Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › 1964 Ears (The Appreciation Thread)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

1964 Ears (The Appreciation Thread) - Page 215

post #3211 of 5154
Quote:
Originally Posted by RingingEars View Post


I want customs...normal_smile%20.gif

If you have the money I say get the 1964-D's, so even if you decide you don't like customs for whatever reason you still have your UM2-RC's. Also who knows, you might just like the D's sound better.

 

And you can do a comparison and/or review of the Dual's since we don't have enough of those around.

post #3212 of 5154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizz View Post

If you have the money I say get the 1964-D's, so even if you decide you don't like customs for whatever reason you still have your UM2-RC's. Also who knows, you might just like the D's sound better.

 

And you can do a comparison and/or review of the Dual's since we don't have enough of those around.


This is more about sound than the $$$. I really like the UM2 sound. I bought a pair of the W4 after I bought the UM2 and I sent the W4 back.

I think I'm just a dual driver kind of a guy. Sometimes less is more I guess.

I had the Vmoda M-80 and still preferred the UM2.

The UM2 just has a laid back, easy to listen to treble with a great "snap", for lack of a better term, to the mid-range.

If the Ds are comparable or better than I would definitely opt for those...

post #3213 of 5154

I got my Quads a week ago, and I have used them in a variety of settings in the past 7 days: at the gym, practicing with my bass through Pro Tools, and at church with the Aviom monitoring system.

 

at the gym, it just seemed to be like a better version of headphones, a little more detail in the sound, but not so much low end as I thought. fit was good, but i still have a tough time getting them out. i'll get it figured out.

 

first jam with my bass (Jackson JS3V) the low end was rockin. it sounded great, better than my AKG headphones.

 

second jam with different bass (Schecter California Custom) the low end knocked me out! i could hear my bass better than ever!

 

finally, church yesterday. kick drum and bass were awesome! the singers were right in my face (ok, in my head) and everything had a nice separation to it. all that, and i don't need to rip my head off with volume like i do with other buds.

 

i got the black cord, since i heard the silver oxidizes sooner. i may go with something a little more custom later on.

 

my ears.jpg

post #3214 of 5154
Quote:
Originally Posted by RingingEars View Post


This is more about sound than the $$$. I really like the UM2 sound. I bought a pair of the W4 after I bought the UM2 and I sent the W4 back.
I think I'm just a dual driver kind of a guy. Sometimes less is more I guess.
I had the Vmoda M-80 and still preferred the UM2.
The UM2 just has a laid back, easy to listen to treble with a great "snap", for lack of a better term, to the mid-range.
If the Ds are comparable or better than I would definitely opt for those...

Nothing wrong with that - the UM2 is a classic, and still sounds great to this day. I would shoot an email to the folks at 1964 and ask if they have heard the UM2, and if so how it will compare to their dual model. They are nice, honest people who would probably rather have a reshell and a happy customer than sell their own design, if it isn't going to work out for your preferences. They work in the biz so they probably have dealt with the UM2 before.
post #3215 of 5154
Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post


Nothing wrong with that - the UM2 is a classic, and still sounds great to this day. I would shoot an email to the folks at 1964 and ask if they have heard the UM2, and if so how it will compare to their dual model. They are nice, honest people who would probably rather have a reshell and a happy customer than sell their own design, if it isn't going to work out for your preferences. They work in the biz so they probably have dealt with the UM2 before.


You're probably right. That's good advise....

post #3216 of 5154
Quote:
Originally Posted by RingingEars View Post


You're probably right. That's good advise....


I've never heard the UM2 but my iems before the Quads were UM3X and after I ordered the Quads and listened to them, I put the UM3X for sale on the same day :) There was nothing that the UM3X did better than the Quads. So I would assume the same thing to be true (more or less) with your UM2.

post #3217 of 5154

Today I got the chance to listen to go down to Portland to their shop and demo a pair of the 1964 Ds. I wanted to listen to the Triples but they were not available. They were just moving their office into a different location, their lab is literally the size of a very small apartment, and they have a small office area they just moved into a few doors down where I was able to demo the Ds. I don't mean to insult the company in any way, I'm just amazed that this international organization can be run with such small facilities.

The staff was very nice as well. Someone from the labs (Which is where my GPS guided me to) walked me over to the office where I was greeted by Anastasia, and then Alex (Alec maybe?) helped me with all of the questions I had as well as getting the demos to fit fairly well. I had some of "the usual" questions like Where do I get impressions? How long do they last, ect. He answered all of my questions, and as I mentioned, even let me borrow an ALO Amplifier.

