear?

Also, will these use the same filters stock? (Ie green er4s filters)

I understand if you can't answer all of this. So I'll let you get to all the other questions and won't keep bugging you here if so...

 
I've long said that it's easier to take a flat earphone and judiciously add EQ then it is too take a non-linear response and try to flatten it (especially if you don't have access to measurement equipment).  On the other hand, many folks don't want to EQ at all, so they want to get the native earphone response that appeals to them the most, which makes a lot of sense.
 
Yes, the new models will still use the stock green 1500 ohm filters.
 
As far as comparing the new and old model, we're working on how to best convey that information.  I don't want to hastily throw something together because, as we all know, once it's posted it'll live forever.

 

[Max Choiral]

EtyDave, earlier you was talking about "flat mid-high frequencies" relatively to the bass. Sure, the old good ER4S has little boost in the midrange but it's a good thing imho.
My main questions are: does the new ER4 has the same sweet mids or it's a bit lowered compared to the previous version? Was there any improvement in conveying natural tone of the musical instruments?

 

[luisdent]

  I don't want to hastily throw something together because, as we all know, once it's posted it'll live forever.

No problem. And that's a great attitude. I absolutely prefer a flat earphone with no eq. And also prefer a flat earphone over eq'ing something non-linear to be flatter. I have got great results and it is usually possible to improve things, but it is definitely better to have it flat to begin with. Especially when it comes to very narrow band peaks and dips in a response.

I'll be one of the first to buy and compare these. Just say the word and the check is in the mail.

 

[AnyDave]

  EtyDave, earlier you was talking about "flat mid-high frequencies" relatively to the bass. Sure, the old good ER4S has little boost in the midrange but it's a good thing imho.
My main questions are: does the new ER4 has the same sweet mids or it's a bit lowered compared to the previous version? Was there any improvement in conveying natural tone of the musical instruments?

 
The old ER4S is actually fairly flat in the midrange.  The resonant peak you see at 2.7 kHz is required for a flat response because the natural resonance of the ear canal is lost when you the ear canal is occluded by inserting the earphone.
 
There is an article you can download from our website that discusses insertion gain as it applies to high fidelity hearing aids.  Some of you might find it interesting.  Most of the information pertaining to this is in the first two pages.
 
http://www.etymotic.com/media/publications/erl-0002-1982.pdf
 
As far as "same sweet mids" on the new ER4SR, I happen to think they are sweet, but my high level of personal bias has already been established. 

 

[Max Choiral]

 
As far as "same sweet mids" on the new ER4SR, I happen to think they are sweet, but my high level of personal bias has already been established. 

I do hope Etymotic will keep it's way and doesn't change target curve to the "consumer friendly tastes" which mostly lead to the loss in midrange and preciseness.
And you missed my second part of the question about "natural tone"

 Even if it can't be measured, I would like to hear smth about it.

 

[Dougr33]

I propose that someone in authority bump the super helpful EtyDave up from "Junior Head-Fi'er"  sooner than forum protocol allows !! 

 

[AnyDave]

  I do hope Etymotic will keep it's way and doesn't change target curve to the "consumer friendly tastes" which mostly lead to the loss in midrange.
And you missed my second part of the question about "natural tone"

 Even if it can't be measured, I would like to hear smth about it.

As long as I've been here, the target is the target.  We've long had our own internal metric for measuring accuracy score which for which 100% was absolute fidelity to the original source.  Nothing is perfect, but we've always tried to get as close as possible.  The ER4SR is as close to that as we've ever gotten.
 
The ER4XR is an admitted departure as we've intentionally added a bit of low end.  Clearly, this deviates a bit from true accuracy and is a bit towards listener preference (of which there have been many studies).  I guess this could be considered changing the goal for "consumer friendly tastes" but since we are still offering a reference grade flat earphone we felt we could offer something that might appeal to some folks that wanted a bit more low end.
 
You are right, I did miss the second part about natural tone.  Generally speaking, I've always felt that, if the recording is reproduced correctly, the accurate tone of the instruments should be properly conveyed.  Beyond that, I'm not sure how I'd answer that question.  I'll have to mull that over.
 
 

 

[AnyDave]

  I propose that someone in authority bump the super helpful EtyDave up from "Junior Head-Fi'er"  sooner than forum protocol allows !! 

 
Thanks Doug, I really appreciate that.

 

[luisdent]

I definitely agree with that assesment. I use the foam grey tips pretty deep, and the green filters don't have any major bump at 2-3khz. If it's there it is uber small. More noticeable is the 7.5k dip and 50hz and below dip. I feel like when i used to use the silicon tips the 2-3khz peak was a bit present, but I'm not sure if that had to do with depth or somethring else...

The er4s is phenomenally accurate though, in my opinion. And I'm regulary listening to monitors in a treated studio that measure very flat. The biggest area that seems different is just the typical bass translation from monitors to earphones. But its really not that bad when you are familiar with the differences, and any bass improvement with the er4 could at least help with this for some people.

Unless the response on these new models is flatter in one way at the cost of another area, then these are going to be amazing. Even the slightest improvement to the er4s makes it the best earphone out there. And the bass model give everyone a choice now if they prefer that. It will probably be like a zero audio carbo tenore in response i bet, but maybe a more refined touch. I wonder if the bass model uses the same driver?

 

[Max Choiral]

    Generally speaking, I've always felt that, if the recording is reproduced correctly, the accurate tone of the instruments should be properly conveyed.  Beyond that, I'm not sure how I'd answer that question.  I'll have to mull that over.

Yes, you're right. ER4S does a pretty decent job in this regard and not falls behind compared to the newest IEM, full-sized headphones no matter how expensive it is. Moreover,  in most cases it takes upper hand which is an awesome fact.
But there is still a gap that can be overcomed and I'm sure you can do it cause you had already proved this with 20+ years old IEM

I doubt it will tell you anything since your specialization doesn't cover this technology but once I've tried vintage orthodynamic headphone I understood there is still a space for the improvement in conveying natural life-like tone of instruments. To clear everything, I'm assured this is what should be an essential part of "precise" sound.
Anyway, I appreciate taking your time to answer my silly questions, haha.
 
Looking forward to any news regarding subject from you.

 

[bms44974]

  I propose that someone in authority bump the super helpful EtyDave up from "Junior Head-Fi'er"  sooner than forum protocol allows !! 

+1