New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

REVIEW: 1964-Q

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

I am writing this review in hopes to help anyone who, like me, have been quietly lurking around these forums for info on 1964 ears. 

 

 

My background:

 

 

I am a musician.  I make dance/techno music, I sing, and I've played drums for over 30 years.  

 

I have played through every type of PA system.  From complete crap to House Of Blues great.  Monitoring has also run the gamut from simply wearing my earplugs to Clair Brothers pristine.

 

As for IEM's, I have owned the Shure E1, and Westone UM1 (both the old square beige versions) with custom sleeves.  My current monitor rig is the Audio-Technica M2M with the EP3 ear buds.  I also own the Ultimate Ears SuperFi 4vi and V-moda Vibe Duo for the iPhone.

 

For comparisons, I have extensive use of the Sony MDR-V700 and AKG K240M headphones.  

 

Build:

 

ears1.jpg

 

My 1964-Q's are perfect.  The color is great.  I had the recessed plugs and the logo too.  Everything is flawless.  The fit is also perfect.  My audiologist didn't have any bite blocks, so I used my driver's license (which is 2") to keep my jaw open.  There are no seal issues.  I do like the gel a lot.  A drop on the end of my finger, give myself a slight wet willie and they twist in effortlessly. 

 

Sound:

 

Let me reiterate that I not only make, but listen to a lot of dance music.  I like a lot of low end thump.  I love the meatiness of the Sony MDR-V700's and the V-Modas.  They have lots of bass, but are fairly clear at the same time.  Alternatively, I think the UE SuperFi 4vi's as well as my Audio-Technica EP3's have zero bottom.  Neither sound BAD, just sort of flat and lifeless.

 

The 1964-Q overall sound is among the best I've ever heard.  There is no muddiness to anything.  They'll give me the thump I like, but they're also vastly clearer than any of the other IEMs or headphones I've used.  There is simply a great openness and clarity to everything I threw at them.  Detail-wise, I would even put them up against my beloved Event 20/20bas studio monitors as well as the Mackie HR824's and even the ridiculously expensive Adam S3A's that I've had experience with.  

 

What I am most impressed with is how full and clean everything is at really low volumes.  There is just as much punch to pounding techno anthems at library-quiet volume as there is at ear splitting stadium levels.

 

Some examples of my initial "test" music (in no particular order):

 

Scooter - Jumping All Over The World

Erasure - Nightbird

Kraftwerk - Minimum Maximum

BWO - Big Science

Pet Shop Boys - Yes

Exile (the japanese band) - Aisubeki Mirai e

 

and from the softer and more dynamic side of things...

 

Simply Red - Stay

Swing Out Sister - Where Our Love Goes

Michael Franks - One Bad Habit

Engelbert Humperdinck - Gold

 

Regardless of genre, dynamic range, or any other variable I can think of, I never find myself feeling anything is lacking.  They just sound utterly fantastic.

 

I am right in the middle of a project where I am tracking vocals and have been using the Sony headphones.  The signal path is a Neumann U87 or AKG 414 through an API 512c pre, into a Summit Audio TLA-50 tube leveler, directly into Pro Tools.

 

Again, nothing I am throwing at these is making them flinch.  These are a lot more comfortable for long sessions than headphones.  More importantly, it pretty much removes headphone bleed into the mic.  A sheer delight in the studio. 

 

Customer service:

 

Customer service is fantastic.  I tried to leave them alone while they were building them. I did send one "checking our progress" email.  I received a phone call from Vitaliy himself with the update. There were zero snags or problems with any aspect of having mine made.  

 

For the impatient, keep in mind you are having completely custom, hand made, unique to you and you only, top quality, in ear monitors made by a VERY small group of increasingly busy people. I waited 21 business days from payment, which is MORE than reasonable considering what you are getting.  They are WELL worth the wait, and the wait isn't that bad.  Comparatively, I waited 11 MONTHS for my DW drums back in 1990!!!

 

Conclusions:

 

Much like my DW's, I bought these "blindly" without hearing them or knowing anyone who had.  I did a good bit of prior homework to narrow down choices based on the usual price, looks, etc.  I paid full retail and went through the same process as everyone else.

