Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › 1964-Ears Triples, Another Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

1964-Ears Triples, Another Review

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

I picked these up a week ago and have been listening to them fairly exclusively ever since.


I put off a review until I'd had a chance to get over the gee-whiz, new toy period and had a chance to listen to a variety of different music.


I'm relatively new to this hobby. Most of my gear is mid-fi. Although I had the chance to listen to very high level set ups at the Bay Area Meet, I'm not coming to these iems with a ton of experience with customs. That said, I'm a music lover and have been listening to music on setups from my dad's DIY amp and reel-to-reel set up to the crappiest boom boxes for more years than I care to think about, so I know something about listening to music and have decent ears.


Ok, done with the qualifications. People seem to want customs for three main reasons: isolation, fit, and sound quality and I want to talk about the triples in that context first.

 

Isolation: Ok, but not stellar. The best isolation I've experienced with iems is the ER-4P. Nothing gets by those triple flanges. The triples block a lot of ambient sound, but not everything. It's functional, but if you're in a noisy place, you'll notice.

 

Fit: The best. If you have trouble getting iems to fit in your ears, customs are the way to go. I know people have had trouble with getting a good fit, but once I figured out that the nozzles go into your head and not down, I was good to go. Getting them in and out takes practice, but gets easier after a while. I can eat with them, walk with them, pretty much do anything without losing the seal. This solid consistent seal delivers the

 

Sound quality: The triples are all about sound stage and detail. There's a lot of room in here, given the right recording. On classical live performances, the orchestra or ensemble is well spread out in my head and instrument separation is very good. On some studio recordings (Cassandra Wilson's "You Gotta Move" on Belly of the Sun), the impression of people performing in a physical space at different distances from the microphones is very strong. The detail is also v/ good. On one hand there's hearing details that I hadn't heard in recordings that I thought I knew, but more than that, it's the way the details are delivered. I was listening to The Complete Birth of the Cool and the sound of the cymbals (Max Roach is riding them) is crystal clear in both the attack and the shimmer and decay. On other phones, the cymbals are a bright blur, but not here.

 

 

Are they perfect? No. The bass doesn't extend as deep as my TF10s, (though what's there is quality). I think that the UE Reference Monitors probably beat them on the detail end and build is a little funky compared to UE and UM, from pictures. But it's a lively, clear phone at a very reasonable price. It's even-handed across all levels, without anything being pushed back. And the 1964-Ears people have been a pleasure to deal with.


 


Edited by rroseperry - 3/25/11 at 10:07pm
post #2 of 12

Glad you're happy with your 1964's! Makes me even more excited for mine to come in

post #3 of 12

Is this for the 1964-T?

post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 

Yes the triples, I'll change the title to reflect that.

post #5 of 12

Great review! I agree with everything said, with the minor exception of the TF10 bass depth comparison. In my humble view the TF10 only has the illusion of deeper bass, caused mostly by the somewhat recessed mids. It's worth noting that you could have been getting a better fit with your TF10 than I was so that could change things. 

 

I'm glad that you enjoy your new customs!

post #6 of 12

 

What a pleasure to hear the UE Reference compared to the trips! I've had my eye on the reference monitors for some time, just can't shell out for them. I'd love to hear any more thoughts on differences you've noticed between the two, I assume you have the UE reference monitors? 

post #7 of 12

we like photos sir!

 

post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 

I don't have the UE Reference monitors, but I spent a good amount of time with them at the Bay Area meet. So take my comparison with the necessary salt. The UERMs have amazing detail. I tried them with some Brazilian jazz (lots of different percussion instruments) and some rock and there was no trouble at all distinguishing the different instrumentation. The triples do a good job of this, though not at the same "wow" level. Bear in mind I noticed this with foam tips, not even custom fit.

 

 

post #9 of 12
Thread Starter 

I put a bunch of pictures in an album. Here you go.

post #10 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rroseperry View Post

I put a bunch of pictures in an album. Here you go.



is that pink?

 

nice logos on the sides. and the tip that goes into the ear seems kind of large, as if they go deeper into the earcanal

 

how much would a pair like that cost? (if you dont mind me asking)

post #11 of 12
Nice review! The engravings on your triples look great.
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMcProgger View Post





is that pink?

 

nice logos on the sides. and the tip that goes into the ear seems kind of large, as if they go deeper into the earcanal

 

how much would a pair like that cost? (if you dont mind me asking)


Light magenta is what they call it. tongue.gif

 

It was $350 for the triples, with and additional $50 for the custom work. ( I did the designs.) They do go pretty deep, but not uncomfortable once you get them right.

 

This isn't counting the cost of impressions. I paid $50 at the SF meet, but I've heard quotes as low as $25.

 


Edited by rroseperry - 3/27/11 at 1:50pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › 1964-Ears Triples, Another Review