[ubercaffeinated]

which tips do you guys use for the W4?
 
I've only ever used ety iems which get shoved in a lot deeper into the ear - the W4 in contrast seems to sit more outside, and consequently, comply foamies even in size large for both P and T series, don't give a solid seal. they sort of sit in there, albeit comfortably, and are not loose enough to fall out.
 
the medium shure olives give a better fit, because they aren't as pliable - might have to get a large on those and try it out.
 
recommendations? i understand that the W4 won't provide the kind of isolation that the ety iems provided, but i'm hoping to achieve a more solid seal before getting a um56.

 

[shotgunshane]

Earsonics new bi-flange were my favorites. A slightly deeper seal but still very comfortable. Best part was the larger sound hole. It let more treble and upper mids through. Also gave me the best bass response too. I understand sensorcom's bi-flange may be identical. The ES fit without any kind modification.

 

[ericp10]

I basically use three different tips for the best sound (and seal) for my ears. The large oval Westone silicone tips, the large Shure olives, or the medium/large Monster white foam hybrids (with a spacer in them so that it won't fall out).
 
Quote:

which tips do you guys use for the W4?
 
I've only ever used ety iems which get shoved in a lot deeper into the ear - the W4 in contrast seems to sit more outside, and consequently, comply foamies even in size large for both P and T series, don't give a solid seal. they sort of sit in there, albeit comfortably, and are not loose enough to fall out.
 
the medium shure olives give a better fit, because they aren't as pliable - might have to get a large on those and try it out.
 
recommendations? i understand that the W4 won't provide the kind of isolation that the ety iems provided, but i'm hoping to achieve a more solid seal before getting a um56.

 

 

[Freefallr4545]

Quote:

What you are describing is almost exactly how I eq'd them when I had them.

Ah the blessed Hellride. Is that a Killer album or what

 

[shotgunshane]

It is. It was my favorite until Order of the Black came out.

 

[Naim.F.C]

Eric do you still prefer your 1964-Q's to your W4's?

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

Eric do you still prefer your 1964-Q's to your W4's?

Yes, I stil prefer the 1964-Q, but the W4 is close in a few ways and does a lot of things right. Neither has the same sound signature. I think the W4's sound signature is a bit darker than the Quad's. And while the W4 has the quality, it can't compete with the quality/quantity combination of bass that the 1964-Q possesses. Both have great instrument separation, and both have great treble. Now, the Quad's treble is presented a lot smoother (same extension though) than the W4's highs. Some may like this, others may not.

 

[i2ehan]

Quote:

Yes, I stil prefer the 1964-Q, but the W4 is close in a few ways and does a lot of things right. Neither has the same sound signature. I think the W4's sound signature is a bit darker than the Quad's. And while the W4 has the quality, it can't compete with the quality/quantity combination of bass that the 1964-Q possesses. Both have great instrument separation, and both have great treble. Now, the Quad's treble is presented a lot smoother (same extension though) than the W4's highs. Some may like this, others may not.

 
Not even with the Zo?

 

[lucozade]

@ Ericp. Can you describe how the quads treble is smoother than the w4 treble for all us that are not fortunate enough to have both ,

 
 thanks eric buddy ?

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

 
Not even with the Zo?

Well, that's cheating, don't you think? But the yes, lots of bass with the Zo. But I haven't tried the 1964-Q with the Zo (doubt I would need it). Anyway, if you want to count in the Zo then it simply comes down to sound signature preference other than which one is technically superior. I think the 1964-Q is technically superior to the W4 somewhat (i.e. I hear more clarity and transparency in the Quad), but I really prefer the Quad over the W4 based on sound preference. I mean we are in a lot of gray area now when trying to say which ones sounds better. I really don't want to try to attempt that at this level. So I will just say that I like the 1964-Q's sound signature better than the W4, but the Westone is really close. On the end of the equation, the GR07 is really close to the W4. The lines between great sounding IEMs (universal or custom) are becoming rapidly blurred IMO.

