[luisdent]

 

 

 

Not directly maybe, but evening the frequency response unmasks details that were otherwise overshadowed by dips and peaks. The details become easier to hear and things become smoother and more accurate. So if you define resolution as the amount of fine detail you can hear, then yes eq can improve that. If you think of resolution as the physical limit of how much detail an iem can ever resolve, then no, eq can't help that.

Like the pfe112, eq can't decrese the distortion level, so it can only sound so good. But with an earphone that has good specs and capabilities, eq can definitely bring out details you didn't hear before...

 
Ok, but there's no way EX85 can match ER4S. Sorry, I just don't believe that and, no offense, but it seems pretty ridiculous to me. EX85 is a low end dynamic IEM. Do you think Sony really put a lot of effort into making it? I highly doubt it. You can EQ it to match any frequency response you want with the a great EQ, but I don't think it has the technical chops to compete at ER4S level. I have an EX85 actually - it came included with my Sony Walkman DAP that I bought a few years ago. It's OK sounding, but the bass is not very tight and quite bloated - a far cry from the super tight and detailed ER4 bass -  while the mids and highs lack refinement and clarity even compared to a decent $100 headphone/IEM. To really believe I need to see some measurements for EX85 first. I bet it measures like a typical low end dynamic IEM with roller coaster frequency response, ugly looking square wave graphs, slow impulse response, etc. Again, no offense - I am not saying that you can't tell what good sound is, but I do think you went a too far with the EX85 claims. Maybe you are too easily influenced by placebo.

 
Believe what you will. First and foremost I never said it was an identical match for the er4s in any situation. But as far as frequency response goes, I personally think it is one of the most important aspects of any audio device whether it be speaker or earphone. If frequency response was perfectly flat with every device, than obviously the other specs would be larger determining factors. However, this is not the case.
 
I would take an eq'd ex85 over a non eq'd er4s. Plain and simple. With my eq, to my ears, the ex85 is just as revealing in details as the er4s. The bass bloat is completely removed by the eq, thus MAKING it tighter. People talk about tightness and speed and all this other stuff... While they are definitely related to specifications, etc. they are also very closely tied into the frequency response. When the bass is bloated and the treble reduced, the sound will be muffled and bass will sound slow and muddy. The treble affects the bass as much as the bass affects the bass. That may sound silly, but when someone plucks a note on a bass guitar it isn't just bass frequencies being produced. You have the transient attack of the string with all the associated high frequency noises, even if they aren't in large proportion to the bass, they are there, and they add something to the bass. The er4s has "tight" bass, not only because of the specifications, but also because the low frequencies are flat if not a bit recessed in the sub bass region. While the high frequencies are essentially more present. Therefore bass instruments sound "tight". The physical specifications also play a part in the sound as well, but don't underestimate frequency response.
 
No, you can't eq a crappy earphone to sound like the er4s. But the ex85 isn't a crappy earphone. Yes it is bass heavy, but by no means is it crappy. It's not far from the mh1 in my opinion. It has a bit more scooped out treble in areas, but nothing as bad as some of the more expensive earphones I've tried that have peaks and troughs I'm amazed people put up with. The ex85 specs are actually very good:
 
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/sony-mdr-ex85.html
 
Distortion levels at least as good, if not better than the er4s. Good impulse response. Not the best ever, but by no means bad. Rin even notes that the resonance in the sibilant region is even less than the ex700 and ex1000. Are there some flaws? Sure, but you'd probably believe the pfe112 is a better earphone because it costs $180 new? I would take the ex85 eq'd hands down. The distortion is obvious in comparison to the ex85 and masks the openness and depth a good amount once they are both eq'd to be more neutral.
 
Needless to say, the eq brings the ex85 to a much more neutral level, which in my opinion is flatter than the er4s with no eq. I don't mind that other people might disagree, even if they've never heard it. That's there decision. I personally wouldn't close my mind to the possibility of something "cheap" sounding as good as something "expensive". Did you know that it used to retail for $90 when it was new? I wouldn't call that expensive, but it's not really cheap either. The hifiman re400 you like is $99. Is that junk because it's cheap? :-o
 
Here's a bit of detail as to what I hear comparing the two. The ex85 has better openness and overall balance when eq'd comparing it to the er4s not eq'd. Instruments stand in their own space more naturally and distinctly. They sound more "there" when you listen to where something would be in a room for instance. Now, if you apply eq to the er4s that's another story. Then they become closer in sound, but the er4s is a bit smoother and has a bit more resolving power in that the fine frequency response accuracy and specifications lend to a very smooth sound from low to high. The ex85 still does extremely well, but like the hifiman 272 even, it sounds drier and more airy. However, the original claim was that I liked it eq'd better than the er4s with no eq. And I stand by that.
 
I'm sure I won't convince you, because it sounds like your mind is already made up.  You're welcome to try my eq. I made a post about it on my blog: http://handtokey.blogspot.com/2014/03/my-sony-ex85lp-story-and-custom-eq.html
 
I'm sure people will disagree, while some might be impressed at how a "cheap" iem can be improved with eq. Either way, your mind is a very powerful thing, and although people usually won't admit it, you can easily hear something because you think you do. Same goes for me. I've been wrong many times on listening to many things. But I'm not afraid to say I was wrong and I do a LOT of listening and comparing. And I'm aware of this effect, so I try to be as unbiased as I can. In doing so, I believe that I am hearing a very accurate and balanced iem when there is eq applied to the ex85. There are no major lacking specifications, and this is based on rin's graphs themselves. I only add a very small amount of bass, as I don't find his graphs compensate that area well. This is probably what it would sound like if goldenears had adjusted the bass as they do on their graphs. And again, i'm in no way downplaying the importance of good specifications and measurements. If anything people here probably know me as the guy that won't shut up about graphs and such. haha But everything has to be taken into account relatively speaking. And sometimes a little change in frequency response can make a bigger difference in sound compared to a little change in a square wave response for example. However, if the square wave response was horrible that might be another story.
 
