[gnarlsagan]

Quote:

If you are planning to use harder to drive headphones in the future (like the Fostex T50RP, Hifiman HE500s, etc) then get the O2+ODAC instead. The O2+ODAC sounds similar to the UHA-6S.MKII except it can drive headphones a lot louder, its cheaper too. The UHA-6S mkii is more than loud enough for my ER4S but not quite enough for my Paradox T50RP when playing high dynamic range music.

 
+1
 
The leckerton is deff not a full size amp.

 

[Inks]

Quote:

I agree it lacks some bass, but overall I hear no noticeable peaks otherwise, and the 11-3k issue and soundstage issue are gone completely with the right tip/depth combination.  With certain tips, yes, but others no.  Oddly for me, the deeper the tips go, the wider and more "real" the soundstage is for me.  So I use the foam tips or comply tips inserted deeply and I have no issues with those two things at all.
 
Insertion depth does NOT fix the 1-3k issue, funny cause it changes everything in the midrange/treble BUT the 1-3k region. See
 
As for GE graphs, "the most bogus you've ever seen"?  Wow.  I've yet to see one that visually matches what I hear.  As a matter of fact, proof that they are accurate is in the accudio app.  It literally applies an eq compensation to the graphed response of each earphone to bring the line as close to flat as possible.  Thereby bringing the sound close to reference.  I've replicated the sound the accudio results in using a parametric eq, and it does indeed only eq the earphone in a negative compensation to achieve flat.  Every single earphone I've used it with sounds flat and consistently the same with accudio.  In other words, if the earphone is capable of at least reproducing all the frequencies (no matter what response they have) and I didn't know what earphones were in my ears, with accudio applied I'd have a hard time telling the difference between them.
 
LOL, you mean their disproven bogus app? 
 
This shows that at a minimum all of their graphs are almost perfectly consistent.  Add to that the fact that they actually logically make visual sense, and I've yet to see a better graphing method.  I don't care what method you use, all of the graphs I see have bogus "looking" lines that are impossible to interpret unless you understand all the math and science behind the graph.
 
The GE graphs are perfectly logical.  Start with a flat earphone and add treble, their graphs show a hump in the treble.  Take away bass, their graphs show less bass.  Other graphs show weird ranges and curves that don't follow the sound.  I've seen graphs like headphone.com that show a decreasing bass response on an earphone that is clearly boosted bass.  I'm sure it is simply the type of curve and the units of measurement, etc. but that just doesn't make visual sense to how it sounds.
 
The GE graphs to me look like someone took a flat reference plane and they're showing you what you would do to an equalizer to achieve the earphone's actual sound.
 
Lastly, I'm not sure what you're looking for, but their info is pretty straightforward with how they graph:
 
http://en.goldenears.net/388
 
That link is useless, no new info that I personally didn't know. Let's take their W4 graph, lucky for them they mention the tips used but they miss this a lot of the time. Second, they don't mention the insertion depth of the IEM [very important for an IEM lik the W4], lastly they use a compensation that has no basis. No THD data and their CSD graph can't show anything below 200hz...lol. 

 

[zowki]

Currently I'm using EQ to fix the 1k to 3k issue but it is really taxing on my iPhone 4 battery life (using the EQu app). Are there any other solutions to fixing the 1k to 3k issue or any other IEMs that I should consider switching to? Does the FitEar F111 have the same 1k to 3k peak?

 

[drsamdc]

It's one of those coincidences that just yesterday I returned to my Ety HF-5s which were unvisited for months. I share your impressions as I imagine the HF-5s have much in common with the ER-4. I've got a box of FOTM IEMs including the Rockit R-50 which share the same driver as the DBA-02. I've been messing with those, trying to understand them for weeks, while the Etys are much more satisfying and interesting to my ears anyway. The Etys respond so well to equalization but hardly need any except a bit of bass boost if I'm in the mood for that, which I seldom am. The extension is amazing from top to bottom bettering most anything I own. The accuracy is astounding. The only quibble I have is a somewhat limited albeit competitive soundstage which is common with IEMs. You can't beat the isolation and at low listening levels everything is present. Frankly, I'm satisfied that I've experimented enough searching for what the Etys give me already. It's unlikely I'll find anything more...different maybe but really better?  Thanks for your thoughts.
 