I also asked Alex about getting the B2s re-shelled and adding a Westone cable (For the record, I asked and he said they use the same cables as Westone but they're direct from the manufacturer) and I was surprised to find he answered all of my questions, and even said that if I got them reshelled, he would talk to the lab about taming the harsh treble by using different filters. I was surprised by the fact that he wasn't just pushing to get their customs, but sounded like he genuinely wanted my business whether I was there for a dozen Quads or just custom shells. I also came down to buy an IEM cleaning tool for my B2s, avoiding shipping costs, but they gave me 2 for free. They're genuinely very nice people!

Now on to the actual audition.

My "reference" IEM for the demo was the Brainwavz B2, which I'd listened to for a few hours earlier today. I used my iPod classic 6g and an objective 2. I listened briefly to an ALO audio amp of some sort to see if there was channel imbalance on the O2, but it was just the seal that was affecting the "center" of the soundstage.

First thing I listened to was "Sandman" By America. Why? Because it's one of the first songs on my iPod. First thing I noticed was that the timbre of the guitar was as good, if not a bit better than the B2. I personally believe that headphones leave a "footprint" in your head for how you listen to music. For example, after listening to the very sibilant B2 I notice the cymbals on the drum set more. So YMMV. Just my personal opinion though.

I've always thought that the instruments were a little more pronounced in the B2s than the actual track, but I think the vocals are much more balanced so that the soundstage is shared better between vocals and instruments.

Next thing I noticed was the excellent bass. It was very tight and the rolloff was minimal. I noticed bass lines I was unable to hear before, such as on Steely Dan's "aja". Also, the Ds were forgiving with source material. And I'm not talking about low bitrate MP3s, all I have is ALAC, but rather with songs where there is a lot of background noise and the lyrics are harsh. Compared to the B2s, there seems to be a bit more noticeable background noise, but poor mastering still sounds great.

The bassline in Awolnation's "Sail" was also excellent. As alex said, "the musicians they cater to wanted more bass... so they added more bass. These aren't flat reference monitors."

 

The final type of Music I tried was J-pop. I was expecting it to sound the best out of the 3 genres that I tried. While the bass was definitely better, especially for J-pop, I left the building feeling dissatisfied with the female vocalists in the fact they didn't sound as lively as they do on the B2s. Getting back home I realize that was just the fact they weren't shredding my ears with harshness and I do think they will sound great when I hopefully get them.

Final point of discussion: The soundstage. It was about as good as the B2s, maybe a bit smaller but it would be hard to tell specifically without AB'ing them. As far as build quality goes, I obviously can't say much as these were just demos.

Now, since I was unable to listen to the 64T's, which is sort of what I was hoping to listen to, I'm not sure where to go from here. Coming back home and listening to the B2s just sounds like pure torture in the treble department. With a removable cable, the reshell would be $235 plus a modest $25 for impressions. Only $90 less than the Duals. Which are only $75 less than the triples. Are the Duals worth $90 more than reshells? Are the Triples worth $165 more than the remold? I was planning on buying the HD600s first before going into customs territory, but now I'm not sure... so many choices!!!


Edited by mechgamer123 - 7/3/12 at 8:05pm
post #3218 of 5154

Great post.. I had 1964Ears reshell my DBA a few months after I bought the Quads (about a year and a half ago).  They did a fantastic job.. not only with the fit but with maintaining the integrity of the DBA's original tuning (they used the stock filter, btw).  Something that's been mentioned often with the DBA/B2 is that it requires a tight, deep seal to hear it in a balanced fashion.  It's a highly resolving phone which, when coupled with its slightly aggressive presentation, will definitely highlight poorly recorded material.  Reshelling it does away with all the fitment issues.. and I found it to improve the sound quality too.  Mind you, I had a very good fit when they were in universal form.. but after reshelling them, they sounded better balanced, bass has more presence and treble is smoother and more articulate.  Also, the soundstage and imaging improves.  It's a very neutral, balanced phone to my ears.  Despite having some significantly higher costing customs & full sized phones around, I still find myself listening to the (reshelled) DBA often.. it's a wonderful phone & I found the reshell definitely worth the cost.  BTW, I recommend going with removable cable sockets (instead of attempting to reuse the stock cable.. which hardens and is a bit unruly).


