I don't need body born vibrations. I just want to hear clear bass notes and accurate attack. Seems nearly impossible at times and great at others. Likely too many variables from the beginning. Starts with the player, strings, mic, connectors, cables, recording engineer, tubes, tape, re-master, then to the listening gear all the way to the physiology of the person listening. One thing I'll say is bass impact to me is a moot point with iems. As well as a dramatic emotional response. Again this is for me. If I am reacting too emotionally to music with iems I may have them too loud. One of the great things about iems, particularly the er4s line is the ability to keep the volume low and hear all the musical information. To me I find I can enjoy it more this way over time.
In my opinion the mastering or re-mastering of an album can be the single most important, and thus single most destructive stage in making music for listening. Perhaps as an audio engineer I'm a bit biased.
But take bass for instance. As you compress or limit an album to make it louder you destroy the dynamics between loud and soft sounds. If a 1970s progressive rock album has a great "pounding" bass line in the studio, that will come through in a good earphone. Maybe not "the same" way as some speakers, but it will come through. This is assuming you are hearing what they heard in the studio.
That is very very rare today. You can't even say "well this is a cd from the 80s, so it sounds better." An original, non-remastered cd? Sure, that may sound great. But most greatest hits and remasters, even if they are labeled re-releases of original albums and not exaclty remasters, have in fact been remastered. Usually this is not for the better. It is of course possible, but rare.
I would estimate eoughlt 80-90% of remasters I've heard are nothing more than making the music louder, noise reducing "hiss", or applying EQ. Again, rarely this might be beneficial, but typically it is completely unnecessary and only harms the quality of the audio.
Back to the bass though. If the bass is "peaking out" from the rest of the music because it is a bit more dynamic in the mix and a bit louder than the overall guitars for instance... When you compress or limit that overall music, the bass is squished down to being the same volume as the guitars and other things are also brought to be closer to the same overall level. Therefore not only is the dynamic peaking of the bass squished, but by bringing it to a similar volume as the other instruments and making everything sound more "similar" you lose that "pounding" bass line they worked so hard to mix at the studio.
No matter what speaker or earphone you listen to the song on, the studio version will have pounding bass, the remaster or simply "mastered" version on CD will sound worse, or at least not what the artist intended.
The point I'm trying to make really is that the earphones are only as good as the music you put through them. I'm not saying everyone listens to junk masters, espeically given that this is an er4 thread, which shows most people are picky about their listening. However, it is not always easy to know if an album could sound better unless you've heard the better version. I search for the best master of a cd when i purchase it, and often times the better master sounds noticeabley better. So what often happens is people prefer more colored earphones, because they are listening to less colored music (in a bad way). The compressed songs lack the "color" or life that they had before being compressed. Boosting bass and treble gives the impression of more dynamic energy and openness. So it's easy to see why a lot of people prefer these v shaped earphone signatures. But correcting for poorly mastered music by having less than ideal frequency response will never sound as good as fixing the mastered music to begin with...
I have actually heard albums where one remaster was compressed and EQ'd to be brighter to compensate for the comrpession (long story on mastering) and the original uncompressed master sounded more "real" and spacious and naturally bright, even though the treble was lower. The added dynamics just improved the song that much.
AAAAaaaaaaanyway.... The point of my point is this... This point which belongs to me is as follows. Ahem. Ahem. This is how it goes. Ahem. Ahem. The next thing that I am about to say is my point... Ahem. Ready?...
The er4s bass is excellent, and with the right recording and mastering, the er4s renders bass incredibly well. A touch more sub bass? Sure... But overall, I've never heard anything that sounds so accurate as the er4sr compared to a studio monitor. I can't say why or how, but I've compared a lot of headphones and earphones, and the more I compare the more i feel this is true. While not exactly the same as a studio monitor speaker in "sound", more bass doesn't make it sound closer to a speaker to me. Even the er4xr is slightly, just slightly, too much bass. But because it brings up the sub bass as well, and not overly boosting things, it still sounds excellent.
But the sr is phenominal. Bass and all. It may not have an absolutely perfect response, but relative to other earphones it almost does. Hehe. I highly recommend feeding your new er4sr the best mastered audio you can. It will thank you for it by providing you with the great quality sound you should come to expect of them.
(preferences apart of course)
