This & That:
Just like on the ER3SE, "SE" stands for "Studio Edition", indicating a flat tuning.
One dynamic driver per side. Sealed (non-vented) shells.
Quite sparse delivery content (similar to that of the ER3 models) compared to the new ER4 series in-ears as well as in general (one pair of green replacement filters along with a metal tool to remove them, one shirt clip, one pair of cylindrical foam tips, two pairs of differently sized triple-flange silicone tips, a small carrying pouch/case (that is pretty much similar to the one that came with my ER-4S)).
High build quality.
I really like the metal shells’ blue colour – it’s definitely my favourite colour among the ER2, ER3 and ER4 series.
Pretty supple and flexible cable that seems to be highly comparable to that of the ER3 series except for that the ER2SE’s metal y-splitter’s colour is blue, just like the shells.
MMCX connectors with a locking pin so that they do not rotate, which should hopefully make them much more reliable compared to regular MMCX connectors.
A chin-slider is present.
Unfortunately, the side-indicators are quite small and difficult to see (the same applies to the ER3 and new ER4 series in-ears) – it would have been better if there were a red dot on the cable’s right side connector, similar to my ER-4S.
Sound:
Low impedance sources.
Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it on the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).
Tonality:
In short: mostly flat neutral. Quite diffuse-field oriented sound signature that sounds tonally accurate, realistic, natural and mostly flat.
Tonally, it is very close to the ER4SR and ER3SR, although not fully similar to either, and is somewhere between both (as both are already not far apart in terms of tuning at all, this also means that the ER2SE is very close to both and that the differences between all three models, while definitely audible, are rather small, and that it is very obvious what tuning target they reach for, and they achieve it very, very well – one could theoretically say that the ER2SE and ER3SE are the very slightly more consumer-oriented, less lifeless-flat-sterile sounding alternatives to the ER4SR (/ER-4S) while the XR models add a bit more bass excitement (or compensation for the different bass perception present on headphones and in-ears compared to loudspeakers) to the same sound tuning philosophy). As such, the ER2SE’s bass quantity is similar to that of the ER3SR, which has got just a little more quantity than the ER4SR (between one and two dB), which makes it sound just a little warmer in comparison. Sub-bass extension is good – flat without any roll-off down to 30 Hz, with just a little drop below that.
The lower and central midrange are basically similar to that of the ER3SE (and also very close to the ER4SR, although with just a little more warmth), but the presence range and upper midrange are presented just a little differently – here, the ER2SE’s quantity falls between that of the other two, with a slightly more present presence range compared to the ER3SE, while it is still a little more relaxed compared to the ER4SR here, which makes it sound comparatively less “exhausting” after long listening sessions as well as a bit less close/intimate in the midrange.
The midrange timbre is on point and highly natural – but nothing really less was to be expected compared to all of Etymotic’s previous in-ear releases.
The highs are ultimately closer to that of the ER4SR, with just a little more quantity compared to the ER3SE.
Listening to sine sweeps, the ER2SE, just like every other Etymotic in-ear that I own/have reviewed, sounds just as even, smooth and realistic in the treble, without any unevenness such as peaks or sudden, narrow dips respectively areas that are subdued. On the ER2SE, I can hear the area around 5 kHz to be a bit in the background, whereas this mild recession is somewhat higher on the other Etymotic in-ears to my ears (around 7 kHz on the ER4SR, ER3SE any my ER-4S), which is something that only very, very few in-ears manage to achieve, wherefore the ER2SE sounds highly realistic and accurate in the highs, too.
Super treble extension above 10 kHz is good.
- - -
So, yeah, flat, neutral, accurate and tonally correct, but just a little less “sterile neutral” than the ER4SR, and just a little less “slightly emotional neutral” than the ER3SE (one has to keep in mind that all three are ultimately still really close in terms of tuning). Excellent.
On a side-note, the ER2SE is most likely the flattest, most neutral dynamic driver in-ear that exists. As a result, it is my favourite neutral-tuned dynamic driver in-ear.
Resolution:
Despite a mostly identical bass response as the ER3SE, the ER2SE is slightly different at reproducing the subjectively perceived bass texture and perceived impact and seems a little more “layered”; lower bass notes seem to be subjectively slightly better perceptible on the ER2SE despite a pretty much similar amplitude response in the bass and similarly good seal with both in-ears.
As a small trade-off, the ER2SE’s bass feels somewhat softer and a little slower (the decay seems to be slightly longer) in direct comparison to the ER3SE, which leads to a natural but nonetheless precise presentation (compared to the vast majority of other dynamic driver in-ears, the ER2SE’s bass is definitely among the best when it comes to tightness and speed, and only beaten by very few in-ears).