Anyway, it is what it is. We all have different ears, different opinions, different tastes. All I can say is that I've been listening to the ex85 with eq for a while now and find it very enjoyable. Is it the best i've heard? No. One of the best? Yes. I'd probably put crown to the er4s with eq or the re272 without. They just have a slightly better upper hand when you total every little aspect of the sound. But the ex85 gets almost all the way there just by adding some eq. And that's also why I prefer the 272 to the er4s. It doesn't require any eq for me. With eq the er4s can sound right up there with the 272. But without it, well, you know the difference I've already described.
 
I'll stop hear as I'm sure no one wants to read this much anyway. What say you piano man?!

longest post evah

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 
Bwahaha. I gotta make you work for it!  Gnarl, i'll send you mine.

 

[luisdent]

Lastly, my goal was a very flat response based on rin's target, while compensating the bass to my preferred tastes a bit. Rin's target just sounds too thin, thinner than the er4s. But I have no guide to correct the bass, so I chose my own level not necessarily designed to mimick the er4s. So you might want to simply cut the 70hz bass point down to about -5 or -6db to get something closer to the er4s bass level if you want to. That sounds closer to me. I go back and forth myself between -5 and -3. And keep in mind you can't necessarily adjust one eq point without skewing the others. I can do that in my app if you need anything adjusted. The bass point can be adjusted alone, but the treble is easily skewed if one point if adjusted, so corrections to other points are needed. Just sayin'
 
Also, I'm hearding a noticeable difference between my mac/fuze eq vs. the ipod with accudio. Accudio seems to add noise of some sort for some reason, even though the values are identical. Upon close listening on some tracks it sounds like digital noise of some sort. I've heard this with their own earphone compensations before at the beginning and end of tracks. I think it's a glitch of some sort.  So I recommend either using a sansa player with rockbox eq or I can try to adjust accudio to sound like the other apps if you use that. It's very slight difference, but nonetheless.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

  I would never argue you're wrong in what you prefer. Also, graphs are not objective. Your insistence that they produce truth is not objective either, it demonstrates a subjective preference for graphical data. It's fine if you're into that, I'm not and never have been. It's annoying and disrespectful though to assert you're right and others are wrong because you claim to have graphs proving your opinion that practically no one agrees with. My initial post was just remarking on how wide the range of experience of different phones is. You then suggested you were right and my impression was just "in my head".

 
Firstly, I never claim that I am right. That's why I always put "IMO", suggesting that it's all just my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Secondly, I can't see how graphs are not objective. Can you explain why you believe that they are subjective?
 
Thirdly, I think that graphs do prove some things. They don't indicate absolute truth of course, because there's no such thing, but they do tell us quite a bit about how a headphone sounds. In particular, they can approximately tell us how true to the original source and recordings a headphone is. Isn't the ultimate goal of high fidelity audio equipment to reproduce music as close to its true form as possible? The frequency response of a headphone should thus approximate the response of an average human ear, distortion should be as low as possible to prevent sounds being heard that have nothing to do with the original recording, the impulse response needs to be as quick as possible to allow a headphone to provide a more articulate sound of individual instruments, especially during complex music passages, square wave response should settle as quickly as possible to noiseless waveform in order to allow a headphone to handle musical transitions with as much authority and clarity as possible. A headphone with slow impulse response or noisy, distorted square waves will not be able to reproduce music cleanly and clearly, resulting in smearing of individual sounds and loss of detail that was intended to be there by the musician or recording engineer. Of course, we can often prefer a distorted, colored version of a recording, but obviously that's not what high fidelity is about, is it? The goal of high fidelity is to reproduce music as an art, preserving as much as possible of the creative work that was put into it by the artist. High fidelity cannot be achieved without various objective measurements/graphs. As for personal preference, I think that to respect and appreciate music as an art, a person needs to tailor one's personal preference to the best equipment (and consequently music that sounds through that equipment) that one can afford that measures as well as possible and that is thus as high fidelity as possible, not the other way around (choosing a headphone based on one's tastes). Frequency response is tricky to get right for everyone, but a hi-fi headphone should have a response that closely matches the average response of a normal ear, so that a person will need to do as little EQ'ing as possible to match it to his specific curve, if there's a significant enough deviation from the average...

 

[Francisk]

I totally agree with you Pianist.

 

[luisdent]

  Quote:

  I would never argue you're wrong in what you prefer. Also, graphs are not objective. Your insistence that they produce truth is not objective either, it demonstrates a subjective preference for graphical data. It's fine if you're into that, I'm not and never have been. It's annoying and disrespectful though to assert you're right and others are wrong because you claim to have graphs proving your opinion that practically no one agrees with. My initial post was just remarking on how wide the range of experience of different phones is. You then suggested you were right and my impression was just "in my head".

 
Firstly, I never claim that I am right. That's why I always put "IMO", suggesting that it's all just my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Secondly, I can't see how graphs are not objective. Can you explain why you believe that they are subjective?
 
