Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › 1964-T Ears vs. EarSonics SM3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

1964-T Ears vs. EarSonics SM3

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

I am thinking about buying 1964-T customs but i'm wondering if I should just get universal fits for that price that sound better, like the EarSonics SM3. Is the sound quality for customs different than universals?

 

I have about $400 max to spend, and if universals in that price range do sound better then thats what I want. I saw a freq response chart of the EarSonics SM3 and they seem to blow the 1964-T's out of the water.


Edited by lance-duncannon - 4/16/11 at 2:22pm
post #2 of 13
Thread Starter 

bump

post #3 of 13

You can't tell how earphones sound based on the frequency chart, that has very little to do with the sound quality.

In terms of "how good" the sound is, the SM3 and 1964 quads are very similar.  Neither are significantly better than the other and which one you prefer would probably be based off of your sound signature preference.  I don't really know what the 1964 quad's sound signature is, but I know the SM3's strong point is its mid range.

The sound quality for customs isn't really that much different than universals.  Most of the triple/quad armature customs are about on par with the SM3's and other top tier universal headphones in terms of sound quality.  The advantage that you get from customs are that they're more comfortable than any universal tip, and give a very consistent seal which is good for the sound.  They're also somewhat of a hassle to order though.  It's not uncommon to have to send your customs back at least once to get the fit right.  From the time you order, I'd say it would be close to a month or more before you can actually enjoy your IEMs.

post #4 of 13

Get the SM3s!! Loving mine to bits now. 

post #5 of 13

Hmmm? Well, I have only heard one custom (1964-Q) and it's not on par with with universals such as the SM3, SE535 and other top tier. The custom is quite a bit better than those universals to my ears. I hope the members giving you advice have actually heard a custom (not the universal version of the custom used for giving potential buyers an ideal of the sound signature) and the universal they are giving their opinions on. Most head-fi members I trust - and who have heard both customs and universals - pretty much agree that customs give a better sound quality if you're into micro-details and such.


Edited by ericp10 - 6/12/11 at 9:27pm
post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by lance-duncannon View Post

I am thinking about buying 1964-T customs but i'm wondering if I should just get universal fits for that price that sound better, like the EarSonics SM3. Is the sound quality for customs different than universals?

 

I have about $400 max to spend, and if universals in that price range do sound better then thats what I want. I saw a freq response chart of the EarSonics SM3 and they seem to blow the 1964-T's out of the water.


Where can I find the frequency chart of the sm3? If you have them only then can you pm me them.

Thanks!

 

post #7 of 13
post #8 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by sari0n View Post

The sound quality for customs isn't really that much different than universals.



must admit i've not heard either the 1964-T/Q or SM3 so i really cant comment on either but i do strongly disagree with your blanket statement as quoted. i would put down strong money on a DBT bet that even my 'cheap' 4yrs old school dual driver Livewires customs (properly fitted, setup, sourced & perhaps amped too) will just about give any universals some major heartburn. & thats before taking into account the comfort (or discomfort rather for universals), fitting or anyother issues.

 

FWIW i've had/heard TF10s, Klispch X10/X5, monster turbine coppers, PK1, HD25, HD238. heck my diy ipod>altoids cmoy>50ohm adapter>livewires even give my full size gear (HE5LE, HD650, K702) a good run for the money & they arent even portable!

 

so bottomline, when fitted, sourced & amp properly, i've no doubt the 1964-Ts will challenge if not better any universals (regardless of price). factor in comfort & fit, the answers obvious - to me atleast. that said, its another matter as to which the OP should get.

 

 


Edited by scottiebabie - 6/12/11 at 12:39pm
post #9 of 13

^I also think it has to do with the insertion depth also.  To get proper sound out of an IEM, ear speaker must be placed at certain insertion depth.  ER-4P for example, with the triple flanges, with deep insertion it achieves close to what my 1964-T is capable of.   Typical universal has shallow insertion.

post #10 of 13

The new SM3 bi-flange tips have a larger sound hole and offer deeper but still very comfortable fit (I've never liked bi and tri flanges before).  I think those tips really bring out the best of the SM3.  I do not notice any veil and treble is quite present, while maintaining a tight bass response.

 

That being said, I don't really care for an ear full of acrylic; especially at the top of my ears.  It never "disappeared" for me.  However the custom silicone UM56 sleeves from Westone do disappear for me.  Right now I have no interest in going full custom (my custom acrylic were TF10 reshells) but if I did, I'd probably lean towards a Sensaphonics medical grade silicone custom.  Too bad Westone doesn't offer this on their full custom IEM's...

post #11 of 13

It is not a deep as customs or ER-4P.  If you've owned customs you would know how deep of an insertion you can achieve.  I've owned SM3, you cannot achieve insertion level of customs or ER-4P.  It isolates at a shallow level.


Edited by High_Q - 6/12/11 at 1:01pm
post #12 of 13

No the new Earsonics bi-flanges do not go that deep and I wasn't trying to imply they did.  However they do offer a better than shallow fit and work quite well for the SM3.  The UM56 sleeves are indeed a deep fit, as deep as full customs, and I highly recommend them.

post #13 of 13

I've owned the EarSonics SM3 for a year. They are an excellent universal for their price, and they sound better than many other universals on the market to me. They also have one of the most unique sound signatures that I've heard on a universal. When it comes to whether or not the 1964-T sounds better than the EarSonics SM3, it's almost impossible to say unless we can gain an understanding of the type of sound signature you like.

 

The SM3 produces a really thick, warm, creamy midrange that many people enjoy. However, you might not like this at all and thus the IEM may not be for you. You might be better suited with something that costs 3x less, just because of that IEMs' sound signature over the SM3's.

 

So it is much more dependent on your preferences than strictly the IEM itself (a frequency response graph does not even come close to telling the whole story).

 

For me, the JH16 Pro sound much better than the EarSonics SM3, and I've had the opportunity to A/B them for weeks. But then again, I am comparing a $1,000+ custom with a $400 universal. Does it mean then that the SM3 is not competent against the JH16? Not at all. They both present music in very different ways, and so it is enjoyable to listen to both. But overall I ended up much preferring the presentation of the JH16 as well as the added technical capabilities of the JH16. The fit is also spot-on, but it took over four re-fits for me to get the fit just right (you should definitely consider this in your purchase, as fit problems are common with customs--you may end up sending your customs back several times to achieve a perfect fit).


Edited by SolidVictory - 6/12/11 at 9:15pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › 1964-T Ears vs. EarSonics SM3