Overall resolution is very high and comparable to Etymotic’s ER3, ER-4 and ER4 series in-ears, even though after some extensive switching back and forth, it seems to be subjectively just slightly below. However, where the ER2SE definitely differs is perceived “cleanness”, as compared to the ER3SE, even though the ER3SE appears to remain slightly more controlled with fast and busy music material and seems to have the slightly higher speech intelligibility, the ER2SE, when compared directly, doesn’t have any “grain” whereas the ER3SE sounds “grainier” and with less “empty” space around the notes, which is especially noticeable in the midrange, wherefore the ER2SE sounds less “grainy”, which gives it a presentation that could be subjectively described as more “layered”.
The highs, just like the rest, are highly detailed and precise as well as clean.
Compared to the ER3SE, the ER2SE’s treble texture is slightly softer, with cymbals and high instruments that are rendered with less hard edges but nonetheless very precisely.
- - -
Overall, a really interesting presentation – subjectively perceived details that are comparable to the BA-only Etymotic models, even though perhaps slightly lower, but an overall somewhat different “texture” as well as less “grainy” and more “layered” sound.
Definitely highly natural, coherent, precise and with more “character” than the other ER series in-ears despite a highly comparably flat-neutral tuning.
Soundstage:
The soundstage sounds highly authentic; it is overall a bit wider than deep. Actually, it is fairly wide, and feels generally larger than “average”, and is subjectively perceived as being slightly larger (especially in terms of spatial width) than that of Etymotic’s single-BA in-ears from the ER-4, ER4 and ER3 line. Not a big difference, but still noticeable in direct comparison, while the spatial depth seems to be pretty much similar.
The imaging is precise with accurate instrument placement as well as separation and a believable presentation of spatial “emptiness” between instruments. Fast, dense and complex tracks don’t put much stress on the perceived soundstage and it remains mostly intact, with only a bit of blur emerging, however subjectively slightly less when compared to Etymotic’s BA-only ER series, which makes the ER2SE’s soundstage appear overall just a little cleaner and more precise when compared directly.
- - - - - - - - -
Compared to other Single Dynamic Driver In-Ears:
HiFiman RE400i (with largest included Dual-Flange Silicone Tips):
Apart from the bass and root, the two are tuned quite comparably neutral, with the ER2SE however still taking the lead in the end due to its higher treble linearity and evenness (my RE400i is a bit more forward in the lower upper and upper highs, with more metallic, less realistic sounding cymbals compared to the Etymotic).
In the bass and root, the HiFiman has an elevation that is stronger than the ER2SE’s by around 4 dB, which makes it sound bassier and warmer (therefore its tuning would be more comparable to the ER4XR’s).
The HiFiman’s bass texture is softer compared to the Etymotic, and the ER2SE sounds somewhat tighter in the lows, too. The Ety’s bass control is superior.
In terms of resolution, I see the ER2SE one or two leagues above my RE400i – it just sounds cleaner and its minute detail resolution is higher, just like its speech intelligibility and note separation in fast and busy parts of the music.
The ER2SE’s soundstage appears larger than that of my HiFiman, especially in terms of spatial depth and three-dimensionality, while the spatial width is more or less comparable.
The imaging (instrument placement and separation) and especially the portrayal of “emptiness” around and between instruments is more precise on the ER2SE.
Fostex TE-02WP:
My Fostex, while tuned mostly neutral, is oriented more around my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors’ tuning than that of the ER2SE, which means that the Fostex has got a bass that is stronger by around 1.5 to 2 dB compared to the Ety.
Through the midrange and treble, the ER2SE is flatter and more realistic, coherent, whereas the Fostex has got a more relaxed presence range but is brighter and splashier in the upper highs (cymbals) in comparison – still very good, but definitely one or two steps below the Ety. As a result of the higher treble linearity and evenness, the Etymotic sounds more natural and accurate in the treble compared to the Fostex.
The Fostex’s bass appears slightly tighter and faster, and the Fostex’s general fine detail resolution seems to be just a smidgen higher as well; the Ety sounds less “grainy” and more “layered” in direct comparison, though.
In terms of soundstage, the ER2SE’s seems to be somewhat wider.
The portrayal of “emptiness” around and between instruments is done somewhat better by the Etymotic. The same goes for the imaging.
Conclusion:
Flat-neutral yet not fully sterile and/or lifeless sound signature; even and highly natural and especially with a highly linear and realistic treble that I’m already used to from the other Etymotic in-ears I have on hand.
Most likely the flattest, most neutral dynamic driver in-ear available.
Bass tuning mostly similar to that of the ER3SE, but with a slightly different perceived texture.
Not “just” an alternative to the ER3SE with a comparatively more direct treble tuning, but a true alternative due to the general presentation (driver’s somewhat different portrayal of texture, timbre and grain) that makes it sound subjectively less lifeless and gives it a bit more “character”.
Definitely an excellent in-ear.