[guicnovaes]

I've been messing with the eq that compensates the er4sr to Harman target and it sounds soooooo good. I can't wait for it to be a physical filter. Just allows you to use it on any device anywhere you have the filter. So cool.

When things are finalized I'll post a parametric eq if anyone is interested. But basically it softens the 2khz or so just a touch and brings up the 7khz (critical you have a deep fit so you dont get extra resonances) adds the perfect missing bass, and slightly tamed the 10khz or so.

Again, gearing towards a Harman accurate sound. Although the treble of Harman and diffuse field for the er4sr are very very similar other than the upper 10khz+ not needing much in diffuse field correction. Otherwise, correcting the two main peaks makes the sound slightly more relaxed and warm while actually bringing out more detail and space. After listening with the eq a while it's hard to go back.

I simulated it on the Tanchjim Cora and the on the ER3XR using graphs and Equalizer APO. As expected, I found the result a somewhat shouty V-shaped. Didn't like at all. Otherwise, I like the Harman OE a lot.

Yes they definitely worth it. It's an easy to drive Ety after all, ideal for flights and smartphone use (I find the ER4XR a bit difficult to drive at optimum levels from a smartphone) When you need a bit more bass it's the one to go with as it's the most prominent bass there is in the Etymotic roster.

I just don't agree they are on par with ER4XR, at least to the way I perceive sound. Mind you, I'm not a fan of balanced armature drivers nor of the trend of multi-balanced implementations that everyone seems to go crazy about lately. In my book, nothing can beat a finely tuned dynamic driver. However, if you have to have one Balanced armature iem, the Etymotic has to be the one!

I also had the ER4P(S). The definition and detail of the ER2XR is nowhere near as good as with those ER4 or ER$XR and there are passages in certain genres that sound grainy, perhaps a bit blurry and constrained. The word ''constrained'' simply cannot be put beside the ER4XR IMO.

For me, the timbre of the ER3/ER4 is spot on. Curious to know how the ER2XR sounds.

 

[luisdent]

I simulated it on the Tanchjim Cora and the on the ER3XR using graphs and Equalizer APO. As expected, I found the result a somewhat shouty V-shaped. Didn't like at all. Otherwise, I like the Harman OE a lot.



For me, the timbre of the ER3/ER4 is spot on. Curious to know how the ER2XR sounds.

I can't speak for the er3xr, as it's less accurate to begin with. For me the er4sr eq I've been using is superb. In fact the treble correction is almost the same on the diffuse field and Harman targets. I've made eq for both. Both are a bit hot in the 1.5-2khz and both are a bit lacking in the 7-7.5 khz areas. Correcting them is by no means really boosting the overall treble. So I definitely don't hear any v-shape at all myself. But I'd have to hear your eq settings and which graph you used.

For me, lowering the 1.8khz a bit warms the sound a touch and makes it less fatiguing. Adding a bit of 7khz really makes the treble sound less masked in the area of cymbals and room ambiance. I hear no negatives at all. Everything is slight, but the sound opens up a bit while actually sounding less bright. And things are ever so slightly moe relaxed which lets you listen and hear subtleties with less effort. All of this is without ever touching the bass. If you're a diffuse field fan it simply sounds less cold and honky if that is even a fair word. And remember, I'm one that prefers the er4 over any earphone I've ever heard even with no eq.

Once I add in the missing sub bass I'm in heaven. As an audio engineer, I find the er4sr bass superb but not equal in level to the rest of the frequencies like a studio monitor speaker. It's very obvious when you're mixing that it does not translate well to a speaker in quantity. Adding the bass boost below 100hz helps a lot. While no earphone will sound identical to an open air, large driver speaker for bass, I think it's really close eq'd. There may be more capable earphones for bass impact and deep accuracy. But they sacrifice too much in the other areas for me.

Anyhow, i recommend everyone definitely listen to what you prefer, I just find the eq I'm using to help a lot for me. Things sound more accurate, realistic, and neutral in response to me. Once I'm completely satisfied my eq is as accurate as I can get it I'll post it and you can try it. Whether you like it or not, I'm interested in what you think of the change. I'm not trying to make a 16 band crazy compensation. Just 3 or 4 bands for the biggest issues. That gets it 97% the way there without getting crazy and it should translate well to any parametric eq.

