[Max Choiral]

For me, neutral is uncolored too. But, in technical terms, an IEM is neutral in relation to what is being played a mastered recording on the majority of cases. The neutral IEM will play the Recording without color it's frequencies. When the recording is a good one (realistic, dynamic) drums will sound like drums, cymbals will sound like cymbals. But when the recording is bad, the IEM will show it.
About the term "linear", I have to partiality agree with you. Sometimes I see people using this term in referring to what you said (balanced sound), but I also see people using it as equivalent to neutral.

And how exactly do you differentiate when an iem affects the recording?
Are you implying that if a recording is bad, drums will not sound like drums? How will it sound then?

 

[guicnovaes]

No IEM/Headphone is 100% neutral, but Etymotics are the closest to it on the market. To find out how much an IEM is "affecting" the recording there are measurements (FR Measurements).
Regarding "how" the instruments will sound, it depends on the recording. Neutral IEMs (theoretically) will translate exactly what is in the recording (or almost it in the real world).

 

[dr cornelius]

Below is a post from EtyDave, showing an accuracy test that's kind of interesting...

I would generally consider the ER4SR to be as neutral as we can make it and the ER4XR to be not quite as neutral, but still a great sounding earphone that many people will like. It's too early to tell what the actual run rate is going to be, but it wouldn't shock me if the XR outsells the SR.

I've always thought of neutral as something that is quantifiable, not based on an individual preference (which often strays from neutral). I may have mentioned this earlier in the thread (I can't remember) but we used to bring one of our KEMAR mannequins to shows and do a simple experiment to demonstrate accuracy.

1.) We would take one of our earphone (usually the ER4S) and make a binaural recording of a song using KEMAR.
2.) We'd then take that recording and use it as the source and make a second binaural recording.
3.) Then we'd take the second recording and use it as the source and make a third recording.

Each iteration amplifies deviations from flat. The more accurate the earphone, the closer the third recording will be the source recording. We would let people do this test with multiple earphones. If the earphone had significant deviations from flat, it becomes very obvious by the third recording. It was a fun way to objectively demonstrate accuracy.

Now, that test doesn't take preference into account at all. And it obviously doesn't represent a real world usage scenario (who would listen to a third generation binaural recording?) but it did do a good job of showing which earphones could recreate the source material best.

 

[Max Choiral]

No IEM/Headphone is 100% neutral, but Etymotics are the closest to it on the market. To find out how much an IEM is "affecting" the recording there are measurements (FR Measurements).
Regarding "how" the instruments will sound, it depends on the recording. Neutral IEMs (theoretically) will translate exactly what is in the recording (or almost it in the real world).

Ok, here is some graph for you:

Now, with the help of the graph above, please, tell me how much M7 will affect a recording. Maybe, you can even tell what exactly will be affected. For example, will cymbals sound correct in timbre presented by IER-M7 or not? How about drums?

 

[guicnovaes]

Yes, for sure. This graph shows the Tonal Balance (FR) of the IER M7. First thing to consider is that the insertion depth of this IEM on the coupler isn't the ideal (the standard) because the graph is little moved to the left. It indicates that it was inserted a little shallower. Anyway, I can say something about it's FR.

1. Bass is elevated but not exaggerated (somewhat 8db above neutrality).

2. It lacks a little on the High-mids (2,5-4k), so, you will feel the voices/guitars and pianos, for example, a little more smooth and distant than neutral.

3. Treble are a little bit less than neutral quantity, but are very good, in general.

4. The overall Tonal Balance, although not neutral, seems to be very good and it will sound smooth and "musical".

5. About the cymbals: Will sound very good, correctly, but a little smoother and less present than neutral.

 

[luisdent]

Yes, for sure. This graph shows the Tonal Balance (FR) of the IER M7. First thing to consider is that the insertion depth of this IEM on the coupler isn't the ideal (the standard) because the graph is little moved to the left. It indicates that it was inserted a little shallower. Anyway, I can say something about it's FR.

