If you still love Etymotic ER4, this is the thread for you...

[thefitz]

Compared to Comply tips, which for once don't mask the top end on these, the gray foams have a little more activity on the treble. I think the narrow chamber that extends past the tip of the driver causes this, whereas it's basically flush with the tip on Comply.
 
I currently have Tx-100 L, which are a bit too big. I ordered a variety pack as well, so I can experiment. Looking at the tips, I expect the Sport to perform the best, as it looks to have the least amount of foam past the tip of the nozzle.

 

[djbaneatwebde]

Recieved my ER4XR in the mail, pulled those flanges off, squeezed the famous shure black foam sleeves size m on, rolled them between my fingers and inserted them. Wow! Never heard such a good transient response! compared to my E535 they sound like a magnifying glass for your ears if you know what i mean. The stage does't sound that big but more like your zooming into the wave and recognise every mp3 fragment.
 
Just a LITTLE bit more bass?
I guess that it is up to the amping.
 
The Fiio X3 isn't impressive in this segment. Just enough to be glad for the XR-part.
(volume set to 48, gain lo, no normalization just straight wave from cd-rip).
 
With the rig at home though... Foobar .wav --> Echo Audiofire 12 --> Lake People F388-D.
Suddenly it feels like a high-resolution SE215! That amp seems to have tremendous power and you certainly feel that.
>10.5 Veff @ 50 Ohms literally grab the voicecoil without letting go in any direction. And suddenly the boosted bass destroys the whole picture for monitoring purposes if you're looking for that flat response.
 
Candy Dulfer, Marcus Miller, Victor Wooten sounded immersive especially live-versions
No Muddy bass from heavy metal but beautiful detail in fast and dense parts
Psytrance like Astrix, Aerospace or E-Clip was a little bit too much for my taste. The impact of the Kick seemed boosted like the bass boost switch in your car stereo, depending on the kickdrum. With the Fiio you can kind of simulate the same by boosting the bass between +5 and up.
 
So glad i bought them. They reveal what other headphones or earplugs had been missing. Worth the money!!! (399€ Germany)
 
nearly forgot: I didn't run into trouble with left right recognition. even the fiio screen is bright enough to see. ^^

 

[vapman]

Thanks for the tip, just checked it out.
Still reading through the thread.

From what I have been reading though, as an upgrade from the ER4s, the ER4SR are not ground breaking changes. Main refinement in extension and some in clarity.
Also as, I am not currently located in the US, $275 + shipping, customs, etc. don't make an upgrade worthwhile.
I'd rather invest this money into my inevitable UERR purchase.

At least i currently don't think so....still reading though. The conversation is a bit diffuse, though.

If you preferred the SR I would either sell the PT or trade it in. I wouldn't be annoyed though: the SR/XR have not even been on the market for more than a couple months.

I bought a used ER4P after the launch of the SR/XR when the used prices dropped. I have an ER4B cable for it and nice as the SR is I am keeping my 4P/4B instead.

However I bought the XR because the bass boost appealed to me. If the XR interests you then upgrade with no hesitation.

I wouldn't be as quick to write off the old ER4.

 

[Xacxac]

I hear the SR as strictly better than the S. They shaved just a hair off of the mids, and the treble sounds slightly more present/defined. These two new attributes are fairly minor improvements, but definitely audible to me.

A bigger and more notable improvement to me is the bass, which sounds more defined. This improved definition results in a perceived emphasis increase, even though I don't think the emphasis is necessarily increased over the ER4S. It's just that bass lines and the edges of bass notes are more easily discernable on the SR.

To me, these changes make the SR an easy upgrade choice from the S. The SR sounds noticeably better to me over the S. Not everyone will agree, but at least a couple other folks have expressed similar thoughts in this thread.

Ordered the SR. Maybe I'll get a pair of PT to compare later (and past experience of HD800). Estimated delivery: Wednesday. Can't wait for it!

 

[Thomas-]

Speaking of amping... I'm fixin' to get myself a new Portable Bluetooth Amp to use with my ER4XR.
 
Is 50mW per channel enough or do I need 100mW per channel?