Edited by FlySweep - 7/3/12 at 9:44pm
post #3219 of 5154
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlySweep View Post

Great post.. I had 1964Ears reshell my DBA a few months after I bought the Quads (about a year and a half ago).  They did a fantastic job.. not only with the fit but with maintaining the integrity of the DBA's original tuning (they used the stock filter, btw).  Something that's been mentioned often with the DBA/B2 is that it requires a tight, deep seal to hear it in a balanced fashion.  It's a highly resolving phone which, when coupled with its slightly aggressive presentation, will definitely highlight poorly recorded material.  Reshelling it does away with all the fitment issues.. and I found it to improve the sound quality too.  Mind you, I had a very good fit when they were in universal form.. but after reshelling them, they sounded better balanced, bass has more presence and treble is smoother and more articulate.  Also, the soundstage and imaging improves.  It's a very neutral, balanced phone to my ears.  Despite having some significantly higher costing customs & full sized phones around, I still find myself listening to the (reshelled) DBA often.. it's a wonderful phone & I found the reshell definitely worth the cost.  BTW, I recommend going with removable cable sockets (instead of attempting to reuse the stock cable.. which hardens and is a bit unruly).
Yeah I was definitely going to do the new cable. That's what I wanted to hear about the fit and treble, I do think I want to experiment with the filters a bit to see if they can get one that just very subtley calms the treble a bit.
Btw where are you in Washington?
post #3220 of 5154
Originally Posted by mechgamer123 View Post

Yeah I was definitely going to do the new cable. That's what I wanted to hear about the fit and treble, I do think I want to experiment with the filters a bit to see if they can get one that just very subtley calms the treble a bit.
Btw where are you in Washington?

Olympia.

post #3221 of 5154
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlySweep View Post

 

 

While the CH silver cable is very dynamic & balances and 'neutralizes' the Quad's fq curve beautifully.. the Quads with the BTG-Audio copper cable seems to maintain a sound closer to the Quad's 'native' sound signature & frequency curve.  Plus, it's less microphonic, softer, & more flexible.  The silver cable tames the overall bass & tightens the midbass fq's to an impressively linear extent.  Heck, it might be too linear for some.  Compared to the copper cable.. the silver's bass is tighter and more neutral, the midrange is very dynamic, but note weight is (comparatively) thinner, and the silver's treble is more sparkly & airy.

 

While I like those aspects, I realized that I missed some of the Quad's 'native' tuning: namely its smooth, slightly laid back character and delicately boosted bass.  The copper cable brings those very things back.. while keeping resolution and clarity nearly on par with silver cable.  With the copper cable, the bass is still tighter and more linear than with a stock or SPC cable.. but it's got more quantity than compared to the silver cable.  The copper's midrange is smoother and slightly more laid back.. notes have a thicker tone than vs the thinner (albeit, more detailed) sound the silver had.  While treble with the silver cable had a (comparatively) more airy, energetic presence.. the copper's treble is on the crisper side.  It's still very articulate and detailed, the tone is just slightly different.  The silver cable boasts a larger soundstage in all directions (while not UM Miracle 'large' in a spatial aspect, it makes use of the space incredibly well.. it's very 3D).  The copper's cable tends to image in a more speaker-like fashion & it has better center imaging.

 

I didn't find the copper cable an 'improvement' over the silver, per se.. more of a sidegrade that presents a slightly different presentation that's more in line with the Quad's smoother overall tone.  I see myself using both these cables, actually.. depending on my mood.  The silver cable's dynamics and detailing is spectacular, it seems to bring the technical aspects of the Quad out more.. but it might tame the bass too much for some.  The copper cable offers a sound that showcases the Quad's native fq curve.. but in a more articulate, cleaner fashion (than the stock Westone or SPC cable).. while offering clarity & detail that's nearly on par with the silver cable.

 

 

 

Mine arrived a couple of days ago and turned out to be a really nice piece of kit. A genuinely good product even before you delve into the sound - it has that nice weight and obvious care that makes it a pleasure to own. 

Good call though - great pairing with the Qs. My short opinion is its a dead centre between the stock and silver. I also noticed a tad more staging which is probably due to there being just the right amount of high mids and no peakiness to kill the realism. 

post #3222 of 5154
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlySweep View Post

Olympia.


Beautiful city. I like driving through there on our way to Ocean Shores...

post #3223 of 5154
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlySweep View Post

Olympia.


Only been through Olympia a few times :/

I am leaning towards the 64T right now, has anyone heard the D and the T to compare them?

post #3224 of 5154

ACS T1 Reshelled by 1964 Ears!234

 

Got mine with express build option, these are reshelled ACS T1's!

post #3225 of 5154

Do any of you with clear shells or tips, have problems with yellowing of the acrylic?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › 1964 Ears (The Appreciation Thread)