[AndyKatz]

I also have both the e4s & e500. I find the former sound extremely precise, but shrill after using the e500 for an extended period. There's no need of adjustment going the other way--from 4s to 500--however. They are both exceptional iems, but I think the e500 combines precision with fullness of sound better than the etymotic.

Andy

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Etys may not work for you, but no other non-custom IEM even begins to approach their level of accuracy or neutrality.

WOW, are you sure?

I think there are a lot of people who would disagree with that statement, especially in relation to Shure E500 or UE triple.fi.

-Matt

 

[PiccoloNamek]

The ER4 is accurate like a good studio monitor loudspeaker; flat, neutral. The E500 and TF10P are not.

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyfrenchman27 /img/forum/go_quote.gif WOW, are you sure?

I agree with him, at least against the E500. I haven't heard the Triple.Fi 10 Pro yet, but the E500 much more colored than the ER4.. both have good precision but the ER4 is a lot more accurate and a lot more neutral, no question. I don't even find the debate arguable for the side of E500.. but that's just me.

 

[javahut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Etys may not work for you, but no other non-custom IEM even begins to approach their level of accuracy or neutrality.

Man, this is getting so old. Don't you Ety guys have anything else to do besides sit on this board and post how super accurate your IEMs are compared to anything else in existence? There are many other IEMs, many of which out perform your Etys... yes, in giving a truer, more accurate representation of what was intended in the source material. In my estimation, it seems there are many more people who find the Etys lacking in low end frequencies than those that don't. Even Ety lovers qualify their accuracy by saying the low end is "tight" or "fast"... just another way of saying light in the low end. Even Flavio posts on his sight that most of his customers think they're light in the low end... and then say they agree.

Give it a rest already. Stop insisting that Etys are the end all be all of accuracy in IEMs. It's just not true.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

I hardly ever even make posts concerning the ER4s, or even IEMs in general, anymore.

Quote:

There are many other IEMs, many of which out perform your Etys... yes, in giving a truer, more accurate representation of what was intended in the source material.

There is a difference between what was intended, and what is, you know. I look to my Etys to give me what is, without any colorations in the sound.

Concerning the low end: In my own IEM journey, I started with an IEM that has a LOT of bass, then switched to one that had less bass, then switched to my ER4s, which have even less bass. But I like their bass the most. It is tight, it is fast, and it the most realistic and accurate I've heard so far.

 

[ferraro25]

I find the ER4P to sound neutral once I EQ out that ridiculous hump that starts around 1KHz and ends around 8KHz. The artificial, "this is a recording" (and thin) sound of the ER4P is lessened quite a bit once the hump is corrected. Graph straight from Etymotic can be found here. Supposedly that is supposed to sound "neutral," but I definitely hear that hill. I might have oddly-shaped ear canals.

 

[bellsprout]

Quote:

Originally Posted by javahut /img/forum/go_quote.gif Man, this is getting so old. Don't you Ety guys have anything else to do besides sit on this board and post how super accurate your IEMs are compared to anything else in existence? There are many other IEMs, many of which out perform your Etys... yes, in giving a truer, more accurate representation of what was intended in the source material. In my estimation, it seems there are many more people who find the Etys lacking in low end frequencies than those that don't. Even Ety lovers qualify their accuracy by saying the low end is "tight" or "fast"... just another way of saying light in the low end. Even Flavio posts on his sight that most of his customers think they're light in the low end... and then say they agree. Give it a rest already. Stop insisting that Etys are the end all be all of accuracy in IEMs. It's just not true.

do u have anything better to do than dis an iem u've never heard?

transient speed directly relates to bass response What?

if a bunch of people think it has less than desirable bass response, that quantifies the iem as being bass deficient, especially when frequency response can be and has been accurately measured?

what's the end all be all in accuracy in iems? <--oh yea ue10 pros no ****

 

[Mercuttio]

Actually, Piccolo, I've seen quite a few posts where you laud the ER4. However, that doesn't make you any less right. I've heard quite a few other IEMs, and while some of them sound better than the ER4 (E500) they do add a good deal of their own special "flavor" to the sound. Somebody telling you that your phones aren't "flat" or "accurate" doesn't make them any less good, does it? Remember, this is coming from a person who prefers an RS1 to a K1000.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Of course you have. But I don't really make them any more. In fact, my posting rate in general has gone down quite a bit.

 

[Mercuttio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course you have. But I don't really make them any more. In fact, my posting rate in general has gone down quite a bit.

No way your posting rate has gone as low as mine, though!

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by javahut /img/forum/go_quote.gif Man, this is getting so old. Don't you Ety guys have anything else to do besides sit on this board and post how super accurate your IEMs are compared to anything else in existence? There are many other IEMs, many of which out perform your Etys... yes, in giving a truer, more accurate representation of what was intended in the source material. In my estimation, it seems there are many more people who find the Etys lacking in low end frequencies than those that don't. Even Ety lovers qualify their accuracy by saying the low end is "tight" or "fast"... just another way of saying light in the low end. Even Flavio posts on his sight that most of his customers think they're light in the low end... and then say they agree. Give it a rest already. Stop insisting that Etys are the end all be all of accuracy in IEMs. It's just not true.

Other IEM accentuates the frequencies that shouldn't be accentuated. The ER4's not "light" on bass.. it expresses exactly the amount of bass present in the recording. Accentuating the bass response isn't an "accurate representation of what was intended in the source material." It's more like butchering neutrality and truthful accuracy in favor of a more fun sound. They're two wildly different ends; people may appreciate one or the other but they should not be confused.

 

[kuden]

the Westone 3 might be what you'd want . you'll get all the comfort,low micro' etc you're used to , they won't have induced bumps in the frequency range according to their thread here so they'd be neutral,and with 3 separate drivers for low,mid and high they are probably going to be some of the best

 

[javahut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellsprout /img/forum/go_quote.gif if a bunch of people think it has less than desirable bass response, that quantifies the iem as being bass deficient, especially when frequency response can be and has been accurately measured? what's the end all be all in accuracy in iems? <--oh yea ue10 pros no ****

That's the point... there is no end all be all of "accuracy". Accuracy in only in the perception of it. If you look at Ety's graph of true "accuracy", the ER4 is anything BUT accurate. At about 3K, there's a difference of around 10 db between that and their low end... that is A LOT of difference. Obviously, Ety hasn't factored in that everyone's ears are not built the same and do not follow their graph of "listener's percieved response", and therefore some people hear this bump in the frequency response, which make's the low end 10 db down in respect to that graph. Therfore, if you want total "accuracy", as you say, you can't go be Ety's "perceived response"... you go by "what actually is", which is up to a 10 db difference between the highest point on the graph and the Low end. If on the other hand, you believe Ety's "perceived response", then you must also agree that people have different "perceived reponses"... and that, by default, means that there's no one IEM that is perfectly accurate for everyone... including Ety. Which then means, by default, that any given IEM can be more or less accurate for any given individual... which means Ety is not "the" most accurate IEM. Accuracy is only present in the perception (straight from Ety's graph). For me, and apparently lot's of others, Ety's are not accurate. There is no one IEM that's the most accurate for everyone. So stop saying the Ety's are.

 

[bellsprout]

Quote:

Originally Posted by javahut /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's the point... there is no end all be all of "accuracy". Accuracy in only in the perception of it. If you look at Ety's graph of true "accuracy", the ER4 is anything BUT accurate. At about 3K, there's a difference of around 10 db between that and their low end... that is A LOT of difference. Obviously, Ety hasn't factored in that everyone's ears are not built the same and do not follow their graph of "listener's percieved response", and therefore some people hear this bump in the frequency response, which make's the low end 10 db down in respect to that graph. Therfore, if you want total "accuracy", as you say, you can't go be Ety's "perceived response"... you go by "what actually is", which is up to a 10 db difference between the highest point on the graph and the Low end. If on the other hand, you believe Ety's "perceived response", then you must also agree that people have different "perceived reponses"... and that, by default, means that there's no one IEM that is perfectly accurate for everyone... including Ety. Which then means, by default, that any given IEM can be more or less accurate for any given individual... which means Ety is not "the" most accurate IEM. Accuracy is only present in the perception (straight from Ety's graph). For me, and apparently lot's of others, Ety's are not accurate. There is no one IEM that's the most accurate for everyone. So stop saying the Ety's are.

ear canals aren't THAT different. er-4 frequency response is not perfectly flat, of course, just flatter than others, even with the bump in the upper mids whether that intentional or not, it's still within +-5db rms, which is fairly admirable. it's not a straight line, but it doesnt slope downwards. i don't know where u got 10db from. in fact, e500's drop down to -10db at the same point and triple fi's are even worse. have a closer look at the 2k to 6k performance - etys do much better.

that's it with flatness, except to say if ur ear canals make UM2's sound flat, u got some pretty ****ed up ear canals.

and accuracy is more to do with detail than flatness. detail is more dependent on driver speed. faster the driver reacts to an input transient, more detail is resolved. there's little argument ety's drivers have the best resolution.

anyway quit hating on etys. i have them, but i recommend them for what they are and i don't recommend them to everyone. u coming in this topic saying how much u hate etys is not constructive in the least, neither is criticising people who recommend them. saying there are many iem's more accurate than er-4, just because u don't like their sound, is preposterous.