[RollsDownWindowsManually]

Today I compared these two IEM's in a listening session. Both IEM's were driven by my Mustard Seed Labs Faith Amp, and foamie tips were used. Source Material consisted of a variety of tracks from my collection, Creed, Joe Satriani, Nine Inch Nails, Dire Straits, etc etc.

Let's get right to it: Frankly, I was very surprised at how much I preferred the ER-4S to the E500. As soon as I fired up the E500, I felt like something was missing. The midrange was just not as clear as it was on the ER-4S. Although the bass thump was a little stronger on the E500, I have to say I prefer the ER-4S's bass overall. The ER-4S has deeper extension to my ears, and it doesn't bloat to the point of concealing the midrange like the E500. Upper treble sounded similair on both IEM's, but again, slightly clearer and crisper on the ER-4S.

One rock track I like to use in listening sessions is Creed's "Are you ready?" from the human clay album. The difference between these two IEM's is oh so apparant when the full band kicks in after the acoustic guitar intro. The guitar riffs were much more clearly defined on the Etymotic, whreas they dropped into the background on the E500. Vocals suffered a similair "background" effect on the Shures. This simply did not happen with the Etymotics. With the ER-4S, the vocals and guitar were upfront, clear and impactful, as they should be. The E500 emphasized the bass, bringing the midbass to the forefront, in my opinion, at the expense of the rest of the spectrum. Bass on the ER-4S was still presented clearly, (if not as impactful and thumpy in the 100hz region) however the Etymotic seemed to somehow strike a better balance betweem the bass and the remainder of the music.

To me, the main problem with the E500 was that the midbass is emphasized to the point that upper midrange and treble clarity is sacrificed. Honestly the E500 would sound fine on less demanding portions of tracks when only a few instruments were playing....but once the full band kicked in with power chords and bass lines, the Shures seemed to just muddy up where the Etymotics started to shine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

E500

The Pros for the E500: the fit and finish were certainly great, the microphone feature was cool and the microphonics were much less present than with the Etymotic. If midbass thump is a top priority priority, they are certainly a good choice. They did sound a bit more like a full size phone such as a grado than the etymotics.

The Cons: To my ears, they simply didn't sound as good as the Etymotics for the reasons I described above. They presented recessed/muddy upper mids.

ER-4S

The Pros for the ER-4S: They presented an extremely clear, detailed, precise and accurate sound. The etymotic provided deep bass exentsion and sparkling highs. They were lighter and more compact than the Shures.

The Cons: They had significant microphonic noise if the cord was touched or moved at all, and were plainer looking than the Shures.


In conclusion, I would have to heartily reccomend the ER-4S over the Shure E500. I found this surprsing, because the E500 is highly regarded for playback with my favorite genres of music (metal, hard rock, industrial). I cannot speak for everyone's tastes, but I find the Etymotic to sound better at a significantly lower price.

I don't want to get into value arguments, because I prefer to compare headphones on their sonic mertis alone, but in this case I can't help but reiterate the considerable value of the ER-4S. For the $200 dollars or less at which it is available, I find it to be an excellent value. I hope this comparison helps anyone considering an IEM purchase in the future.

 

[bellsprout]

interesting. u'd think that e500 should be leagues ahead of er-4s for its price.

what did u feel about the contrast between listening to a triple driver phone vs single driver phone?

 

[antonyfirst]

I'd like to know how the Etymotics' highs change using the foam tips instead of the triflange tips. Do they really become smoother?
Also, with all those microphonics, could you use your ER-4S while walking? How much does a shirt clip help?

 

[verticalforce]

Ah, don't do this to me!

I was planning to buy SE530 when it's out, and now you swayed me again!

Ok, in terms of comfort, which one is the best? I'll go with whatever can fit into my small ear canal.

 

[vranswer]

I experienced a similar reaction going from Shure's E5Cs to the ER4Ps a couple years ago. Was listening to Spock's Beard CD "The Kindness of Strangers" during a piano passage and noticed the incredible crispness and what I perceived to be more accurate timbre of the keyboard strikes on the ER4s.

Funny thing for me though, it has turned out that the very strength of the ER4s becomes their downfall for long-term usage. The over-emphasized "detail" simply began wearing on me, making the phones very fatiguing. Returning to the E5s I discovered a much more digestible sonic presentation - perhaps not as intoxicatingly rich in clarity at first a la ER4, but so much more fun and virtually non-tiring.

