luisdent
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2012
- Posts
- 3,572
- Likes
- 469
Thanks very much for the reply, sorry for my grammar mistakes, English is not my mother language.
the peaks were shown in the official FR graphs too.
I play guitars, when I listening to ER4S, because the 6khz-10khz roll-off, the dynamic is compressed, timbre is losing power, music isn't involving,
from an instrument player's perspective, this sound is unrealistic. from a music lover's perspecive, the music is not fun, not moving me.
I think the ultimate goal of a transducer, is it "sounds like a real thing", "reflected the recording" ,
not: "sounds like a hi-fi speaker" or "a compensation to the commercal recording".
the difference here is huge.
a flat response transducer without the peaks & roll offs will be well appreciated
Your reply was quite clear. Please do not worry about your grammar. You write very well, especially considering English isn't your mother language.
Just curious, are you live monitoring your guitar or listening to recordings of guitars? If you are live monitoring your guitar, are you using a direct out or are you using some sort of cabinet simulator? (I also play guitar). If you are primarily listening to non-mastered recordings of instruments, I can see why you might prefer an ER-4B response. Especially, if the recordings are binaural, uncompressed recordings. The first ER4 we ever released was the ER4B and is most accurate to the raw frequency response of the human ear. The ER4S (and the adjusted target curve) came later in response to significant market pressure from our users who liked the ER4B but simply felt it was too bright. The ER4P then came to pass because the sensitivity of the ER4S was too low for most portable users (back then portable media players and CD players had lower output levels). At the time, we had to compromise on the high frequencies with the ER4P because we ultimately needed enough sensitivity that people could use them.
As far as tweaking the peaks and roll-offs, it's can be done acoustically if you have unlimited space in the earphone, but it's far more difficult to do in the small space of an ER4. There are often trade-offs. If we can find a way to get rid of the ultra-high frequency peaks without causing problems in the lower (and much more audible) frequencies, we will do that. The ER4B in that graph does have more of a high frequency peak than I remember, so I'll have to revisit that.
In the end, the majority of our customers prefer the high frequency performance of the ER4S/SR/XR. There is a customer base that does prefer the ER4B (sometimes very strongly prefer) so we make that earphone for them. We appreciate all of our customers, no matter which version they prefer; we're just happy they chose something we made. My hope is that there is enough demand for a new ER4B version that we can come out with that, too.
assuming the high frequency response could be smoothed a bit like the sr did from the s, an er4bxr sounds like it would be awesome...
