[bms44974]

I received my ER4sr today! Apart from the lower impedance of the SR, I couldn't tell much difference between SR and my 15 year old S when paired with FiiO X3 + E12. Unlike the S, the SR is easily driven by the X3 alone. There are tracks where the bass boost on the E12 helps fill in the low end with both IEMs and while there are likely differences in the affected frequencies, I am imagining that X3+E12+bass boost would be similar to X3+XR. I will keep the X3+E12 paired up until I get a DAP with equalization. I'm hoping to audition X5ii and X7 soon. Cheers... Brian

 

[promenader]

Now that Apple have "courageously" eliminated the internal headphone socket from their new iPhone 7, it becomes obvious what other cable options we might expect from Etymotic.
 
I'm really curious what the replacement cord (with old-school 3.5mm jack) will cost, since I'm reasoning whether to get the new ER4 for a (hopefully) longer lifespan due to user-replaceable cords, when I'd otherwise be happy with another HF5 every 3 or 4 years.

 

[qsk78]

I believe that ER4 Series deserve a better source than the iPhone 

 

[promenader]

  I believe that ER4 Series deserve a better source than the iPhone 

 
I do agree the ER4 is probably over-engineered if all I do is listen to music or internet radio straight from a phone. But with Apple's move away from an analog audio connector, it's now up to manufacturers of audio equipment like Etymotic to integrate an appropriate, high-quality DAC into their products.

 

[Francisk]

I see many variations in those graphs between models that I clearly hear are not represented properly. Such as the difference in treble between s and sr. The 2-3khz is identical on that comparison graph. Not only is it clearly audibly less on the sr, but etydave even said it was closer to the target (the s was a bit extra), and I don't see that at all on that graph. Hmmmm :-o

Looks like Luisdent's ears are more accurate than measurement gear

 

[DimitriTrush]

Thanks to qck78 for nice shots!

 

 

[luisdent]

I see many variations in those graphs between models that I clearly hear are not represented properly. Such as the difference in treble between s and sr. The 2-3khz is identical on that comparison graph. Not only is it clearly audibly less on the sr, but etydave even said it was closer to the target (the s was a bit extra), and I don't see that at all on that graph. Hmmmm :-o

Looks like Luisdent's ears are more accurate than measurement gear

Nope. Even etydave mentioned the bass shouldn't be noticeably different. It is possible it could just be the seal he got woth that measurement showing a faster rolloff. And he verified there was a small but sonic change in 2-3k region as well. So we have my ears, many other user's ears, and the engineer who knows the product and has his own, probably more accurate, graphs... All indicating those other graphs might not be completely accurate.

I call that fairly, reasonably objective, indications my ears are simply hearing the changes that are there. His graphs simply may not be measuring them with 100% accuracy. The treble changes with the foam tips also seem odd, as other sites have graphed the foam vs. silicon before with different results. See below. I also don't hear a spike with the foam at 8khz. Not sure how depth/fit affect that. I'm not saying the graphs are useless or anything, but they aren't showing changes i hear that other graphs have also verified... That's all.

So what the difference in his graphing methods is, I don't know. But if you are familiar with the er4s and don't hear any difference at all in lower and upper treble, then that is a bit odd... Those graphs seem to indicate the sound is practically identical, which is not true. Although, definitely similar overall, there are changes to the response that i feel should be showing more on paper. (Or screen)



I'm curious why rin's graphs here show different results between tips...

 

[speakerphone]

Hi lusident

First, you have to consider about QC variations on ER4. I have measured few ER4Ss and they showed all different graphs including bass roll-off.

Second, Etydave didn't said bass roll-off is wrong; he said that it isn't significantly different with ER-4S, and it really is.


Third, the picture that you have attached is not a ER4PT as far as I know. That looks like a headphone measurements.

You can check the ER4PT measurements of innerfidelity in here .https://www.google.co.kr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/EtymoticER4PT.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjsrvuUi4DPAhXBI5QKHVx8AGsQFggiMAA&usg=AFQjCNGT5NgDEM5gv9zlah4RlCAg3pORlA&sig2=JI3Vb7lIIf7UvuHsRjoUmA

 

[speakerphone]

I have overlaid few ER4Ss for you to check this out. As you can see, all ER4S's measurements are a bit different from each other.
Also, you can check the bass roll-off in second picture; they are almost the same in few samples.

 

[luisdent]

Hi lusident

First, you have to consider about QC variations on ER4. I have measured few ER4Ss and they showed all different graphs including bass roll-off.

Second, Etydave didn't said bass roll-off is wrong; he said that it isn't significantly different with ER-4S, and it really is.


Third, the picture that you have attached is not a ER4PT as far as I know. That looks like a headphone measurements.

