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 379

post #5671 of 5675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mejoshua View Post

Can anyone comment on the effect of pneumatic pressures on the ear? E.g. with respect to ADEL tech
-Mike: I wish there was a little more technical information, because sound is the existence of pressure through matter. Sound won't travel in outer space at all. This claim of acoustical pressure and pneumatic pressure goes against everything I learned in my audio theory classes. Not trolling or hating at all! Just genuinely curious.
 
-1964 EARS: Mike, a moving speaker in a sealed enclosure becomes an air pump. With ADEL that same speaker acts as it was in "free air". Hope that helps.
 
- Mike: It does thank you!
 
EDIT: it basically lets pneumatic pressure out of the earphone and lets acoustical pressure to 'flow' into your ear. i'm no scientist, just taking that from what they say.

Edited by xedjflowx - 10/29/14 at 9:51pm
post #5672 of 5675
I'm interested in what kind of effects this pneumatic pressure has on hearing e.g. does it damage/impair hearing over time? What kind of frequency and intensity of IEM listening would result in that effect?
post #5673 of 5675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamakahah View Post

I don't know what your personal preferences are so it's hard to offer any targeted insight, but having owned the V3 for about a year now I would recommend the Qi or above if your set on customs. If universals are fine, I'd recommend the JVC FX850 over the V3 as long as strong isolation isn't your goal.

 

Thanks. I'm actually looking for a relatively fun custom with more emphasis on musicality. The V3 and Qi seem to fit the bill. Anyway, I'm hoping to audition the 1964 Ears collection sometime in the next few weeks. Looking forward to trying them out.

post #5674 of 5675
Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglex3 View Post
 

 

Initial impressions: The Roxanne's highs / Mids seem alot more clearer and the V8s treble seemed a bit rolled off, ever so slighty. Bass boost on the Roxanne's set at 4o'clock - The bass response in the low end doesnt seem as controlled as the V8s. I feel this is a disappointment in the Roxanne's. Being used to the V8s bass for almost 6 months of heavy use ( daily driver ), the low end seems muffled for the Roxannes. Turning back the bass boost to 2o'clock. It feels much more controlled and functional to listen to. However not as punchy as the V8s. for being universal.... these things are huge... they barely fit in my ears.

 

Will give some more feedback after more listening sessions.

The bass on the Roxanne already lost to even the V6S, so I can't imagine with the V8 with 4 low freq drivers. 

post #5675 of 5675

Just like to put further input on the Universal roxannes against the V8s. 

 

Oh god. Turning the dial to 4oclock = Mids muffled, highs rolled off completely. Turn back 2oclokc, I am digging the sound sig. Very similar to the V8s, and seems to have solved my issue being that the V8s bass is so good, punchy that it was too much for my ears. Bring it back to 12 oclock, it reminds me of my brief time of using the UM Miracles. 

 

Will give more feedback.

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