IM716 equals ER4P???

[loudwood]

I personally don't believe that, the price difference is so huge.
But they do look same and many head-fiers claim IM716
sounds great, almost as great as ER4P.

I know I am silly. But I am sure someone here can tell
me the yes or no.

 

[Sovkiller]

Nope, the ER4P are easier to drive IMO, the 716 need something beefy to pull them, or a good jack (as an old PCDP), or a portable amp...But soundwise, they are very close IMO...

 

[TiTaN]

I personally have no experience with the ER-4 series but I was extremely impressed with the IM716s in comparison to the ER-6is I got the same day. Whereas I like how much smaller the ER-6is are and the fact they are black, when I want to listen for the best sound, I plug my IM716s into my nano with the Bass mode on. I know a lot of people prefer the HD mode but for the music I listen to (rock, metal, etc) you need that extra umph in the bass and lower-mids to keep things warm and not so harsh in the highs. Bands like Disturbed benefit the most and Cold sounds wonderful.

I will more than likely pick some ER-4Ps up somewhere down the road, but for $63 I would have been stupid not to get them, especially since I paid $106 for the ER-6is.

 

[loudwood]

I own ER6i myself. Actually recently I switched to foam
tips and discovered a more dynamic kind of sound.
Overall it sounds decent. But nowhere near say
Senn HD580/600/...

I was told ER4 series are far better than ER6i.
And I will be waiting for the IM716 to go cheap again.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TiTaN I personally have no experience with the ER-4 series but I was extremely impressed with the IM716s in comparison to the ER-6is I got the same day. Whereas I like how much smaller the ER-6is are and the fact they are black, when I want to listen for the best sound, I plug my IM716s into my nano with the Bass mode on. I know a lot of people prefer the HD mode but for the music I listen to (rock, metal, etc) you need that extra umph in the bass and lower-mids to keep things warm and not so harsh in the highs. Bands like Disturbed benefit the most and Cold sounds wonderful. I will more than likely pick some ER-4Ps up somewhere down the road, but for $63 I would have been stupid not to get them, especially since I paid $106 for the ER-6is.

 

[TiTaN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by loudwood I own ER6i myself. Actually recently I switched to foam tips and discovered a more dynamic kind of sound. Overall it sounds decent. But nowhere near say Senn HD580/600/... I was told ER4 series are far better than ER6i. And I will be waiting for the IM716 to go cheap again.

I would definitely go for it man, although I haven't heard my ER-6is with foam as the comply tips are too large for me.

I will say honestly, though, that I think both the ER-6i and especially the IM716s sound better than UM2s...UM2s are way too dark and totally lacking in highs. At least for the music I listen to.

 

[loudwood]

I understand what you think.
I used to be fond of PortaPro and are still using
them. Ety sound is just different, and gradually
I start to appreciate them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiTaN I would definitely go for it man, although I haven't heard my ER-6is with foam as the comply tips are too large for me. I will say honestly, though, that I think both the ER-6i and especially the IM716s sound better than UM2s...UM2s are way too dark and totally lacking in highs. At least for the music I listen to.

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by loudwood I personally don't believe that, the price difference is so huge. But they do look same and many head-fiers claim IM716 sounds great, almost as great as ER4P. I know I am silly. But I am sure someone here can tell me the yes or no.

Actually, there is a thread: Altec Lansing IM716 equals Ety ER4s, by Old Dave. This is quite a long yet informative thread.

At this point, there is not, and probably will not, be a definative answer. Likely a legal issue.

But, if you want conjecture, I would say the ER4P and podless iM716 (see iM716 "modded" thread by BushGuy) may be indistinguishable.

 

[Jam_Master_J]

I've heard both, I don't think they are the same. im716 has noticably thicker bass.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jam_Master_J I've heard both, I don't think they are the same. im716 has noticably thicker bass.

I agree as well here and from my recollection of last audition I feel that the ER4P with the "s" adapter cord was a little more detailed as well.

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jam_Master_J I've heard both, I don't think they are the same. im716 has noticably thicker bass.

So, you've tried it sans pod?

The key word was 'podless', as per the mod by BushGuy.

Also in that thread is a picture of the pod opened up. A lot of junk in-line there. It is no wonder they would sound different.

As per the original Altec promo- the "iM716 is a tweaked version of the ER-4S", the Ety rep who spoke to Old Dave on the phone had a similar comment.

The 'tweak' is likely comprised in the pcb board within the pod.

But I would suspect that eliminating this pod pcb board would give a cleaner sound. Just less junk in-line.

 

[apnk]

I had both at the same time (I ordered a pair for a Canadian head-fier a couple months ago). I compared them and they almost sound the same, I found that the im716 was slightly warmer sounding.

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller I agree as well here and from my recollection of last audition I feel that the ER4P with the "s" adapter cord was a little more detailed as well.

Yes, many Head-Fi'ers prefer the sound of the ER4S to the ER4P, even while using an iPod as a source, much for the observations you stated.

As with the above post, the earlier comment was speculation regarding a 'podless' iM716, as per BushGuy's mod. Again, as per above, put this piece of junk in-line with any phones, and I'm sure you'll alter the sound (muck it up) a bit.

And yes, a critique of Ety was (is) the overly analytical sound. I'm sure Altec intended to target the iPod market by moving the sound sig down the spectrum a bit, ie, warmer, and fuller, albeit maybe at the expense of some trademark Ety HF detail by adding that pod.

 

[daveDerek]

is the bass switch something like having a built in (ety 4) p to s converter cable?

 

[tnmike1]

I use both running a 5g Ipod, Portaphile or SM III v6 as amps and can say there is a difference. I prefer the Ety4p, but there is a 300 or so dollar difference. But for an under $100 IEM, you can't go wrong with the iM 716s. O and on the SMIII, I can flick a switch to make the Ety4p sound like the "s" version. totally different configuration which is interesting at best. Still prefer the "p' sound to the "s", but I listen almost exclusively to jazz/fusion/hard bop (Coltrane-type stuff)

 

[jSatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveDerek is the bass switch something like having a built in (ety 4) p to s converter cable?

That is very likely what Altec was intending.

However, whereas I would think high quality discreet resistors are utilized in the Ety P to S cable, the iM716 pod uses a pcb board. The little volume pot can’t help the issue.