Thirdly, I think that graphs do prove some things. They don't indicate absolute truth of course, because there's no such thing, but they do tell us quite a bit about how a headphone sounds. In particular, they can approximately tell us how true to the original source and recordings a headphone is. Isn't the ultimate goal of high fidelity audio equipment to reproduce music as close to its true form as possible? The frequency response of a headphone should thus approximate the response of an average human ear, distortion should be as low as possible to prevent sounds being heard that have nothing to do with the original recording, the impulse response needs to be as quick as possible to allow a headphone to provide a more articulate sound of individual instruments, especially during complex music passages, square wave response should settle as quickly as possible to noiseless waveform in order to allow a headphone to handle musical transitions with as much authority and clarity as possible. A headphone with slow impulse response or noisy, distorted square waves will not be able to reproduce music cleanly and clearly, resulting in smearing of individual sounds and loss of detail that was intended to be there by the musician or recording engineer. Of course, we can often prefer a distorted, colored version of a recording, but obviously that's not what high fidelity is about, is it? The goal of high fidelity is to reproduce music as an art, preserving as much as possible of the creative work that was put into it by the artist. High fidelity cannot be achieved without various objective measurements/graphs. As for personal preference, I think that to respect and appreciate music as an art, a person needs to tailor one's personal preference to the best equipment (and consequently music that sounds through that equipment) that one can afford that measures as well as possible and that is thus as high fidelity as possible, not the other way around (choosing a headphone based on one's tastes). Frequency response is tricky to get right for everyone, but a hi-fi headphone should have a response that closely matches the average response of a normal ear, so that a person will need to do as little EQ'ing as possible to match it to his specific curve, if there's a significant enough deviation from the average...

 
Agree completely. I think people confuse accurate sound with sound they might prefer. I also believe some of the studies harman has done that show most people prefer accurate sound over inaccurate sound when they are tested with a comparison of the two. But someone might think boosted treble brings out more details, but in reality, the only way to truly bring out more real details is to have the properties you described above. When those all come together there is little to no masking, no extra information that shouldn't be there, etc. That is hi-fidelity in my opinion. Being as transparent as possible. I think headphones should be treated like wires and amps. They should all do as little as possible to color the sound. They should simply reproduce the recorded material exactly how it was recorded. The closer you are to that, the closer you are to perfection.
 
Now that isn't just a simple as specs, because we all have different ears and thus acoustic environments of our own. But the goal should still be neutrality and accuracy. You just need to factor in your ear's response and whatnot to reduce unwanted resonances, etc. that shouldn't be there. That's one reason earphones like the er4s are nice. They do a decent job at eliminating most ear acoustics by getting right up in that last section of the ear canal and bypassing the major bends and areas that cause the most problems.
 
Needless to say, we won't all hear things exactly the same, but we should still strive for accuracy and matching that to your own ears. That is, if that's your thing. Audio is something to enjoy, so if you enjoy 20db more bass, by all means boost that puppy. But that's where accuracy and preference are separated.

 

[redrich2000]

  Quote:
 
Firstly, I never claim that I am right. That's why I always put "IMO", suggesting that it's all just my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Secondly, I can't see how graphs are not objective. Can you explain why you believe that they are subjective?
 
Thirdly, I think that graphs do prove some things. They don't indicate absolute truth of course, because there's no such thing, but they do tell us quite a bit about how a headphone sounds. In particular, they can approximately tell us how true to the original source and recordings a headphone is. Isn't the ultimate goal of high fidelity audio equipment to reproduce music as close to its true form as possible? The frequency response of a headphone should thus approximate the response of an average human ear, distortion should be as low as possible to prevent sounds being heard that have nothing to do with the original recording, the impulse response needs to be as quick as possible to allow a headphone to provide a more articulate sound of individual instruments, especially during complex music passages, square wave response should settle as quickly as possible to noiseless waveform in order to allow a headphone to handle musical transitions with as much authority and clarity as possible. A headphone with slow impulse response or noisy, distorted square waves will not be able to reproduce music cleanly and clearly, resulting in smearing of individual sounds and loss of detail that was intended to be there by the musician or recording engineer. Of course, we can often prefer a distorted, colored version of a recording, but obviously that's not what high fidelity is about, is it? The goal of high fidelity is to reproduce music as an art, preserving as much as possible of the creative work that was put into it by the artist. High fidelity cannot be achieved without various objective measurements/graphs. As for personal preference, I think that to respect and appreciate music as an art, a person needs to tailor one's personal preference to the best equipment (and consequently music that sounds through that equipment) that one can afford that measures as well as possible and that is thus as high fidelity as possible, not the other way around (choosing a headphone based on one's tastes). Frequency response is tricky to get right for everyone, but a hi-fi headphone should have a response that closely matches the average response of a normal ear, so that a person will need to do as little EQ'ing as possible to match it to his specific curve, if there's a significant enough deviation from the average...

 
On graphs, firstly what is graphed? how is it graphed? how is the data that's graphed obtained? What scales are used on the axes? What is not graphed? etc. And that's just scratching the surface. There is a general problem in our understanding of knowledge caused by the assertion of objectivity by science. If you're interested, check out Bruno Latour. IMO most of what you say here is an attempt to assert your own subjective preference as objective. What can "accurate" mean when ears are different, brains are different, how we understand what music even is contingent on an array of subjective knowledges.
 
But having said all that, our experiences will usually tend to be similar because we are subject to the same social structures and norms, my partner interrupted me while typing this with a little online trick that shows when asked to think of a colour and tool 98% of people think of a red hammer. Your particular experience of these two headphones seems so divergent from other opinions I wonder if something else is not going on here.

 

[hotfever]

a real measurement was done and point out the treble of er4s extend all the way to 15,5khz.

im planning to get a ck10,im a big fan of clarity,treble(extension not energy).............anyone had used both may give in some advise?