 

[guicnovaes]

Interesting. For me it is superb. In fact the treble correction is almost the same on the diffuse field and Harman targets. I've made eq for both. Both are a bit hot in the 1.5-2khz and both are a bit lacking in the 7-7.5 khz areas. Correcting them is by no means really boosting the overall treble. So I definitely don't hear any v-shape at all myself. But I'd have to hear your eq settings and which graph you used.

For me, lowering the 1.8khz a bit warms the sound a touch and makes it less fatiguing. Adding a bit of 7khz really makes the treble sound less masked in the area of cymbals and room ambiance. I hear no negatives at all. Everything is slight, but the sound opens up a bit while actually sounding less bright. And things are ever so slightly moe relaxed which lets you listen and hear subtleties with less effort. All of this is without ever touching the bass. If you're a diffuse field fan it simply sounds less cold and honky if that is even a fair word. And remember, I'm one that prefers the er4 over any earphone I've ever heard even with no eq.

Once I add in the missing sub bass I'm in heaven. As an audio engineer, I find the er4sr bass superb but not equal in level to the rest of the frequencies like a studio monitor speaker. It's very obvious when you're mixing that it does not translate well to a speaker in quantity. Adding the bass boost below 100hz helps a lot. While no earphone will sound identical to an open air, large driver speaker for bass, I think it's really close eq'd. There may be more capable earphones for bass impact and deep accuracy. But they sacrifice too much in the other areas for me.

Anyhow, i recommend everyone definitely listen to what you prefer, I just find the eq I'm using to help a lot for me. Things sound more accurate, realistic, and neutral in response to me. Once I'm completely satisfied my eq is as accurate as I can get it I'll post it and you can try it. Whether you like it or not, I'm interested in what you think of the change. I'm not trying to make a 16 band crazy compensation. Just 3 or 4 bands for the biggest issues. That gets it 97% the way there without getting crazy and it should translate well to any parametric eq.

I understand your point of view. It has a lot to do with subjectivism. I don't find the DF (Ety DF) honky, fatiguing or cold. For me it's just really neutral. What I found shouty on the Harman IE is the is the 5-8k crescent treble boost and the 12-13db boost on 3k, instead of 9-10db on the In Ear DF. About the bass, I prefer the Ety's XR version over the SR, because the compensation of the body vibration provided by speakers.
After all, otherwise, I can see a lot of people liking the Harman IE version.

 

[luisdent]

I understand your point of view. It has a lot to do with subjectivism. I don't find the DF (Ety DF) honky, fatiguing or cold. For me it's just really neutral. What I found shouty on the Harman IE is the is the 5-8k crescent treble boost and the 12-13db boost on 3k, instead of 9-10db on the In Ear DF. About the bass, I prefer the Ety's XR version over the SR, because the compensation of the body vibration provided by speakers.
After all, otherwise, I can see a lot of people liking the Harman IE version.

But that's the irony. My eq is not as boosted. I find the er4sr/xr to be incredibly neutral as well, but not perfectly.

The Harman target graphs (many) I've compared only show needing a slight adjustment. The 2khz or so area needs a CUT. But only by a few db. Nowhere near 9db. And the 7.5khz or so only needs a few db boost. Nowhere near 12-13db.

And also ironically, this eq makes the sr have similar bass to the xr, which it sounds like we both prefer. In fact it's almost identical, but with a more accurate cutoff into the mid bass. So it is almost like making the sr a more accurate xr as the boost amount is almost identical. But this eq doesn't go as high into the mid bass. So I agree all those values you stated would definitely not sound good to me either.

Here's what I have so far. Again, this isn't final. The DF target puts the 7khz a bit higher at 7.5khz, but pretty much the same boost amount. And both sound very very close. The DF also puts the 1.6k at only about -1-2db whereas the Harman is -3-4db or so. Again, very very slight differences. But listen to a few songs with just this eq and then repeat them without it, and you can hear the slightly masked 7k area and the "honky" 2k area. It isn't honky at all really, but that's the only way I can describe a boost in the region. If you boost 2khz 10db ot sounds honky. So while 2db of boost may not sound honky overall, its 2db in that direction if that makes sense. I mean 1 to 2db of honk? Lol that isn't really anything major at all. But when you tweak 2db here, 2db there, it all adds up to just slightly smooth the treble and open it up a bit. Frankly, I'd be super happy with just the bass eq, but I like the slight improvement I'm hearing in the treble too.