1. Bass is elevated but not exaggerated (somewhat 8db above neutrality).

2. It lacks a little on the High-mids (2,5-4k), so, you will feel the voices/guitars and pianos, for example, a little more smooth and distant than neutral.

3. Treble are a little bit less than neutral quantity, but are very good, in general.

4. The overall Tonal Balance, although not neutral, seems to be very good and it will sound smooth and "musical".

5. About the cymbals: Will sound very good, correctly, but a little smoother and less present than neutral.

The bass will make these sound a bit warmer or soft than neutral, and the 10khz dip will remove some air and atmospheric noise. There's nothing objectionable about the response, but it appears at first glance to be somewhat relaxed with a focus mainly on mid treble and bass...

When I speak of linearity, I'm always referencing frequency response. Neutrality is how close that frequency response is to the states target. If the ety are 97% adhering to the diffuse field target they are very neutral. And since i believe the science and preference of the Harman and diffuse field are very similar other than bass, I'd say the ety are very linear and neutral.

You need to put all of the science and listening and ideology together to form what one believes is neutral. As an engineer who's goal is to achieve a reference target, I have to agree with the actual people recording most famous music. And that is to strive to approach an agreed upon neutrality based on studio monitor speakers in a treated listening room. No matter how you record, you are mixing the end result to sound proper on an agreed upon neutral play back system. Of course as an engineer I also test my music on various different systems that may reveal common flaws found in consumer playback systems. That's actually why the yamaha ns10 is found in so many professional studios. They are rarely used alone, but in tandem with neutral monitors, because they reveal a "safer" response that mimics some common consumer playback flaws. So if it sounds good on those it will sound good anywhere is the general idea.

But using the neutral monitors they can guarantee the best playback quality for anyone who has something closer to the same neutral standard. I'm on the go so sorry for any rushed responses.

 

[headenvelopedinsound]

I agree that most all the major curves are very similar with variance in bass and above 10khz “air” type stuff. Ety is slightly different than diffuse curve. Not much at all but more of a downward slope. Here are a few pictures to show this. I have made these all relative to the diffuse curve. The last is of the er4se and the S6Pro with diffuse field.

S6Pro is my main iem for critical listening. I am a big believer in the sonar works curve and is basically what the ER2XR follows. That’s preference though.

 

[headenvelopedinsound]

Didn’t see your post prior to my post above. I agree that to me and my idea of what I believe to be neutral is comparing my JBL 305/310s studio speakers in my treated room that I worked really hard to get as flat as I could. To my ears the Fearless S6 pro is about as close as I’d need. I think I have a tendency to like about 5 to 6db sub bass boost to give a sense of punch that the sub physically gives me. But again that starts to be preference/compensation. But also why I like the Somarworks curve(minus the 10khz dip). Other than that idk. I don’t think it’s super simple to figure out what neutral is as even if you put Yamahas up in my studio they’d read slightly different and would then be someone else’s idea of neutral. That more comes down to the slight “salt and pepper” of a few DB here and there that you see in the most common target curves. It’s all really interesting stuff.

The bass will make these sound a bit warmer or soft than neutral, and the 10khz dip will remove some air and atmospheric noise. There's nothing objectionable about the response, but it appears at first glance to be somewhat relaxed with a focus mainly on mid treble and bass...

When I speak of linearity, I'm always referencing frequency response. Neutrality is how close that frequency response is to the states target. If the ety are 97% adhering to the diffuse field target they are very neutral. And since i believe the science and preference of the Harman and diffuse field are very similar other than bass, I'd say the ety are very linear and neutral.

You need to put all of the science and listening and ideology together to form what one believes is neutral. As an engineer who's goal is to achieve a reference target, I have to agree with the actual people recording most famous music. And that is to strive to approach an agreed upon neutrality based on studio monitor speakers in a treated listening room. No matter how you record, you are mixing the end result to sound proper on an agreed upon neutral play back system. Of course as an engineer I also test my music on various different systems that may reveal common flaws found in consumer playback systems. That's actually why the yamaha ns10 is found in so many professional studios. They are rarely used alone, but in tandem with neutral monitors, because they reveal a "safer" response that mimics some common consumer playback flaws. So if it sounds good on those it will sound good anywhere is the general idea.

