Intro:
Etymotic ER3XR review with a great focus on the difference between the ER3XR and ER4XR.
Delivery Content:
In comparison to the new ER4 series, the delivery content of the two in-ears from the new ER3 series is far simpler - apart from the in-ear itself and the usual paperwork, there are only a few cylindrical foam tips, a pair of large triple-flange silicone tips, a pair of small triple-flange silicone tips, a small storage bag that is already known from my ER-4S, a shirt clip as well as one pair of spare acoustic filters along with a tool to replace them.
Compared to the models of the new ER4 line, the individual performance certificate which includes the frequency response on both sides has therefore been removed from the included accessories, just like the 6.3 to 3.5 mm adapter, half of all ear tips and replacement filters including the small plastic tube for storing them, and lastly the larger transport and storage case.
Looks, Feels, Build Quality:
The housings of the ER3XR are made of metal, but unlike the ER4XR, they are satin black instead of stainless-steel blue. However, they both appear to be of high quality and, in addition to the serial number, also feature a model engraving.
The in-ears of the ER3 series also have removable cables with MMCX connectors that are protected against rotation and therefore have a similar durability and reliability to the old 2-pin connector system of the ER-4S, which was adopted from the Sennheiser HD 6x0 series.
As a result, the ER3 and ER4 series cables are also compatible with each other.
The cable itself is also different from that of the new ER4 models, as it is not only thinner in the ER3XR in direct comparison, but also shorter and has regular wires above the Y-split instead of twisted strands, which is why it transmits a little more cable noise. Fortunately, a chin slide has been implemented.
Even though I think the cable of the new ER4 series is ultimately a bit better, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ER3 cable in terms of flexibility and softness.
The only flaw of the in-ears, as with the two models of the new ER4 series, is that the side markings, which consist of small letters on the sleeves of the cable's connectors, are very small and difficult to see in moderately lit environments.
- - -
Considering that the in-ears of the new ER4 series and the ER3 in-ears use almost identically implemented drivers and are similar in tone and technology (yes, I'm anticipating), one has to ask oneself why there is a noticeable price difference between the two product lines.
Apart from the reduced standard accessories of the ER3 series, the ER3 series in-ears feature other cables, but the different production location (ER3: production in China; ER4: production in the USA) is mainly responsible for this, along with a less stringent quality control and larger permitted manufacturing tolerances for the ER3 series compared to the ER4 models.
It is interesting to note that both sides of the ER3XR unit I received however measure with such minor deviations that they would also manage to pass the stricter ER4 quality control standards with bravery (according to Etymotic's public and generally trustworthy statement, this would likely apply to most ER3 series copies, but unlike the ER4 models, it cannot be guaranteed).
Due
to its lower impedance and higher sensitivity, the ER3XR is also
louder than the ER4XR at the same volume setting and can therefore be
brought to higher volumes with low-power source devices.
Comfort, Isolation:
The in-ears of the ER3 series must be inserted very deeply and the second bend of the ear canal must be passed for the sound to be correct. In the beginning, this may feel irritating or even cause slight pain if you are not used to in-ears that are inserted that deeply; at least I have however no problems with deep insertion anymore and feel no pain.
It is best to insert the in-ears first with the cable down, whereupon you automatically know when the correct insertion depth has been reached. After that you can wrap the cable around your ears, which I also do. This lowers the microphonics (cable noise) to a tolerable level (less microphonics are hardly possible due to the deep insertion, but in combination with an over-ear cable fit and using the chin slider, it can be reduced well).
I have got quite large ear canals, which is why I already had to modify the tips of my ER-4S and the new ER4 series in-ears to achieve a proper and long-lasting seal.
The in-ears of the new ER3 series come with silicone tips already known from the new ER4 series, which have the same dimensions but are made of a different material compared to the old ER4 series tips. To my surprise, the large tips seal well in my large rear canals as the new material is a bit more stable and stickier. Nonetheless, I still have to correct the fit from time to time, which is why I also modified the new tips (by cutting off the smallest flange of the triple-flange tips, then pulling it onto the nozzle and then having the other two lamellas follow – that way I get a very good and constant seal in my ears and the length of the ear tips remains practically unchanged).