 

[luisdent]

Here is the keane CD vs the SACD. I recorded the SACD stereo layer direct into my apogee duet at maximum level without clipping. I normalized the level during input, so this is as good as the level gets. No loss of dynamics, etc. This is a great example of a CD that actually sounds pretty good compressed, but the SACD uncompressed version sounds better still to my ears. It breathes more while still sounding powerful when the music calls for it.
 
The compressed CD version sounds a bit more dry due to the compression giving the sound a bit more of an "up front" presentation. There may also be an ever so slight amount of brightness EQ added as well, which further makes it sounds dry. This is pretty typical with compression mastering, as the sound gets more even with compression, but also more dull sometimes. So brightness is added, and sometimes bass, to compensate for the compression.
 
Anyway, here are some screenshots.
 
SACD Stereo:
 

 
CD Stereo:
 

 
Zoomed into the last chorus on the CD (top) and SACD (bottom):
 

 
The zoomed chorus section on CD (left) and SACD (right)
 

 
 
The side by side make the difference more apparent visually. Basically all of that space in the SACD version between the maximum peaks and minimum peaks is literally heard as improved "space" in the audio. It's like you hear into the music a bit more between instruments and the song breathes more. Things also sound a bit more silky and smooth and less dry and gritty vs the compressed version.
 
If anyone is interested, I can try to volume match the two versions and make a sample file of them playing one after the other...

 

[castleofargh]

just to avoid any wrong idea for some readers, it has nothing to do with the song being in DSD. we could just as well find an example where the songs are from the same master, or some where we would actually prefer the CD version. what's infuriating is that if they have the files with good dynamic to make this SACD master, then they have it to make the CD correctly too. I talked about how we should know and love the good sound engineers, well I would also like the know and hate the punks making the decision to ruin one of the formats on purpose. I can't even blame the sound engineer, I'm guessing most are asked to do it and simply do what they're asked to do. but the guys really making the decision...

 

[uzi2]

   
The side by side make the difference more apparent visually. Basically all of that space in the SACD version between the maximum peaks and minimum peaks is literally heard as improved "space" in the audio. It's like you hear into the music a bit more between instruments and the song breathes more. Things also sound a bit more silky and smooth and less dry and gritty vs the compressed version.
 
If anyone is interested, I can try to volume match the two versions and make a sample file of them playing one after the other...

It's also easy to see that all the tiny spikes in the SACD version have been clipped in the CD version.

 

[luisdent]

That was always my main point. SACD is inaudibly different from CD in my opinion... IF the master is identical. I don't believe DSD adds anything, despite the technical fanciness. For archiving music? Sure. But I'd just use 24/96 for that. or 24/192. But for listening, CD is excellent when the audio on it is excellent.
 
Think of it this way, whether it was from the CD or SACD, both of those waveforms are from the audio AFTER it was recorded to the computer. So it is no longer DSD fanciness.... and you can see and hear it is better than the CD.

 

[Hutnicks]

  Here is the keane CD vs the SACD. I recorded the SACD stereo layer direct into my apogee duet at maximum level without clipping. I normalized the level during input, so this is as good as the level gets. No loss of dynamics, etc. This is a great example of a CD that actually sounds pretty good compressed, but the SACD uncompressed version sounds better still to my ears. It breathes more while still sounding powerful when the music calls for it.
 
The compressed CD version sounds a bit more dry due to the compression giving the sound a bit more of an "up front" presentation. There may also be an ever so slight amount of brightness EQ added as well, which further makes it sounds dry. This is pretty typical with compression mastering, as the sound gets more even with compression, but also more dull sometimes. So brightness is added, and sometimes bass, to compensate for the compression.
 
Anyway, here are some screenshots.
 
SACD Stereo:
 

 
CD Stereo:
 

 
Zoomed into the last chorus on the CD (top) and SACD (bottom):
 

 
The zoomed chorus section on CD (left) and SACD (right)
 

 
 
The side by side make the difference more apparent visually. Basically all of that space in the SACD version between the maximum peaks and minimum peaks is literally heard as improved "space" in the audio. It's like you hear into the music a bit more between instruments and the song breathes more. Things also sound a bit more silky and smooth and less dry and gritty vs the compressed version.
 
