[luisdent]

So I've been back on the triple flange for a bit now. The difference in treble is just a bit too much for me to use the comply anymore at this time. The triple flange are more open in the high treble for sure. Not a great difference, but it is there. The comply sound ever so slightly crippled in fidelity in the highest airyness and openness. They do however give a smoother warmer sound, which can be nice. Again, slight difference.
 
Anyhow, I came about a better way to tweak my eq settings. At least so far, it seems to be taking things to the next level. Essentially, the eq app I use lets you plot points in a text file and it displays them as an overlay on your eq graph. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow you to plot an eq as far as I can tell. Anyway, What I've done with three earphones so far (er4s, pfe112, sony mdr-ex85lp) is to use GE's graph for the er4s (can't find one from rin) and rin's graph for the other two, and I've plotted the points on the graphs to a degree which accounts for all of the essential shaping of the curves.
 
Then I take these plotted points and invert them in a spreadsheet. With these inverse values I can import the plotted values into my eq app. This allows me to see a negative contour that exactly matched the response as it should be corrected to be perfectly flat based on the measured graph used. Obviously some people will have different ear acoustics, tip selection, etc. But as graphing is one of the best ways to determine the problem areas, and the er4s is a deep fitting earphone that removes most resonances when inserted properly, I believe this should improve most people's response with the er4s. Whether someone likes it or not is another question, but it still isn't a drastic difference. Not in the sense that it changes the signature. It merely pushes a few areas this way or that. The ex85 takes on a whole new signature though and that's another story. Wow.
 
So I'll post the eq here and ask that some people try it and let me know what you think.I recommend a few things to get the best experience for this. Although it should still improve the overall response for most tips, it is based on the triple flange tips and those should give the most accurate response. Also, you should wear them to the reference insertion depth. If you're not you are more likely not going to like this. There are regions like the 7khz area that are brought back to 0 on the frequency plane, but that is also a possible boosted area if you are wearing them too shallow and would thus seem too much. Give it a bit of time and listen to a few genres to get the feel for things. See what you think and let me know.
 
Also, again, this is based off of the GE graph. Rin has similar graphs, but the GE takes into account differences in bass and slight differences in treble. But overall they are pretty similar in their target "smoothness". I could plot more points, but you can see that the curves are generally easy to discern without needing to round the edges much more. But I might do it later if i'm bored.
 

You can see how closely the eq'd response (blue) matches the graphed response (orange). Remember to lower the precut to the highest boost point. I just raised it to show the similarity in the graphs.
 
Here are the values in a chart:
 

ER4S Plotted GE
Hz	20	270	830	1790	3230	4620	7580	14090
dB	8.2	-1.6	0.4	-3.6	0.9	-1.1	4.2	-1.2
BW	2.6	1.7	1	1	1	0.5	0.7	0.4
Q	0.5	0.8	1.4	1.4	1.4	2.9	2	3.6

 
This is actually very similar to my last eq, but uses a few points to pull the response more closely in line with the graph, whereas before the EQ i made by listening and basic visual comparison of graphs was more smoothed out. But you can see the main bass and treble dips were rectified. Whereas the new EQ based on the plotted graph points now more closely matches all the slight mid range contours.
 

 
So what does this do? Well, so far in my listening, things sound more open and natural. Listening to voices and atmospheric sounds gives the impression of "being there" more. The bass obviously gives more realistic thump and body to things and the overall smoothing of the response eliminates some slight masking that was taking place (pretty slight but still noticeable). Instruments sound more clear and distinct. Stringed instruments have more micro noises audible and pianos sound smoother and less "tone-ey" with more distinct string noises and whatnot as well.
 
So far, this is the best i've heard them personally. I'm sure some people will hear things differently, but please let me know. If I get a hold of a graph from rin I will do this again and compare the two. I think they will be similar overall, but we'd have to see...
 