You can check the ER4PT measurements of innerfidelity in here .https://www.google.co.kr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/EtymoticER4PT.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjsrvuUi4DPAhXBI5QKHVx8AGsQFggiMAA&usg=AFQjCNGT5NgDEM5gv9zlah4RlCAg3pORlA&sig2=JI3Vb7lIIf7UvuHsRjoUmA

Thats Why i said it could have been a seal issue or something. But it wasn't noticeably different in bass. I wasn't saying that it was. I was saying that that was understandable. The main issue is the 2-3khz. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see where there is a difference with the er4s and er4sr on your graphs? There is absolutely an audible difference, even if small, in the overall treble. But I'm not seeing that.

As for the photo i attached it is the er4p and it lists the various tips. Not sude what you mean? I agree it looks odd. But innerfidelity claims it is the er4p in the image and lists er4 tips. Not sure if it is a mistake, but i figured it was some other compensation or reason for the appearance and i was using it primarily to show the difference between tips. Not sure.

I know rin has showed insertion depth effects 10khz prominance. Is it possible you're bot getting the foam tips as deep when measuring?

 

[AnyDave]

Second, Etydave didn't said bass roll-off is wrong; he said that it isn't significantly different with ER-4S, and it really is.

Yes, I am not saying that they are wrong.  In all likelihood, I'd see more consistencies in the low frequencies with your measurements than in the high frequencies.  This isn't surprising as the high frequencies are where you will see more variability.  This can be true from within a given coupler type, let alone when one is using different couplers.  Which couplers do you use to measure earphones, btw?
 
There are actually a couple of reasons why I haven't posted ER4SR and ER4S comparison curves yet:
 
1.)  I won't print unless I have a large enough sample size as anything I put out will likely be copied and pasted and reposted in many other areas that I might not see.  As a representative of Etymotic, I'm fairly cautious about how I present information.
 
2.)  For years, we've used the four-branch Zwislocki DB-100 coupler for measuring earphones on a production level.  We still use these for engineering but we've switched over to the GRAS IEC-711 coupler (which is a two-branch coupler) for production testing of the ER4SR and ER4XR because the Zwislocki's couplers are long out of production and it makes sense to use the industry standard 711.  Unfortunately, the majority of the ER4S production data is with the DB-100 and all of the ER4SR production data is with the IEC-711.  When I have time, I'm hoping to run a large N of ER4S earphones on the IEC-711 so I can put together some apples-to-apples curves.
 
Now, as far as the low end roll-off, there are a few reasons that the roll-off can vary from unit to unit:
 
1.)  Manufacturing level issues: If the driver doesn't have a proper acoustic seal to the housing, you will usually see a significant roll off.  Much more so than what is in these graphs.  Nothing I see in the graphs indicates that this is what's going on here.
 
2.)  Component level variability: every driver used in the ER4s has what is called a "barometric relief."  This is a very small hole that is put in the diaphragm by the driver manufacturer.  If this isn't there, the drivers actually stop working at high altitudes (like on a plane).  This isn't a perfect process, so there is a little bit of unit to unit variability.  FWIW, we didn't change the barometric relief specification on the new ER4SR vs. the old ER4S.
 
3.)  Test system issues: Testing devices with eartips in couplers can be occasionally be challenging.  For low end, it's very important to be certain you have a good seal or there can be some LF loss.  For HF, it's very important to make sure everything is at a consistent insertion depth or you will see variability.  When we test our earphones, we actually have machined eartip simulators that recreate the acoustics of our eartips.  It is faster and more consistent than trying to test everything with an eartip.
 
 
Just for kicks, I randomly grabbed an ER4S and an ER4SR this morning and tested them.  Once I normalized for the sensitivity difference they were all withing about a dB of each other at 20 Hz, which is about as tight as can be reasonably expected.  The 2.5dB deviation in the above graphs is definitely a bit more than normal but not out of specification (for the ER4S or the ER4SR).

 

[luisdent]

Second, Etydave didn't said bass roll-off is wrong; he said that it isn't significantly different with ER-4S, and it really is.

Yes, I am not saying that they are wrong.  In all likelihood, I'd see more consistencies in the low frequencies with your measurements than in the high frequencies.  This isn't surprising as the high frequencies are where you will see more variability.  This can be true from within a given coupler type, let alone when one is using different couplers.  Which couplers do you use to measure earphones, btw?

There are actually a couple of reasons why I haven't posted ER4SR and ER4S comparison curves yet:

1.)  I won't print unless I have a large enough sample size as anything I put out will likely be copied and pasted and reposted in many other areas that I might not see.  As a representative of Etymotic, I'm fairly cautious about how I present information.

2.)  For years, we've used the four-branch Zwislocki DB-100 coupler for measuring earphones on a production level.  We still use these for engineering but we've switched over to the GRAS IEC-711 coupler (which is a two-branch coupler) for production testing of the ER4SR and ER4XR because the Zwislocki's couplers are long out of production and it makes sense to use the industry standard 711.  Unfortunately, the majority of the ER4S production data is with the DB-100 and all of the ER4SR production data is with the IEC-711.  When I have time, I'm hoping to run a large N of ER4S earphones on the IEC-711 so I can put together some apples-to-apples curves.

