[Vertigo-1]

In my quest to find brighter headphones, I decided to give these a try since they were stated as being specifically bright. I got to listen to them for about 3 days, and compared them to the 4S, before my right ear decided to check out.

Basically, they're not bright, not in the screechy brightness style at least. There's just a tad bit more treble than the 4S, and the midrange is much drier. The bass response is about the same.

At first I thought the 4B just sounded extremely clear, but after a longer session with them, I just noticed a sense of fatigue...and I think this is where the brightness comes in. It won't bite you at first, but it'll bite you in the long run.

In comparsion, the 4S has a warmer, more musical midrange, with slightly rolled off treble compared to the 4B. Before I would have thought the 4S were the official reference, but compared to the 4B, they're simply musical, and hardly the reference Etys IMHO.

Given all this, I would, without hesitation, pick the 4B as the ultimate reference 'phone out of everything that I've owned. We're talking drop dead accurate to the extreme. Exceptionally clean sounding, very clear. In this aspect, I agree with Dan Pumphrey, and would call these the reference Etys in the ER4 lineup, and to use as a dead drop reference against other 'phones.

I'd love to use these more, except my ears demand a break from it all. But the 4Bs are hardly known and bought much...I'm here to offer my recommendation for them if you want sheer accuracy and details. Also highly recommended if you want just a tad more treble to the 4S, the 4Bs will give you that extra last bit of treble, without overdoing it.

 

[Peddler]

When comparing my Ety 4P's with my Sony 888's (unmodified) I sometimes find that there's a little more treble content with the 888's.

I still prefer the Ety's for REFERENCE listening though - they are remarkable - whether you're using them as the P or S model.

Interestly though - I definitely prefer the sound of the 888's when listening to MP3's played on my Iriver2 - perhaps they just match the player better but I even tolerate listening to 128's with the 888's (oh - look at all em numbers!).

 

[chych]

So vertigo, have you... tried listening to... binaural recordings yet?

 

[BDA_ABAT]

I've been using the 888s on and off for ~ a month. They definately have treble... to the point of being too bright for my ears!

The 888's seem to have a very nice, very clear sound in the mid range but almost too much at the high end. Seems to me that the brightness is not well balanced with the low end.... the bass is not as well represented as the treble. Although I have not (yet!) had the pleasure of listening to Etys, the common thread from Ety owners and reviewers has been the presence of clear and present bottom end in addition to clear highs.

Just my $0.02.

Bruce

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

if you want just a tad more treble to the 4S, the 4Bs will give you that extra last bit of treble, without overdoing it.

But you also said that the 4B can be fatiguing; isn't that overdoing it?

As for "reference" I've heard different things. In fact at one point didn't Don himself say that the 4S were the reference? I'm confused

 

[Vertigo-1]

Yes, Don himself did say the 4S was the reference ER4. I believe on a graph, it has the flattest response (though not completely flat of course) of the three. Yet to my ears, the 4S has a good deal of a warmer midrange, and the 4B sounds much cleaner and certainly clearer, especially in the upper midrange area. Most folks probably wouldn't want to use the 4B for music because of its extreme nature of revealing everything. On the other hand, some instruments tend to sound more real out of it...more sharpness to things, etc.

chych, I have not heard binaural recordings with the 4B, but I have heard those types of recordings before, and needless to say, they're stellar.

 

[chych]

But.... Vertigo, cmon, the whole point of the "B" in ER-4B is Binaural... listen to something binaural already!

 

[d_wilson]

The ER-4B comes closest to matching the diffuse-field response of the ear. The problem is that no one listens in a true diffuse field. There is absorption due to carpet, drapes, etc. Because of this, all commercial recordings are boosted in the high frequencies.

This is why the ER-4S is about 5dB lower than the diffuse field response at 10kHz. There are a number of studies in JASA, and AES, referenced on our manual. We also did our own studiy with about 20 people from the Chicago chapter of the Audio Engineering Society, doing A-B-A comparisons with flat louspeakers and ER-4's.

Don Wilson
Etymotic Research