[ast]

have E500 and had Ety ER-4S (for comparsion purpose only). ER-4S sound much more detailed and instrument separation is unbelievable. But E500s do not lack details at all, it is just the full bass pushes them a little into the background. E500 has all the highs, no question about it. But comparing directly with speakers, via the same receiver, e500 sounds much closer to them than ER-4S does. For me, the decision is very obvious and easy -- E500 is a keeper.

 

[RollsDownWindowsManually]

Believe it or not I went back and did some more E500 listening today, almost 60 minutes worth of my favorite reference tracks....I really WANT to like these IEM's more than the ER-4S, but alas it is not to be. I really WANT to be able to simply spend more money to eclipse the sound of the etymotics, but I'm afraid that is just not possible for my ears with the E500. The conclusions I posted earlier still stand.....

Yeah, the bass impact on the E500 is very nice, but it is simply not worth the midrange tradeoff you get in return in my opinion. I would still like to hear some Westone UM2's and UE super.fi 5's for analysis, but I continue to regard the ER-4S my highest esteem in the mean time.

 

[ldj325]

But Strawberry is the best. And Rachael McAdams is the most beautiful woman, or lets see is it Anne Hathaway? Oh that's right, Rachael is cute and Anne is sultry.

Seems kind of silly, huh!

I am saying this for new folks mainly who may lurk about trying to determine the "best" headphone or amp or whatever gear. (This was me a few months ago, so I am not trying to be superior.) I appreciate these threads because I can eventually make out something about the sound signature of different gear. But I find that pronouncements of best, worse, better especially when comparing different house sounds or presentations are ultimately of little value because we all have different musical tastes (like in our individual taste in food, women, men, or whatever floats your boat).

My advice is to listen to the descriptions and yes the comparisons to get a sense of what the sound signatures are like. But ultimately its best to listen to something, even if you have to buy it first. And if you can listen to your two top choises first (or buy both) that is even better. These things can be returned for a restocking fee or sold without too much loss.

But the value judgments have to be based upon your taste. I happen to like the E500 (which I don't own) more than the ER-4P that I do own, so the 4Ps are being returned.

And one of the general principles that I have found is that at whatever pricepoint, there is no universally recognized best and that all gear has strenghts and weaknesses so that it ultimately comes down to a trade off.

When I hear words/descriptions especially comparing two pieces of gear like: Best, Worse, Killed, Blow Away, Over-rated, Underrated etc. that is my red flag that I am about to hear about someone's personal taste that may or may not have anything in common with my personal taste.

 

[eruditass]

can you boost the 2.5khz to 6khz range 7~14 db and tell us how it sounds in comparison?

 

[NewSc2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peddler /img/forum/go_quote.gif I feel compelled to say this:- Recording studios generally do not monitor the sound with the finest audio equipment. They don't hear what we hear - ever! Many modern recordings are deliberately buggered around with to make them sound right through crap electronics/radio airplay. We have to find a way to compensate for this through our equipment.

• 
  
  
  1. Recording studios generally DO monitor the sound with the finest audio equipment. I've been in studios with perfect acoustic treatment... it sounded like I walked into a void with 11 walls. Not to mention they all had electrical work done through and through, their DAC's, Pres, and cabling were all top-quality, and that I was staring at several sets of monitors, each worth $5k+ (except for the Yamaha NS10).
  
  2. True, but they also make sure it sounds good through great electronics. Producers have learned to work around the pitfalls of car radios. This doesn't mean they purposely make the sound ****tier, they just mix really well around the bass frequencies to account for smaller speakers. They also know their music might be played through very very good sound systems (i.e. clubs), and mix so it sounds good on both.
  
  I just purchased a set of ER4P's from Amazon.com to help my portable music rig (Macbook Pro). I was going back and forth between the E500's and the ER4P's, but in the end the ER4P's were cheaper. I hope they work well!

 

[laxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoomzDayz /img/forum/go_quote.gif can you boost the 2.5khz to 6khz range 7~14 db and tell us how it sounds in comparison?

That's basically what I did. I turned the 60hz-550hz down a little and the 2.5khz-10khz up a little and it made a huge difference. From my brief audition of a MisterX Xp amp this past weekend, it basically did exactly what my EQ'ing did, but with my DAP on a flat EQ. The Xp amp also added a fuller sound, but I'll have more to say abuot it in the next few days as I'm borrowing one tonight to audition at home.

 

[Peddler]

OK - I'm first to admit that my experiences in recording studios is very limited - and re-reading my previous post - perhaps I was a little strong in my opinions but.....

We (us guys here in Head-Fi land) are listening to music through some pretty exotic headphone and amp combinations (stuff that you almost certainly won't find in a recording studio - e.g. valve amps, 'breathed-on' players and the like).

Sound quality goes hand in hand with durability in a professional studio. For some of us it's only about sound quality - no matter how mad-looking or flimsy the kit is. Let's face it, Etymotics do not make an effective solution for someone who has to continually be putting on and taking off their headphones.

I stick with what I said about some recordings - they're often very poorly mixed/edited/recorded. This is especially true of modern 'pop' music and chart stuff. You only have to listen to top classical, jazz and blues recordings to see the differences. This annoys me as there are some excellent bands out there who are being let down by the production process.

I do agree that the vast majority of recording and mixing engineers really do know their stuff, use more than acceptable equipment in the process of making music and care about the end product.