Provided the in-ears are correctly inserted and sealed, the sound insulation is very high.
Neutral = Neutral?
There are different studies on what "neutral" should actually look like in the headphone and in-ear realm. To my ears, I've got to say that Etymotic's more diffuse-field oriented approach (ER-4S, ER4SR) sounds the most linear, flat and neutral to me, listening to sine sweeps and music. Your mileage may vary.
Sound:
The correct length of the sound outlet and the correct insertion depth are important for the right sound. The fact that the end of the sound outlet must be very deep in the ear canal, after the second bend of the ear canal, should be clear after the section “comfort, isolation”.
However, the correct length of the ear tips is at least as important. As described above, I'm using the ER3XR with the standard large triple-flange silicone tips, which I've modified to provide a good seal in my large ear canals while retaining their length. With other ear tips (e.g. single flange and thus shorter length of the sound tube) the sound in my ears was audibly changed and not the way it should be (only the long, cylindrical foam tips included by Etymotic sound almost identical to the triple-flange tips in my ears, but I generally don’t like to use foam tips with in-ears.
Tonality:
Like already the ER4XR, the ER3XR is probably exactly the kind of in-ear that some owners of the ER-4S/SR who were not completely satisfied with them have always dreamt of - an in-ear with Etymotic’s very neutral and harmonious, coherent and natural midrange and high frequency tuning, but with a little bit more bass presence compared to their S/SR models that are tuned for a diffuse-field neutral bass response.
Basically, what you get is a flat, neutral midrange and treble, combined with an emphasis on the bass range that starts in the middle fundamental range and slowly climbs towards the low bass, where its maximum peak is located.
Nevertheless, the sound is still far from being really “bassy”, because the ER3XR has just as much quantity in the low frequency range as other in-ears that are usually classified as largely neutral, but do not measure with a slightly/somewhat elevated bass response compared to the diffuse-field target (not necessarily because their creators are incompetent and do not know what a flat signature is supposed to look like, but rather because of other aspects such as the compensation of the missing perception of mechanical vibrations in in-ears or the tuning based on subjectively perceived neutrality (that Etymotic also addressed in their “case of the missing 6 dB” study)).
I am very tempted to just copy the section "Tonality" of my ER4XR review right here because the ER3XR really sounds very similar to this one - the differences are only expressed in fine details, with a really only slightly “warmer” character of the ER3XR, along with slightly more treble relaxation.
Resolution:
If you think that the ER3 series resolves worse than the models from the new ER4 line, you are wrong since that is just not the case.
Also the ER3XR offers very good speech intelligibility and fine resolution of small details, accompanied by a precise separation of single notes in the high frequency range and a good and especially fast as well as tight bass which however sometimes tends to become slightly unclean in complex and fast pieces, without the beats and bass lines being badly separated from each other or appearing soft yet.
The Ety doesn't fully reach the resolution and headroom level of some more expensive multi-BA flagships and in-ears, but no one really expects that from it. Both types, wideband and multi-BA designs, have their own advantages and disadvantages. And for a single-BA In-Ear, the ER3XR, typically dor Ety, is one of the better, if not the best, single-BA models on the market.
Soundstage:
The soundstage of the ER3XR is neither the smallest nor the largest, but represents average dimensions and appears a little wider than deep, yet has a good amount of spatial depth and is well-layered. This makes the imaginary soundstage appear realistic and, in particular, coherent to the listener.
The placement of instruments is very precise and fogging is avoided, although the ER3SE performs even a tad better in a direct comparison.
Comfort, Isolation:
The in-ears of the ER3 series must be inserted very deeply and the second bend of the ear canal must be passed for the sound to be correct. In the beginning, this may feel irritating or even cause slight pain if you are not used to in-ears that are inserted that deeply; at least I have however no problems with deep insertion anymore and feel no pain.
It is best to insert the in-ears first with the cable down, whereupon you automatically know when the correct insertion depth has been reached. After that you can wrap the cable around your ears, which I also do. This lowers the microphonics (cable noise) to a tolerable level (less microphonics are hardly possible due to the deep insertion, but in combination with an over-ear cable fit and using the chin slider, it can be reduced well).