 

[Pianist]

I tested my hearing professionally and was told that my hearing has the natural boost in the presence region, indicating no sign of hearing loss. I have to admit that that was 4 years ago. I haven't tested my hearing since because I am really paranoid about losing my hearing and can hardly stand hearing tests. Unless I got a pretty noticeable hearing loss over these past 4 years (and I can't think of good reasons why I could), I should be perfectly sensitive to that presence region peak of the ER4S. Yet, I find the ER4S very natural sounding to my ears with no peakiness or harshness anywhere at all. That's with deep insertion and a tight seal using the tri-flanges, good quality recordings and reasonable volume levels of course. So I suspect that you guys either don't insert the ER4S properly, listen too loudly, listen to poor quality recordings, or are simply too used to headphones that don't have enough emphasis in the presence region.

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

Don Wilson, the inventor of ER-4 series, once said:

Several engineers and myself did a study in a radio station recording studio in chicago for an AES meeting when the ER-4's first came out. We compared several different recordings through a pair of room equalized loudspeakers. The participants listened to the same recording through the loudspeakers and the ER-4 one ear at a time. We played the recordings through the ER-4B with several different equalizations. The participants voted as to which response sounded the closest to the loudspeakers. After we graphed the answers we discovered that the ER-4S had the closest response to the speakers .http://gilmore2.chem.northwestern.edu/ubb/showpost.php?fnum=1&tid=1718&pid=13330&fpage=3

 
This is how I base my impression of an earphone.  On the sound compared to a real studio monitor speaker.  This is why I prefer goldenears.  The articles you linked don't show any real reason the accudio app is "inaccurate" as you say.  If you feel the 1-3khz is an issue than don't use their systems.  I don't hear that.  I've eq'd that region and it sound horrible.  Leaving it as is gives me the appropriate sound.  So in that case accudio is completely accurate for me.
 
As I mentioned before, not every earphone is going to produce the full spectrum and there are other sound properties other than eq as well that it doesn't affect.  But in terms of a highly adaptable earphone, it has been perfectly consistent for me and very professional.  I've done EXTENSIVE comparisons between the westone 4r, shure535, er4s, pfe112, pfe232, xba3, gr-07, ba200, and many more.  Of all of the ones available in accudio the results always "sounded" like I expected them to.  The sound became much more flat and comparable and studio monitor like.
 
It's sort of ironic.  You have a problem with my compensated preferences.  I have a problem with yours.  The solution is to look at uncompensated graphs and make up your own conclusions.  Unfortunately, not everyone understands them well enough and there aren't a lot of uncompensated graphs available that I've found.
 
So I use the graphs only as a guide.  If an earphone sounds great I don't care about the graph, but using goldenears I've been able to 100% reliably predict what an earphone will sound like before I listen to it.  So for me, if the new shure earphone comes out and they graph it with a certain hump in the treble I know with certainty what the sound will be like in my ears.  What else matters in a FR graph?  Sure soundstage and things might change, but I'm talking about frequencies alone.
 
A graph that looks one way and sounds another does nothing for me personally.  I want to know what to expect when I look at a graph.  Goldenears does that for me.  There's really nothing else to say about it.  It works for me.  If it doesn't work for you then find the best system that does and use it.  But I personally find GE far from bogus.  If they were bogus, I wouldn't achieve 100% reliable "understanding of the sound" by looking at their FR graphs.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

If you are planning to use harder to drive headphones in the future (like the Fostex T50RP, Hifiman HE500s, etc) then get the O2+ODAC instead. The O2+ODAC sounds similar to the UHA-6S.MKII except it can drive headphones a lot louder, its cheaper too. The UHA-6S mkii is more than loud enough for my ER4S but not quite enough for my Paradox T50RP when playing high dynamic range music.

 
+1
 
The leckerton is deff not a full size amp.

Thanks, they are the same price and the 02+ODAC is too big for my needs. If I were driving an HE-500, I'd just use a headphone amp.

 

[Inks]

This is how I base my impression of an earphone.  On the sound compared to a real studio monitor speaker.  This is why I prefer goldenears.  The articles you linked don't show any real reason the accudio app is "inaccurate" as you say.  If you feel the 1-3khz is an issue than don't use their systems.  I don't hear that.  I've eq'd that region and it sound horrible.  Leaving it as is gives me the appropriate sound.  So in that case accudio is completely accurate for me.

As I mentioned before, not every earphone is going to produce the full spectrum and there are other sound properties other than eq as well that it doesn't affect.  But in terms of a highly adaptable earphone, it has been perfectly consistent for me and very professional.  I've done EXTENSIVE comparisons between the westone 4r, shure535, er4s, pfe112, pfe232, xba3, gr-07, ba200, and many more.  Of all of the ones available in accudio the results always "sounded" like I expected them to.  The sound became much more flat and comparable and studio monitor like.