I must admit I've always found it puzzling that people can effectively hear the benefits of some 'super' interconnect cables or loudspeaker cables which cost hundreds or even thousands when this sort of stuff would NEVER be found in a recording studio. When I first got into hi-fi (before having kids) I used to spend many a happy hour 'tweaking' my suspended subchassis turntable, twiddling with cables and re-positioning my expensive, heavy and generally ugly speakers around to try and get the best sound quality possible. I never quite embraced the 'flat Earth' stuff like green pens, sticky bits of paper and other weird 'tweaks' but got close - happy days!

On the subject of Shure E500's vs ER4P/S -- I honestly like them both. I find the lush, mellow and dynamic sound of the Shure's very VERY enjoyable. Yes the top-end is 'lost' in the mix somewhat but I honestly am also hearing more detail in some stuff than I did with the Ety's - specifically some of the samples in Pink Floyd's The Wall - I can clearly hear what's on the TV's in the background and the overall sound quality is just lush.

I tried the ER4P's whilst walking the dog again tonight - I'm starting to think that perhaps they are ideal for 'portable' use whereas the Shure's are so expensive I honestly don't always feel happy about walking around the streets with them in my ears - I certainly couldn't afford to replace them if they got damaged.

I think the point I was trying to make regarding these comparisons is that a guitar will change it's sound character based on where it's played almost as much as by who's playing it! With this in mind, once you have mentally adjusted to the sound of the Shure's, the shortcomings or perhaps differences are more like a change in venue - does this make sense?

 

[analog'd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldj325 /img/forum/go_quote.gif But Strawberry is the best. When I hear words/descriptions especially comparing two pieces of gear like: Best, Worse, Killed, Blow Away, Over-rated, Underrated etc. that is my red flag that I am about to hear about someone's personal taste that may or may not have anything in common with my personal taste.

in a thread like this your voice of reason is like a cool breeze

 

[4metta]

Funny how we all have our definite preferences in sound signatures.


I had the ER-4S and couldn't get rid of them fast enough. I can't even fathom enjoy NIN with them. No bass whatsoever.

I'm beginning to think that the variances between ear canals make a huge impact on how ear monitors fit us all and that would explain how people hear different things with the same monitors.

 

[4metta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by verticalforce /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

If it helps any, I have very small ear canals and I prefer e500s. But in the end you have to see how they SOUND not fit. You adapt when you find the sound you like.

 

[4metta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

+1

I suffered tremendous listening fatigue with the Etys.

 

[marcan]

I'm not a huge writer on this board, it may be my first post so hi everyone

I work in a studio (mixing mainly), so I'm very picky about the frequency balance.

I broke my ety's (4s) few months ago

. I decided to make the jump for the e500.
First (like for ety's), a correct sleeve/position/seal is very important and as someone mention before, it might be a reason for some divergence.
E500 and 4s are two different beast.
4s are extremely detailed and very tight. In that sound (detailed and tight), I never heard something comparable (headphones and speakers).
My two problems are the power they require and the lake of bass. I think it's nearly flat but knowing that you miss a part of the low content because you can't really feel it with headphones, it's probably "too" flat (its also a question of taste). Anyway, it's not that they can't go very low, actually they go low and they do it very precisely but this lake of bass can make them sometimes a bit aggressive.

E500 are very enjoyable (pricey though) but you really loose something between 2.5 khz and 7 khz. So you miss a lot of details and you loose the consistency of the sound. I can really hear the woofers and the tweeter working separately (which is often the problem with multi voices). Also the bass being more pronounced you can sometimes loose the low end (being hided by the upper notes).
Being more on the analytical side, I prefer the ety's. However if I want to listen more casually and considering the fact I can easily drive them with a portable rig, I might use the e500 for that purpose.

Just me 2ç

 

[opeth]

I used my ER-4s with a XIN Supermini with bass boost. I really liked the sound but I haven't gone back since I have my E500.

I prefer the E500 if only for the fact that they are actualy enjoyable directly out of the iPod. And when doing a direct comparison, after listening to the E500, the Etys treble extension sounded very harsh to me. I too felt that something was missing on the E500, but in a very positive, enjoyable and musical way.

What I don't like about the E500 is that I find myself still having to carry around the Supermini most of the time, since they sound so great with it - with most of the detail and treble extension I could miss from the Etys (obviously without the bass boost enabled).

I find the E500 very sensitive to the source and amplification, also very detailed, accurate and revealing. To me the ER-4s are painfuly revealing: they are wonderful for detecting recording flaws on my home studio, but not as good as the E500 for enjoying music.

 

[tracyrick]

This comparison thread is very good. I have the Ety's. only so far. No matter who you are and what your ears are like, it sounds like a no-brainer that the E500 have more bass/meat to them than the Ety's. I'm not worried about losing a little detail, and I want more meat. My Ety's. sound very very good, crystal clear even, but I want a little more color in my music and it sounds like the E500 add color. I'm not listening to music to mix it, I want to enjoy it. Now to find $350 for a second set of iem's when I already have a very good iem to begin with!

 

[marcan]

I guess each individual will find his way. The difference between 4s and e500 is pretty well felt in this thread.
However I think that at that price the e500 shouldn't have this kind of problem. For a same or a smaller price you might also buy a very good amp that will give you back the meat on the ety's while it'll let you keep a precision and a cohesiveness that the shure don't have...