I have got quite large ear canals, which is why I already had to modify the tips of my ER-4S and the new ER4 series in-ears to achieve a proper and long-lasting seal.
The in-ears of the new ER3 series come with silicone tips already known from the new ER4 series, which have the same dimensions but are made of a different material compared to the old ER4 series tips. To my surprise, the large tips seal well in my large rear canals as the new material is a bit more stable and stickier. Nonetheless, I still have to correct the fit from time to time, which is why I also modified the new tips (by cutting off the smallest flange of the triple-flange tips, then pulling it onto the nozzle and then having the other two lamellas follow – that way I get a very good and constant seal in my ears and the length of the ear tips remains practically unchanged).
Provided the in-ears are correctly inserted and sealed, the sound insulation is very high.
Neutral = Neutral?
There are different studies on what "neutral" should actually look like in the headphone and in-ear realm. To my ears, I've got to say that Etymotic's more diffuse-field oriented approach (ER-4S, ER4SR) sounds the most linear, flat and neutral to me, listening to sine sweeps and music. Your mileage may vary.
Sound:
The correct length of the sound outlet and the correct insertion depth are important for the right sound. The fact that the end of the sound outlet must be very deep in the ear canal, after the second bend of the ear canal, should be clear after the section “comfort, isolation”.
However, the correct length of the ear tips is at least as important. As described above, I'm using the ER3XR with the standard large triple-flange silicone tips, which I've modified to provide a good seal in my large ear canals while retaining their length. With other ear tips (e.g. single flange and thus shorter length of the sound tube) the sound in my ears was audibly changed and not the way it should be (only the long, cylindrical foam tips included by Etymotic sound almost identical to the triple-flange tips in my ears, but I generally don’t like to use foam tips with in-ears.
Tonality:
Like already the ER4XR, the ER3XR is probably exactly the kind of in-ear that some owners of the ER-4S/SR who were not completely satisfied with them have always dreamt of - an in-ear with Etymotic’s very neutral and harmonious, coherent and natural midrange and high frequency tuning, but with a little bit more bass presence compared to their S/SR models that are tuned for a diffuse-field neutral bass response.
Basically, what you get is a flat, neutral midrange and treble, combined with an emphasis on the bass range that starts in the middle fundamental range and slowly climbs towards the low bass, where its maximum peak is located.
Nevertheless, the sound is still far from being really “bassy”, because the ER3XR has just as much quantity in the low frequency range as other in-ears that are usually classified as largely neutral, but do not measure with a slightly/somewhat elevated bass response compared to the diffuse-field target (not necessarily because their creators are incompetent and do not know what a flat signature is supposed to look like, but rather because of other aspects such as the compensation of the missing perception of mechanical vibrations in in-ears or the tuning based on subjectively perceived neutrality (that Etymotic also addressed in their “case of the missing 6 dB” study)).
I am very tempted to just copy the section "Tonality" of my ER4XR review right here because the ER3XR really sounds very similar to this one - the differences are only expressed in fine details, with a really only slightly “warmer” character of the ER3XR, along with slightly more treble relaxation.
Resolution:
If you think that the ER3 series resolves worse than the models from the new ER4 line, you are wrong since that is just not the case.
Also the ER3XR offers very good speech intelligibility and fine resolution of small details, accompanied by a precise separation of single notes in the high frequency range and a good and especially fast as well as tight bass which however sometimes tends to become slightly unclean in complex and fast pieces, without the beats and bass lines being badly separated from each other or appearing soft yet.
The Ety doesn't fully reach the resolution and headroom level of some more expensive multi-BA flagships and in-ears, but no one really expects that from it. Both types, wideband and multi-BA designs, have their own advantages and disadvantages. And for a single-BA In-Ear, the ER3XR, typically dor Ety, is one of the better, if not the best, single-BA models on the market.
Soundstage:
The soundstage of the ER3XR is neither the smallest nor the largest, but represents average dimensions and appears a little wider than deep, yet has a good amount of spatial depth and is well-layered. This makes the imaginary soundstage appear realistic and, in particular, coherent to the listener.