Lastly, the pfe EQ as generated from plotting rin's graph sound extremely improved in clarity. However, the better you get them to sound, the more the distortion appears to be audible and noticeable compared to sets with less distortion like the er4s. As for the ex85lp, which have a very good distortion measurement, I am really shocked at how good they sound. I haven't got them to the er4s EQ'd level exactly, but I would say they are almost equivalent. They have gone from a bassy warm sound to the more open, smooth, referecne sound of the er4s with EQ. They're almost on the same level as the er4s and sound extremely similar with both having EQ applied. Which verifies that these graphs seem pretty consistent in their plotting and corrective abilities.
 
The main difference is that the ex85 isn't "as" smooth as the er4s. Probably because the er4s is already so flat to begin with, whereas the ex85lp needs more correction overall, which might lead to more micro peaks and dips that aren't seen on the resolution of the graph, but affect the sound. It's also possible distortion is increased, but so far I can't hear it in the slightest bit in terms of detail, it's just not as smooth overall. But there is no veil or harmonic interference that I hear. There is a very similar amount of detail as the er4s, sometimes I even think I hear more, because of the open style of the earphones and how it affects the sound. They are more relaxing and easier to listen to, while sounding very similar. So it makes it easier to pick out small details sometimes. However, the er4s's smoothness gives them a sort of dimension that I haven't heard anywhere else. I'd say they're pretty comparable with eq in a lot of respects. It was originally a more expensive iem, but now it has dropped a bit in price. It seems to be harder to find, but attainable for about $50-60. Maybe less if you get lucky.
 
Here is the compensation and graph overlay for the pfe and ex85 for reference:
 

 

 
The bass is not in line with rin's graph, because I find his target doesn't compensate for bass well in my opinion. The treble sounds superb, but in both the pfe and ex85, following the bass contour of his graphs results in a sound that is slightly too thin. But this is easily adjustable and I've kept the bass areas as a simple curve to compensate so it is easily brought up or down to one's liking. Anyway, you can see there are more drastic adjustments needed for the ex85. The distortion of the pfe is very noticeable compared to the ex85lp too. The ex85lp is on the level of detail and openness of the er4s, while the pfe sounds veiled in comparison. The pfe is still a beautiful iem with this eq applied. It actually almost sounds the flattest of all three in my opinion, not considering the veil. But that does it too much for me and ruins it now after being spoiled with the other two distortion-wise.
 
Well, I'll end things here and hope to hear some impressions of the er4s with this latest EQ. If anyone has a graph from rin, let me know. I can only find the er4b and er4p which are similar, but not the same.

 

[LibiSC]

So I've been back on the triple flange for a bit now. The difference in treble is just a bit too much for me to use the comply anymore at this time. The triple flange are more open in the high treble for sure. Not a great difference, but it is there. The comply sound ever so slightly crippled in fidelity in the highest airyness and openness. They do however give a smoother warmer sound, which can be nice. Again, slight difference.
 
Anyhow, I came about a better way to tweak my eq settings. At least so far, it seems to be taking things to the next level. Essentially, the eq app I use lets you plot points in a text file and it displays them as an overlay on your eq graph. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow you to plot an eq as far as I can tell. Anyway, What I've done with three earphones so far (er4s, pfe112, sony mdr-ex85lp) is to use GE's graph for the er4s (can't find one from rin) and rin's graph for the other two, and I've plotted the points on the graphs to a degree which accounts for all of the essential shaping of the curves.
 
Then I take these plotted points and invert them in a spreadsheet. With these inverse values I can import the plotted values into my eq app. This allows me to see a negative contour that exactly matched the response as it should be corrected to be perfectly flat based on the measured graph used. Obviously some people will have different ear acoustics, tip selection, etc. But as graphing is one of the best ways to determine the problem areas, and the er4s is a deep fitting earphone that removes most resonances when inserted properly, I believe this should improve most people's response with the er4s. Whether someone likes it or not is another question, but it still isn't a drastic difference. Not in the sense that it changes the signature. It merely pushes a few areas this way or that. The ex85 takes on a whole new signature though and that's another story. Wow.
 
So I'll post the eq here and ask that some people try it and let me know what you think.I recommend a few things to get the best experience for this. Although it should still improve the overall response for most tips, it is based on the triple flange tips and those should give the most accurate response. Also, you should wear them to the reference insertion depth. If you're not you are more likely not going to like this. There are regions like the 7khz area that are brought back to 0 on the frequency plane, but that is also a possible boosted area if you are wearing them too shallow and would thus seem too much. Give it a bit of time and listen to a few genres to get the feel for things. See what you think and let me know.
 