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

@ Ericp. Can you describe how the quads treble is smoother than the w4 treble for all us that are not fortunate enough to have both ,

 
 thanks eric buddy ?

Hey luco buddy... Hmmm? To some smoother means warmer, but I don't think the sound signature  of the Quad is warmer than the W4. So, I would use the words harsh and soft. You have to remember that the 1964-Q is designed to be an onstage in-ear monitor. The W4 is more audiophile earphone. This means that the treble of the Quad was tuned to a point where when musicians use it at higher volumes on stage the treble wouldn't cause them ear damage. Yes, the extension is there, but it's tuned in such a way that some people think it's not greatly extended in the treble region. It is, however, with great details in the highs too.

Now, you play the W4 at that same volume and for my ears the treble is going to be too harsh or brash. It's going to leave my ears ringing. Yet, the W4 still has great extension and details in the highs too. Did that help buddy? If not, I'll try again (unless someone else would like to take a crack at explaining it better than I did).

 

[i2ehan]

Quote:

Well, that's cheating, don't you think? But the yes, lots of bass with the Zo. But I haven't tried the 1964-Q with the Zo (doubt I would need it). Anyway, if you want to count in the Zo then it simply comes down to sound signature preference other than which one is technically superior. I think the 1964-Q is technically superior to the W4 somewhat (i.e. I hear more clarity and transparency in the Quad), but I really prefer the Quad over the W4 based on sound preference. I mean we are in a lot of gray area now when trying to say which ones sounds better. I really don't want to try to attempt that at this level. So I will just say that I like the 1964-Q's sound signature better than the W4, but the Westone is really close. On the end of the equation, the GR07 is really close to the W4. The lines between great sounding IEMs (universal or custom) are becoming rapidly blurred IMO.

I wouldn't necessarily call it cheating. If anything, I'd say it's merely utilizing the means available. If it's there, why not make use of it?
 
And while I've very little experience with customs, I have to say, the universals at present leave little to be desired.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

Now, you play the W4 at that same volume and for my ears the treble is going to be too harsh or brash. It's going to leave my ears ringing. Yet, the W4 still has great extension and details in the highs too. Did that help buddy? If not, I'll try again (unless someone else would like to take a crack at explaining it better than I did).

 
 
I think you're the first person to consider the W4's treble harsh... even going as far as calling it "too harsh".
 
I'm sure that even at louder volumes the vast majority of people would agree that not only is the W4's treble smooth, but some have even perceived/considered it to be lacking sparkle/crispness/brightness.

 

[WisdomListens]

Quote:

Hey luco buddy... Hmmm? To some smoother means warmer, but I don't think the sound signature  of the Quad is warmer than the W4. So, I would use the words harsh and soft. You have to remember that the 1964-Q is designed to be an onstage in-ear monitor. The W4 is more audiophile earphone. This means that the treble of the Quad was tuned to a point where when musicians use it at higher volumes on stage the treble wouldn't cause them ear damage. Yes, the extension is there, but it's tuned in such a way that some people think it's not greatly extended in the treble region. It is, however, with great details in the highs too.

Now, you play the W4 at that same volume and for my ears the treble is going to be too harsh or brash. It's going to leave my ears ringing. Yet, the W4 still has great extension and details in the highs too. Did that help buddy? If not, I'll try again (unless someone else would like to take a crack at explaining it better than I did).

Does the ZO help with the 'harsh' treble?

 

[ericp10]

Two things: I was giving my analogy of what smooth treble is and the difference between the Quad and W4 TO MY EARS (as luco asked me), and I completely related both IEMs as to how I hear them (not what anyone else would say). That is fine if someone else has a different perspective. Since you have apparently heard the W4 and now the 1964-Q, we welcome your analogy?

I yield the floor to you.

 
Quote:

 
 
I think you're the first person to consider the W4's treble harsh... even going as far as calling it "too harsh".
 
I'm sure that even at louder volumes the vast majority of people would agree that not only is the W4's treble smooth, but some have even perceived/considered it to be lacking sparkle/crispness/brightness.