Don't forget to cut the preamp by 5db to avoid clipping from the boosts.

 

[luisdent]

If you want to compare it to my DF correction just use this. Ideally you can disable the bass band if you want to be accurate to their bass target. But I think even the DF treble sounds better with the bass boost. And comparing the two with the bass boost on shows how little difference there is in the treble of each target.



Now technically the Harman target shows the 10khz+ area needs a slight reduction as well, but it is not easy to accurately reduce it without adding more than one band for just that, so while I've tested it, and it does make a slight improvement, it sounds the least important to me and makes the eq too complicated. But I'm not sure if that will make it into the analogue filter or not. But again, just a slight cut there removes the slightest bit of rasp you may not even hear until you hear it without it first.

If you want to mess with that you can start with a 12,600hz band at Q 1.5 and reduce it 3-4db. But that is not as accurate as it should be, but it gets the general idea without getting into multi band correction.

All of these changes also assume two critical points. First, that you aren't using any other effects or eq or amps that color the sound. And second, that you get a deep, tight seal. Without that the 7khz boost could sound really bad if you already have any resonance from a shallow fit.

 

[guicnovaes]

If you want to compare it to my DF correction just use this. Ideally you can disable the bass band if you want to be accurate to their bass target. But I think even the DF treble sounds better with the bass boost. And comparing the two with the bass boost on shows how little difference there is in the treble of each target.



Now technically the Harman target shows the 10khz+ area needs a slight reduction as well, but it is not easy to accurately reduce it without adding more than one band for just that, so while I've tested it, and it does make a slight improvement, it sounds the least important to me and makes the eq too complicated. But I'm not sure if that will make it into the analogue filter or not. But again, just a slight cut there removes the slightest bit of rasp you may not even hear until you hear it without it first.

If you want to mess with that you can start with a 12,600hz band at Q 1.5 and reduce it 3-4db. But that is not as accurate as it should be, but it gets the general idea without getting into multi band correction.

All of these changes also assume two critical points. First, that you aren't using any other effects or eq or amps that color the sound. And second, that you get a deep, tight seal. Without that the 7khz boost could sound really bad if you already have any resonance from a shallow fit.

Thanks for sharing this. I used the Equalizer APO (31-33 variable bands) and this graphs

Raw (Grey line) of this

And the Harman IE target

The values that I said are all here. As you can see, the Harman puts (11-12db) on 3k, yet Ety's DF put 10db on ~2,7k and ~8db on 3k. Theres more treble (a crescent boost) on the Harman between 5-8k.

In fact, your simulation, despite used less bands on the EQ, doesn't differ much from mine. I didn't found the results bad at all, just a little shouty. I also don't like V-shape (or W-shaped, as some can understand in that case). Despite this, I understand why a lot of people would like this.

 

[luisdent]

Thanks for sharing this. I used the Equalizer APO (31-33 variable bands) and this graphs

Raw (Grey line) of this

And the Harman IE target

The values that I said are all here. As you can see, the Harman puts (11-12db) on 3k, yet Ety's DF put 10db on ~2,7k and ~8db on 3k. Theres more treble (a crescent boost) on the Harman between 5-8k.

In fact, your simulation, despite used less bands on the EQ, doesn't differ much from mine. I didn't found the results bad at all, just a little shouty. I also don't like V-shape (or W-shaped, as some can understand in that case). Despite this, I understand why a lot of people would like this.

I would say ours differ enough. 2-4db changes vs 8-12db changes are very audible to me. And that graph you show is DF. I'm not sure if you're manually adapting the DF graph with the Harman target you posted? Anyhow...

This is the Harman compensated graph I used, and there are others that seem to corroborate that these results are relatively consistent with the right fit. In other words, I've seen multiple graphs from different sources compensating for DF and Harman target that look almost identical in their target measurements. I dont know if the xr differs, as I haven't looked into that. But it is claimed to be the same as the sr above 400hz. Ety graphs show this too.