 

[luisdent]

There is an inherent trait in audio that when frequency becomes flatter details become unmasked in all regions of the audio. So in one way, if your ear acoustics match well with an earphone and the response is flat, you will hear balanced details in every range of the audio's frequency response. Again, this doesn't mean everyone will like this sound, but it is a trait of the response. This is probably why harman found people generally prefer flatter response to colored response. Granted, there are a lot of other factors that can affect details and perception even when the frequency responses are equal. However, this isn't always rocket science. In some ways it is, but in other ways just listen to things and determine if you find it sounds better or not based on your own accuracy assessment.
 
I'm not saying disregard all science, but what does the science matter if everything points to earphone A being perfectly flat, when it generates a large spike at 7khz due to your ear canal shape? There are no simple measurement tools that work with everyone's ears, so you have to go somewhat by your impression of the sound you are hearing. I find that graphs help, because I can compare them to one another to see the differences between earphones. I find the re272 the most accurate thing i've heard stock. That doesn't have flat treble on graph. But I know that my ears have a certain acoustic response based on a variety of earphones I've compared, such as the er4s for example. So looking at the different graphs, I can say "the re272 has less amplitude in the 2-3khz region". If I know that region bothers me with the er4s then that graph has helped me find an iem that rectifies that area for me. Now generally, there are a few areas that we have resonances and whatnot and others we don't. So overall, most graphs will give a good representation of what something will sound like assuming you are familiar with your own ears.
 
Hopefully that all made sense. Essentially, we need to use all the tools, science, understanding, etc. in our search for the perfect iem for "us". And part of that means relying on your impression of the sound as well. Just look at reviews. "this sounds bright, airy, open".... You listen to the same earphone and hear "harsh, peaky, sibilant". Obviously people are hearing things differently. Part of that might be a difference in opinion. Part of it might be ear acoustics. The point is, the search is partly scientific and partly personal. At least that's my take on it.

 

[bikefixe]

  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

 

Thanks luisdent. I'm really enjoying this EQ. The sound is lively and smooth - an improvement for me over the standard response.

 

[Pianist]

  On graphs, firstly what is graphed? how is it graphed? how is the data that's graphed obtained? What scales are used on the axes? What is not graphed? etc. And that's just scratching the surface. There is a general problem in our understanding of knowledge caused by the assertion of objectivity by science. If you're interested, check out Bruno Latour. IMO most of what you say here is an attempt to assert your own subjective preference as objective. What can "accurate" mean when ears are different, brains are different, how we understand what music even is contingent on an array of subjective knowledges.

 
I don't really understand what you are getting at here. Graphs are objective because they don't depend on one's subjective preferences and beliefs. The data is obtained by means of various measuring devices. Surely, the accuracy of the devices can be debated, but that's a different matter - generally I think modern measurement devices, especially those used by people who are serious about measurements, like Tyll Hertsens are sufficiently accurate. The way graphs are created is nothing subjective either - the appropriate units are chosen based on the type of data being measured. I guess to a certain extent, the way data can be represented on graphs is subjective, but there are still basic rules on graphing that cannot be broken and if one knows how to read graphs properly, then one can still see the objective measurement result without the subjective bias imprinted onto it. As for what's not graphed, it's neither subjective, nor objective, because it doesn't exist. lol We are discussing what IS being graphed, aren't we?
 
Quote:

  On graphs, firstly what is graphed? how is it graphed? how is the data that's graphed obtained? What scales are used on the axes? What is not graphed? etc. And that's just scratching the surface. There is a general problem in our understanding of knowledge caused by the assertion of objectivity by science. If you're interested, check out Bruno Latour. IMO most of what you say here is an attempt to assert your own subjective preference as objective. What can "accurate" mean when ears are different, brains are different, how we understand what music even is contingent on an array of subjective knowledges.

 
I already explained it. Accurate to me means high fidelity, which basically means true to the original recording. The more neutral and better measuring a headphone is, the closer it will sound to the original recording (provided that the source is sufficiently hi-fi as well, of course). The frequency response can be averaged to closely match that of a typical human ear with normal hearing so that most people with normal hearing will need to do as little EQ'ing as possible, if any at all to get a response from the headphone that's sufficiently flat for their ears (if there's a small deviation from flat, it may not matter because it may be hardly audible, if at all). Most other aspects of headphone sound quality, like distortion, transients, attack, decay, etc, are not dependent on individual hearing variation. As for our brains being different and differences in subjective knowledges, that is certainly what can prevent many people from appreciating a lot of music, due to not understanding what the artists were trying to convey. Higher fidelity listening equipment merely provides us with the possibility of understanding more of what artists conveyed in their music, by allowing us to hear more of the music the way it was meant to be heard. Whether or not we take advantage of the possibility depends on numerous factors of course - intelligence, beliefs, tastes, mood, knowledge (especially knowledge of music theory), amount of music training, etc. I think that it generally accepted that the more music theory you know and the more music training you get, the easier it becomes for you to understand music. After all, most musicians start off learning the same fundamental music theory and by getting the same basic music training, so the music that they create is then to some extent the application of this knowledge and training.
 
Quote:

   
But having said all that, our experiences will usually tend to be similar because we are subject to the same social structures and norms, my partner interrupted me while typing this with a little online trick that shows when asked to think of a colour and tool 98% of people think of a red hammer. Your particular experience of these two headphones seems so divergent from other opinions I wonder if something else is not going on here.

 
Statistics please. How many people are against my opinion and how many agree? What about people who don't post here on head-fi who heard both?

 

[OJNeg]

I'm confused.
 
What are we arguing about now?

 

[imackler]

   
Statistics please. How many people are against my opinion and how many agree? What about people who don't post here on head-fi who heard both?

 
Which two iems are we talking about? RE-400 and ER4S or RE272?
 
All I'm going to say is that Pianist's initial comment (pages back) got me to pull out me RE-400, try them with the smaller double flange with which I do get a deep inseration, and I've been loving these things like never before. Can't believe these things cost $100. 

