[Aero Dynamik]

 

  I want this IEM for classical, orchestra, instrumental and stuff like these. These kind of music don't have drums (most of them). So why do I need the extra bass? I prefer to get a little more transparence, resolvingness and better timbre just hearing the frequencies this kind of music produces.
 
Why do I need the extra bass for music with no "artificial" bass? Am I thinking wrongly here? 

It doesn't need to be artificial, but it does need to have content there for the difference to be audible.  On some classical pieces with a lot of Tympani, you may be able to hear the difference.
 
But we offer two models for a reason.  There are many in this thread that prefer a totally flat frequency response and they generally seem to lean towards the SR.

@mdiogofs I agree with EtyDave. First of all (as EtyDave points out) you need the low frequencies to be able to tell the difference. Secondly, you may or may not prefer a slightly elevated bass response depending on your personal preferences and your preferred SPL. Thirdly, low frequencies are more present than we usually tend to believe. Not all symphonic music utilizes tympanis, but most symphonic music utilizes double bass which can go as low as B0 (≈31 Hz), when five strings are used (E1 ≈41 Hz on a standard four-string bass).
 
I can see where you're leaning, so my advice is, go for the ER4SR. This will give your the peace of mind that the FR hasn't been "tampered" with. Then if you're not happy with its bass response try with a bit more SPL (within reasonable limits as you don't want to hurt your hearing), but if at the end of the day you're still not sure, get yourself an ER4XR,compare them and once you've made up your mind use the classifieds and sell the one you prefer the least.
 
Either way (and depending on previous experience), the SR/XR will put a big grin on your face! 

 

[mdiogofs]

  @mdiogofs I agree with EtyDave. First of all (as EtyDave points out) you need the low frequencies to be able to tell the difference. Secondly, you may or may not prefer a slightly elevated bass response depending on your personal preferences and your preferred SPL. Thirdly, low frequencies are more present than we usually tend to believe. Not all symphonic music utilizes tympanis, but most symphonic music utilizes double bass which can go as low as B0 (≈31 Hz), when five strings are used (E1 ≈41 Hz on a standard four-string bass).
 
I can see where you're leaning, so my advice is, go for the ER4SR. This will give your the peace of mind that the FR hasn't been "tampered" with. Then if you're not happy with its bass response try with a bit more SPL (within reasonable limits as you don't want to hurt your hearing), but if at the end of the day you're still not sure, get yourself an ER4XR,compare them and once you've made up your mind use the classifieds and sell the one you prefer the least.
 
Either way (and depending on previous experience), the SR/XR will put a big grin on your face! 

Thank you for your opinions. I had already decided that, if I feel it's lacking bass, I would try the XR. I was going to buy both and see but XR was out of stock at Thomann. If I feel nothing is lacking, everything is OK. Maybe when XR gets back in stock in 1 week I'll get it and send back my least favourite.

 

[mark88888]

   
There is certainly risk associated with being an early adopter.
 
Sometimes things change that surprise me, but I'd be very surprised if the price changed any time in the near future.  The previous model kept did start out at $330 (back in 1992, I believe) and did eventually settle at $299, where it stayed for years, if I am not mistaken.
 
The cord change will likely happen at some point, but I'm going to resist the urge to put a definitive timeline on it as it does require some design time and a tooling modification (plus I haven't decided what the final changes are yet).

Thanks for your response!  
Is there any kind of indication that within a few months there could be any kind of change to the electronics or construction of the player itself?  Like, something that could change the sound?  Or, is that really almost impossible and any change would most likely be superficial, like making the "R" and "L" on the cord stand out more?
 
By the way, I have to mention here, any change to make the cord as durable as possible is so welcome.  I have sent in the ER4 cord so many times to be repaired over the years.   It's just so thin and fragile.  (As opposed to the cord on my SONY spare player... which is thicker, rubber, and never ever breaks).  It's my understanding that it's a bit better in the new ER4's.  Great.  And if it can be even better at some point, 

 

[AnyDave]

  Thanks for your response!  
Is there any kind of indication that within a few months there could be any kind of change to the electronics or construction of the player itself?  Like, something that could change the sound?  Or, is that really almost impossible and any change would most likely be superficial, like making the "R" and "L" on the cord stand out more?
 
By the way, I have to mention here, any change to make the cord as durable as possible is so welcome.  I have sent in the ER4 cord so many times to be repaired over the years.   It's just so thin and fragile.  (As opposed to the cord on my SONY spare player... which is thicker, rubber, and never ever breaks).  It's my understanding that it's a bit better in the new ER4's.  Great.  And if it can be even better at some point, 

 
In general, I'm probably not going to be able to go too far into what we have in development.  That said, I can't fathom there would be any changes to the design itself within a few months.  We don't exactly have a reputation of updating our models too often.  If anything, we wait too long.
 
