[AnyDave]

I'd give the er4sr 94% and the er4xr 91/92%

Not that that matters. Hehe

 

  ​So, maybe I missed something, but I've looked all over the product page for the new models and I don't see exact accuracy scores for either. The old ER4 has it for all three variations under "Technical Specs", but that row is just absent for the new models. The only thing it mentions at all for the new models is in the "Overview" section where it says "92%+ response accuracy". If the same conventions used for the old ER4 product page hold, this would indicate the minimum accuracy score of any of the models. That doesn't seem likely since that would mean the ER4XR is as accurate as the ER4S even with its bass boost. Maybe EtyDave can clear this up?

 
OK, this sort of opens Pandora's Box of long winded forum posts, but I'll fight the urge to ramble on and try to keep it succinct.  I will qualify my response by noting that I am opinionated on this matter and my response reflects only my take on it; it's not any official company line.
 
For years, we've used the accuracy score for evaluation in development.  Long before I got here, actually.  It's a tremendously useful metric when designing and it is good for knowing how close we have come to the target curve.  I don't imagine we will ever stop using this as a development tool nor is our target curve likely to change.
That said, we're probably not going to put it on the main pages of our website anymore.  Why stop after all these years?  Well, basically, it's can be a bit confusing at times to some folks, especially when it's simply a percentage listed without reference.  To really understand what and why, it's better within the context of something like a white paper.  FWIW, I've been tasked with writing a white paper on exactly this; hopefully it won't take too long, although I need to fit it in among other responsibilities.
 
I mentioned it briefly earlier in the thread, but I'll expound on it a bit more here.  There are a couple issues with publishing the accuracy score in general:
 
1.  While Etymotic has used it for years, nobody else does.  It's our own metric and not an industry standard, so many customers don't know what it means relative to what else is out there.  For example, I've measured many many earphones over the years and the majority of them were sub 70% (and many significantly lower).  So if I take an HF5 with an average accuracy score of 85%, I could argue that it's higher fidelity than other, more expensive earphones.  By our metric, that would be a factual statement (note fidelity does not reflect preference at all, just pure accuracy).  I've actually wondered if publishing 85% accuracy for the HF5 hurt us or helped us.  85% sounds like a midrange "B" average, even if it is quite accurate compared to most of the field.

2. The other thing is that (I believe) the accuracy score tells you more and more the closer you get to 100%.  I feel very comfortable that I would like any earphone that had a score of 100%.  On the other hand, I may or may not like an earphone with an 80% accuracy score.  It really depends on where the inaccuracies lie.  A good example of this is the ER4XR.  It's accuracy score would be the same as the ER4SR except that we added a bit of a bass lift, which hurts it mathematically, even though I still think it sounds quite accurate. I think it sounds more accurate than the 4P because of where the earphone is accurate (the midrange and the high frequencies) but its accuracy score is lower.   The accuracy score is weighted but doesn't totally account for my preference.  I'd trade very low frequency accuracy for high frequency accuracy (which is a personal preference).  OTOH, midbass inaccuracy often drives me nuts, so I won't usually accept that.  
 
Another issue we run into is when two dissimilar earphones have the same accuracy score.  The HF5 has an average accuracy score of 85%. The MC5 also has an accuracy score of 85% on average.  This exact thing caused confusion with a friend of mine went to our site.  He called me and asked: "Can you explain to me why I would buy the HF5 instead of the MC5 when they have the same accuracy score and the HF5 is significantly more expensive?"  I was able to explain it to him, but he would've been confused if he hadn't had access to me.  The HF5 is more accurate in the midband than the MC5.  The peak is better centered at 2.7kHz and I think it sounds more natural.  The MC is flatter in other areas but the scores end up being about the same.  The accuracy score is useful in that it tells you that they both are very accurate earphones, but as a standalone number, it isn't enough in this particular case.