 

[Pianist]

  Which two iems are we talking about? RE-400 and ER4S or RE272?
 
All I'm going to say is that Pianist's initial comment (pages back) got me to pull out me RE-400, try them with the smaller double flange with which I do get a deep inseration, and I've been loving these things like never before. Can't believe these things cost $100. 

 
RE272 and RE400.
 
Do you still have the ER4 to compare with the RE400?
 

   
Believe what you will. First and foremost I never said it was an identical match for the er4s in any situation. But as far as frequency response goes, I personally think it is one of the most important aspects of any audio device whether it be speaker or earphone. If frequency response was perfectly flat with every device, than obviously the other specs would be larger determining factors. However, this is not the case.
 
I would take an eq'd ex85 over a non eq'd er4s. Plain and simple. With my eq, to my ears, the ex85 is just as revealing in details as the er4s. The bass bloat is completely removed by the eq, thus MAKING it tighter. People talk about tightness and speed and all this other stuff... While they are definitely related to specifications, etc. they are also very closely tied into the frequency response. When the bass is bloated and the treble reduced, the sound will be muffled and bass will sound slow and muddy. The treble affects the bass as much as the bass affects the bass. That may sound silly, but when someone plucks a note on a bass guitar it isn't just bass frequencies being produced. You have the transient attack of the string with all the associated high frequency noises, even if they aren't in large proportion to the bass, they are there, and they add something to the bass. The er4s has "tight" bass, not only because of the specifications, but also because the low frequencies are flat if not a bit recessed in the sub bass region. While the high frequencies are essentially more present. Therefore bass instruments sound "tight". The physical specifications also play a part in the sound as well, but don't underestimate frequency response.
 
No, you can't eq a crappy earphone to sound like the er4s. But the ex85 isn't a crappy earphone. Yes it is bass heavy, but by no means is it crappy. It's not far from the mh1 in my opinion. It has a bit more scooped out treble in areas, but nothing as bad as some of the more expensive earphones I've tried that have peaks and troughs I'm amazed people put up with. The ex85 specs are actually very good:
 
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/sony-mdr-ex85.html
 
Distortion levels at least as good, if not better than the er4s. Good impulse response. Not the best ever, but by no means bad. Rin even notes that the resonance in the sibilant region is even less than the ex700 and ex1000. Are there some flaws? Sure, but you'd probably believe the pfe112 is a better earphone because it costs $180 new? I would take the ex85 eq'd hands down. The distortion is obvious in comparison to the ex85 and masks the openness and depth a good amount once they are both eq'd to be more neutral.
 
Needless to say, the eq brings the ex85 to a much more neutral level, which in my opinion is flatter than the er4s with no eq. I don't mind that other people might disagree, even if they've never heard it. That's there decision. I personally wouldn't close my mind to the possibility of something "cheap" sounding as good as something "expensive". Did you know that it used to retail for $90 when it was new? I wouldn't call that expensive, but it's not really cheap either. The hifiman re400 you like is $99. Is that junk because it's cheap? :-o
 
Here's a bit of detail as to what I hear comparing the two. The ex85 has better openness and overall balance when eq'd comparing it to the er4s not eq'd. Instruments stand in their own space more naturally and distinctly. They sound more "there" when you listen to where something would be in a room for instance. Now, if you apply eq to the er4s that's another story. Then they become closer in sound, but the er4s is a bit smoother and has a bit more resolving power in that the fine frequency response accuracy and specifications lend to a very smooth sound from low to high. The ex85 still does extremely well, but like the hifiman 272 even, it sounds drier and more airy. However, the original claim was that I liked it eq'd better than the er4s with no eq. And I stand by that.
 
I'm sure I won't convince you, because it sounds like your mind is already made up.  You're welcome to try my eq. I made a post about it on my blog: http://handtokey.blogspot.com/2014/03/my-sony-ex85lp-story-and-custom-eq.html
 
I'm sure people will disagree, while some might be impressed at how a "cheap" iem can be improved with eq. Either way, your mind is a very powerful thing, and although people usually won't admit it, you can easily hear something because you think you do. Same goes for me. I've been wrong many times on listening to many things. But I'm not afraid to say I was wrong and I do a LOT of listening and comparing. And I'm aware of this effect, so I try to be as unbiased as I can. In doing so, I believe that I am hearing a very accurate and balanced iem when there is eq applied to the ex85. There are no major lacking specifications, and this is based on rin's graphs themselves. I only add a very small amount of bass, as I don't find his graphs compensate that area well. This is probably what it would sound like if goldenears had adjusted the bass as they do on their graphs. And again, i'm in no way downplaying the importance of good specifications and measurements. If anything people here probably know me as the guy that won't shut up about graphs and such. haha But everything has to be taken into account relatively speaking. And sometimes a little change in frequency response can make a bigger difference in sound compared to a little change in a square wave response for example. However, if the square wave response was horrible that might be another story.
 
Anyway, it is what it is. We all have different ears, different opinions, different tastes. All I can say is that I've been listening to the ex85 with eq for a while now and find it very enjoyable. Is it the best i've heard? No. One of the best? Yes. I'd probably put crown to the er4s with eq or the re272 without. They just have a slightly better upper hand when you total every little aspect of the sound. But the ex85 gets almost all the way there just by adding some eq. And that's also why I prefer the 272 to the er4s. It doesn't require any eq for me. With eq the er4s can sound right up there with the 272. But without it, well, you know the difference I've already described.
 
I'll stop hear as I'm sure no one wants to read this much anyway. What say you piano man?!