But using the neutral monitors they can guarantee the best playback quality for anyone who has something closer to the same neutral standard. I'm on the go so sorry for any rushed responses.

 

[guicnovaes]

I agree that most all the major curves are very similar with variance in bass and above 10khz “air” type stuff. Ety is slightly different than diffuse curve. Not much at all but more of a downward slope. Here are a few pictures to show this. I have made these all relative to the diffuse curve. The last is of the er4se and the S6Pro with diffuse field.

S6Pro is my main iem for critical listening. I am a big believer in the sonar works curve and is basically what the ER2XR follows. That’s preference though.

Yes, there are some versions of the DF Target. About it there are some interesting points to discuss:

1. DF Target for IEMs and Headphones (although visually alike) can't be the same, because there are differences on the way the sound works on the ear Chanel, depending of the type of phone.

2. I personally believe that Ety Target (along with Hammershoi & Moller) is most accurate for some reasons:

The Ety's DF Target (One type of CORFIG) is used on Deep insertion Hearing aids.

Besides that, the CORFIGS (targets various types of hearing aids) were all standardized by Mead C. Killion Ph.D., who is the founder and actual president of Etymotic.

The most recent version of the In Ear's DF is the Hammershoi & Miller curve, Wich was obtained with the bigger number of measuring samples (HATS and real human's ear chanels). Besides that, the Ety Target, even after more than 30 ears of existing, is almost identical to the Hammershoi & Moller version (2008).

 

[headenvelopedinsound]

All good points and I especially like the 30 ears of existing typo. very fitting. I’ll look into that other curve. Is that the one Moondrop is using now? Their S8 looks incredible but not much info on it around.

And yes all those curves are the in ear versions. Headphones are indeed different. But that site I am pulling those graphs from exclusively deals with IEMs. Well actually as of this month he did start to graph headphones as well but that is not included in that same tool I was using.

Yes, there are some versions of the DF Target. About it there are some interesting points to discuss:

1. DF Target for IEMs (although visually alike) can't be the same, because there are differences on the way the sound works on the ear Chanel, depending of the type of phone.

2. I personally believe that Ety Target (along with Hammershoi & Moller) is most accurate for some reasons:

The Ety's DF Target (One type of CORFIG) is used on Deep insertion Hearing aids.

Besides that, the CORFIGS (targets various types of hearing aids) were all standardized by Mead C. Killion Ph.D., who is the founder and actual president of Etymotic.

The most recent version of the In Ear's DF is the Hammershoi & Miller curve, Wich was obtained with the bigger number of measuring samples (HATS and real human's ear chanels). Besides that, the Ety Target, even after more than 30 ears of existing, is almost identical to the Hammershoi & Moller version (2008).

 

[guicnovaes]

All good points and I especially like the 30 ears of existing typo. very fitting. I’ll look into that other curve. Is that the one Moondrop is using now? Their S8 looks incredible but not much info on it around.

And yes all those curves are the in ear versions. Headphones are indeed different. But that site I am pulling those graphs from exclusively deals with IEMs. Well actually as of this month he did start to graph headphones as well but that is not included in that same tool I was using.

I think that Moondrop are inspired on the Ety's DF, but with more bass and treble. @JohnYang1997 was involved in some moondrop projects and I remember him saying some stuff about it.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I think that Moondrop are inspired on the Ety's DF, but with more bass and treble. @JohnYang1997 was involved in some moondrop projects and I remember him saying some stuff about it.

It can be seen in different ways. You can see it as original harman target with tuned and treble or etymotic target with harman-like bass and slightly tuned mid-high.

 

[luisdent]

I think it's easier to measure loudspeakers than earphones. In that regard each person's studio may or may not be neutral. Acoustic treatment can be complex, but if measured properly and found to be neutral in response (flat) and no strange issues with time domain, then that is the ideal.

