[Review] 1964 Ears 1964-T - Page 3

Did you see pics of the CK100 internals?  I know tuning makes a big difference, but I also wonder, is any particular BA just as capable as any other with the proper tuning, or do they have a ceiling?  So, you are ascertaining that the TWFK is capable of best BA performance (and if the ES5 does use it, then that would seem to be the case), and I am curious if that driver is truly that capable.  I didn't know it was used in the UM3X nor the ES3X.  Is there a BA tuning thread anywhere?

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe 

Did you see pics of the CK100 internals?  I know tuning makes a big difference, but I also wonder, is any particular BA just as capable as any other with the proper tuning, or do they have a ceiling?  So, you are ascertaining that the TWFK is capable of best BA performance (and if the ES5 does use it, then that would seem to be the case), and I am curious if that driver is truly that capable.  I didn't know it was used in the UM3X nor the ES3X.  Is there a BA tuning thread anywhere?

I just wanted to contribute that the JH16 uses a twfk for the treble, according to Vitaliy, who was told that by a Sonion rep (all the other drivers are Sonions).
 

whats the build quality like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunlun 

I just wanted to contribute that the JH16 uses a twfk for the treble, according to Vitaliy, who was told that by a Sonion rep (all the other drivers are Sonions).

 

I thought the TWFK was made by Knowles, and while Sonion might make something similar, is it still a TWFK?

@ rawrster, your livewires use a TWFK?  It must just be the implementation limiting the performance then.  This is coming from my experience with the DBA-02 and CK10 vs. the SM3 as well as my EP-10 Plus vs. the SM3 and my other customs...the treble of the CK10 sounded somewhat metallic in the treble (middo hated the treble, if you can read his posts), and while the DBA-02 is great for the price, I didn't think it really competed with the SM3 from a detail/refinement/resolution perspective.

Thanks for your help, as I am now more informed.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe 

I thought the TWFK was made by Knowles, and while Sonion might make something similar, is it still a TWFK?

 

@ rawrster, your livewires use a TWFK?  It must just be the implementation limiting the performance then.  This is coming from my experience with the DBA-02 and CK10 vs. the SM3 as well as my EP-10 Plus vs. the SM3 and my other customs...the treble of the CK10 sounded somewhat metallic in the treble (middo hated the treble, if you can read his posts), and while the DBA-02 is great for the price, I didn't think it really competed with the SM3 from a detail/refinement/resolution perspective.

 

Thanks for your help, as I am now more informed.  

Yes, the twfk is a Knowles, I meant that the JH16 is using the Knowles twfk, while the other drivers are Sonions.

By the way, do we know how old the twfk is? Maybe we can have a sense from how old the oldest iem that uses it is.
 

OK, got ya.  Was the CK10 the first TWFK?  I don't really know BA/IEM history all that well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe 

OK, got ya.  Was the CK10 the first TWFK?  I don't really know BA/IEM history all that well?

Hmm, I don't know if the Ck10 was the first, either. That makes the twfk over three and a half years old as the Ck10 came out 10/07, plus development time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe 

 and while the DBA-02 is great for the price, I didn't think it really competed with the SM3 from a detail/refinement/resolution perspective.

 

Hehe, I almost spewed my drink over my monitor.  I'll just say perhaps your DBA fit wasn't the best and my SM3 fit wasn't either.    I can leave 'refinement' open to debate depending on how we define terms and context.  I could see the SM3 winning out that argument.  But detail and resolution are other matters especially above 30-50hz.  Perhaps you are encompassing your hearing of soundstage and depth into detail and resolving power?      

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunlun 

Hmm, I don't know if the Ck10 was the first, either. That makes the twfk over three and a half years old as the Ck10 came out 10/07, plus development time.

I think Q-jays was the same.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus 

Hehe, I almost spewed my drink over my monitor.  I'll just say perhaps your DBA fit wasn't the best and my SM3 fit wasn't either.    I can leave 'refinement' open to debate depending on how we define terms and context.  I could see the SM3 winning out that argument.  But detail and resolution are other matters especially above 30-50hz.  Perhaps you are encompassing your hearing of soundstage and depth into detail and resolving power?      

Good thing it was "almost spewed my drink."  I know I had a good fit with the DBA and tried just about every tip on the market.  For me resolution/refinement/detail is defined by the overall presentation of the music as a whole and the individual instruments contained within the presentation.  Note articulation including body, tone, and timbre were superior in my comparison as well as shape of the note.  That does not necessarily mean the drivers are superior, but the tuning for sure is, in my opinion, superior.  While the DBA brings the details more to light with the sound signature, I hear more subtle instrument/performer queues with the SM3.  I won't go into detail here about differences in some notes that I heard, but for me the differences were there.  Following the SM3 thread and DBA thread to an extent I figure 40 to 50% of the people that get the SM3 don't hear it the way I do for some reason.  My guess is the differences are based on some ratio of fit vs. psychoacoustics, swayed more to the psychoacoustics side.

I would be happy to keep discussing this with you but think might be best to use PM or move it to the SM3 or DBA threads if you agree .  

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe 

Good thing it was "almost spewed my drink."  I know I had a good fit with the DBA and tried just about every tip on the market.  For me resolution/refinement/detail is defined by the overall presentation of the music as a whole and the individual instruments contained within the presentation.  Note articulation including body, tone, and timbre were superior in my comparison as well as shape of the note.  That does not necessarily mean the drivers are superior, but the tuning for sure is, in my opinion, superior.  While the DBA brings the details more to light with the sound signature, I hear more subtle instrument/performer queues with the SM3.  I won't go into detail here about differences in some notes that I heard, but for me the differences were there.  Following the SM3 thread and DBA thread to an extent I figure 40 to 50% of the people that get the SM3 don't hear it the way I do for some reason.  My guess is the differences are based on some ratio of fit vs. psychoacoustics, swayed more to the psychoacoustics side.

 

I would be happy to keep discussing this with you but think might be best to use PM or move it to the SM3 or DBA threads if you agree .  

Agreed sir.  I pretty much knew that response ahead of time.  

Sorry, I didn't know your post was rhetorical 

And you can call me Joe, AJ, dude, etc. but sir isn't necessary!

Quote:

Originally Posted by average_joe 

Sorry, I didn't know your post was rhetorical 

 

And you can call me Joe, AJ, dude, etc. but sir isn't necessary!

Yes sir.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by rawrster 
Either way I do want to hear what UM has to offer in their 6 driver models or the hybrid custom when it is released so I can know for myself what entry level and high end custom is like.

what is this 'hybird' custom that you refer to? is it a dynamic + ba or ma or electret (iem k340? :-> )?