If anyone is interested, I can try to volume match the two versions and make a sample file of them playing one after the other...

In a word (or link in this case) http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
 
If you are at all serious about finding out what the devil is going on in recordings or your equipment for that matter this tool is indispensable.

 

[luisdent]

Yes, I've seen things like that. You can also do some wizardry in programs like audacity to invert phase and such to compare waveforms in a similar fashion. Essentially you can remove the sonic waveforms that are identical and you are left with what is different... However, the difference in a CD like keane is obvious enough not to need such a program in my opinion.

 

[luisdent]

Here's a sample file. I've chopped it up randomly to avoid copyright issue in the hopes this is ok as a "sample". I'm simply using it to illustrate the differences.
 
 keane.mp3
 
Here is the waveform.
 

 
These are volume matched, which illustrated the difference very well. You can see when the compressed CD version is the same volume as the SACD rip, the dynamic peaks are simply removed. The waveform flows perfect together (visually) and a lawnmower just went over the dynamics and chopped them off (actually they're just squished down, but same idea).
 
They won't sound exactly the same volume, because they never can be. The dynamic peaks will give them impression of a change in volume instantly and over time, but they are the same base volume. Long story, but you hopefully get the idea. You can hear that there is a difference in the details of every instrument in the uncompressed SACD rip. To some, this may be small. To me it is huge.
 
Also, I did absolutely nothing to these audio waveforms except volume match them and put them together side by side in one file...

 

[mdiogofs]

Get a sound science room guys! Joking

Got an easy way of differentiate the left and right earpiece: point any earpiece like a gun towards your girlfriend (some would prefer the wife!), try to find the letter L or R just with your tact (doesn't matter which letter is), if you feel a letter in the left side of the cable, it's your right earpiece. And otherwise. Can do this with my eyes folded and no light (yeah no light is meaningless in this situation...)

Just being a bit fun, but identifying like this which earpieces is, is very easy and fast.

 

[luisdent]

Get a sound science room guys! Joking

Got an easy way of differentiate the left and right earpiece: point any earpiece like a gun towards your girlfriend (some would prefer the wife!), try to find the letter L or R just with your tact (doesn't matter which letter is), if you feel a letter in the left side of the cable, it's your right earpiece. And otherwise. Can do this with my eyes folded and no light (yeah no light is meaningless in this situation...)

Just being a bit fun, but identifying like this which earpieces is, is very easy and fast.

I'm glad i used colored sharpies. Thanks etydave

And yes, i dodntmean to sidetrack too much. But it all toes into hearing the er4 as best as possible, with the best masters. You'll hear bass and treble and everything in between better when the recording and mastering is great

 

[Hutnicks]

 
Yes, I've seen things like that. You can also do some wizardry in programs like audacity to invert phase and such to compare waveforms in a similar fashion. Essentially you can remove the sonic waveforms that are identical and you are left with what is different... However, the difference in a CD like keane is obvious enough not to need such a program in my opinion.

This all has its genesis back in the days of hafler effect and the reasonably astute  work Mark and guys like Bob Carver did to demiystify the trade which apparently went unheeded.
 
You can look at all the cascacde and FR response graphs in the universe. Go over to that "other site" and they will smother you with them. Essentially it means nothing. Sorry folks, but even the most mediocre driver on the market today will reproduce a single signal accurately. Put a complex piece of music through it and quite quickly you see where it falls apart and cannot handle transients or winds up masking frequencies. Response graphs do nothing to make that clear . A differentialling software on the other hand does exactly that. It tells you where the source and output differ. Pretty standard scientific analasys right now in every discipline from medicine to mechanical engineering, cripes even the food service folks use it to do batch QC. Yet audio still wants you to buy something based on some clown in his basement with a 2 dollar mic recording a signal through a piece of perfboard on a pc which is most likely compromised by the far easter porn sites he vistits on an hourly basis.
 
Take a differentialling piece of software. Do a rip of your CD, SACD, whatever source then do a capture of your playback system rendering it, and you will have a much better picture of what is going on in your world, rather than guessing how it compares to some picture of someone elses.
 
thats 3 cents worth.