It's sort of ironic.  You have a problem with my compensated preferences.  I have a problem with yours.  The solution is to look at uncompensated graphs and make up your own conclusions.  Unfortunately, not everyone understands them well enough and there aren't a lot of uncompensated graphs available that I've found.

So I use the graphs only as a guide.  If an earphone sounds great I don't care about the graph, but using goldenears I've been able to 100% reliably predict what an earphone will sound like before I listen to it.  So for me, if the new shure earphone comes out and they graph it with a certain hump in the treble I know with certainty what the sound will be like in my ears.  What else matters in a FR graph?  Sure soundstage and things might change, but I'm talking about frequencies alone.

A graph that looks one way and sounds another does nothing for me personally.  I want to know what to expect when I look at a graph.  Goldenears does that for me.  There's really nothing else to say about it.  It works for me.  If it doesn't work for you then find the best system that does and use it.  But I personally find GE far from bogus.  If they were bogus, I wouldn't achieve 100% reliable "understanding of the sound" by looking at their FR graphs.

Check this out

We want the same end result, regardless of what the environmental variables are in order to prevent "circle of confusion", which is defined by F.Toole, to achieve Hi-Fidelity.

Furthermore, we can't possibly define a single room target of "studio control" rooms, as they even have their own linear distortion to be taken care of: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gsos/Su3b8m6wHjI/AAAAAAAAALw/ltcrAglRR4g/s400/Makivirta+and+Anet+2001.png

Is Etymotic Research's target really off then? Here's what Mr.Don Wilson, the designer of ER-4S has to say about the modified room target: "Several engineers and myself did a study in a radio station recording studio in Chicago for an AES meeting when the ER-4's first came out. We compared several different recordings through a pair of room equalized loudspeakers. The participants listened to the same recording through the loudspeakers and the ER-4 one ear at a time. We played the recordings through the ER-4B with several different equalizations. The participants voted as to which response sounded the closest to the loudspeakers. After we graphed the answers we discovered that the ER-4S had the closest response to the speakers.."

As you can tell, Etymotic Research's modified target is designed without having a proper protocol for subjective assessment. Which means, it has no scientific significance.

Also The link PROVES the Accudio system isn't accurate as responses differ from the supposed goal.

You've failed to explain what's wrong with the Olive Welti Curve, or the Difuse field ISO standard for the matter, while the link I provided disproves the GE compensation.

All the stuff claimed has been debunked, unless otherwise shown, personal listening in this matter is scientifically irrelevant to the matter I hand, the accuracy of GEs methodology

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

Check this out
Also The link PROVES the Accudio system isn't accurate as responses differ from the supposed goal.

You've failed to explain what's wrong with the Olive Welti Curve, or the Difuse field ISO standard for the matter, while the link I provided disproves the GE compensation.

All the stuff claimed has been debunked, unless otherwise shown, personal listening in this matter is scientifically irrelevant to the matter I hand, the accuracy of GEs methodology

 
 
Nothing has been debunked.  You're supposing that the graphing parameters you are referring to accurately represent a properly "flat" earphone.  I disagree, because I HEAR the earphones that are in my ear and the sound represented in the GE graphs reflects that perfectly.  If you think that the links you have "disprove" that sound than as I said before, don't use them.  I've researched a lot of different supposed traits of acoustics in the ear canals, graphing properties, "effects" of this and that, etc. etc.  The bottom line is that almost every single one is controversial in the sense that you can't prove that one or the other is 100% the correct way to do something.  Everyone has different ears, measurement systems aren't perfect, seals change dramatically with slight alteration, etc.
 
I've already explained why the GE graphs are logically and visually represented.  It doesn't matter if you think they're scientifically accurate or not.  I, personally can look at a graph of any earphone on their site and know almost exactly what the FR of that earphone sounds like in real life.  And I have proven this to myself by verifying the visuals with listening tests.  That's all that matters to me.  Their graphing system has proven perfectly useful and accurate to me.  You haven't shown any scientific contradiction to the graphs.  You've shown one person's measurement system based on their belief of the correct way to analyze audio.  I don't have the 1-3khz issue you might have, so while I understand it might be an issue for some people, it isn't for me.  So why would I use graphs that champion that measurement compensation?
 