Also, again, this is based off of the GE graph. Rin has similar graphs, but the GE takes into account differences in bass and slight differences in treble. But overall they are pretty similar in their target "smoothness". I could plot more points, but you can see that the curves are generally easy to discern without needing to round the edges much more. But I might do it later if i'm bored.
 

You can see how closely the eq'd response (blue) matches the graphed response (orange). Remember to lower the precut to the highest boost point. I just raised it to show the similarity in the graphs.
 
Here are the values in a chart:
 

ER4S Plotted GE
Hz	20	270	830	1790	3230	4620	7580	14090
dB	8.2	-1.6	0.4	-3.6	0.9	-1.1	4.2	-1.2
BW	2.6	1.7	1	1	1	0.5	0.7	0.4
Q	0.5	0.8	1.4	1.4	1.4	2.9	2	3.6

 
This is actually very similar to my last eq, but uses a few points to pull the response more closely in line with the graph, whereas before the EQ i made by listening and basic visual comparison of graphs was more smoothed out. But you can see the main bass and treble dips were rectified. Whereas the new EQ based on the plotted graph points now more closely matches all the slight mid range contours.
 

 
So what does this do? Well, so far in my listening, things sound more open and natural. Listening to voices and atmospheric sounds gives the impression of "being there" more. The bass obviously gives more realistic thump and body to things and the overall smoothing of the response eliminates some slight masking that was taking place (pretty slight but still noticeable). Instruments sound more clear and distinct. Stringed instruments have more micro noises audible and pianos sound smoother and less "tone-ey" with more distinct string noises and whatnot as well.
 
So far, this is the best i've heard them personally. I'm sure some people will hear things differently, but please let me know. If I get a hold of a graph from rin I will do this again and compare the two. I think they will be similar overall, but we'd have to see...
 
Lastly, the pfe EQ as generated from plotting rin's graph sound extremely improved in clarity. However, the better you get them to sound, the more the distortion appears to be audible and noticeable compared to sets with less distortion like the er4s. As for the ex85lp, which have a very good distortion measurement, I am really shocked at how good they sound. I haven't got them to the er4s EQ'd level exactly, but I would say they are almost equivalent. They have gone from a bassy warm sound to the more open, smooth, referecne sound of the er4s with EQ. They're almost on the same level as the er4s and sound extremely similar with both having EQ applied. Which verifies that these graphs seem pretty consistent in their plotting and corrective abilities.
 
The main difference is that the ex85 isn't "as" smooth as the er4s. Probably because the er4s is already so flat to begin with, whereas the ex85lp needs more correction overall, which might lead to more micro peaks and dips that aren't seen on the resolution of the graph, but affect the sound. It's also possible distortion is increased, but so far I can't hear it in the slightest bit in terms of detail, it's just not as smooth overall. But there is no veil or harmonic interference that I hear. There is a very similar amount of detail as the er4s, sometimes I even think I hear more, because of the open style of the earphones and how it affects the sound. They are more relaxing and easier to listen to, while sounding very similar. So it makes it easier to pick out small details sometimes. However, the er4s's smoothness gives them a sort of dimension that I haven't heard anywhere else. I'd say they're pretty comparable with eq in a lot of respects. It was originally a more expensive iem, but now it has dropped a bit in price. It seems to be harder to find, but attainable for about $50-60. Maybe less if you get lucky.
 
Here is the compensation and graph overlay for the pfe and ex85 for reference:
 

 

 
The bass is not in line with rin's graph, because I find his target doesn't compensate for bass well in my opinion. The treble sounds superb, but in both the pfe and ex85, following the bass contour of his graphs results in a sound that is slightly too thin. But this is easily adjustable and I've kept the bass areas as a simple curve to compensate so it is easily brought up or down to one's liking. Anyway, you can see there are more drastic adjustments needed for the ex85. The distortion of the pfe is very noticeable compared to the ex85lp too. The ex85lp is on the level of detail and openness of the er4s, while the pfe sounds veiled in comparison. The pfe is still a beautiful iem with this eq applied. It actually almost sounds the flattest of all three in my opinion, not considering the veil. But that does it too much for me and ruins it now after being spoiled with the other two distortion-wise.
 