Have bought the ER4s twice now, only to sell them again. For me, they're just extremely clear and detailed sounding canalphones that aren't much fun to listen to.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RollsDownWindowsManually /img/forum/go_quote.gif The ER-4S has deeper extension to my ears, and it doesn't bloat to the point of concealing the midrange like the E500. * * * * * The E500 emphasized the bass, bringing the midbass to the forefront, in my opinion, at the expense of the rest of the spectrum. * * * * * To me, the main problem with the E500 was that the midbass is emphasized to the point that upper midrange and treble clarity is sacrificed.

You repeated the same point three times, but for a very crucial reason that potential buyers must realise. The extent to which the clarity is compromised can only be fully appreciated when comparing to another generally brighter-sounding headphone. I was able to directly compare to the K701 and HF-1. I also had a good idea of what the E4c, ER4P/S and ER6i sounded because of previous ownership so it became immediately clear to me that something was not right.

The detail is all there, it's just how they're presented that really bugs me. It's funny you say that it's not clear even for rock music. I actually had no problems with the E500's reproduction of rock music. In fact, I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread! The mids are very smooth and the bass ever present with a good amount of weight. The highs were muted, but that didn't really interfere with my enjoyment. It was when I started listening to classical (over 90% of my listening) that I started to shake my head. Highs... where art thou? The problem was serious enough to get in the way of my enjoyment. In retrospect, that was what ultimately drove me away from E500.

I like listening to music as it would sound in real life. To me, a headphone that doesn't get the timbre right is simply not good enough. I understand that a lot of you listen to music which isn't produced acoustically, but electronically, in which case this may not be too much of a problem. That said, woodwinds and brass sound very nice on the E500 because of the roundness and smoothness of the midrange.

 

[GreatDane]

For me, comparing the E4 to ER4 I don't find that the E4 does anything better. I like that "over-emphasized detail" it seems because the E4 lacks detail big time in comparison. Upper mids, treble, whatever, but the E4 lacks detail for me-something is missing.

I don't find the ER4 to be fatiguing and I can listen for over 6 hours at safe volumes. It's always a shame to have to pull them out.

I've never heard the E500 but I've realized that I would dislike them.

 

[milkpowder]

Haha. Comparing the E4 to the K701 was an absolute joke. They're actually very similar sounding sound-signature-wise, but severely lacking in midrange detail. The E4 is very glossy and smooth-sounding, but didn't compare to the K701 in terms of overall refinement. That said, the K701 do cost something like twice as much

The first thing that I noticed after trading my ER4P/S for the E4c was a lack of detail. I did enjoy the increased smoothness and generally louder bass though. Contrary to popular belief/opinion, I didn't find the highs rolled off at all.

The E500, on the other hand, does have the same amount of detail, but IMO lacking in clarity.

 

[JaZZ]

A while ago I had the opportunty to test the E500. I was positively surprised: I liked the full and rich sound, despite the treble roll-off, which on the other hand didn't sacrifice much detail to my ears. But switching to my (modified) ER-4P reveiled that the latter is clearly more neutral and more transparent, at the expense of a somewhat colder presentation (still not cold in absolute terms). I think I could actually live with the E500, but since I have the choice, I go for the ER-4P.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bellsprout /img/forum/go_quote.gif interesting. u'd think that e500 should be leagues ahead of er-4s for its price. what did u feel about the contrast between listening to a triple driver phone vs single driver phone?

Although the question isn't addressed to me: It's typical that the only «benefit» from the multi-driver system (with two «woofers») seems to be the increased bass -- which is in fact not an entirely good thing if you like a neutral characteristic. I can't see any other benefit from this design generally, since the various balanced-armature transducers all share common design properties or are even from the same manufacturer. Moreover it isn't a good idea to needlessly renounce the fullrange-driver design for which headphones are predestined, in contrast to speakers.


Quote:

Originally Posted by antonyfirst /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd like to know how the Etymotics' highs change using the foam tips instead of the triflange tips. Do they really become smoother?

To my ears: yes. It gets even better by shortening the foam tips to ~¾ of the original length; you'd possibly have to change the filters more frequently, though, as they are more exposed that way.

Quote:

Also, with all those microphonics, could you use your ER-4S while walking? How much does a shirt clip help?

