Fit and Comfort

Seen above are the three types of ear tips that come with the Etymotic EVO, in size M for the silicone tips, installed on the right ear bud and inserted into an artificial ear mold. I have averagely sized ears, and the ear mold seen above about perfectly represents my own experiences. Size M silicone tips are my go-to for testing since foam tips are not included by some, and I personally think the double-flanged silicone tips work best here as well. The triple-flanged ones are between sizes of comfort, with the larger one a touch too tight and the smaller one not sealing as well. The foam tip is just too large for me and had the ear buds keep coming out of the ears. The size of the ear buds is about average too, with the curved design enabling good contact at multiple planes and not just discrete points. This combined with the average weight of ~7 g means they are comfortable to use as long as you understand that you need to insert the nozzle and ear tips further in than you think. It can get somewhat disconcerting the first time around, but gets easier soon after, to where comfort absolutely turns from a potential negative to a positive here.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

This section is easy enough to talk about because we don't know any specifics about what is going on inside—Etymotic is all about getting a flat, neutral, accurate response with its tuning, which typically means going with a full-range balanced armature driver. No information is provided about the exact driver the company uses, and with the EVO, it is three balanced armature drivers for the first time over the single one to date. This allows for two-way crossover which, if tuned properly, can create that same neutral signature, but allows for a wider soundstage. As mentioned before, the acoustic chamber is also different from anything else Etymotic. With a rated impedance of 47 Ω, driving the hardware takes more than usual for IEMs, so while an aftermarket amplifier is not necessarily required, you should consider a portable DAC/amp with enough gain to drive these properly. It's not a bad idea anyway when considering IEMs and other audio solutions in the price range these operate in. The lack of a 3.5 mm audio jack for most phones these days is another reason to consider a DAC/amp that takes digital input and provides a 3.5 mm jack since you will otherwise have to use an adapter anyway, or even a dedicated DAP. If not on the go, space is less of an issue, but the relatively short cable might be a potential handicap if connecting to a PC as the audio source. Etymotic also rates the signal sensitivity at 99 dB and a frequency response of 10 Hz to 16 kHz, but good luck fully making use of that range!

Frequency Measurement and Listening

I will mention that I have a general preference for a warm neutral signature emphasizing a slightly elevated bass and smooth treble range with detailed mids and good tonal separation. I also generally prefer instrumental music over vocals, with favored genres including jazz and classical music.


Our reproducible testing methodology begins with a calibrated IEC711 audio coupler/artificial ear that ear buds can feed into to where there is decent isolation similar to real ears. The audio coupler feeds into a USB sound card, which in turn goes to a laptop that has ARTA and REW running and the earphones connected to the laptop through the sound card. I begin with an impulse measurement to test for signal fidelity, calibrate the sound card and channel output, account for floor noise, and finally test the frequency response of each channel separately. Octave smoothing is at the 1/6th setting, which nets a good balance of detail and noise not being identified as useful data. Also, the default tuning was used for testing, and no app-based settings were chosen unless specifically mentioned. Each sample of interest is tested thrice with separate mounts to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the three individual measurements for statistical accuracy. For IEMs, I am also using the ear mold that fits to the audio coupler for a separate test to compare how the IEMs fare when installed in an ear geometry and not just the audio coupler by itself. The raw data is then exported from REW and plotted in OriginPro for easier comparison.


The IEC711 is such that you can't really compare these results with most other test setups, just within our own library of measurements. This is also why I am trialing just omitting the raw dB numbers altogether, noting instead that I had set the SPL to 75 dB in REW. More useful information is how the left and right channels work across the rated frequency response in the Etymotic EVO earphones, or at least the useful part of it. The left earbud was separately tested from the right one, and colored differently for contrast. I did my best to ensure an identical fit for both inside the IEC711 orifice, so note how the two are quite identical most of the time. Indeed, there is at most a 1 dB difference between the two aside from the peak around 8–9 kHz, which also feels like a measurement artifact since I could not really tell the difference in person, and there was something else more distracting going on anyway. I will also mention that there was no discernible break-in period or effect, so high marks for reproducibility and consistency since the average response for each channel is also basically the same across the three repeated tests for each.

I have deviated from the usual and posted the ear mold test here in advance because I felt the treble range was jumpier than the IEC711 alone suggests. Note the jump in the measurement too, so at least that is consistent with my own experiences to where I could well have EQ'd the highs somewhat to be more consistent.

I also hear your questions immediately—how is this frequency response considered flat with that rise followed by the significant hump in the 2–6 kHz range? Aha, you see, these are in-ear headphones, so they have to respond to ear canal resonances and that hump is used to compensate for it. I could go on about reference curves, the Harmon preference, and probably will separately if I have time. But suffice it to say that the hump is indeed part of the neutral response as you hear it. This is also why there is subtle sub-bass energy that then dwindles as you get to the mid-bass and then the mids proper. There is not much to talk about when it comes to the choice of tuning thus, but note that Etymotic has its own target curve that was developed before the Harmon one was even a thing, and that the whole point here is accuracy.

Accurate it is too, so much so that these are the closest to a reference set of IEMs as any I have tested. You hear and better appreciate music as it was recorded and mixed by the artist. Many will have a complaint with this, and many others will absolutely adore these. These can be your portable set of monitor headphones too, at least in the sub-8 kHz region since things get a bit wonky depending on the seal and your specific ears after that. Cymbals and triangles are affected the most, but pretty much everything else when it comes to music genres is spot on for neutral sound lovers. The Campfire Audio Satsuma came close but lost out at an even earlier frequency. ThieAudio with the tribrid Monarch gives you more range, but is clearly tuned with its own target curve in mind to where you definitely get an elevated bass and treble response there. I would have to go to reference headphones next to get more comparisons in, and that is a statement I was not expecting to make anytime soon. You do lose out on soundstage compared to reference monitor headphones, of course, but Etymotic did a fantastic job keeping tonal integrity and an accurate response coupled with clear imaging of the source sound signals while still providing enough of a sense of depth to where I can understand the reason for this multi-driver approach over the tried-and-tested single balanced armature approach thus far.


Before we move on, I wanted to confirm the seal effect with some testing. Everyone has different ears, and ear tips can only do so much to accommodate everything. This is why different sizes and materials of ear tips are included with most earphones, and then Etymotic takes it up a notch with the inclusion of only multi-flanged silicone tips. The blue line above is the same as before, but I have done two more tests with the red curve for when I had the double-flanged ear tip not inserted as far into the IEC711 orifice as possible, but rather in line with the opening as with most other silicone ear tips. Notice the similarly jumpy response as with the artificial ear mold to act as an ear and cheek simulator, albeit to a lower extent. This is a clear-cut case of the seal being less than ideal, which may indicate that had I bought these to use, I would likely have to try using the triple-flanged tips even if they are not the most comfortable. Speaking of which, clearly the audio coupler orifice was sealed tremendously already, so the triple-flanged tips just had a massive drop-off in the treble range even noting that the IEC711 is not the most accurate in that region. The rest of the response is incredibly identical, even after having normalized it at 1 kHz to be able to compare and contrast the differences further. The key takeaway remains what Etymotic stresses all the time: get a really good seal and try multiple ear tips to achieve it.