The placement of instruments is very precise and fogging is avoided, although the ER3SE performs even a tad better in a direct comparison.
---------
In Comparison with other In-Ears:
Etymotic ER4XR:
The tonal differences between the ER3XR and ER4XR are less pronounced than between the ER3SE and ER4SR (speaking of the units I have on hand), which is why the ER3XR and ER4XR could be described as almost similar. For example, the differences between the two in-ears are about as small as the side matching differences of one and the same in-ear from most other manufacturers (and I’m not talking about clearly mismatched models but rather in-ears that measure with a really, really tight channel matching).
In the mid and low bass, both in-ears are the same. Only in the upper bass and fundamental range the ER3XR has a little more warmth and impact (if you can talk about it at all with an Etymotic In-Ear).
The ER3XR is only slightly less present in the presence area.
Solely around 6 and 7 kHz, there is a "more obvious" difference between the two in-ears: the ER3XR is a bit more relaxed here.
In the upper highs, the ER3XR is again a little more relaxed, albeit only slightly, which can be however heard in the reproduction of cymbals.
Apart from that, both in-ears are similarly tuned in the mid- and sub-bass, as well as regarding the central midrange and treble extension. As a result, I would call the ER3XR the "better" alternative to the ER4XR due to its virtually similar resolution performance - only for users who plan to use the in-ear for serious music production, the upcharge for the ER4XR could still be worthwhile because of its ultimately ever so slightly higher flatness in the fundamental range and high frequency response, provided that what you are looking for is an in-ear with a compensation for the viscerally perceived mechanical vibrations in the lows, which the XR models somewhat compensate for with their bass elevation compared to in-ears with a diffuse-field flat bass tuning (that the SR/S/SE models have).
When it comes to details and resolution, both in-ears are equal - the only difference is that the ER3XR appears minimally softer in bass, but the impression disappears when you slightly lower its lower fundamental range and upper bass, bringing it exactly to ER4XR levels.
The spatial representation of both in-ears is equally precise and realistic, with equally good layering and separation of the imaginary events.
The ER4XR seems to have slightly more width, but this is due to its slightly louder treble compared to the ER3XR.
Etymotic ER3SE:
The ER3XR behaves in the same way as the ER4XR behaves in relation to the ER4SR: somewhat elevated, but still perceived as neutral by many manufacturers and enthusiasts, continuous low frequency response to compensate for the lack of viscerally perceived mechanical bass vibrations in in-ears and headphones, slightly less present presence range (only measurable and not really audible on the ER3 models), a slightly brighter upper treble response.
In terms of detail retrieval, speech intelligibility and instrument separation, both in-ears are equal.
However, they differ in the low frequency range - here the ER3XR seems to be less clean compared to the ER3SE. At this point, I would also like to correct my statements in the reviews of the two in-ears of the new ER4 series: again, the XR model sounds a little less clean in the bass range and fundamental range than the SR version (in my original reviews I spoke of the same bass quality - this may apply to the tightness and speed, but not to the cleanliness of the bass).
In terms of soundstage presentation, the ER3XR has slightly less spatial depth to my ears, but at the same time slightly more width and a very slightly less precise separation of instruments.
Conclusion:
Just like the ER4XR, Etymotic’s ER3XR can also be seen as the alternative for all those who find the ER4SR and ER3SE to be too flat/boring in the bass and too diffuse-field neutral, and instead see the more popular low frequency tuning now adopted by the XR series which compensates for the lack of the visceral perception of mechanical vibrations that are lacking in headphones, to be the more “correct” one since it is mild and rises continuously wherefore many people perceive just that as actually “neutral” and more correct as in mimicking the subjective perception of neutral monitoring speakers in an acoustically treated environment.
Those who can get along without the slightly "more precise" tonal tuning of the ER4XR, the production site USA, the individually created performance certificate and the more extensive standard accessories and those who are not bothered by the relatively less strict quality control, will find a cheaper alternative to the enormously similar ER4XR in the ER3XR, which is tuned almost identically with only small differences and very largely shares the same technical performance, also in terms of spatial reproduction.
So if I had to choose, I would personally go for the ER4SR for flatness and neutrality, and the ER3XR for a bit more bass and body.