IMO a shirt clip, as the one that comes with the ER-4s, is mandatory for walking. A good trick is also to loop the cables around your ears to isolate cable vibrations. While at the beginning the occlusion effect may still be bothersome to some extent, you can get used to it after a while. I barely notice the noises created by the occclusion effect anymore. It's like a ticking clock that you begin to ignore.
.

 

[bellsprout]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Although the question isn't addressed to me: It's typical that the only «benefit» from the multi-driver system (with two «woofers») seems to be the increased bass -- which is in fact not an entirely good thing if you like a neutral characteristic. I can't see any other benefit from this design generally, since the various balanced-armature transducers all share common design properties or are even from the same manufacturer. Moreover it isn't a good idea to needlessly renounce the fullrange-driver design for which headphones are predestined, in contrast to speakers.

isn't it beneficial for a driver to cover a small range of frequencies as opposed to the full range of frequencies, in accuracy and resolution?

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellsprout /img/forum/go_quote.gif isn't it beneficial for a driver to cover a small range of frequencies as opposed to the full range of frequencies, in accuracy and resolution?

I think the answer is yes, but it's how they tune the drivers that makes the most impact. IMO, Shure just slightly overdid it with the bass. I'm not sure where the crossover point is, but if I were to make a random stab as to where it is based on my hearing, I would say it's somewhere in between the mid-midrange to upper-midrange. My reason: The treble extension is great, but they feel ever so slightly disconnected from the rest of the spectrum. The mids and bass sound slightly fuzzy and all of a sudden, you get sparkling clear highs, albeit slightly recessed.

 

[antonyfirst]

Thanks Jazz, you have been enlightening. Though, about the looping cable around my year: I've tride sometimes to do it with my Sennheisers, but they tickled my ears. Perhaps did I something wrong?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellsprout /img/forum/go_quote.gif isn't it beneficial for a driver to cover a small range of frequencies as opposed to the full range of frequencies, in accuracy and resolution?

Objections regarding the general disadvantage of dividing the frequency range into several sections (phase problems...) aside: Theoretically yes. But only if the drivers are really specialized. I doubt it in the case of balanced-armature drivers. I think all of them can cover the whole frequency range, and I suspect that they have to, since most likely the «tweeters» don't have a high-pass filter switched in front of them -- the «woofers» just add bass.

Some additional ideas: I think the tiny drivers used in the ER-4 series are just about perfect for reproducing high frequencies -- within balanced-armature driver standards. I can't imagine any more specialized drivers for high frequencies. The only thing that could possibly be improved in multidriver systems is the canal shape for transmitting the sound waves from the membrane into the ear canal, especially if it's possible to make it shorter for the «tweeter». I'm not shure if this option is really possible, though, given the limited space and the need to place three drivers in it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by antonyfirst /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...about the looping cable around my year: I've tride sometimes to do it with my Sennheisers, but they tickled my ears. Perhaps did I something wrong?

My method: the cable coming from the player in my pocket or on my arm is lead behind my earlobes and held by my glasses -- without the glasses it wouldn't be fixed enough.
.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

To me, the main problem with the E500 was that the midbass is emphasized to the point that upper midrange and treble clarity is sacrificed.

That can be true, but the answer is simple... EQ. A proper EQ setting can easily cure all of the E500's imperfections and leave you with a much more satisfying phone than the ER-4 if warmth & bass presence is at all important to you. A little EQ will easily tame the mid bass and give a slight boost to the highs fixing all niggles with the E500, but all the EQ in the world won't fix the ER-4 bass deficiency (at least not without a lot of distortion.) I would agree that even after appropriate EQ is applied the ER-4 still own the transparency/detail category (they are so good in this respect that they probably always will), but the E500 comes very close and in the end provides a much more involving listening experience overall (for me.)

Also note that tip selection seems to be particularly important with the E500. For instance, with the triple-flange tips the E500 do sound very rolled-off to me, but using the medium silicone tips changes their character night-and-day, making them even sound excessively bright on occasion. I think improper tip selection may have a lot to do with all the E500 'roll-off' observations.

 

[Spyro]

Interesting thread...and I guess with an amp and EQ the ER-4S could very well compete with E500.

But unamped and comparing to ER-4P?? Doesn't E500 trounce it?

I love my ER-4P and am thinking about E500. My worry is that after hearing E500, when going back to ER-4P, the bass and soundstage is going to sound really anemic. No?