Well, I'll end things here and hope to hear some impressions of the er4s with this latest EQ. If anyone has a graph from rin, let me know. I can only find the er4b and er4p which are similar, but not the same.

If you could do one for the er4p too...you know for science and comparison

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[luisdent]

So I've been back on the triple flange for a bit now. The difference in treble is just a bit too much for me to use the comply anymore at this time. The triple flange are more open in the high treble for sure. Not a great difference, but it is there. The comply sound ever so slightly crippled in fidelity in the highest airyness and openness. They do however give a smoother warmer sound, which can be nice. Again, slight difference.
 
Anyhow, I came about a better way to tweak my eq settings. At least so far, it seems to be taking things to the next level. Essentially, the eq app I use lets you plot points in a text file and it displays them as an overlay on your eq graph. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow you to plot an eq as far as I can tell. Anyway, What I've done with three earphones so far (er4s, pfe112, sony mdr-ex85lp) is to use GE's graph for the er4s (can't find one from rin) and rin's graph for the other two, and I've plotted the points on the graphs to a degree which accounts for all of the essential shaping of the curves.
 
Then I take these plotted points and invert them in a spreadsheet. With these inverse values I can import the plotted values into my eq app. This allows me to see a negative contour that exactly matched the response as it should be corrected to be perfectly flat based on the measured graph used. Obviously some people will have different ear acoustics, tip selection, etc. But as graphing is one of the best ways to determine the problem areas, and the er4s is a deep fitting earphone that removes most resonances when inserted properly, I believe this should improve most people's response with the er4s. Whether someone likes it or not is another question, but it still isn't a drastic difference. Not in the sense that it changes the signature. It merely pushes a few areas this way or that. The ex85 takes on a whole new signature though and that's another story. Wow.
 
So I'll post the eq here and ask that some people try it and let me know what you think.I recommend a few things to get the best experience for this. Although it should still improve the overall response for most tips, it is based on the triple flange tips and those should give the most accurate response. Also, you should wear them to the reference insertion depth. If you're not you are more likely not going to like this. There are regions like the 7khz area that are brought back to 0 on the frequency plane, but that is also a possible boosted area if you are wearing them too shallow and would thus seem too much. Give it a bit of time and listen to a few genres to get the feel for things. See what you think and let me know.
 
Also, again, this is based off of the GE graph. Rin has similar graphs, but the GE takes into account differences in bass and slight differences in treble. But overall they are pretty similar in their target "smoothness". I could plot more points, but you can see that the curves are generally easy to discern without needing to round the edges much more. But I might do it later if i'm bored.
 

You can see how closely the eq'd response (blue) matches the graphed response (orange). Remember to lower the precut to the highest boost point. I just raised it to show the similarity in the graphs.
 
Here are the values in a chart:
 

ER4S Plotted GE
Hz	20	270	830	1790	3230	4620	7580	14090
dB	8.2	-1.6	0.4	-3.6	0.9	-1.1	4.2	-1.2
BW	2.6	1.7	1	1	1	0.5	0.7	0.4
Q	0.5	0.8	1.4	1.4	1.4	2.9	2	3.6

 
This is actually very similar to my last eq, but uses a few points to pull the response more closely in line with the graph, whereas before the EQ i made by listening and basic visual comparison of graphs was more smoothed out. But you can see the main bass and treble dips were rectified. Whereas the new EQ based on the plotted graph points now more closely matches all the slight mid range contours.
 

 
So what does this do? Well, so far in my listening, things sound more open and natural. Listening to voices and atmospheric sounds gives the impression of "being there" more. The bass obviously gives more realistic thump and body to things and the overall smoothing of the response eliminates some slight masking that was taking place (pretty slight but still noticeable). Instruments sound more clear and distinct. Stringed instruments have more micro noises audible and pianos sound smoother and less "tone-ey" with more distinct string noises and whatnot as well.
 