So, after all that rambling about *why* we didn't publish the accuracy scores of the new version, I'll actually attempt to answer the question.  But first, some historical context will help.  Keep in mind that I wasn't here during the ER4S development, but I'll recount my understanding of the origins.  The original accuracy score of the ER4S was based on testing a number of units, averaging the responses and calculating the accuracy score, which yielded between 91-92% accuracy for that average curve.  Individual units vary, with some being in the low 90's and some being in the very high 80's.  Little differences can easily knock a point or two off here or there, so there is going to be a little variation.  With the new ER4SR, the accuracy score comes out between 92-93% accuracy.  Thus far, most of them seem to come in around 92% and with a much tighter grouping.  Now, if it was the exact same earphone design, can you hear a 1% difference in accuracy?  I don't expect so.  In fact, I'd bet a lot of money against it.  The ER4SR is a little bit more accurate than the ER4S.  But I think the shape of the curve and the differences are what make it better.  I've been pretty careful not to oversell it compared to the ER4S, but I do feel it's an improvement.  It's not wildly more accurate (or even wildly different), but it is a bit different and I do prefer the new shape of the response (what else did you expect me to say?).
 
 
*Whew* that took a while.

 

[AnyDave]

Thanks for watching it at all

 
Oh, I'm looking forward to it, I'm just coming to the conclusion that I'm never going to be left alone for 30 consecutive minutes.  I'll get there.

 

[gortman]

Looks like details of the exchange program are now available, but the program doesn't start until July 1.  If you haven't seen the details already, go to the page below
 
http://www.etymotic.com/consumer/earphones/er4-new.html#overview
 
and choose the ER•4 Upgrade Options tab to see more info.

 

[Thomas-]

Not finding these answers yet, maybe I missed them. Excited about the idea of upgrading my current ER4's, depending on these answers...

3.) Is there a P>S type of cable being offered or considered for the new ER4? Doesn't sound like it. If not, is something like this possible?

Hehe... someone here should connect their old ER•4 P to S Converter Cable to the new ER4XR och check out what it sounds like, just for fun

Brgds... /Thomas

 

[robm321]

  Looks like details of the exchange program are now available, but the program doesn't start until July 1.  If you haven't seen the details already, go to the page below
 
http://www.etymotic.com/consumer/earphones/er4-new.html#overview
 
and choose the ER•4 Upgrade Options tab to see more info.

 
Perfect. I think those are reasonable options. I might upgrade or sell mine. Selling would net me more $... might just keep them. They have a unique sound. 
 
I'm leaning towards the SR now. 

 

[luisdent]

Not finding these answers yet, maybe I missed them. Excited about the idea of upgrading my current ER4's, depending on these answers...

3.) Is there a P>S type of cable being offered or considered for the new ER4? Doesn't sound like it. If not, is something like this possible?

Hehe... someone here should connect their old ER•4 P to S Converter Cable to the new ER4XR och check out what it sounds like, just for fun

Brgds... /Thomas

Will do it tonight.

 

[labrat]

del

 

[castleofargh]

 

Not finding these answers yet, maybe I missed them. Excited about the idea of upgrading my current ER4's, depending on these answers...

3.) Is there a P>S type of cable being offered or considered for the new ER4? Doesn't sound like it. If not, is something like this possible?

Hehe... someone here should connect their old ER•4 P to S Converter Cable to the new ER4XR och check out what it sounds like, just for fun

Brgds... /Thomas

I don't have a 75ohm resistor right now (well I do, but it's hiding with my breadboard somewhere in the house). still here is the idea with around 30 and 100ohm that were nice enough not to hide with the other resistors:

 
but as the default sound seems IMO closer to what the old S sounded like(from memory blablablah maybe I'm wrong), I'm not sure many people would love to add even more trebles.
 
 
edit: the little wiggling at 50hz has nothing to do with the IEM or the resistors, it's the crappy input I use that has a lingering 50hz noise.