But you can see below that these show no more than roughly 5db overall change in either treble band below 10khz. Above that is another story when it comes to measurements and other aspects... but for 2 and 7k relatively speaking...

Clarityfidelity graphs:
DF does show a bit more boost in the 7.5k but I'm aiming for harman. This is just for reference.



Harman, 7k lacking about 4-5db



Again, ignoring 10k+ goldenears shows almost the exact same thing. The er4s has been shown many times to have almost the identical frequency reponse as the sr, especially in these areas. So I believe it is safe to compare these as at least similar enough overall. Which again is about 4db lacking at 7-7.5k



Accufidelity graph, again almost identical to the above graphs below 10khz. Harman compensated. Keep in mind the scale may differ in each graph. Again 4-5db at 7-7.5khz



And this compensated graph from rtings



Again similar. A bit different in the 2k area, but nothing major.

My point is basically, that there are even more graphs out there like innerfidelity, but they are harder to read if you don't know how they are designed and targeted. But they all show what I call an average graph. Basically, they are all within a few db of each other in overall boost and cut. And all within very similar frequency bands below 10khz.

Thus i have based my eq off of this. I believe you are correct. 10db is too shouty. And the graphs I've listed show that as well... I don't claim this is perfect correction, but only that it addresses the biggest issues with the simplest eq that gets the sound most of the way to perfect for me. My hope is that others might find the change beneficial as well.

 

[guicnovaes]

I would say ours differ enough. 2-4db changes vs 8-12db changes are very audible to me. And that graph you show is DF. I'm not sure if you're manually adapting the DF graph with the Harman target you posted? Anyhow...

This is the Harman compensated graph I used, and there are others that seem to corroborate that these results are relatively consistent with the right fit. In other words, I've seen multiple graphs from different sources compensating for DF and Harman target that look almost identical in their target measurements. I dont know if the xr differs, as I haven't looked into that. But it is claimed to be the same as the sr above 400hz. Ety graphs show this too.

But you can see below that these show no more than roughly 5db overall change in either treble band below 10khz. Above that is another story when it comes to measurements and other aspects... but for 2 and 7k relatively speaking...

Clarityfidelity graphs:
DF does show a bit more boost in the 7.5k but I'm aiming for harman. This is just for reference.



Harman, 7k lacking about 4-5db



Again, ignoring 10k+ goldenears shows almost the exact same thing. The er4s has been shown many times to have almost the identical frequency reponse as the sr, especially in these areas. So I believe it is safe to compare these as at least similar enough overall. Which again is about 4db lacking at 7-7.5k



Accufidelity graph, again almost identical to the above graphs below 10khz. Harman compensated. Keep in mind the scale may differ in each graph. Again 4-5db at 7-7.5khz



And this compensated graph from rtings



Again similar. A bit different in the 2k area, but nothing major.

My point is basically, that there are even more graphs out there like innerfidelity, but they are harder to read if you don't know how they are designed and targeted. But they all show what I call an average graph. Basically, they are all within a few db of each other in overall boost and cut. And all within very similar frequency bands below 10khz.

Thus i have based my eq off of this. I believe you are correct. 10db is too shouty. And the graphs I've listed show that as well... I don't claim this is perfect correction, but only that it addresses the biggest issues with the simplest eq that gets the sound most of the way to perfect for me. My hope is that others might find the change beneficial as well.

I think you are missing some points here.

First, as I said above, I used the grey line of the Clarityfidelity graph (Raw measurements) to compare with the Harman Target, not the DF compensated one.