So far, this is the best i've heard them personally. I'm sure some people will hear things differently, but please let me know. If I get a hold of a graph from rin I will do this again and compare the two. I think they will be similar overall, but we'd have to see...
 
Lastly, the pfe EQ as generated from plotting rin's graph sound extremely improved in clarity. However, the better you get them to sound, the more the distortion appears to be audible and noticeable compared to sets with less distortion like the er4s. As for the ex85lp, which have a very good distortion measurement, I am really shocked at how good they sound. I haven't got them to the er4s EQ'd level exactly, but I would say they are almost equivalent. They have gone from a bassy warm sound to the more open, smooth, referecne sound of the er4s with EQ. They're almost on the same level as the er4s and sound extremely similar with both having EQ applied. Which verifies that these graphs seem pretty consistent in their plotting and corrective abilities.
 
The main difference is that the ex85 isn't "as" smooth as the er4s. Probably because the er4s is already so flat to begin with, whereas the ex85lp needs more correction overall, which might lead to more micro peaks and dips that aren't seen on the resolution of the graph, but affect the sound. It's also possible distortion is increased, but so far I can't hear it in the slightest bit in terms of detail, it's just not as smooth overall. But there is no veil or harmonic interference that I hear. There is a very similar amount of detail as the er4s, sometimes I even think I hear more, because of the open style of the earphones and how it affects the sound. They are more relaxing and easier to listen to, while sounding very similar. So it makes it easier to pick out small details sometimes. However, the er4s's smoothness gives them a sort of dimension that I haven't heard anywhere else. I'd say they're pretty comparable with eq in a lot of respects. It was originally a more expensive iem, but now it has dropped a bit in price. It seems to be harder to find, but attainable for about $50-60. Maybe less if you get lucky.
 
Here is the compensation and graph overlay for the pfe and ex85 for reference:
 

 

 
The bass is not in line with rin's graph, because I find his target doesn't compensate for bass well in my opinion. The treble sounds superb, but in both the pfe and ex85, following the bass contour of his graphs results in a sound that is slightly too thin. But this is easily adjustable and I've kept the bass areas as a simple curve to compensate so it is easily brought up or down to one's liking. Anyway, you can see there are more drastic adjustments needed for the ex85. The distortion of the pfe is very noticeable compared to the ex85lp too. The ex85lp is on the level of detail and openness of the er4s, while the pfe sounds veiled in comparison. The pfe is still a beautiful iem with this eq applied. It actually almost sounds the flattest of all three in my opinion, not considering the veil. But that does it too much for me and ruins it now after being spoiled with the other two distortion-wise.
 
Well, I'll end things here and hope to hear some impressions of the er4s with this latest EQ. If anyone has a graph from rin, let me know. I can only find the er4b and er4p which are similar, but not the same.

If you could do one for the er4p too...you know for science and comparison

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I don't have an er4p to verify the results audibly, but i'll do the graph compensation and you can see how it sounds...

 

[LibiSC]

So I've been back on the triple flange for a bit now. The difference in treble is just a bit too much for me to use the comply anymore at this time. The triple flange are more open in the high treble for sure. Not a great difference, but it is there. The comply sound ever so slightly crippled in fidelity in the highest airyness and openness. They do however give a smoother warmer sound, which can be nice. Again, slight difference.
 
Anyhow, I came about a better way to tweak my eq settings. At least so far, it seems to be taking things to the next level. Essentially, the eq app I use lets you plot points in a text file and it displays them as an overlay on your eq graph. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow you to plot an eq as far as I can tell. Anyway, What I've done with three earphones so far (er4s, pfe112, sony mdr-ex85lp) is to use GE's graph for the er4s (can't find one from rin) and rin's graph for the other two, and I've plotted the points on the graphs to a degree which accounts for all of the essential shaping of the curves.
 
