[ZARIM]

I want to buy these IEMs because i like to hear more details in the music and so far ER4P/S are most resolving IEMs but one thing pulling me back is it's small soundstage. Iam wondering if ER4P/S users can give me impression about it's soundstage(wideth) if compared to other IEMs like E3c, Klipsch X10 and E4c. As some users say it's thin sounding but how it's more balanced when instrument require more space and body to shows the full details, please explain.

 

[dan1son]

I've had mine for years and I've had absolutely no want or need to get something to replace them. I use them primarily in bed at night, when mowing, and when traveling (plane ride, hotel, etc.).

They have a very small soundstage as the sound is pushed right into your head. That being said, I don't find that to be a problem at all and have many moments where I'm completely engrossed in the music and don't even realize they're still there. Some recordings have more queues for placement and it's not hard to feel like the room is huge with them if the recording is like that. I've listened to E2Cs, E4Cs, and TripleFi 10pros. The soundstage is about the same to me.

They're amazingly detailed. You can hear everything in the recording (to faults I might add). I find the bass to be full and accurate, the midrange is a little flat (compared to my Grados), and the highs seem wonderful to me. They're all about accuracy and it shows. They don't have the "exciting" elements like the Grados have, but they are more than capable of being fun with every type of music I've ever thrown at them. They do excel at female vocals, IMHO.

The isolation is top knotch. I've started using the new "glider" tips exclusively and they work great. Can't hear anything around me.

 

[nc8000]

To me the glider tips didn't do it at all, they completely weirded the midrange and treble out. One thing they did do though was to provide a wider soundstage, probably due to the fact that the driver is a bit further away from the eardrum than with any of the other tips. I now use Shure black olives but with a spacer at the bottom of the stem before putting the olive on. This spacer is the 3 mm silicone ring that I have cut from between the flanges on a tri-flange tip. This works great for me om both my ER4's and my HF2. I absolutely love the ER4 and have been using them for around 7-8 years now. Many othe phones and iem's have come but mostly also gone but the ER4 has stayed.

 

[jaw2ek]

I don't have ER4, but my HF5's have a similar design (if not the exact same SQ) With my HF5, I find that if I place them right, I get excellent soundstage. I just this week switched to the small foam tips. Although the SQ is best when I put them in as far as they will go, I get a wider and more coherent sountstage if I put them in about halfway.

 

[nc8000]

I find that especially the bass suffers if they are not pushed all the way in as the cavity between the tip and the inner ear gets bigger. This is exactly what the spacer mod addresses. It keeps the tip all the way in but still gets the driver further from the ear drum.

 

[3X0]

I have done something similar to nc8000 (instead of a washer, though, I just use the snipped smallest flange from turning a pair of tri-flanges into bi-flanges). I have also modified the tip bore by stretching them out over a 3.5mm plug over a week. I feel the soundstage is an improvement but I am not sure I like the overall sound over the original configuration. If Unique Melody/Null Audio offered a custom re-shell option for the ER-4 I would look into that as it seems customs offer wider soundstage over universal variants (moreso than even custom tips).

 

[nc8000]

I have not tried to expand the bore but am confident that the narrower bore on the glider is what weirds the sound out.

 

[Pangaea]

This really is an IEM that has stood the test of time. It was always my favorite but found myself getting out of portable audio about a yr ago and sold them. Now I have a need for another quality pr of IEMs and while I am intrigued by some of the newer models (the Klipsch S4 in particular) I find myself also looking again at the ER4P. The detail and the treble was outstanding. Its funny that after all this time no one (even Ety) has really put out a pr that beats them in their class.

 

[mvw2]

The sound stage of the ER4 is one of its best aspects. The ER4 is not thin sounding. It's actually quite robust. I would say it lacks a tiny bit in dynamics, but I'm nitpicking really. The thinness is a comment probably more directed at the bass as the notes have good body and articulation to them with thorough attack and decay. The ER4 does roll off in response at 60Hz. Since common bass information can run down to 40Hz, it tends to make the bottom end slightly anemic. The ER4 responds well to EQing though, and this isn't to say the bass is lacking above 60Hz. Midbass is actually quite good. 60Hz to 12kHz is covered well, and you can EQ the response to your liking. Amping is suggested, but less of an issue at quieter levels. The ER4 is well engineered structurally and durably built. It's an IEM that can take a beating, heavy duty cabling, reliefs.

I always felt I should have kept mine, but I wanted to get away from owning a pile of earphones.

My favorite tip I ran with it was Shure's foam sleeves.
http://store.shure.com/store/shure/e...ctID.105436100

 

[Antony6555]

Honestly, I don't see how some er-4 fans can objectively say that they don't lack bass presence. I like bright phones (my lambdas are some of my favorite full-size headphones), but even compared to the lambdas, my er-4 has recessed bass and mids as well (though mids on lambda are also very recessed.) This is what prevents them from being truly neutral phones. Still, they have better treble extension and detail than anything in their price range, in my experience. I can't imagine a better iem for acoustic music at this price (though male vocals sound weird, as they do on my lambdas as well.) But for non-acoustic music, I think you could do better.

Also, I don't recommend the shure black foamies as they recess the highs considerably. When I switched to the triple flanges, it was like getting a whole new phone.

 

[mvw2]

Lack in my definition is less then (ear) flat using some form of unbiased test. I prefer pink noise. In my testing, the frequency response remained good out to 60Hz. From there it gently rolled off in output. Etymotic's frequency response information shows it perceived out to 20Hz, but that may be some form of ideal state or person dependent. I don't know.

This isn't to say that the ER4 isn't lacking relative to personal preference. but that will vary by user. Most folks have never attempted to find what neutral really sounds like. It too me years and hundreds of listening to pink noise and EQing sessions on a wide variety of configurations to get good at it. I can tell you that a LOT of earphones are colored, some heavily. Most folks enjoy a colored presentation and have long become used to it. Anything outside of this "norm" becomes wrong. Most people don't know where the center point nor the range in swing from this center that is available.

From Etymotic:
Etymotic Research, Inc. - How we measure response accuracy

Take it how you want.

I tried a variety of tips on my ER4S including an array of rubber/silicon tips and a couple different kinds of foam. There weren't significant changes with the tips other then how well they sealed and their comfort. There was a little variation but not much. I've used other IEMs that seemed to vary more. I liked the Shure foams. I didn't notice any real change in response from them versus other options including the triple flanges(tried several sizes of these too).

I can understand the "recessed" comments. Versus more in-your-face options, the sound is farther away and indirect versus some other earphones. I personally feel this is a necessary aspect in order to create space and depth. It's not so much a frequency response issue as it is a presentation issue. I personally really liked the presentation of the ER4. I can see where you're coming from though, but that starts to get to be a matter of preference. For example, the Phonak PFE with the gray filter has a frequency response very near the ER4 within a few dB over the majority of the frequency range. It is far more direct and in your face. You could say it completely lacks that recessed attribute, but at the same time the stage presence lacks. You get much less space and location from it. My ER4S was the only IEM where I could really "see" the instruments and singers and stage space. It's the only one I've used that offered such cues so well.

 

[dragoonf144]

With biflange, soundstage is on par with my shure SE530 with black foams. Probably a tad smaller than the IE8s (i'd say maybe 1cm smaller radius)(this is with a full seal, not half seal like other people do). THat or my songs suck in soundstage, though i did try that virtual haircut thing.

In terms of recess mids, i found tht the triple flanges just weirded things out and made things over the place. Biflange made it very flat and sounds very similar to shure SE530 with treble boost on ipod.

 

[Aria]

Would anyone recommend upgrading form the ER4P to IE8 just for the soundstage?

Thoughts?

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aria /img/forum/go_quote.gif Would anyone recommend upgrading form the ER4P to IE8 just for the soundstage? Thoughts?

Having owned the IE 8, it's not really an upgrade. The soundstage is a noticeable improvement, but the ER-4P offers more clarity and resolution.

I don't consider the SE530 or TF10pro to be upgrades to the ER-4P either, so this says nothing bad about the IE 8 (which is a superb unit).

 

[dragoonf144]

I agree with 3X0.

Though i felt the soundstage was bigger, imaging was pretty blurry compared to the ER4Ps. It also felt that it (IE8s) was bleeding into other areas in the the stage.