Second: Clarityfidelity, Heavymetal Hallelujah's use the Over Ear DF to compensate the IEMs (the same as they use for Over Ears, that is alike, but has significant differences from the In Ear DF (Used By Etymotic). How I know it? Simple: They use the same compensation DF for In Ears and Over ears (Rtings do the same thing, differently from Golden Ears); besides that, there isn't an 8-9k peak on the In Ear's DF, as you can see comparing the graphs below:
O
Ear's DF:

In Ear's DF (Etymotic's Target; Red Line)

In Ears's DF Hammershoi & Moller (Very Similar to Ety's Target and more recent):

Third: The Harman compensated curve used by Clarityfidelity and Golden ears is for Over Ears too (Harman OE). How Know It? The first Harman for In Ears (Harman IE) was released in 2017; the Clarityfidelity's review and graphs of the ER4XR and ER4SR are from 2016, so...
The Harman IE has much more treble than the Harman OE (a crescent boost from 5 to 8k). Look the graphs below:

That's why my simulation differs (not too much) from yours; You used the compensation curves for Over Ears.

Fourth: Is important to remember that the Harman Target (IE or OE), aims for a mainstream and high acceptance type of sound; not neutrality, like Etymotic Does.

 

[luisdent]

I think you are missing some points here.

First, as I said above, I used the grey line of the Clarityfidelity graph (Raw measurements) to compare with the Harman Target, not the DF compensated one.

Second: Clarityfidelity, Heavymetal Hallelujah's use the Over Ear DF to compensate the IEMs (the same as they use for Over Ears, that is alike, but has significant differences from the In Ear DF (Used By Etymotic). How I know it? Simple: They use the same compensation DF for In Ears and Over ears (Rtings do the same thing, differently from Golden Ears); besides that, there isn't an 8-9k peak on the In Ear's DF, as you can see comparing the graphs below:
O
Ear's DF:


In Ear's DF (Etymotic's Target; Red Line)



In Ears's DF Hammershoi & Moller (Very Similar to Ety's Target and more recent):




Third: The Harman compensated curve used by Clarityfidelity and Golden ears is for Over Ears too (Harman OE). How Know It? The first Harman for In Ears (Harman IE) was released in 2017; the Clarityfidelity's review and graphs of the ER4XR and ER4SR are from 2016, so...
The Harman IE has much more treble than the Harman OE (a crescent boost from 5 to 8k). Look the graphs below:



That's why my simulation differs (not too much) from yours; You used the compensation curves for Over Ears.

Fourth: Is important to remember that the Harman Target (IE or OE), aims for a mainstream and high acceptance type of sound; not neutrality, like Etymotic Does.

Sorry, your post wasn't super clear, so I wasn't sure. As for the graph being more or less accurate, that's a whole other discussion. Harman is not merely subjective based on user preference. I had read it was meant to aim for neutrality, but target they created was also verified with user preference studies. So you could argue at a minimum it's both subjective and objective. Historically, I've read the ety target had a very similar aspect of user preference when it was created. I specifically remember reading an article about how they determined the 2khz region based on listening tests.

Anyhow, I'd have to look into the differences between the OH and IE technique, but i stand by the fact that the eq settings I applied make a noticeable improvement to me that make them more studio monitor in sound. Again, maybe not perfect, but very much that direction without getting super intricate. And the graphing techniques seem to imply it is at least an improvement not matter what target or technique you use. Whether someone prefers that or not is another question.

Also, do you have a measured Harman compensated graph of the er4sr derived from the IE technique?

As for ery target, based on the graph from clarityfidelity, ignoring the bass, the treble eq I posted is pretty accurate to fix the DF target. So whether you want more bass or not is optional. I tend to agree with compensations that allow more bass to supposedly mimick a speaker. To me it does in fact do so.

update: I checked and i'm not so sure i agree with the latest Harman 2017 ie boost, but then I've always been one that prefers the ety-like target while still finding it lacks enough bass to be realistic to studio monitors. So I generally lean towards the 2015 or so Harman target which encompasses both aspect pretty well...

 

[guicnovaes]

Sorry, your post wasn't super clear, so I wasn't sure. As for the graph being more or less accurate, that's a whole other discussion. Harman is not merely subjective based on user preference. I had read it was meant to aim for neutrality, but target they created was also verified with user preference studies. So you could argue at a minimum it's both subjective and objective. Historically, I've read the ety target had a very similar aspect of user preference when it was created. I specifically remember reading an article about how they determined the 2khz region based on listening tests.

Anyhow, I'd have to look into the differences between the OH and IE technique, but i stand by the fact that the eq settings I applied make a noticeable improvement to me that make them more studio monitor in sound. Again, maybe not perfect, but very much that direction without getting super intricate. And the graphing techniques seem to imply it is at least an improvement not matter what target or technique you use. Whether someone prefers that or not is another question.

Also, do you have a measured Harman compensated graph of the er4sr derived from the IE technique?

As for ery target, based on the graph from clarityfidelity, ignoring the bass, the treble eq I posted is pretty accurate to fix the DF target. So whether you want more bass or not is optional. I tend to agree with compensations that allow more bass to supposedly mimick a speaker. To me it does in fact do so.

I agree with you. Harman is kind of subjective/objective. Their starting point was an objective measurement: simulating the sound of flat studio monitors in a treated room. But they were adjusting this with subjective hearing tests. The fact is that the Harman OE has been little changed from the starting point, even after more than 3 updates over the years. The harman IE, otherwise, has more bass and treble boost.

I haven't tested the compensation curve you made yet, but I think I would like it better than the curve I made based on the Harman IE, simply because it has less boost in the treble and mid-treble.
I don't have the curve here with me anymore. I had done it on the Equalizer APO before. Then I can do it again and send you the preset.

With respect to the etymotic curve, they really aims neutrality. It is a much more objective approach. Their target curve (IE DF) is the same as the used on deep insertion hearing aids and has been standardized on books by Mead C. Killion, who is the founder of Etymotic and current president. To read more about this, search for "CORFIG hearing aids" on google.


Taking the opportunity, your video teaching how to insert the Etymotic is amazing, helped me a lot. Thanks!

 

[luisdent]

I agree with you. Harman is kind of subjective/objective. Their starting point was an objective measurement: simulating the sound of flat studio monitors in a treated room. But they were adjusting this with subjective hearing tests. The fact is that the Harman OE has been little changed from the starting point, even after more than 3 updates over the years. The harman IE, otherwise, has more bass and treble boost.

I haven't tested the compensation curve you made yet, but I think I would like it better than the curve I made based on the Harman IE, simply because it has less boost in the treble and mid-treble.
I don't have the curve here with me anymore. I had done it on the Equalizer APO before. Then I can do it again and send you the preset.

With respect to the etymotic curve, they really aims neutrality. It is a much more objective approach. Their target curve (IE DF) is the same as the used on deep insertion hearing aids and has been standardized on books by Mead C. Killion, who is the founder of Etymotic and current president. To read more about this, search for "CORFIG hearing aids" on google.


Taking the opportunity, your video teaching how to insert the Etymotic is amazing, helped me a lot. Thanks!

Hehe. Thanks. Yes. I think ety knows what they are doing. That is why we are both here. but I have so many years listening to my er4 earphones (I have owned them all and currently have 4 models) and I have to say that I simply cant say that any of them sound like a studio monitor speaker whether in a well treated room or not. the er4xr comes the closest for me, but the bass isn't exactly right and bleeds into the low mids too much for me. So this all started years ago and I've been using eq off and on since I got them. I have been happy doing nothing other than adding sub bass in. I've had some of the most euphoric listening ever with my er4s and er4sr. Over never achieved the same thing with thebxr, although it is still superb. But I find that mid bass bleed really does ultimately take away from the sense of space and realism in certain music passages. Dont get me wrong, it's a phenomenal earphone. And I almost prefer it in general if no eq is allowed, because it is more relaxed and that let's you listen without fatigue where the er4s/sr can be borderline with a lot of material that otherwise would be fine on speakers. And I don't listen to music as loud as any either. I've compared volumes with the same player and musoc with other ety users and my own brother. And I'm shocked sometimes how loud people take things

Anyhow, I've settled on my bass for years as being very speaker like, and ultimately stumbled upon the fact that it is basically the Harman 2015 target bass response. Which is interesting to me. Because their methodology makes some sense in the fact that they had a variety of users listen and essentially verify their objective goal. Many of these were audio engineers. The audio engineers tweaked the eq to get what they thought sounded correct. I did the same thing, ignorant of the Harman target, years ago, and got the same result. At a minimum that makes me believe there is something to it.

However on the other end of the spectrum, I've tried hundreds and hundreds of headphones and earphones over the years on the never ending search for a truly studio like reference sound. Truth be told, I don't care what the target is. I simply want my earphones and headphones to sound like I'm sitting on a professional studio with good natural monitors.

Oddly enough, when I heard the er4s after getting used to their fit, there was never any going back. I struggled with comfort for a while trying to find another shallow fit earphone with a similar sound. Got close but never the same. So clearly I prefer the ety target.

However, in my continued search for perfection, I find that the few areas we are discussing can be slightly improved. They don't need much, which is why I find the Harman 2017 very odd. I definitely don't hear any need for more treble peaking or bass boost. And yet to my ears tweaking to something that matches the DF/2015 harman treble somewhat makes an increase in laid back presentation while actually increasing detail retrieval a bit. So I have been using my eq preset and love it. I'm half and half between the two I sent. The DF one has a bit more of the coolness the ety is known for, but the Harman one is a bit more laid back. But their within 500hz of each other and 1 or 2 db. So very minor. I'd be interested in how you hear my eq after some listening.

 

[guicnovaes]

Hehe. Thanks. Yes. I think ety knows what they are doing. That is why we are both here. but I have so many years listening to my er4 earphones (I have owned them all and currently have 4 models) and I have to say that I simply cant say that any of them sound like a studio monitor speaker whether in a well treated room or not. the er4xr comes the closest for me, but the bass isn't exactly right and bleeds into the low mids too much for me. So this all started years ago and I've been using eq off and on since I got them. I have been happy doing nothing other than adding sub bass in. I've had some of the most euphoric listening ever with my er4s and er4sr. Over never achieved the same thing with thebxr, although it is still superb. But I find that mid bass bleed really does ultimately take away from the sense of space and realism in certain music passages. Dont get me wrong, it's a phenomenal earphone. And I almost prefer it in general if no eq is allowed, because it is more relaxed and that let's you listen without fatigue where the er4s/sr can be borderline with a lot of material that otherwise would be fine on speakers. And I don't listen to music as loud as any either. I've compared volumes with the same player and musoc with other ety users and my own brother. And I'm shocked sometimes how loud people take things

Anyhow, I've settled on my bass for years as being very speaker like, and ultimately stumbled upon the fact that it is basically the Harman 2015 target bass response. Which is interesting to me. Because their methodology makes some sense in the fact that they had a variety of users listen and essentially verify their objective goal. Many of these were audio engineers. The audio engineers tweaked the eq to get what they thought sounded correct. I did the same thing, ignorant of the Harman target, years ago, and got the same result. At a minimum that makes me believe there is something to it.

However on the other end of the spectrum, I've tried hundreds and hundreds of headphones and earphones over the years on the never ending search for a truly studio like reference sound. Truth be told, I don't care what the target is. I simply want my earphones and headphones to sound like I'm sitting on a professional studio with good natural monitors.

Oddly enough, when I heard the er4s after getting used to their fit, there was never any going back. I struggled with comfort for a while trying to find another shallow fit earphone with a similar sound. Got close but never the same. So clearly I prefer the ety target.

However, in my continued search for perfection, I find that the few areas we are discussing can be slightly improved. They don't need much, which is why I find the Harman 2017 very odd. I definitely don't hear any need for more treble peaking or bass boost. And yet to my ears tweaking to something that matches the DF/2015 harman treble somewhat makes an increase in laid back presentation while actually increasing detail retrieval a bit. So I have been using my eq preset and love it. I'm half and half between the two I sent. The DF one has a bit more of the coolness the ety is known for, but the Harman one is a bit more laid back. But their within 500hz of each other and 1 or 2 db. So very minor. I'd be interested in how you hear my eq after some listening.

I agree with most of what you said.
From my personal experience, of all the Headphones/IEMs I have heard, the ones that most closely resembled the flat studio monitor response were the Etymotics ER3XR and ER4XR. I'm used to hearing a pair of Genelec 8030 and M-audio BX5 D3 calibrated in a home studio (not mine). I think more similar to the response of the monitors would be the bass of the ER3XR with the midrange and treble of the ER4XR.

Regarding harman, I much prefer OE target over IE target, precisely because the OE is more similar to their starting point: the simulation of flat monitor sounds.

 

[luisdent]

I agree with most of what you said.
From my personal experience, of all the Headphones/IEMs I have heard, the ones that most closely resembled the flat studio monitor response were the Etymotics ER3XR and ER4XR. I'm used to hearing a pair of Genelec 8030 and M-audio BX5 D3 calibrated in a home studio (not mine). I think more similar to the response of the monitors would be the bass of the ER3XR with the midrange and treble of the ER4XR.

Regarding harman, I much prefer OE target over IE target, precisely because the OE is more similar to their starting point: the simulation of flat monitor sounds.

Definitely. The OE looks more correct to me. The issue I have with the 3 and 4xr is that bass doesn't roll off until at least 400hz. I think the Harman OE affects the bass only more accurately. Otherwise the er4xr actually pretty closely matched the additional 5db of bass. It just does it a bit higher. I'm assuming thos was a physical design limitation as sometimes the octave sloping is hard to get more steep with analogue components. But then I'm not sure exactly how they achieved the bass response so I can't say anything for sure. They may have simply felt it was too close to the sr to differentiate them so they went with a warmer slope. I don't know.

But I listen to a lot if genres, and most of them seem to benefit from a bit less mid bass in the 200-400hz area. That is classically the frequency range that causes masking of overall treble by making things warmer. I'm not calling the er4xr masked. Just in comparison to the sr.

 

[Malfunkt]

The only way to get the Etymotic ER4SR (or any headphone for that matter) to sound like a studio monitor is with spatial DSP.

To me the whole idea of the Harman EQ is a half measure. Yes, a bit more bass oomph will help replicate the tactility of bass impact on skin, and the emphasis on the upper regions will almost mimic room reflections, but it is still not the same as hearing the natural cross feed of a speaker in a room environment nor the reflections of high frequency waveforms.

I was recently bought back my ER4SR from a friend (he found his lost pair, actually I traded him for a Sony XBA-Z5 so his luck!) and have to say, for binaural environment recordings it is such a treat. Even against my Focal Utopia, which obviously is much more dynamic, the presentation and nature of the Etymotic allow for a very holographic presentation.

However, for music mastered for stereo speakers, it can sound a bit lackluster. Add some quality spatial DSP like Waves NX (the cheaper consumer desktop version), or better yet Waves Abbey Road Studio 3 and you will be getting a sound much closer to studio monitors in a treated room.

Not saying don't use EQ, but try it out in conjunction with spatial DSP.

 

[luisdent]

The only way to get the Etymotic ER4SR (or any headphone for that matter) to sound like a studio monitor is with spatial DSP.

To me the whole idea of the Harman EQ is a half measure. Yes, a bit more bass oomph will help replicate the tactility of bass impact on skin, and the emphasis on the upper regions will almost mimic room reflections, but it is still not the same as hearing the natural cross feed of a speaker in a room environment nor the reflections of high frequency waveforms.

I was recently bought back my ER4SR from a friend (he found his lost pair, actually I traded him for a Sony XBA-Z5 so his luck!) and have to say, for binaural environment recordings it is such a treat. Even against my Focal Utopia, which obviously is much more dynamic, the presentation and nature of the Etymotic allow for a very holographic presentation.

However, for music mastered for stereo speakers, it can sound a bit lackluster. Add some quality spatial DSP like Waves NX (the cheaper consumer desktop version), or better yet Waves Abbey Road Studio 3 and you will be getting a sound much closer to studio monitors in a treated room.

Not saying don't use EQ, but try it out in conjunction with spatial DSP.

I can see that. I've tried cross feed in the past and never liked it at all. I don't find it makes something sound like a speaker. It just makes things sound more dull to me. But I could see certain processing improving things. Sort of the way acoustic processing can make stereo speakers really make the impression that sound is coming from behind you. Surround simulation can be surprisingly believable. But unfortunately, for me, my goal has always been to achieve the best quality universally. My phone, my laptop, my ipad. Whatever. So I've always loved the er4. But this filter will let me connect anything to it and get the same eq. So I originally just made the bass boost. And for me it is night and day. Hard to go back. Better than er4xr, better than sr. It just sounds more correct to me.

I'm still playing with the treble. It barely needs anything, but I feel there is room for improvement.