Then I take these plotted points and invert them in a spreadsheet. With these inverse values I can import the plotted values into my eq app. This allows me to see a negative contour that exactly matched the response as it should be corrected to be perfectly flat based on the measured graph used. Obviously some people will have different ear acoustics, tip selection, etc. But as graphing is one of the best ways to determine the problem areas, and the er4s is a deep fitting earphone that removes most resonances when inserted properly, I believe this should improve most people's response with the er4s. Whether someone likes it or not is another question, but it still isn't a drastic difference. Not in the sense that it changes the signature. It merely pushes a few areas this way or that. The ex85 takes on a whole new signature though and that's another story. Wow.
 
So I'll post the eq here and ask that some people try it and let me know what you think.I recommend a few things to get the best experience for this. Although it should still improve the overall response for most tips, it is based on the triple flange tips and those should give the most accurate response. Also, you should wear them to the reference insertion depth. If you're not you are more likely not going to like this. There are regions like the 7khz area that are brought back to 0 on the frequency plane, but that is also a possible boosted area if you are wearing them too shallow and would thus seem too much. Give it a bit of time and listen to a few genres to get the feel for things. See what you think and let me know.
 
Also, again, this is based off of the GE graph. Rin has similar graphs, but the GE takes into account differences in bass and slight differences in treble. But overall they are pretty similar in their target "smoothness". I could plot more points, but you can see that the curves are generally easy to discern without needing to round the edges much more. But I might do it later if i'm bored.
 

You can see how closely the eq'd response (blue) matches the graphed response (orange). Remember to lower the precut to the highest boost point. I just raised it to show the similarity in the graphs.
 
Here are the values in a chart:
 

ER4S Plotted GE
Hz	20	270	830	1790	3230	4620	7580	14090
dB	8.2	-1.6	0.4	-3.6	0.9	-1.1	4.2	-1.2
BW	2.6	1.7	1	1	1	0.5	0.7	0.4
Q	0.5	0.8	1.4	1.4	1.4	2.9	2	3.6

 
This is actually very similar to my last eq, but uses a few points to pull the response more closely in line with the graph, whereas before the EQ i made by listening and basic visual comparison of graphs was more smoothed out. But you can see the main bass and treble dips were rectified. Whereas the new EQ based on the plotted graph points now more closely matches all the slight mid range contours.
 

 
So what does this do? Well, so far in my listening, things sound more open and natural. Listening to voices and atmospheric sounds gives the impression of "being there" more. The bass obviously gives more realistic thump and body to things and the overall smoothing of the response eliminates some slight masking that was taking place (pretty slight but still noticeable). Instruments sound more clear and distinct. Stringed instruments have more micro noises audible and pianos sound smoother and less "tone-ey" with more distinct string noises and whatnot as well.
 
So far, this is the best i've heard them personally. I'm sure some people will hear things differently, but please let me know. If I get a hold of a graph from rin I will do this again and compare the two. I think they will be similar overall, but we'd have to see...
 
Lastly, the pfe EQ as generated from plotting rin's graph sound extremely improved in clarity. However, the better you get them to sound, the more the distortion appears to be audible and noticeable compared to sets with less distortion like the er4s. As for the ex85lp, which have a very good distortion measurement, I am really shocked at how good they sound. I haven't got them to the er4s EQ'd level exactly, but I would say they are almost equivalent. They have gone from a bassy warm sound to the more open, smooth, referecne sound of the er4s with EQ. They're almost on the same level as the er4s and sound extremely similar with both having EQ applied. Which verifies that these graphs seem pretty consistent in their plotting and corrective abilities.
 
The main difference is that the ex85 isn't "as" smooth as the er4s. Probably because the er4s is already so flat to begin with, whereas the ex85lp needs more correction overall, which might lead to more micro peaks and dips that aren't seen on the resolution of the graph, but affect the sound. It's also possible distortion is increased, but so far I can't hear it in the slightest bit in terms of detail, it's just not as smooth overall. But there is no veil or harmonic interference that I hear. There is a very similar amount of detail as the er4s, sometimes I even think I hear more, because of the open style of the earphones and how it affects the sound. They are more relaxing and easier to listen to, while sounding very similar. So it makes it easier to pick out small details sometimes. However, the er4s's smoothness gives them a sort of dimension that I haven't heard anywhere else. I'd say they're pretty comparable with eq in a lot of respects. It was originally a more expensive iem, but now it has dropped a bit in price. It seems to be harder to find, but attainable for about $50-60. Maybe less if you get lucky.
 