As someone who is very familiar with pretty well treated and measured sound rooms, the EQ I use on my er4sr sounds the most studio monitor like of any earphones I've heard in pure frequency response terms. So I think I lean towards the older Harman target and the ety target. Both are very similar except at 10khz and sub bass. I definitely find the old harman bass to sound more like a studio monitor speaker. Basically +5db sub bass. No mid bass bass boost.

The 10khz is debatable, and ironically more prone to measurement errors more than bass. But I'd say neither "sounds" that different compared to how different the bass sounds between them.

So the ety is one of the closest earphones to either target really if you ignore the bass. And even then, the bass is close in terms of linearity, it's just a bit less amplitude. My goal is simply to get the most studio monitor like sound. And after listening to my EQ for a while it's hard to go back....

But honestly, no earphone sounds exactly like a speaker. Even with perfect frequency response. But the ety does the best for me, as frequency response, in my mind, is most of the equation. So while it may never sound exactly the same, having the best frequency response gets it 95% of the way there...

 

[drMuse]

I've had around 1/2 dozen ER4 sets since 2001 or so. First was ER4S and lasted me about 10 years. Subsequently I went to ER4P because I use them 75% of the time with portable players. My ears aren't shot but I do have tinnitus and ~50% attenuation 3khz and above. I don't presume to differentiate various headphones and long ago gave up audiophilia concerning speaker systems! I have some decent speakers, but will not entertain the notion of spending big bucks on upgrades.

I just sent two sets of ER4P's to Etymotic Research because they aren't functional anymore. I seem to get discontinuity issues nowadays not infrequently... I lasted ~10 years without such issues with that first set of ER4S. It seems like they don't make them to be as durable as they used to!

Unfortunately, I didn't seek warranty relief some months ago when at least one set (I think) was in warranty. Anyway, I expect they will suggest I get replacement sets from them at the discounted price they will offer me. They did this in June 2017, and IIRC it cost me around $150 for ER4P.

Should I just get more ER4P or maybe get one of the other offerings? I'm perplexed concerning the other ER4's available now. Suggestions? I listen to all manner of music, usually MP3's, but sometimes a CD player, also FM receiver at times, TV and Movies via DVD, Blu-ray and 4K player.

 

[headenvelopedinsound]

Do you mind repeating the eq settings? It’s lost(to me) in all these recent rabbit trails.

You are correct we agree on our idea of neutral to a T. Fearless S6Pro is flat linear bass and follows the Harmon treble the most closely than any of the target curves. The treble is not really changed from the original target, but yeah bass I tend to boost 5-6db at 40hz down to 20hz. If you can find it a bit back we had pretty much the same-ish discussion. It’s pretty well why I lean to sonar works. It rides the fine line right between the ety and current Harmon curve. My ER2XR I need to cut around 150hz 1.5db or so and boost 6khz -8khz about 3db to get closer to what I hear on my studio monitors. With the S6Pro the sub boost is really all that’s needed.

Edit: Here are a few graphs to show what I am talking about a bit.

I think it's easier to measure loudspeakers than earphones. In that regard each person's studio may or may not be neutral. Acoustic treatment can be complex, but if measured properly and found to be neutral in response (flat) and no strange issues with time domain, then that is the ideal.

As someone who is very familiar with pretty well treated and measured sound rooms, the EQ I use on my er4sr sounds the most studio monitor like of any earphones I've heard in pure frequency response terms. So I think I lean towards the older Harman target and the ety target. Both are very similar except at 10khz and sub bass. I definitely find the old harman bass to sound more like a studio monitor speaker. Basically +5db sub bass. No mid bass bass boost.

The 10khz is debatable, and ironically more prone to measurement errors more than bass. But I'd say neither "sounds" that different compared to how different the bass sounds between them.

So the ety is one of the closest earphones to either target really if you ignore the bass. And even then, the bass is close in terms of linearity, it's just a bit less amplitude. My goal is simply to get the most studio monitor like sound. And after listening to my EQ for a while it's hard to go back....

But honestly, no earphone sounds exactly like a speaker. Even with perfect frequency response. But the ety does the best for me, as frequency response, in my mind, is most of the equation. So while it may never sound exactly the same, having the best frequency response gets it 95% of the way there...