[MaloS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif My ears are just fine and I have absolutely no hearing loss whatsoever. The other IEMs sound flat and unnatural because there is a massive suckout in the region that the human ear normally boosts. Every time any sound enters your ear, (assuming you're not some kind of mutant) the area from around 2 to 5kHz or so is boosted above the rest of the frequencies. So when you have an IEM that has a drop-off of 10 or in some cases nearly 15dB in the same area, it's going to sound terrible. Well, to me it sounds terrible. No, nor will I ever, because I have enough experience to know that I wouldn't like them at all.

1. how many headphones have you owned and listened to for prolonged periods of time?
2. area from 2 to 5khz is boosted that much, hm, so why am i hearing the Sennheiser veil pretty clearly as opposed to UM2?
3. Honestly what are you trying to prove here?! Headphones are generally made for majority of the public to listen to, and etymotics are not something that MAJORITY will like. To me they are too bright. What does that state about my ears? I am a guitarist, I am well acquainted with sound of many acoustic and electric instruments, and the way Etymotics reproduce them in MY ears is not natural, not even talking about how those instruments sound in a concert hall. Right now all you proved is that you like Etymotics better. Not that anyone doubts that.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaloS /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. how many headphones have you owned and listened to for prolonged periods of time?

1. Let's see. I've had the Sony MDR-V600 (ack), Grado SR-60, Sr-225, AKG K501, UE SF5P, Shure E4G, HD650 ER-4B and ER-4S so far.

Quote:

2. area from 2 to 5khz is boosted that much, hm, so why am i hearing the Sennheiser veil pretty clearly as opposed to UM2?

It probably has something to do with the shape of your ears. You can't really directly compare a headphone and IEM like that, anyway.

Quote:

3. Honestly what are you trying to prove here?!

Nothing really, just arguing for the sake of it.

You know, I'd be really interested to hear the other manufacturers rationales for designing their IEMs the way they do. Is there something euphonic about a sucked-out midrange? Does the majority of the population have severe sensitivity in that area? Is it to counteract the habit of mixers making their albums too bright in that area? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[MaloS]

Then let this case rest please, its done so much and is absolutely unnecessary.

And on the case of the suck-out:
1. Most headphones are designed aiming to reproduce life-like sound, where the bar of comparison is concert hall sound. Concert halls eat the high frequencies pretty badly.
2. One fine example of the case of high frequencies is my roommate - he gets headaches just from small resonance in our dining room where he keeps his piano. The resonances happen upon particular notes (some objects rattling at that frequency), and it drives him nuts. I can't hear as well as he can (although I can hear the resonances, I can't hear the particular frequencies on one note that bothered him most), and I am happy I can't (I still can hear CRT whine and such and they drive me nuts too). This does not make for the majority of populations with such extreme cases, but there are other things that bother alot of people at those frequencies still.
3. Alot of solidstate distortion lies in that range actually for cheaper sources, combined with the loudness war it can produce pretty ****** sounds. Shure is not targeting just the audiophile market, keep that in mind.

Thats just few examples, there are other reasons, but they are not technical limitations of the designs.

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif My ears are just fine and I have absolutely no hearing loss whatsoever. The other IEMs sound flat and unnatural because there is a massive suckout in the region that the human ear normally boosts. According to Wikipedia: "Amplification of sound by the pinna, tympanic membrane and middle ear cause an increase in level of about 10 to 15 dB in a frequency range of 1.5 kHz to 7 kHz." This is normal and this is how we hear sound in our daily lives. So when you have an IEM that has a drop-off of 10 or in some cases nearly 15dB in the same area, it's going to sound terrible. Well, to me it sounds terrible. No, nor will I ever, because I have enough experience to know that I wouldn't like them at all. I know what kind of sound I like and I know that the TF and E500 are technically incapable of producing that kind of sound. I'm not going to waste my time trying them out, unless somebody wants to loan me a pair.

Re: 1st paragraph:

Huh??? What kind of mumbo jumbo is that? If you can't tell that the TFP is MUCH more spacious sounding you DO have hearing issues.

Edit: Oh, so you haven't even tried them....never mind.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Re: 1st paragraph: Huh??? What kind of mumbo jumbo is that? If you can't tell that the TFP is MUCH more spacious sounding you DO have hearing issues.

I've never noticed a difference in the soundstage or spatial presentation with ANY IEM. The 5 pro, E4 and ER4 all sound equally small inside my head.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Re: 1st paragraph: Huh??? What kind of mumbo jumbo is that? If you can't tell that the TFP is MUCH more spacious sounding you DO have hearing issues. Edit: Oh, so you haven't even tried them....never mind.

Yeah I mean cmon. U just need to hear them to know the TFPs or the E500s sound more realistic. Unfortunatelly im gonna have to return the awesome TFPs, because I cant afford to keep both, and I cant return the E500s anyways.

 

[ProleArtThreat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif My ears are just fine and I have absolutely no hearing loss whatsoever. The other IEMs sound flat and unnatural because there is a massive suckout in the region that the human ear normally boosts. According to Wikipedia: "Amplification of sound by the pinna, tympanic membrane and middle ear cause an increase in level of about 10 to 15 dB in a frequency range of 1.5 kHz to 7 kHz." This is normal and this is how we hear sound in our daily lives. So when you have an IEM that has a drop-off of 10 or in some cases nearly 15dB in the same area, it's going to sound terrible. Well, to me it sounds terrible. No, nor will I ever, because I have enough experience to know that I wouldn't like them at all. I know what kind of sound I like and I know that the TF and E500 are technically incapable of producing that kind of sound. I'm not going to waste my time trying them out, unless somebody wants to loan me a pair.

So you feel qualified to speak about phones you've never even heard before based solely on frequency graphs? And you wonder why some people call you out as a fanboy?

I like my Etys too, but they're not right for everyone, even for those looking for the most "neutral" IEM. FWIW, I actually think the Shure E4 is more neutral and balanced than the ER-4P/S, although I still prefer my Etys.

I wish people on this board giving advice to other people would restrict their recommendations and descriptions to things they've actually had some experience with.

 

[Raphael]

Jeez, so much hating! Let's accept they're both good headphones and made for different purposes. I've personally never heard a Shure, but I have used a variety of their microphones, mixing boards etc, and they haven't been too bad in quality. I wasn't too impressed with their build quality though. Now speaking in terms of earphones, I have heard several of Sennheiser's HD series thoroughly, KSC-75, SA3000 and owned a pair of Ety ER-6i, and now am settled with the ER-4S.

And I must agree with some others, yes, the etys sounded very thin, in particular the ER-6i. However, amplification is absolutely crucial with the phones, as well as a good source. Even my iPod lineout with a an amp didn't provide wonderful sound. While I cannot vouch for the Shures, the Etys sound absolutely mind-blowingly wonderful, and absolutely natural, with no shrill or thin sound at all. But this depends heavily on the source and the amplification being used to drive them. I disagree with using them directly through a portable mp3 player or a laptop soundcard and such. Having experienced the shrill sound of Etys, I thought they were unnatural, and even after burning them in. This went on for over a year. Without an excellent source and good amplification, comparing it to other earphones do not provide a fair comparison. Yes, they are that hungry... but you won't notice what they are capable of till you feed them. And if you are honestly going to compare them in terms of neutrality, don't judge using the ER-4P. Go with the ER-4S.

 

[GravY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif My ears are just fine and I have absolutely no hearing loss whatsoever. The other IEMs sound flat and unnatural because there is a massive suckout in the region that the human ear normally boosts. According to Wikipedia: "Amplification of sound by the pinna, tympanic membrane and middle ear cause an increase in level of about 10 to 15 dB in a frequency range of 1.5 kHz to 7 kHz." This is normal and this is how we hear sound in our daily lives. So when you have an IEM that has a drop-off of 10 or in some cases nearly 15dB in the same area, it's going to sound terrible. Well, to me it sounds terrible.

if your ears are boosting and the IEMs are dropping by the same margin wouldnt it even itself out and give you a more even sound?

 

[niknik]

Thanks for the review and for some interesting comments. Made me consider to try a pair of E500.

I have a pair of Etys and I love them. I also hate them -for being so very close to the PERFECT iem for me but not just quite. When I first got them I was amazed with their clarity (and I still am). BUT for me there was just a little amount of bass missing and the highs could get hard on some recordings and specially if I wanted to listen LOUD. I got the Xin SuperMini and now I use them with the bass boost the SuperMini has. For me that turned them into much more full bodied and well balanced experience and made them perfect for me. Almost.. The highs are still to hard for me on some recordings. What bothers me the most is when I get excited from a song and want to really crank it up all the way, the highs (on all recordings) bothers my ears. I have been hesitant to replace them since the phones I have heard after I got the Etys all have sounded veiled -and I would rather live with the hard highs than getting a veiled sounding iem. And that's what I love with the Etys -that I feel that there is absolutely nothing between me and the music. No veil. That's how I hear it anyway. But I need to find out if there is a iem out there that puts me as close the music as the Etys with extended highs that doesn't hurt my ears when I play loud as the ETys does. I havn't persued it since I thought I'd have to go to custom molds -more expensive than the E500- to suit my needs. But maybe the E500 will suit my needs, hmm......................

 

[Mr Iriver]

Maybe. The TFP sound closer to the signature of the etys, but with improvements all over the frequency spectrum. Its like a near flawless Er4. I prefer the E500, but the signature is a lil further from the Etys. The TFPs and the E500s are in the same level though so either pair should suit u.

 

[CMasten]

I have the Etys and E500s. If I had to choose just one, no doubt it would be the E500s, but there is something very addictive about the Etys.. the armatures in it are just so damn fast... and like my Grados, they just bring a crisp to the upper transient part of my music that for some genres I totally prefer. If you want it loud and/or want to listen for hours on end, the E500 is the most non fatiguing and satisfying IEM I own, but there are times when I want to pick out some SRV, Eric Johnson, or Michael Hedges and nothing is quite as enjoyable to me for guitar as the Ety... so it has a place in my line up as well. I also find that my IM716's have the fast attack up top with a better bottom end than my Etys since I replaced the pod inline. Sometimes they do just the trick for a particular group or album, all of these are running through my Hornet for reference.

 

[Trager]

Funny, i didn't think the TFP soundstage was much better than my Ety ER-4P phones. The bass was very nice, but the midrange recession got to me after a while. I tried the TFPs for a month, only allowing myself to go back to my Ety's after a couple of weeks of use, and then only sparingly. I just couldn't get used to the lack of energy in vocals with the TFPs. I'd rather deal with the slight bass recession on the ER-4P than the midrange recession on the TFPs.

Part of the difference may be that I tend to listen to my IEMs at a fairly quiet volume. With my ER-4P straight out of my iPod (workout mode), I rarely cross 40% volume, and that's with my AACs normalized to 89.5 dB.

Honestly, I think it's funny to read about people who complain about Etymotic harshness and then show love for the TFP. To me, the TFP highs actually sounded harsher because of the muted upper midrange. I found them a bit more fatiguing than my Etymotics, and don't even get me started on the ergonomics. The lack of isolation was a major point against those phones for me, forcing me to listen at a significantly higher volume than I usually prefer.