Light cable tweaks, like the channel marking we've talked about, are certainly likely at some point.  It wouldn't be a major thing, just a "superficial" tweak as you say. 
 
From what we can tell, the new cables should definitely be an improvement in reliability.  Time will tell how much better, but we will definitely be keeping an eye on things.  I'm realistic that it's impossible for there to be zero cable failures as that tends to be the most abused part of an earphone.  Given enough time and flexes, anything can fail, even if we made the cable out of steel conduit.  The good news is that it'll be much easier for us to deal with any issues now that the cables are field replaceable.  For some folks, like a friend of mine who uses them as stage monitors, this is a big plus as he keeps a spare cable in his emergency kit in case he accidentally cuts them or some other freak occurrence on stage (he brings a second guitar for the same reason).

 

[robm321]

I've always been fascinated by the dichotomy of the accuracy/neutral description of the ER4S versus actually listening to how the lower bass is clearly lacking. All you have to do is listen to some hip hop on the ER4S to realize you barely hear the beat. While hip hop is not a genre I listen to much, that lack of bass makes it a no go for certain genres which I wouldn't expect from a truly neutral IEM. 
 
Kick drums are represented well, because you hear the 100Hz even if you lose the residual sound which is lower in frequency. So, I guess I've never been able to reconcile the arguments that if you can actually hear the lower frequencies, then it has added, excessive or inaccurate bass? And if that is in fact the case, then wouldn't added bass make it more accurate and help it to overcome IEM limitations mirroring what you would hear in real life? 
 
I've enjoyed the ER4S for years as well as the K-1000 which are both lacking in lower bass while excelling in bass quality. So, clearly, it's not an issue for me, but I'm just hoping someone can help me make sense of this. I'm really just curious. 

 

[gnarlsagan]

I've always been fascinated by the dichotomy of the accuracy/neutral description of the ER4S versus actually listening to how the lower bass is clearly lacking. All you have to do is listen to some hip hop on the ER4S to realize you barely hear the beat. While hip hop is not a genre I listen to much, that lack of bass makes it a no go for certain genres which I wouldn't expect from a truly neutral IEM. 

Kick drums are represented well, because you hear the 100Hz even if you lose the residual sound which is lower in frequency. So, I guess I've never been able to reconcile the arguments that if you can actually hear the lower frequencies, then it has added, excessive or inaccurate bass? And if that is in fact the case, then wouldn't added bass make it more accurate and help it to overcome IEM limitations mirroring what you would hear in real life? 

I've enjoyed the ER4S for years as well as the K-1000 which are both lacking in lower bass while excelling in bass quality. So, clearly, it's not an issue for me, but I'm just hoping someone can help me make sense of this. I'm really just curious. 

I think it's just really really hard to get that perfect bass curve that retains the neutrality and clarity offered by the ER4S, but with superior sub-bass extension. Even the ER4XR straddles the line of just slightly too much mid-bass for my picky ears. A perfect curve imo would look exactly like the ER4SR until about 70-80Hz,and would then slowly rise to about +6dB at 20Hz. Any extra boost above 80Hz risks coloring the rest of the FR imo, and even too strep of a sub-bass boost would likely sound odd.

I listen to hip hop now and then along with a healthy amount of electronic, and the roll-off under 50-60Hz on the ER4S doesn't bother me much, and even less so with the ER4SR. I seldom crave that extra bass, because typically I feel that unless done extremely carefully, most bass emphasis creates masking.

 

[luisdent]

I've always been fascinated by the dichotomy of the accuracy/neutral description of the ER4S versus actually listening to how the lower bass is clearly lacking. All you have to do is listen to some hip hop on the ER4S to realize you barely hear the beat. While hip hop is not a genre I listen to much, that lack of bass makes it a no go for certain genres which I wouldn't expect from a truly neutral IEM. 

Kick drums are represented well, because you hear the 100Hz even if you lose the residual sound which is lower in frequency. So, I guess I've never been able to reconcile the arguments that if you can actually hear the lower frequencies, then it has added, excessive or inaccurate bass? And if that is in fact the case, then wouldn't added bass make it more accurate and help it to overcome IEM limitations mirroring what you would hear in real life? 

I've enjoyed the ER4S for years as well as the K-1000 which are both lacking in lower bass while excelling in bass quality. So, clearly, it's not an issue for me, but I'm just hoping someone can help me make sense of this. I'm really just curious. 

I think it's just really really hard to get that perfect bass curve that retains the neutrality and clarity offered by the ER4S, but with superior sub-bass extension. Even the ER4XR straddles the line of just slightly too much mid-bass for my picky ears. A perfect curve imo would look exactly like the ER4SR until about 70-80Hz,and would then slowly rise to about +6dB at 20Hz. Any extra boost above 80Hz risks coloring the rest of the FR imo, and even too strep of a sub-bass boost would likely sound odd.