 

[luisdent]

*Deleted unnecessarily long post*

 

[tracyrick]

I tried wearing my old ER4s over the ear (like I do with my Shure's) and it didn't work too well. The fit was awkward, not sure how to explain. The microphonics didn't completely disappear. And the sharp angle/tension on the cable possibly contributed to damaging it (signal started cutting out on one side). I had to send back to Ety for a $50 fix up job (done that 3 times in 10 years actually). So after that I promised myself I would only wear them hanging down, the way they were designed. If the new cable solves this I will upgrade for that reason alone. The sound improvement will just be a bonus for me.

 

[robm321]

Thanks for the accuracy explanation EtyDave. That was helpful. 

 

[castleofargh]

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Quote:

 

I'd give the er4sr 94% and the er4xr 91/92%


Not that that matters. Hehe

 
​ So, maybe I missed something, but I've looked all over the product page for the new models and I don't see exact accuracy scores for either. The old ER4 has it for all three variations under "Technical Specs", but that row is just absent for the new models. The only thing it mentions at all for the new models is in the "Overview" section where it says "92%+ response accuracy". If the same conventions used for the old ER4 product page hold, this would indicate the minimum accuracy score of any of the models. That doesn't seem likely since that would mean the ER4XR is as accurate as the ER4S even with its bass boost. Maybe EtyDave can clear this up?

OK, this sort of opens Pandora's Box of long winded forum posts, but I'll fight the urge to ramble on and try to keep it succinct.  I will qualify my response by noting that I am opinionated on this matter and my response reflects only my take on it; it's not any official company line.

For years, we've used the accuracy score for evaluation in development.  Long before I got here, actually.  It's a tremendously useful metric when designing and it is good for knowing how close we have come to the target curve.  I don't imagine we will ever stop using this as a development tool nor is our target curve likely to change.
That said, we're probably not going to put it on the main pages of our website anymore.  Why stop after all these years?  Well, basically, it's can be a bit confusing at times to some folks, especially when it's simply a percentage listed without reference.  To really understand what and why, it's better within the context of something like a white paper.  FWIW, I've been tasked with writing a white paper on exactly this; hopefully it won't take too long, although I need to fit it in among other responsibilities.

I mentioned it briefly earlier in the thread, but I'll expound on it a bit more here.  There are a couple issues with publishing the accuracy score in general:

1.  While Etymotic has used it for years, nobody else does.  It's our own metric and not an industry standard, so many customers don't know what it means relative to what else is out there.  For example, I've measured many many earphones over the years and the majority of them were sub 70% (and many significantly lower).  So if I take an HF5 with an average accuracy score of 85%, I could argue that it's higher fidelity than other, more expensive earphones.  By our metric, that would be a factual statement (note fidelity does not reflect preference at all, just pure accuracy).  I've actually wondered if publishing 85% accuracy for the HF5 hurt us or helped us.  85% sounds like a midrange "B" average, even if it is quite accurate compared to most of the field.


2. The other thing is that (I believe) the accuracy score tells you more and more the closer you get to 100%.  I feel very comfortable that I would like any earphone that had a score of 100%.  On the other hand, I may or may not like an earphone with an 80% accuracy score.  It really depends on where the inaccuracies lie.  A good example of this is the ER4XR.  It's accuracy score would be the same as the ER4SR except that we added a bit of a bass lift, which hurts it mathematically, even though I still think it sounds quite accurate. I think it sounds more accurate than the 4P because of where the earphone is accurate (the midrange and the high frequencies) but its accuracy score is lower.   The accuracy score is weighted but doesn't totally account for my preference.  I'd trade very low frequency accuracy for high frequency accuracy (which is a personal preference).  OTOH, midbass inaccuracy often drives me nuts, so I won't usually accept that.  

Another issue we run into is when two dissimilar earphones have the same accuracy score.  The HF5 has an average accuracy score of 85%. The MC5 also has an accuracy score of 85% on average.  This exact thing caused confusion with a friend of mine went to our site.  He called me and asked: "Can you explain to me why I would buy the HF5 instead of the MC5 when they have the same accuracy score and the HF5 is significantly more expensive?"  I was able to explain it to him, but he would've been confused if he hadn't had access to me.  The HF5 is more accurate in the midband than the MC5.  The peak is better centered at 2.7kHz and I think it sounds more natural.  The MC is flatter in other areas but the scores end up being about the same.  The accuracy score is useful in that it tells you that they both are very accurate earphones, but as a standalone number, it isn't enough in this particular case.


So, after all that rambling about *why* we didn't publish the accuracy scores of the new version, I'll actually attempt to answer the question.  But first, some historical context will help.  Keep in mind that I wasn't here during the ER4S development, but I'll recount my understanding of the origins.  The original accuracy score of the ER4S was based on testing a number of units, averaging the responses and calculating the accuracy score, which yielded between 91-92% accuracy for that average curve.  Individual units vary, with some being in the low 90's and some being in the very high 80's.  Little differences can easily knock a point or two off here or there, so there is going to be a little variation.  With the new ER4SR, the accuracy score comes out between 92-93% accuracy.  Thus far, most of them seem to come in around 92% and with a much tighter grouping.  Now, if it was the exact same earphone design, can you hear a 1% difference in accuracy?  I don't expect so.  In fact, I'd bet a lot of money against it.  The ER4SR is a little bit more accurate than the ER4S.  But I think the shape of the curve and the differences are what make it better.  I've been pretty careful not to oversell it compared to the ER4S, but I do feel it's an improvement.  It's not wildly more accurate (or even wildly different), but it is a bit different and I do prefer the new shape of the response (what else did you expect me to say?).


*Whew* that took a while.

 

Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.

I believe accuracy of a target can be subjective to audio studies done on said target as well. You can test 50 people and gauge what response they like and the say that is the target. Or you can do a blind comparative test with experienced listeners and a huge sample pool. Or you could examine the scientific properties of hearing and sound production and deduce what the target should be. Or you can do a combination of things.

All of these will reveal a different target. So while etymotic has their target, goldenears.net might have theirs, and headroom might have theirs... And some people might prefer one over the other.

I prefer a combination myself. I believe we can scientifically and subjectively design a target that combines accuracy with pleasing sound. Bass is controversial in that it differes from the way it is presented on a speaker. An earphone sometimes feels like it is lacking bass when the response is actually flat. This is why the er4xr is a great earphone. People who aren't familiar with that difference or simply never acclimate to the difference in bass presentation may prefer the overall similar accuracy of the xr, albeit the heftier bass adding a sense of speaker-ness. And the goal of an accurate earphone is, in most cases, to imitate the sound of a studio monitor speaker, as that is considered the ultimate reference point.

The sr has excellent bass if you are acclimated to earphone bass presentation. Also, some people just want more bass in general, and they would need to get used to sacrificing the additional bass to achieve a more revealing sound throughout. Any frequency boosted adds to the masking effect in some way in a generally flat response. And the ety response target is very revealing. Harman did some studies on preferred sound targets and they are interesting reads.

Anyway, I'm blathering, by my opinion as an engineer who uses good monitors in a treated studio is that the er4sr is the most accurate earphone out there with the xr being second tied with the er4s. I'm questioning whether i even need to keep the er4xr, but they are such a pleasing response that is a bit more relaxing. It's nice to have options. Our ears get used to sound a volume and other factors. And i believe mood can affect your perception of sound. So sometimes it's nice to have that extra bass. Other times the more strict accuracy is preferred. But like etydave, i find that treble is critical. Give me a perfect bass response and a bad peak at 5khz and forget it. give me perfext treble and a bump in the bass and it's not so bad. The mid bass however starts to cloud up sound really quickly. And it robs you of details and clarity and dynamic transients.