 
I feel obliged to thank you for such a long post. lol I don't think I deserved this much explanation from you. Ok, well, I may give the EX85 a try with your EQ settings someday. I think you are definitely onto something there. They do sound pretty decent stock, without any EQ. However, while I see how EQ can make EX85 sound clearer, I still highly doubt that it can match a decent balanced armature in transients. I don't think I ever heard a dynamic driver IEM that I felt could match the speed and precision of a good, single BA driver. There were some that could come close in the high frequencies, with RE272 being one of them, but none could do it in the lows and low mids. The inherent slowness of dynamic drivers in the bass was almost always readily apparent. Even with my current favorite dynamic driver IEM, the RE400, the low end and mids, while pretty quick for a dynamic, are still a little slow and lacking precision compared to HF5, ER4 and even PFE.  Dynamic full sized open back cans are a different story. HD800 and Beyer Tesla cans can likely match or even outpace the best BAs in transients (but I am still not sure about that as my experience with HD800 and Tesla cans was too short), but most of those cost a lot more than the best single BAs. There are some really light driver open back dynamics like the classic Sennheiser HD series, the Beyer DTs, the AKG K/Q7** series and others than I think can come pretty darn close to the speed of the BAs, but aren't quite there, especially in the low frequencies. Thus, I highly doubt EX85 can make the cut either. While you can make it as flat as the best headphones with great EQ, its dynamic driver stuffed into what I assume to be a pretty average, plastic housing at best, just won't have the lightning quick transients and great precision of even a second tier BA like HF5 or PFE. How important the improvement in transient speed is for music reproduction is another matter. Maybe EX85 is sufficiently quick and precise already for some people, but it may not be for others, but I think the faster transients of BAs make them the higher fidelity transducers. With an accurate frequency response and sufficient performance in other technical aspects, I think BAs like HF5, PFE and ER4 outpace the majority of dynamic driver headphones and likely even many planars too in overall transparency. Even my HE-500, while quicker than most dynamics I've heard, doesn't seem quite as fast as the ER4 to my ears. Close, but not there. Of course, maybe I am just imagining it, but that's my personal experience.
 
So what exactly is this speed and precision that I am talking about? To me, it basically means definition. Great single BAs define sounds with sharp (not to be confused with harsh), clear outlines and keep the same definition even during the most complex music passages. Most dynamics sound obviously less defined to my ears, especially in the lower frequencies. More definition also leads to better separation of sounds, which in turn leads to a more defined soundstage, sharper imaging and more apparent resolution. I think that more perceived depth of most dynamics compared to BAs is the result of excessively slow decay of the former. On the other hand, it may be argued that many BAs, especially analytical ones like the Etys, have excessively fast attack and/or decay too quickly (are too "dry"). I am still not sure what to think of this, but I think the reason why many may find BA phones like ER4 to be unnatural sounding and lacking this or that has more to do with the fact that most people are simply too used to the sound of dynamic drivers, than with possible weaknesses of the BAs.
 
Oh yes, I am pretty certain that you are wrong that bass quality is related to frequency response. I think the right way to say it is that actual bass quality is the product of headphone driver quality, housing quality, the relationship between the amp of the source and the headphone's impedance, and the interplay of these three factors. Then, there's perceived bass quality can certainly be affected by a headphone's frequency response and is just a psychological effect.

 

[luisdent]

 
Which two iems are we talking about? RE-400 and ER4S or RE272?

 
All I'm going to say is that Pianist's initial comment (pages back) got me to pull out me RE-400, try them with the smaller double flange with which I do get a deep inseration, and I've been loving these things like never before. Can't believe these things cost $100. 

RE272 and RE400.

 

Believe what you will. First and foremost I never said it was an identical match for the er4s in any situation. But as far as frequency response goes, I personally think it is one of the most important aspects of any audio device whether it be speaker or earphone. If frequency response was perfectly flat with every device, than obviously the other specs would be larger determining factors. However, this is not the case.

I would take an eq'd ex85 over a non eq'd er4s. Plain and simple. With my eq, to my ears, the ex85 is just as revealing in details as the er4s. The bass bloat is completely removed by the eq, thus MAKING it tighter. People talk about tightness and speed and all this other stuff... While they are definitely related to specifications, etc. they are also very closely tied into the frequency response. When the bass is bloated and the treble reduced, the sound will be muffled and bass will sound slow and muddy. The treble affects the bass as much as the bass affects the bass. That may sound silly, but when someone plucks a note on a bass guitar it isn't just bass frequencies being produced. You have the transient attack of the string with all the associated high frequency noises, even if they aren't in large proportion to the bass, they are there, and they add something to the bass. The er4s has "tight" bass, not only because of the specifications, but also because the low frequencies are flat if not a bit recessed in the sub bass region. While the high frequencies are essentially more present. Therefore bass instruments sound "tight". The physical specifications also play a part in the sound as well, but don't underestimate frequency response.

No, you can't eq a crappy earphone to sound like the er4s. But the ex85 isn't a crappy earphone. Yes it is bass heavy, but by no means is it crappy. It's not far from the mh1 in my opinion. It has a bit more scooped out treble in areas, but nothing as bad as some of the more expensive earphones I've tried that have peaks and troughs I'm amazed people put up with. The ex85 specs are actually very good:

http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/sony-mdr-ex85.html

Distortion levels at least as good, if not better than the er4s. Good impulse response. Not the best ever, but by no means bad. Rin even notes that the resonance in the sibilant region is even less than the ex700 and ex1000. Are there some flaws? Sure, but you'd probably believe the pfe112 is a better earphone because it costs $180 new? I would take the ex85 eq'd hands down. The distortion is obvious in comparison to the ex85 and masks the openness and depth a good amount once they are both eq'd to be more neutral.

