Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Review: 1964-T triple driver customs from 1964 Ears
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: 1964-T triple driver customs from 1964 Ears - Page 2

post #16 of 32

Oh, I misread @ rawrster. Sorry. I thought you were saying something else. Disregard. beerchug.gif

post #17 of 32

read it the same way at first, but I knew there was something wrong. Anyways, nice heads up on the discount expiration date, now may the pondering begin...

post #18 of 32
This review (and the one by Joker) have been extremely helpful. Thanks and keep up the great work on the well written and thorough reviews!
post #19 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnievidi View Post

This review (and the one by Joker) have been extremely helpful. Thanks and keep up the great work on the well written and thorough reviews!


Thank you! I actually like Joker's review more than my own though. It's a great intro to the process of getting customs and should be really helpful for someone pondering taking that step.
 

post #20 of 32
Thread Starter 

Update: I added proper pictures. They still aren't as good as I'd like but better than before.

post #21 of 32

EDIT Sorry this was meant to be in the main 1964 Ears thread

 

I'm thinking of ordering some 1964 Ears Triples but I'm unsure about the customisation options. The site says "Names, custom artwork, glitter, and carbon-fiber faceplates are an additional $50." but does that mean you can have any combination of those or is it $50 per customisation ie glitter, custom artwork and names will cost an additional $150? What I'm really after is one red and one black with opaque face plates but translucent shells and custom artwork on the faceplates. Would they do that all for the $50?

 

I'm thinking this is a little risky as I'm in the UK so if I'm not happy with the fit it could take a lot of time and cost sending it back and forth across the Atlantic. How do 1964 Ears like the impressions taken? Like the JH Audio tip sheet? (full shell, open mouth, second bend).

post #22 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocky900 View Post

EDIT Sorry this was meant to be in the main 1964 Ears thread

 

I'm thinking of ordering some 1964 Ears Triples but I'm unsure about the customisation options. The site says "Names, custom artwork, glitter, and carbon-fiber faceplates are an additional $50." but does that mean you can have any combination of those or is it $50 per customisation ie glitter, custom artwork and names will cost an additional $150? What I'm really after is one red and one black with opaque face plates but translucent shells and custom artwork on the faceplates. Would they do that all for the $50?

 

I'm thinking this is a little risky as I'm in the UK so if I'm not happy with the fit it could take a lot of time and cost sending it back and forth across the Atlantic. How do 1964 Ears like the impressions taken? Like the JH Audio tip sheet? (full shell, open mouth, second bend).

 

That's a good question. I can't imagine you could get all of that for the $50, but then again charging $150 for it seems too steep. Maybe they can give you a price somwhere in the middle? I'd shoot them an email about it, and make sure to post the answer in the 1964 thread so we know the deal.
Sending overseas is not necessarily a huge deal, as long as you are prepared for the extended wait time.

 

Here is a link for the 1964 audiologist instructions. Nothing out of the ordinary.

http://www.1964ears.com/impression_instructions.pdf

 


 

post #23 of 32

Just posting as it seems the only way for me to get a subscription in...

post #24 of 32

Hi All,

 

     New to the game here with some questions.  I think I'm going to drop the hammer on the 64T but have a couple questions before I do.

 

 

 

1.  I saw an option to recess the socket.  Is there any advantage to do so?

2.  Does this affect fit of the IEM?

3.  Does it limit options of aftermarket cables if I want to go that route?

 

 

Thanks,

Brian

post #25 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonito View Post

Hi All,

 

     New to the game here with some questions.  I think I'm going to drop the hammer on the 64T but have a couple questions before I do.

 

 

 

1.  I saw an option to recess the socket.  Is there any advantage to do so?

2.  Does this affect fit of the IEM?

3.  Does it limit options of aftermarket cables if I want to go that route?

 

 

Thanks,

Brian

 

Recessed slots might be more durable. That's the theory. Imagine if you somehow managed to put too much pressure on the cable while it is inserted: flush (normal) connection might bend the cable pins thus ruining your cable, while recessed should have more protection. In reality you might crack the acrylic shell instead so it might actually be worse.... this is all assuming you sit on them or find some other method of causing damage. I've never had it happen.

 

It should not change the fit of the IEM at all. The cable is in almost the exact same same spot, maybe a quarter inch away.

 

Some aftermarket cables might have a harder time fitting. That comes down to each individual cable though. I don't use them myself. From what I've seen some of the Whiplash products look like they may not fit a recessed socked, and the Moon Audio Silver Dragon appears same as stock so it would fit.

 

Hope that helps.

 

post #26 of 32

Hi project86, could you do a brief comparison with some universals? I would like to know how the 1964T sounds in comparison to universals as I have no means to demo the 1964T. some help will be appreciated..

post #27 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinte View Post

Hi project86, could you do a brief comparison with some universals? I would like to know how the 1964T sounds in comparison to universals as I have no means to demo the 1964T. some help will be appreciated..



I'll do my best. I honestly don't listen much to any universals these days, and most of mine are out on long term loan to different people. But these are the last 2 models that I've spent a decent amount of time with.

 

Compared to the TF10, the 1964-T is more refined. The biggest different is in the mids, where I find the TF10 to be recessed. Maybe because of that, the TF10 bass seems to have more impact than it really does. The 1964-T bass seems slightly less in quantity at times, again possibly because of the relation to the mids. But quality wise, the 1964-T has the clear edge in bass definition, clarity, and overall realism. I also sense a bit more sub bass extension. The TF10 is more sparkly in the highs, to the point of possibly being annoying, while the 1964-T is more laid back. It still seems to present just as much information and detail but is more forgiving of poor recordings. 

 

Compared to the Monster turbine Coppers, the 1964-T has a somewhat similar overall tone (at least for me, when I use the triple flange tips.... I get extremely different results with different tips). Both are slightly laid back, but still with good reproduction of the space and air in the recording. Both have great quality of bass, but the Coppers have much more quantity. Overall though the 1964-T bass is more natural to my ears. they basically do everything the Coppers do at least a little bit better, if not a lot better. The biggest improvement comes during very complex musical passages. The Coppers tend to get slightly congested, while the 1964-T is very capable of resolving most anything you can throw at it. 

 

I'm sorry that I can't be more extensive, but again I don't do universals much these days. User Joker has the 1964-T and he has TONS of experience with universals, maybe he can be of more help. 

post #28 of 32

Shouldn't triple drivers make the soundstage massive? 

post #29 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post

Shouldn't triple drivers make the soundstage massive? 



I don't think the number of drivers automatically determines soundstage performance. My theory is that soundstage is determined by a number of factors including overall frequency extension (especially on the top end), matched frequency response between left side and right side (this is crucial), driver placement within the shell (this relates to time coherency among other issues), and more. In general I notice that my IEMs with 3 way crossovers seem to manage better soundstage performance than those with a 2 way setup. This could be related to a better and smoother overall frequency response, or it could just be coincidence. 

 

I've also noticed that some dynamic IEMs like the Sennheiser IE8 achieve excellent soundstage results. Since they are vented, they could be analogous to a nice speaker with a single full range driver, placed optimally within the space of a room. In cases like those I've almost always heard a very convincing soundstage, despite the other drawbacks that come with using a full range driver design. 

post #30 of 32

Excellent review!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Review: 1964-T triple driver customs from 1964 Ears