I listen to hip hop now and then along with a healthy amount of electronic, and the roll-off under 50-60Hz on the ER4S doesn't bother me much, and even less so with the ER4SR. I seldom crave that extra bass, because typically I feel that unless done extremely carefully, most bass emphasis creates masking.

I agree with everyrhing here. Go on etydave, start engineering the er4sxr! Hehe

I listen to hip hop, electronic, rock, you name it. I believe the er4sr lacks sub bass, yes. But every other earphone typically has too much sub bass and other flaws that are much greater in offensiveness than the small lack of sub bass on the er4sr. I listen to things with great sub bass quality and they sound excellent on the er4sr. Depth and seal are critical. Even if you get that, they are still low below 50-70hz as gnarlsagan said.

But a bit of eq makes the er4s/sr sound amazing with bass. But as an engineer i truly believe the sr is the closest thing to a flat studio monitor. So while it lacks a bit of sub bass, "most" people like more bass than the artists even recorded on the album. And that is precisely why there are so many speakers and headphones to cater to everyone's tastes. and most engineers no matter the genre will mix the bass at a reasonable and balanced level knowing that it will translate to each different system properly. Therefore the sound lies in which system you buy based on your preference and albums can follow a standard mixing expectation... If that made sense...

 

[Kunlun]

  I've always been fascinated by the dichotomy of the accuracy/neutral description of the ER4S versus actually listening to how the lower bass is clearly lacking. All you have to do is listen to some hip hop on the ER4S to realize you barely hear the beat. While hip hop is not a genre I listen to much, that lack of bass makes it a no go for certain genres which I wouldn't expect from a truly neutral IEM. 
 
Kick drums are represented well, because you hear the 100Hz even if you lose the residual sound which is lower in frequency. So, I guess I've never been able to reconcile the arguments that if you can actually hear the lower frequencies, then it has added, excessive or inaccurate bass? And if that is in fact the case, then wouldn't added bass make it more accurate and help it to overcome IEM limitations mirroring what you would hear in real life? 
 
I've enjoyed the ER4S for years as well as the K-1000 which are both lacking in lower bass while excelling in bass quality. So, clearly, it's not an issue for me, but I'm just hoping someone can help me make sense of this. I'm really just curious. 

Well, just look up Equal Loudness Contours to get a first hint that the human ear/auditory system isn't "neutral" at all! There's a lot to it, our outer ear helps bring certain frequencies up and then there are resonances in the ear canal. When you plug the ear canal with an earphone, there's a lot that has to be compensated for and there are various new resonances which aren't even quite the same for everyone. But yeah, the old "audiophile" flat sound tends to be far from natural or real sounding, there's been some research cited a while back on this by another iem maker, so research is ongoing.

 

[luisdent]

 
I've always been fascinated by the dichotomy of the accuracy/neutral description of the ER4S versus actually listening to how the lower bass is clearly lacking. All you have to do is listen to some hip hop on the ER4S to realize you barely hear the beat. While hip hop is not a genre I listen to much, that lack of bass makes it a no go for certain genres which I wouldn't expect from a truly neutral IEM. 

Kick drums are represented well, because you hear the 100Hz even if you lose the residual sound which is lower in frequency. So, I guess I've never been able to reconcile the arguments that if you can actually hear the lower frequencies, then it has added, excessive or inaccurate bass? And if that is in fact the case, then wouldn't added bass make it more accurate and help it to overcome IEM limitations mirroring what you would hear in real life? 

I've enjoyed the ER4S for years as well as the K-1000 which are both lacking in lower bass while excelling in bass quality. So, clearly, it's not an issue for me, but I'm just hoping someone can help me make sense of this. I'm really just curious. 

Well, just look up Equal Loudness Contours to get a first hint that the human ear/auditory system isn't "neutral" at all! There's a lot to it, our outer ear helps bring certain frequencies up and then there are resonances in the ear canal. When you plug the ear canal with an earphone, there's a lot that has to be compensated for and there are various new resonances which aren't even quite the same for everyone. But yeah, the old "audiophile" flat sound tends to be far from natural or real sounding, there's been some research cited a while back on this by another iem maker, so research is ongoing.

Yes, etymotic compensates for ear acoustics in the er4. They try to achieve a flat response as much as possible. And they do an excellent job. To most audio professionals and engineers, reference studio monitor speakers under ideal conditions continue to be the reference "flatness" in typical audio targets. The question is usually how do we compensate this or that to achieve a similar studio monitor sound in an earphone.

Not every company has that goal though. But etymotic seems to point that direction...