 

The 1964-Q was the best money I've spent on any music gear as of late.  They look great, sound great, feel great.  Without any hesitations, I say they are a home run in every aspect.  I can not recommend them highly enough!!!

post #2 of 20

Oh geeze...making it harder for me to wait for mine. I bought the quads since they had dual lows because I wanted some iems for dirty house and electro. Every iem I tried was either too muddy or not enough bass. If it does well with dance it should do well with these genres.


Edited by Megalomaniac - 4/4/11 at 6:35pm
post #3 of 20
Nice review! I think you have done the first quad review (if you don't add up all that I've written already..lol). Great job!
post #4 of 20

Excellent work! We've needed a well detailed writeup for a while. Eric, not that you havent written enough; but we just needed something a bit more organized than going on a treasure hunt for your impressions in the 1964ears thread smile.gif


Edited by aleki - 4/4/11 at 6:47pm
post #5 of 20

Thanks so much for the review!

 

By the way, I have a little question regarding the recessed socket. Based on what I am seeing on the picture, I have a feeling like the recessed socket doesn't tightly "wrap" the connector, but rather is like a "bowl" with some smooth slope on the sides. Is that how it actually is?

 

I would really appreciate it if you could spare some time and take a photo of the sockets from the top down onto the sockets for me.

 

Thank you again

post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by patanin1st View Post

 

By the way, I have a little question regarding the recessed socket. Based on what I am seeing on the picture, I have a feeling like the recessed socket doesn't tightly "wrap" the connector, but rather is like a "bowl" with some smooth slope on the sides. Is that how it actually is?


Nope. It is a rectangular socket which fits the connector perfectly. There is no gap when the connector is inserted and you can remove the cable without much effort. The "bowl" you are seeing should be the acrylic material housing and reinforcing the components at the socket.

post #7 of 20

Very nice review and interesting to get a sense of how the quads differ from the triples.

 

post #8 of 20

Thanks, that's quite a relief to hear because I did opt for recessed sockets just to make it more durable.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randius View Post




Nope. It is a rectangular socket which fits the connector perfectly. There is no gap when the connector is inserted and you can remove the cable without much effort. The "bowl" you are seeing should be the acrylic material housing and reinforcing the components at the socket.



 

post #9 of 20
Thread Starter 
Thanks everyone. @patan1st, to further what Randius said, it's very snug. You won't have to worry at all. I got recessed sockets simply because I think it looks better. @ericp10, a lot of your opinions helped my decision in getting the Q's.
post #10 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex From Iowa View Post

Thanks everyone. @patan1st, to further what Randius said, it's very snug. You won't have to worry at all. I got recessed sockets simply because I think it looks better. @ericp10, a lot of your opinions helped my decision in getting the Q's.


Glad I was able to help @ Tex. I'm still loving my Quads. They are still my favorite IEM/Headphone period. Happy listening.

post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleki View Post

Excellent work! We've needed a well detailed writeup for a while. Eric, not that you havent written enough; but we just needed something a bit more organized than going on a treasure hunt for your impressions in the 1964ears thread smile.gif



I understand and liked his review too @ aleki. I've decided not to report on when or why on my full 1964-Q review anymore. When I put it up I'll just let you guys know. I just want it to convey all everything and not miss a stroke. I have so much other writing I'm doing right now that I do admit it hasn't been a focus as far as editing and posting yet. I thought the first full quad review was very good and said a lot on how I feel about the quads.

post #12 of 20

I've read that they lack a bit on treble. Is this true? How would you compare their treble to the one from the Earsonics SM3, Westone UM3X, etc?

 

I'm looking for a custom IEM with great bass at an "affordable" price and this is it, no doubts, but I'm a bit worried about treble presence (or quantity). And of course, *quality*.


Edited by miow - 12/3/11 at 10:44am
post #13 of 20

Based on memory of trying the UM3x, 1964Q certainly has much more treble. Does not sound muddy or lacking like in UM3x

post #14 of 20

Muddy or lacking? Are you sure we have listen the same UM3X? 

post #15 of 20


With some warm sources, the UM3x can sound a little soft on the edges, due to its inherent smooth sound signature.  I wouldn't call it muddy though.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by miow View Post

Muddy or lacking? Are you sure we have listen the same UM3X? 



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: