[Emon]

Meh, I've been using the triflanges cut down to biflanges. It's a bit better but not exactly great. The lack of treble definition just makes them sound kind of cheap. I'm contemplating Shure E4s and a pair of the ER-4P/S.

 

[jesse_w]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdipisReks well, i personally consider the ER-4S to be superior to the DT880 and the HD650 in many ways, so you can guess what i think about the PX100 vs. ER-4S comparison.

I thought so too once, but having owned both concurrently for over a year I've come to realize that the ER-4S is in fact fairly distorted and presents no more detail than the PX100. It is merely far more obvious due to the extremely boosted upper midrange, and isolation. The only reason I can see for preferring the ER-4S is because of a preference for boosted upper mids and subtle bass. The PX100 conversely has boosted bass, but in terms of detail and speed they are on the same level.

jesse

 

[elephantman]

I think u better just sell ur um2s and get er-4p since u alrdy know what sound signature u want, why even bother trying other headphones, argh.

 

[wakked1]

I have both UM2 and ER4P/S. The ER4P seems pleasing at first, but as I get further into each listening session I become less and less satisfied with it. The 4P version is rolled off at the very top and bottom, with a solid emphasis on the midrange. Even with EQ'ing or using the S version, there is still something very unnatural about its decay which lends the sound a very cold and overly-digital character.

In contrast, when I first put in the UM2 my reaction is a bit less positive since the detail isn't right in my face and it sounds a bit dark and muddy, but something about the overall balance and sound quality (with a nice natural presentation and decay) that makes the UM2 sound better the more I listen to it. Stock it has too much bass with almost every ear tip I tried it with, so I did a subtle custom EQ to tone down the bass and bring out the mid-highs. The UM2 in particular sounds great with a Nano and the treble boost "EQ". I find the Shure clear flex tips work best for me, though the gray soft flex tips are close (with more bass but too shouty/glaring on the highs for me).

In an extended listening I vastly prefer the UM2, largely because of the natural headphone-type sound quality vs the rather digital/unnatural and boosted presentation of the ER4Ps, especially in noiser environments where IEMs make sense.

Neither is perfect, and I'll probably keep both since I got a steal on the ER4P (Studiophonic rebranded for $120 new off Amazon). But if I were forced to keep just one, the ER4P would be for sale.

 

[Emon]

Thanks for the responses, people. The UM2s have grown on me, but I think I'm gonna go with something full sized instead.

I'm thinking about returning the UM2s, repairing my Millet Hybrid (and upgrading to discreet buffers) and choosing a new pair of cans to go with those. I'll keep my ER-6s for portable use. The trouble is that my Millet is back at home, and the quarter at RIT doesn't end until thanksgiving week. The wait hurts! But if I want to return the UM2s I have to do it within 30 days so...meh.

I left my HD600/Millet combo at home because I broke my Millet (fried a diode I think) right before I left for school, so I didn't want to bring it with me, especially since I still had to fabricate a cover for the case (made the whole thing from scratch, and it rocks hard

), and because I was kind of sick of that combination. Too dark for me. I'll probably sell my HD600s and use the money to buy some DT 880s or something. I was thinking SR-225s, HF-1s or SR-325is, but I like soundstage and more neutral sound, which the DT 880 should provide. I've read that the discreet buffers are a considerable improvement over the BUF638s on the Millet, so that mesh well with the DT 880s. I do like the warm tube sound, but I don't like the lack of "hi-fi" sound that the Millet seems to have. Hoping those discreet buffers will solve that.

 

[EdipisReks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesse_w I thought so too once, but having owned both concurrently for over a year I've come to realize that the ER-4S is in fact fairly distorted and presents no more detail than the PX100. It is merely far more obvious due to the extremely boosted upper midrange, and isolation. The only reason I can see for preferring the ER-4S is because of a preference for boosted upper mids and subtle bass. The PX100 conversely has boosted bass, but in terms of detail and speed they are on the same level.

i totally disagree. i definitely don't prefer booted upper mids and subtle bass, considering that i'm on team HP-2.

 

[spinali]

Quote:

Once EQ'ed, UM2 sounds like heaven, no E4 can reach them

The UM2 has strong bass -- which is a good thing, because you can always trim some of that away with good EQ/amping. But if there's no bass to start off with, no amount of equalization will be completely convincing.

It sounds like the original poster simply prefers a sound that's more trebly/Ety-sounding -- which IMO is perfectly legitimate. But I don't think it's a matter of one sound being better than the other. It's what kind of music you listen to, and how you like to have it presented.

 

[Emon]

I like a well rounded sound, something that produces all parts of the spectrum equally (or close enough) well. Equalization is acceptable as long as it works well. I found it increased the bass on my HD600 very well. The DSP on the 1212m that is.

 

[Edwood]

The Ety ER4's are very shrilly and sibilant when compared to high end full sized cans.

If you are dissappointed with the UM2, as others have mentioned, try the Shure E4.

I'm borrowing Jasper994's right now, and will be comparing it with the Super.Fi 5 Pro and Ety ER-4S.

So far, the Shure E4 wins hands down for home listening on my reference setup (not in any way portable).

But for portable use, particulary with my Sony PSP, it's another story altogether.

-Ed

 

[Ref]

You guys are not wearing ER-4 correctly. When worn correctly there is no upper-midrange emphasis and no weak bass and you can eat chips.

insert them DEEPER.
read this: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...=140301&page=1

Try the other tips too.

 

[applebook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdipisReks i totally disagree. i definitely don't prefer booted upper mids and subtle bass, considering that i'm on team HP-2.

I am exactly the same way. If anything, I prefer bass over highs or mids but don't consider $100 headphones to be anywhere near as good as high-end IEMs like the upper range Etys.

 

[Jmmmmm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesse_w ...The only reason I can see for preferring the ER-4S is because of a preference for boosted upper mids and subtle bass...

...or perhaps a preference for faithfulness to the recording, as opposed to a euphonic but inaccurate reproduction? Isn't that what being an audiophile (and head-fi?) is all about? Audiophiles should be searching for the most resolving, most accurate (read: flat freq resonse) headphone they can find. The most accurate headphone is the "best" headphone, in absolute terms. It is "better" than a less accurate headphone, even if you prefer the sound of the less accurate 'phone.

If one prefers the euphonic sound, there is nothing wrong with that. I certainly do, to a degree. But he should recognize that is a preference, and "better" is not a preference (unless you disagree on which is more faithful to the recording). The most accurate canalphones I am aware of are the ue10pro's, followed by ety's. I think the e4's are close to those, but that is just my opinion. The good canalphones are certainly better than many headphones over $100.

If you search old posts, the er4's were pretty much regarded as the end all of universal canalphones. For some reason they aren't seen favorably by as many people on here now, though I don't think the er4's have changed much, do you?

[/soapbox]

 

[allenf]

This is strange.
I don't find the ER4S (P with the cable) shrill at all: smooth with possibly the faintest hint of grittiness - which could be my source/amp.
I also find that I get more into their sound as a listening session progresses.
But I don't have the volume cranked up.
People seem to have such an individual response to different canalphones that it might simply be a phone/seal/canal dimension thing..?

 

[probedb]

I have to have treble booster on my iPod with the UM-2s but other than that they sound fantastic, bass is great as is everything else. I'm like you and found the treble rather recessed for my liking but it is detailed once EQed.

 

[bnj]

I was in the same situation when I received my UM2 (with an iPod mini). No trebble at all and bummy bass; I had to use treeble booster too but still was not very impressed with them while I was expecting a bigger improvement from my former E3C. But after several weeks, the sound completly and suddenly changed, in a way I never observed with other hifi stuff.
I don't use trebble booster any longer (I can't stand it now), I use 'latin' Eq. And now I enjoy them (but poorer isolation than e3c imo).


I don't know about HD600, etc., but the sony CD3000 is really superior to UM2, even on the iPod (I find it surprisingly good with the iPod).
For information, with the CD3000, no Eq for classical and other acoustics music, sometimes 'latin' for rock (but I don't use it too much with iPod, of course)