 

[castleofargh]

plz tell if I'm wrong

 
Ety tested people to try and find a neutral curve objectively that would include the average mess occurring in the ear(or doesn't occur when we use IEMs): the curve is an average so there is no certainty that it will work for me perfectly. but it's an average that is very close to most research done on the subject and it feels like we can accept the idea that the general curve is very close to what it should be when it comes to purely acoustic considerations. an important element that may not be known by everybody, a balanced signature will always offer more details than one with key points boosted. this is true and IMO the reason why anybody looking for critical listening should aim at neutral sound. it has nothing to do with the signature with the most fun, or the most relaxing!  the purpose is to notice more in the music.
 
still:
- as I said, I'm not the size and look of my neighbor, I don't have the same hearing ability, so an average curve may or may not by exactly right for me.
 
- from fletcher, munson & all we have confirmation that our listening level will totally impact how much low end and trebles we perceive. so I guess the next step should be for Ety to make an a DAC/amp where the signature would change with the set loudness

. come on, neutral all the way!
 
- the target what 100% based on hearing! it may seem obvious and logical, but they didn't take it upon themselves to compensate for the lack of physical bass hitting the body, like so many IEM manufacturers do. so we do miss that in an ER4S(SR), but just adding louder bass isn't side effect free. it will systematically start masking some sounds in the nearby frequencies. and the success of compensating with louder bass depends entirely on how much your brain can adapt from IRL bass to IEM bass. not everybody responds the same to that transition. for a long time it was said that +6db in the low end was ok, the harman curve(but done with headphones!!! and aiming at favorite sound instead of neutral sound) goes for somewhere around +4db I think. so the XR seems to fit with that concept like a glove. but that is if you want to try and compensate for the lack of tactile bass, that's a very personal choice IMO.
 
I would venture that the XR is an attempt at tackling the last point while trying their damn best not to make too much sound. as they didn't just boost the subs like I do to get my fix of rumble, but they went for a soft and long rise, maybe as an attempt to limit the masking from the bass boost? that's how I imagine I would do if I tried to retain the most audible information while boosting the low end. and the SR(or er4S) has the signature most balanced on average to try and get the optimal detail retrieval from having a balanced signature. but doesn't do anything for the lack of tactile bass in an IEM.
 
 
 
I'm clearly one to feel like the S(SR) signature is lacking in the low end, but I listen very quietly, and use some foam that gives me a little less low end than the triflange(I really love the sound with the triflange TBH, but I hate silicone tips and 3 flanges, that's 3 too many for my ears ^_^). so I'm at least in part to blame for what I perceive. also I really love a signature with a little recess in the 150-200hz, it's not detail retrieval or anything, I just enjoy it with a little 30 or 40hz boost(I felt like some of what luisdent explained about the XR might be that we have the same taste for not boosting anything above 100hz). and that's why in the end while I knew I would prefer the XR, I still went for the SR. because just adding a little 30hz boost seems way easier to me than changing the slope in the 100-300hz to my liking.  that was my decision and it was for practical reasons. if I had no possibility of EQ at all, or had DAPs with great advanced EQ to get exactly what I want, then I would have gotten the XR for sure.

 

[Voyageur]

Heck, since I got my hands on the SR and XR I barely browse Head-Fi anymore... not sure if it's good or bad lol

 

[robm321]

Thanks for all of the replies regarding bass. I think I understand it a bit better. I guess I also lean on the side of compromising the low bass for neutral as well. 

 

[mkyy]

@EtyDave Just received my ER4XR last weekend and have been listening with a big smile on my face.  One thing I found with the new XR is getting more finicky to get a seal compared to the ER4S / PT.  Is it the angle of how the phone get inserted?  I feel like I need a larger tip to get a proper seal.  There used to be a opaque white triple flange tip that comes with the older ER4S.  Is it bigger than the current frosted triple flange tips?  or am I imagining it?

 

[AnyDave]

  @EtyDave Just received my ER4XR last weekend and have been listening with a big smile on my face.  One thing I found with the new XR is getting more finicky to get a seal compared to the ER4S / PT.  Is it the angle of how the phone get inserted?  I feel like I need a larger tip to get a proper seal.  There used to be a opaque white triple flange tip that comes with the older ER4S.  Is it bigger than the current frosted triple flange tips?  or am I imagining it?

 
Hmm, that's interesting.  The dimensions of the main earpiece are the same as the previous model, although we did change the angle of the strain relief on the cable.  FWIW, we changed the angle on the earphone because so many people complained about how far the old model stuck out of their ears.
 
It sounds like it's an eartip issues.  The large clear eartips that come with the XR are the same as the old opaque white triple flanges, so they are indeed bigger than the frosted triple flange eartips.  If the white three flange tips worked for you in the past, I'd recommend using the clear 3-flange tips and not the frost.

 

[audio123]

quite curious UERM vs ER4SR