All this is beside the point though.  You can't disprove their graphs, because you can't disprove something with scientific reasoning that isn't itself "proven".  So, let's just agree to disagree on this topic.  I recommend that anyone who has a chance to try a bunch of earphones compare what they "hear" with that earphone to the GE graphs.  You will see that the sound is perfectly represented by what you see.  You can further verify this by opening any decent parametric EQ and adjusting the EQ to lower and raise any peaks, based solely on the GE graphs, and you will achieve a flat reference-like sound with any capable earphone every time.  I have done it with every earphone I have and achieved extremely similar results.
 
Bottom line, graphs mean absolutely nothing unless you know what the visual graph actually sounds like in real life.  I'm sure I could take another graph system, listen to a bunch of earphones and start to associate the sound with the graphing properties to be able to consistently know what to expect, but of all the systems I've seen the GE is the most logical and consistent.  So I highly recommend you compare a bunch of IEMs to graphs and become familiar with the sound and then you'll be able to understand the relationship between the two and know what to expect with an IEM you haven't heard yet.  This goes for any graphing system.  You need to know how the visuals sound.  Period.  The only way to do this is to listen to a few earphones while comparing them to graphs.

 

[music_4321]

luisdent,

Inks and music_4321 have often not seen eye to eye… more and more, it seems, as time goes by — perhaps ageing sparrows haven't got very good eyesight? It has to be said, though, that Inks still provides food for thought now and again, and you could say he's still very much an asset to the community, specially considering what we very often see in these forum threads, which often leaves a lot to be desired.

That said, here's an unsolicited piece of advice for you: Saying something like "…So I use the graphs only as a guide. If an earphone sounds great I don't care about the graph…" should never be said in the presence of Inks no matter what follows or precedes such statement. I've had much more fruitful and meaningful exchanges with very enthusiastic—to use a light term—Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, extreme right & left wingers… and even with people with very opposing views on European Union economic policies.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Hey you guys just keep on swingin those frontal lobe haymakers at each other, k? I'll be the referee. I'm sure I'll do a terrible job at it, but someone has to volunteer.

 

[music_4321]

^^    More importantly, no-one seemed to take note of the excellent MDR-7550, including a certain member, tigon_ridge, for whom it was spcifically mentioned / recommended.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

^^    More importantly, no-one seemed to take note of the excellent MDR-7550, including a certain member, tigon_ridge, for whom it was spcifically mentioned / recommended.

 
I've been preoccupied with reading up on the RE-400. From impressions, the 7550 seems too warm for my liking. Someone said it has more midbass than GR07, which I felt already had more midbass than I would like. Thanks for the suggestion, regardless.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

 
I've been preoccupied with reading up on the RE-400. From impressions, the 7550 seems too warm for my liking. Someone said it has more midbass than GR07, which I felt already had more midbass than I would like. Thanks for the suggestion, regardless.

 
This will be my last post on the 7550s as this is an ER4 thread, but let me just say a couple of things — the Sonys are not warm at all, not in the least. Now, I've not heard the GR07s, but the 7550s have no mid-bass elevation. I suggest at some point you investigate further—if you're interested in other IEMs, that is—because, as I noted before, the 7550 is not only a truly excellent phone, but quite an underrated one.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

 
This will be my last post on the 7550s as this is an ER4 thread, but let me just say a couple of things — the Sonys are not warm at all, not in the least. Now, I've not heard the GR07s, but the 7550s have no mid-bass elevation. I suggest at some point you investigate further—if you're interested in other IEMs, that is—because, as I noted before, the 7550 is not only a truly excellent phone, but quite an underrated one.

 

Let me ask you some questions. Do you consider the ER4 to have less than neutral quantity of midbass? Does the 7550 have more than the ER4 does? By how much? Not that it would be a deal breaker, but it would be if the difference is significant enough. I read in the 7550 thread that it has more midbass than W4 and GR07, both of which I already consider far too bassy for my preference. I have no doubt the 7550 may be awesome for many, but one man's treasure may be another man's junk. And no, this discussion is perfectly on-topic as we're discussing the 7550 in relation to the ER4, which I deem to be the most ruler flat sounding headphone I've ever heard. I can still enjoy a slightly bassier headphone, but the most important thing is that the midrange and treble have to be just right for me. My personal ideal midrange is something similar to the ER4 but with a little more decay (forwardness and musicality), and less of the 1-3kHz hill. Not sure if I would want to change a thing about the ER4S's treble, except a bit less quantity beyond the 8kHz region.