Needless to say, the eq brings the ex85 to a much more neutral level, which in my opinion is flatter than the er4s with no eq. I don't mind that other people might disagree, even if they've never heard it. That's there decision. I personally wouldn't close my mind to the possibility of something "cheap" sounding as good as something "expensive". Did you know that it used to retail for $90 when it was new? I wouldn't call that expensive, but it's not really cheap either. The hifiman re400 you like is $99. Is that junk because it's cheap? :-o

Here's a bit of detail as to what I hear comparing the two. The ex85 has better openness and overall balance when eq'd comparing it to the er4s not eq'd. Instruments stand in their own space more naturally and distinctly. They sound more "there" when you listen to where something would be in a room for instance. Now, if you apply eq to the er4s that's another story. Then they become closer in sound, but the er4s is a bit smoother and has a bit more resolving power in that the fine frequency response accuracy and specifications lend to a very smooth sound from low to high. The ex85 still does extremely well, but like the hifiman 272 even, it sounds drier and more airy. However, the original claim was that I liked it eq'd better than the er4s with no eq. And I stand by that.

I'm sure I won't convince you, because it sounds like your mind is already made up.  You're welcome to try my eq. I made a post about it on my blog: http://handtokey.blogspot.com/2014/03/my-sony-ex85lp-story-and-custom-eq.html

I'm sure people will disagree, while some might be impressed at how a "cheap" iem can be improved with eq. Either way, your mind is a very powerful thing, and although people usually won't admit it, you can easily hear something because you think you do. Same goes for me. I've been wrong many times on listening to many things. But I'm not afraid to say I was wrong and I do a LOT of listening and comparing. And I'm aware of this effect, so I try to be as unbiased as I can. In doing so, I believe that I am hearing a very accurate and balanced iem when there is eq applied to the ex85. There are no major lacking specifications, and this is based on rin's graphs themselves. I only add a very small amount of bass, as I don't find his graphs compensate that area well. This is probably what it would sound like if goldenears had adjusted the bass as they do on their graphs. And again, i'm in no way downplaying the importance of good specifications and measurements. If anything people here probably know me as the guy that won't shut up about graphs and such. haha But everything has to be taken into account relatively speaking. And sometimes a little change in frequency response can make a bigger difference in sound compared to a little change in a square wave response for example. However, if the square wave response was horrible that might be another story.

Anyway, it is what it is. We all have different ears, different opinions, different tastes. All I can say is that I've been listening to the ex85 with eq for a while now and find it very enjoyable. Is it the best i've heard? No. One of the best? Yes. I'd probably put crown to the er4s with eq or the re272 without. They just have a slightly better upper hand when you total every little aspect of the sound. But the ex85 gets almost all the way there just by adding some eq. And that's also why I prefer the 272 to the er4s. It doesn't require any eq for me. With eq the er4s can sound right up there with the 272. But without it, well, you know the difference I've already described.

I'll stop hear as I'm sure no one wants to read this much anyway. What say you piano man?!

I feel obliged to thank you for such a long post. lol I don't think I deserved this much explanation from you. Ok, well, I may give the EX85 a try with your EQ settings someday. I think you are definitely onto something there. They do sound pretty decent stock, without any EQ. However, while I see how EQ can make EX85 sound clearer, I still highly doubt that it can match a decent balanced armature in transients. I don't think I ever heard a dynamic driver IEM that I felt could match the speed and precision of a good, single BA driver. There were some that could come close in the high frequencies, with RE272 being one of them, but none could do it in the lows and low mids. The inherent slowness of dynamic drivers in the bass was almost always readily apparent. Even with my current favorite dynamic driver IEM, the RE400, the low end and mids, while pretty quick for a dynamic, are still a little slow and lacking precision compared to HF5, ER4 and even PFE.  Dynamic full sized open back cans are a different story. HD800 and Beyer Tesla cans can likely match or even outpace the best BAs in transients (but I am still not sure about that as my experience with HD800 and Tesla cans was too short), but most of those cost a lot more than the best single BAs. There are some really light driver open back dynamics like the classic Sennheiser HD series, the Beyer DTs, the AKG K/Q7** series and others than I think can come pretty darn close to the speed of the BAs, but aren't quite there, especially in the low frequencies. Thus, I highly doubt EX85 can make the cut either. While you can make it as flat as the best headphones with great EQ, its dynamic driver stuffed into what I assume to be a pretty average, plastic housing at best, just won't have the lightning quick transients and great precision of even a second tier BA like HF5 or PFE. How important the improvement in transient speed is for music reproduction is another matter. Maybe EX85 is sufficiently quick and precise already for some people, but it may not be for others, but I think the faster transients of BAs make them the higher fidelity transducers. With an accurate frequency response and sufficient performance in other technical aspects, I think BAs like HF5, PFE and ER4 outpace the majority of dynamic driver headphones and likely even many planars too in overall transparency. Even my HE-500, while quicker than most dynamics I've heard, doesn't seem quite as fast as the ER4 to my ears. Close, but not there. Of course, maybe I am just imagining it, but that's my personal experience.

So what exactly is this speed and precision that I am talking about? To me, it basically means definition. Great single BAs define sounds with sharp (not to be confused with harsh), clear outlines and keep the same definition even during the most complex music passages. Most dynamics sound obviously less defined to my ears, especially in the lower frequencies. More definition also leads to better separation of sounds, which in turn leads to a more defined soundstage, sharper imaging and more apparent resolution. I think that more perceived depth of most dynamics compared to BAs is the result of excessively slow decay of the former. On the other hand, it may be argued that many BAs, especially analytical ones like the Etys, have excessively fast attack and/or decay too quickly. I am still not sure what to think of this, but I think the reason why many may find BA phones like ER4 to be unnatural sounding and lacking this or that has more to do with the fact that most people are simply too used to the sound of dynamic drivers, than with possible weaknesses of the BAs.