Here is the compensation and graph overlay for the pfe and ex85 for reference:
 

 

 
The bass is not in line with rin's graph, because I find his target doesn't compensate for bass well in my opinion. The treble sounds superb, but in both the pfe and ex85, following the bass contour of his graphs results in a sound that is slightly too thin. But this is easily adjustable and I've kept the bass areas as a simple curve to compensate so it is easily brought up or down to one's liking. Anyway, you can see there are more drastic adjustments needed for the ex85. The distortion of the pfe is very noticeable compared to the ex85lp too. The ex85lp is on the level of detail and openness of the er4s, while the pfe sounds veiled in comparison. The pfe is still a beautiful iem with this eq applied. It actually almost sounds the flattest of all three in my opinion, not considering the veil. But that does it too much for me and ruins it now after being spoiled with the other two distortion-wise.
 
Well, I'll end things here and hope to hear some impressions of the er4s with this latest EQ. If anyone has a graph from rin, let me know. I can only find the er4b and er4p which are similar, but not the same.

If you could do one for the er4p too...you know for science and comparison

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I don't have an er4p to verify the results audibly, but i'll do the graph compensation and you can see how it sounds...

Yeah I know... In theory after. Compensation they should sound alike... Except for a little lack of detail of the er4p

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[luisdent]

Well, I had an idea and decided to replicate the red filters using eq. I've switched back and forth between the red and green many times and am familiar with the change. I'd say this eq is fairly accurate. It might not be exact, as there are deviations between filters of the same colors from what I've been told, but the eq does approximate what I've experienced switching filters myself very very well. Enough that I think it is a very good demo of what it would sound like if you're considering switching from green to red.
 
This will only simulate the red filter response if you have green filters in your er4s. You can see the changes are pretty subtle. The scale is on the left in dB. I used rin's graphs upon which to base these settings. A few things to note. The graph is said to show the response for the er4b, but is listed as the filter effects of the "er4". I believe the difference in filters will be essentially the same between er4s models. In other words, they will reduce the same frequencies essentially the same amount. If someone knows this to be otherwise, please let me know, but that's what it seems like to me. Here's rin's filter graph:

 
And the eq equivalent. (precut to show the contours side by side)
 

 
Here is a direct overlay to see how well the settings match rin's filter graph. I could get it more accurate, but it would take more than 10 eq points and would be at the point of diminishing returns.
 

 
If you don't have 10 bands, here is a version with 8 bands. It isn't as precise, but pretty close.
 

 
As described before, this change in response gives the bass a slightly more apparent fullness and relaxes the treble area without really reducing any quality. In fact, I find it improves quality, because the 2khz hump especially is more relaxed allowing you to more easily focus on the treble without any potential fatigue. I'll put these in chart form later when I have some time. These are all bandwidth values. They will not work as Q values. I'll include those with the charts.

 

[luisdent]

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325&tag=headfiorg-20&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2FB007X8LH5Y%2Fref%3Doh_details_o04_s00_i00%3Fie%3DUTF8%26psc%3D1

I just bought a set now...

 
Just a warning. I ordered these and received triple flange. I'm not that impressed with them. They're not bad, but I definitely hear a bit of spiking in the treble, because they don't allow the er4 to go as deep in the ear. Also, the rubber/silicon is a bit drier, so after listening for a minute they were practically cemented in my ears. I mean I was starting to worry I wouldn't be able to get them out. I messaged the seller and I'll see if I can get some bi flange. I think they'd be a lot better, because they'd allow deeper insertion. The tri flange do seem to seal pretty easily, so we'll see....

 

[TonyRS]

Hey guys, I have an extra pair of unused small Comply P-100s if anybody would like to trade for another small pair of complys? I'd like to experiment with different tips!

 

[LibiSC]

Just to say I gave a try to the mushroom tips that come whith the er4pt and they pretty good if you wont be walking with the iems... I remembered them worse...