I've been using the triflange all day to try and be more honest about the sub of the IEM, and it got me thinking that maybe the foam+XR isn't far away from SR+triflange and perfect seal? going back to foam(that I love for comfort and even lower cable and walking thump noises), it's obvious I'm losing some subs in the tip swap.
but I also can't get exactly as deep as I do with the triflange, so there is that.

 

[luisdent]

 

Not finding these answers yet, maybe I missed them. Excited about the idea of upgrading my current ER4's, depending on these answers...


3.) Is there a P>S type of cable being offered or considered for the new ER4? Doesn't sound like it. If not, is something like this possible?

Hehe... someone here should connect their old ER•4 P to S Converter Cable to the new ER4XR och check out what it sounds like, just for fun


Brgds... /Thomas

I don't have a 75ohm resistor right now (well I do, but it's hiding with my breadboard somewhere in the house). still here is the idea with around 30 and 100ohm that were nice enough not to hide with the other resistors:



but as the default sound seems IMO closer to what the old S sounded like(from memory blablablah maybe I'm wrong), I'm not sure many people would love to add even more trebles.


edit: the little wiggling at 50hz has nothing to do with the IEM or the resistors, it's the crappy input I use that has a lingering 50hz noise.

Might be interesting on the xr.... Conpensate a touch for the added bass...

 

[ER4S]

Low freq. comparison between SR and P will be welcomed

 

[luisdent]

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.


I believe accuracy of a target can be subjective to audio studies done on said target as well. You can test 50 people and gauge what response they like and the say that is the target. Or you can do a blind comparative test with experienced listeners and a huge sample pool. Or you could examine the scientific properties of hearing and sound production and deduce what the target should be. Or you can do a combination of things.


All of these will reveal a different target. So while etymotic has their target, goldenears.net might have theirs, and headroom might have theirs... And some people might prefer one over the other.


I prefer a combination myself. I believe we can scientifically and subjectively design a target that combines accuracy with pleasing sound. Bass is controversial in that it differes from the way it is presented on a speaker. An earphone sometimes feels like it is lacking bass when the response is actually flat. This is why the er4xr is a great earphone. People who aren't familiar with that difference or simply never acclimate to the difference in bass presentation may prefer the overall similar accuracy of the xr, albeit the heftier bass adding a sense of speaker-ness. And the goal of an accurate earphone is, in most cases, to imitate the sound of a studio monitor speaker, as that is considered the ultimate reference point.


The sr has excellent bass if you are acclimated to earphone bass presentation. Also, some people just want more bass in general, and they would need to get used to sacrificing the additional bass to achieve a more revealing sound throughout. Any frequency boosted adds to the masking effect in some way in a generally flat response. And the ety response target is very revealing. Harman did some studies on preferred sound targets and they are interesting reads.


Anyway, I'm blathering, by my opinion as an engineer who uses good monitors in a treated studio is that the er4sr is the most accurate earphone out there with the xr being second tied with the er4s. I'm questioning whether i even need to keep the er4xr, but they are such a pleasing response that is a bit more relaxing. It's nice to have options. Our ears get used to sound a volume and other factors. And i believe mood can affect your perception of sound. So sometimes it's nice to have that extra bass. Other times the more strict accuracy is preferred. But like etydave, i find that treble is critical. Give me a perfect bass response and a bad peak at 5khz and forget it. give me perfext treble and a bump in the bass and it's not so bad. The mid bass however starts to cloud up sound really quickly. And it robs you of details and clarity and dynamic transients.

I've been using the triflange all day to try and be more honest about the sub of the IEM, and it got me thinking that maybe the foam+XR isn't far away from SR+triflange and perfect seal? going back to foam(that I love for comfort and even lower cable and walking thump noises), it's obvious I'm losing some subs in the tip swap.
but I also can't get exactly as deep as I do with the triflange, so there is that.

Haha you got to my post before i deleted it. It was way too long... I'm good at that...