Now, as far as the low end roll-off, there are a few reasons that the roll-off can vary from unit to unit:

1.)  Manufacturing level issues: If the driver doesn't have a proper acoustic seal to the housing, you will usually see a significant roll off.  Much more so than what is in these graphs.  Nothing I see in the graphs indicates that this is what's going on here.

2.)  Component level variability: every driver used in the ER4s has what is called a "barometric relief."  This is a very small hole that is put in the diaphragm by the driver manufacturer.  If this isn't there, the drivers actually stop working at high altitudes (like on a plane).  This isn't a perfect process, so there is a little bit of unit to unit variability.  FWIW, we didn't change the barometric relief specification on the new ER4SR vs. the old ER4S.

3.)  Test system issues: Testing devices with eartips in couplers can be occasionally be challenging.  For low end, it's very important to be certain you have a good seal or there can be some LF loss.  For HF, it's very important to make sure everything is at a consistent insertion depth or you will see variability.  When we test our earphones, we actually have machined eartip simulators that recreate the acoustics of our eartips.  It is faster and more consistent than trying to test everything with an eartip.


Just for kicks, I randomly grabbed an ER4S and an ER4SR this morning and tested them.  Once I normalized for the sensitivity difference they were all withing about a dB of each other at 20 Hz, which is about as tight as can be reasonably expected.  The 2.5dB deviation in the above graphs is definitely a bit more than normal but not out of specification (for the ER4S or the ER4SR).

That all makes perfect sense.

As i'm sure you can verify, there must be a change i'm hearing around 2-3khz? Like the sr has less prominence there. Can you say roughly how much if this is true? I would expect at least 1-2db lower, roughly, with a not very narrow band?

Also, should there be any noticable high frequency difference in the current ety grey foam vs silicon triple flange tips, assuming all factors in fit, depth, and seal are equal? I feel like i hear less of a difference between silicon and ety foam than i do between switching from er4s to er4sr...

I simply do not hear an 8-10khz boost as these graphs show. Definitley not 5db or more. Could I just be getting the foam deeper than most?

Also, i meant nothing against the graphs or grapher. And definitely welcome any information we can get in that regard. However, while I'm not boasting of superior hearing, there just appears to my ears to be audible changes not represented in the graphs. I simply wouldn't want someone saying "hey, the s sounds exactly the same as the sr based on those graphs". While similar, they are not the same. I believe anyone experienced with ety here (gnarlsagan?) would attest to that. That's all.

 

[speakerphone]

To lusident

1.I sealed it perfectly. You can check the thread #9324 for 2-3kHz difference. It shows that that differences can differ from unit to unit.

2.In my opinion, the picture of that innerfidelity thing is LCD-2.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf
That doesn't look like a earphone measurement.

3. I measured it at the reference plane.



To Etydave

Thanks for instructive reply.
I'm currently using the same IEC 711 coupler. I posted my apparatus and measurement procedures here: http://clarityfidelity.blogspot.com/2015/05/introduction-measurement-procedures.html

+ You should consider that ER4SR that I have measured is not a new product. One of my blog readers let me borrow his pair.

 

[luisdent]

To lusident

1.I sealed it perfectly. You can check the thread #9324 for 2-3kHz difference. It shows that that differences can differ from unit to unit.

2.In my opinion, the picture of that innerfidelity thing is LCD-2.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf
That doesn't look like a earphone measurement.

3. I measured it at the reference plane.



To Etydave

Thanks for instructive reply.
I'm currently using the same IEC 711 coupler. I posted my apparatus and measurement procedures here: http://clarityfidelity.blogspot.com/2015/05/introduction-measurement-procedures.html

+ You should consider that ER4SR that I have measured is not a new product. One of my blog readers let me borrow his pair.

Yeah, i would guess he erroneously labeled the graphs, but here is the page:

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/comply-foam-tips-and-effects-tip-selection#y8rOpA7YR1SOAmak.97

He did two graphs, but i agree they don't look like the er4s. Yet he labeled all the colors with er4 tips. Seems like an odd mistake. What else would the colors be? Weird...

 

[Das Mookid]

They may not be the new models, but it occurred to me that of the dozens plus cans and in ears I own and enjoy, the ER4 is the only pair I literally listen to at least once every day. They are my palette cleanser - perhaps even beating out my orthos on pure linearity. With a yearly transatlantic flight coming up next week, I also simply couldn't imagine flying without my trusty 40dB (!) of isolation.

Of late, I have begun to curse how well built they are as well - why can't my 4S have an accident that would require an updated replacement - the impressions on the ER4XR have me drooling