 

[gnarlsagan]

   
Just a warning. I ordered these and received triple flange. I'm not that impressed with them. They're not bad, but I definitely hear a bit of spiking in the treble, because they don't allow the er4 to go as deep in the ear. Also, the rubber/silicon is a bit drier, so after listening for a minute they were practically cemented in my ears. I mean I was starting to worry I wouldn't be able to get them out. I messaged the seller and I'll see if I can get some bi flange. I think they'd be a lot better, because they'd allow deeper insertion. The tri flange do seem to seal pretty easily, so we'll see....

 
Wow that sucks. They should take care of that I'd imagine.
 
A quick word of advice about the bi-flanges: use the core of another tip as a spacer, and fit the bi-flange on top of that so it fits tighter on the barrel of the ER4. It's pretty tight without needing a spacer, but given the deep fit nature of the ER4, the tighter the tip can stay on the barrel the better. Here's a pic of what I mean:
 

 
You put just the core of the tip onto the barrel of the iem, then fit your desired tip over that. I actually use some red monster spacers that I think came with the monster tip sampler pack (honestly though I've tried to confirm this and have never conclusively discovered just where the hell I obtained these spacers from). Spacers work quite well in getting different tips to fit more securely onto the ER4. 
 
Here's what the red spacer looks like:
 

 

[luisdent]

 

   
Just a warning. I ordered these and received triple flange. I'm not that impressed with them. They're not bad, but I definitely hear a bit of spiking in the treble, because they don't allow the er4 to go as deep in the ear. Also, the rubber/silicon is a bit drier, so after listening for a minute they were practically cemented in my ears. I mean I was starting to worry I wouldn't be able to get them out. I messaged the seller and I'll see if I can get some bi flange. I think they'd be a lot better, because they'd allow deeper insertion. The tri flange do seem to seal pretty easily, so we'll see....

 
Wow that sucks. They should take care of that I'd imagine.
 
A quick word of advice about the bi-flanges: use the core of another tip as a spacer, and fit the bi-flange on top of that so it fits tighter on the barrel of the ER4. It's pretty tight without needing a spacer, but given the deep fit nature of the ER4, the tighter the tip can stay on the barrel the better. Here's a pic of what I mean:
 

 
You put just the core of the tip onto the barrel of the iem, then fit your desired tip over that. I actually use some red monster spacers that I think came with the monster tip sampler pack (honestly though I've tried to confirm this and have never conclusively discovered just where the hell I obtained these spacers from). Spacers work quite well in getting different tips to fit more securely onto the ER4. 

 
Yeah, i let them know and they sent the correct ones right out to me. Should be here soon. The triple flange I got fit pretty tightly on my er4s. At least as tight as the ety triple flange. If I had to guess though, there is probably some variation between tip units. And maybe the bi-flange are even slightly different. I don't think I could fir the core of another tip inside the triple flange I just got... But good to know if they're not super tight.

 

[LibiSC]

After a long search in the lost head fi archives I found PiccoloNamek eq setting for the er4s. I like it a little better than yours luisdent
 
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/212668/etym-tic-iem-owners-headcount-are-you-one/390#post_2906229

 

[luisdent]

That's cool. A bit of a warmer tilt. There are many targets and everybody has different tastes and fitment ...

 

[LibiSC]

I made an impulse response for my er4pt without the adaptor to S and the sound was pretty good with harman curve.... a shame that tylls didnt measure the er4s...
 
Edit: you edited your post luisdent... my response was for before the edit... lol

 

[luisdent]

Th

I made an impulse response for my er4pt without the adaptor to S and the sound was pretty good with harman curve.... a shame that tylls didnt measure the er4s...

Edit: you edited your post luisdent... my response was for before the edit... lol

that's ok. I try not to be too "wordy" . Ha i usually rewrite a post once or twice to make it clear or simpler.

 

[LibiSC]

Th

I made an impulse response for my er4pt without the adaptor to S and the sound was pretty good with harman curve.... a shame that tylls didnt measure the er4s...

Edit: you edited your post luisdent... my response was for before the edit... lol

that's ok. I try not to be too "wordy" . Ha i usually rewrite a post once or twice to make it clear or simpler.

After some listening your eq feels better for some songs... Other times piccolo's and sometimes no eq at all...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk