[romydevilla]

Which of the three ER4 models is best? Which one can compete head-on with the likes of Sensas, ES2s, and UE10/11?

My vote goes to ER4B - easily beats UM2, Shure E5/500 (these are the ones I've actually heard).

Comments as well please. Thanks!

 

[Mr_Happy]

I would vote for the 4p as it can easily be changed into a 4s with the 4p to 4s cable. Also I'm curious to why you chose the 4B? It's for binaural recordings and won't sound it's best with stereo recordings.

 

[romydevilla]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Happy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would vote for the 4p as it can easily be changed into a 4s with the 4p to 4s cable. Also I'm curious to why you chose the 4B? It's for binaural recordings and won't sound it's best with stereo recordings.

It sounds bigger (lesser in-your-head experience) and has smoother highs than 4S. Been looking around for binaural recordings so I can hear how different they are from usual stereo recordings.

Also, when I use my custom earmoulds, 4B sounds like a full headphone.

 

[malushi88]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Altec Lansing iM716 have the same driver as the ER4P?

Could I use the P -> S cable on the iM716?

 

[Aevum]

the issue is that the impedance on the ER-4S isnt added on the cable, from what i heard around the forum, the coil for the armature is thicker to produce a higher impedance, so a ER-4P with a P to S convertor might sound differently then a natural S,

the other issue is can the ER-4B sound as good as the ER-4S when used for stereo recordings,

 

[d.phens]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aevum /img/forum/go_quote.gif the issue is that the impedance on the ER-4S isnt added on the cable, from what i heard around the forum, the coil for the armature is thicker to produce a higher impedance, so a ER-4P with a P to S convertor might sound differently then a natural S, the other issue is can the ER-4B sound as good as the ER-4S when used for stereo recordings,

But the armature is known to be the same from what I know.
It's all the same Knowles model. Most IEMs use that manufacturer's products.
Where did you read it?

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by romydevilla /img/forum/go_quote.gif It sounds bigger (lesser in-your-head experience) and has smoother highs than 4S. Been looking around for binaural recordings so I can hear how different they are from usual stereo recordings. Also, when I use my custom earmoulds, 4B sounds like a full headphone.

The ER4B has 5db more in the 10kHz region, but that it all. It will not sound any different on binaural recordings, because these days most of them are properly equalized. The ER4B is for listening to recordings that haven't been equalized for loudspeaker playback.

I had the 4Bs, thought the highs were too out of place, went back to the 4S and have been happy there.

Quote:

the issue is that the impedance on the ER-4S isnt added on the cable, from what i heard around the forum, the coil for the armature is thicker to produce a higher impedance, so a ER-4P with a P to S convertor might sound differently then a natural S, the other issue is can the ER-4B sound as good as the ER-4S when used for stereo recordings,

Incorrect. The impedance is added by resistors placed in the pod on the cable. The drawings and descriptions from the patent application prove this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etymotic This electrical filtering operation is found to be highly desirable, permitting the use of an amount of acoustic damping sufficient to smooth out peaks in the acoustic responses of the earphones 11 and 12 while obtaining optimum frequency response characteristics. By way of example, the value of each of the resistors 78, 80, 82 and 84 may be 100 ohms and the value of each of the capacitors 77 and 81 may be 0.22 microfarads. The circuit board 76 and the parts thereon preferably have quite small dimensions. Each of the resistor and capacitor parts preferably has maximum dimensions of 0.150".times.0.300".times.0.100". These dimensions are desirable to obtain a compact junction unit and are such that if desired, as when a single earphone is to be used, the filter for each filter might be located within the earphone, e.g. between the receiver 18 and the end cap 29. In a two earphone assembly such as the illustrated assembly 10, however, it is generally preferable to locate the filters in the junction unit 15.

I don't know who made up the assertion about the coil, but it is just that: made up, and completely incorrect.