Oh yes, I am pretty certain that you are wrong that bass quality is related to frequency response. I think the right way to say it is that actual bass quality is the product of headphone driver quality, housing quality, the relationship between the amp of the source and the headphone's impedance, and the interplay of these three factors. Then, there's perceived bass quality can certainly be affected by a headphone's frequency response and is just a psychological effect.

Regarding transients. No, the ex85 is not as good. It has more of a softness to it from the slowness there. But that is only one aspect to the sound. Regarding bass, remember, i did not day frequency respone equals bass quality. Be careful not to take things out of context. I merely said it has a larger effect than most people think on the sound quality. Try my ex85 eq and tell me the actuall bass doesn't sound better. Not just less, but better, tighter, etc.
Does that mean it frequenct can make any bass perfect? No. That involves a lit of factors, but again, the ex85 is no slouch either.
I think ba drivers sound more precise in some ways even dusregarding frequency response, but not direct in actual details. I hear more nuances in every little part of an instrument with th re272 than any other. Yet the er4s pulls out precision in a different way in one sense. You can gave two different iems give the same amount of audible texturing and detail while still sounding different imo.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Regarding transients. No, the ex85 is not as good. It has more of a softness to it from the slowness there. But that is only one aspect to the sound. Regarding bass, remember, i did not day frequency respone equals bass quality. Be careful not to take things out of context. I merely said it has a larger effect than most people think on the sound quality. Try my ex85 eq and tell me the actuall bass doesn't sound better. Not just less, but better, tighter, etc.
Does that mean it frequenct can make any bass perfect? No. That involves a lit of factors, but again, the ex85 is no slouch either.

 
Ok, you are right that frequency response can improve sound quality in the sense that it can increase bandwidth and can unmask frequencies to make more details audible. However, the bass won't get tighter, becuase tightness is not related to frequency response but the other sound quality factors that I described in the previous post. Basically, if a headphone has bass that's somewhat slow, muddy and loose, you can't fix it with FR changes IMO - it will still be muddy and loose, albeit maybe with more apparent depth and detail. This is because muddiness and lack of bass control is most often the result of poor damping in the housing, impedance mismatch between the amp in the source and the headphone's impedance (low damping factor), and sometimes (but less often) just plain poorly designed driver.
 
In some (rare IMO) cases, a headphone may sound muddy because the frequency range that is muddy was amplified beyond the headphone housing's or driver's capability when the headphone's FR was tuned at the factory. In this case, lowering the FR can indeed make reproduction of those frequencies to actually be of higher quality. I can't think of some real world examples like this though, but imagine that Phonak took the PFE that already has some possibly audible distortion in the mids, boosted the mids another 10db and shipped it out to consumers that way. In this case, the mids will be even more distorted at even lower volumes, but if you then manually EQ the mids down, the distortion will decrease and the sound quality will increase. I suppose in a way, this applies to every headphone - if you EQ a certain part of the spectrum down, the distortion will decrease and sound quality will thus increase and the other way around. This is pretty ridiculous though in most cases and there are many other factors affecting sound quality apart from distortion levels.
 

I think ba drivers sound more precise in some ways even dusregarding frequency response, but not direct in actual details. I hear more nuances in every little part of an instrument with th re272 than any other. Yet the er4s pulls out precision in a different way in one sense. You can gave two different iems give the same amount of audible texturing and detail while still sounding different imo.

 
I gotta be honest - I always felt that armature drivers have something missing, mostly in the high frequencies. It's not extension, but seems more like resolution. At the same time, I could never put my finger on what exactly that I feel BAs are missing. And yes, I did hear something more with RE272, and many other dynamics as well, than I could with ER4 or any other BA, but not the other way around. I never felt that BAs really had more resolution than dynamics, although it often seemed that way, but I very often did feel that dynamics are more resolving of the subtle details than BAs are. With that being said, for the past 2 years, I have settled for only one dynamic IEM, the RE400, and three BAs - HF5, ER4 and PFE. Why? Because I still think that even thought it is possible that dynamics actually have an advantage in detail resolution, this advantage was always somehow overshadowed for me by BA's clearly superior (to my ears) transients, precision and overall clarity, and fidelity.
 
Yes, I recognize that dynamics can do a hell of a great job pulling out those really fine subtleties from music that seem to escape my ears for whatever reason with BAs, but at the same time, I always felt that all those tiny details were usually not precise and clear enough for me to enjoy them. Maybe it's a matter of listening preferences and not outright superiority of BAs or dynamics. I know that I want to hear every sound as well defined, and as clearly and precisely reproduced as possible. Lack of definition quickly puts me to sleep - I can't stay alert and listen critically when I can't focus sharply on each sound that I listening to. Ok, maybe I am exaggerating slightly, but I do expect a certain level of precision from headphones, below which I can't enjoy the sound anymore.
 
Many dynamics are precise enough for me to enjoy, at least in some parts of the spectrum. RE272 was precise enough in the treble for me, but too blurry in the mids and bass. I loved DT990 Pro for their breathtaking finesse, clarity and precision in the treble that blew away every BA I heard, except maybe the ER4S, in airy presence and abundance of subtle details, but I sold them eventually, mainly because the bass was nowhere near the level of definition and precision of the highs and sounded unacceptably slow and muddy to me, compared to BAs and other cans I had at the time - the HD650 and, especially HE-500.
 
So one thing is audible detail, which you seem to care about more, and the other is sharp detail, which I seem to dig more, hence your preference for dynamics and my preference for BAs.