Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › 1964 EARS V6 Discussion & Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

1964 EARS V6 Discussion & Appreciation Thread - Page 29

post #421 of 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhone IEM View Post

Wow, I did not expect you to choose V3 over both the V6 and Quads. Now I feel I can save up for V3's and tell myself they're just as good! All you V6 owners just let me keep believing this. ..biggrin.gif

It made the most sense to me. The V6's sound incredible. I have them with me right now. The V3 has a bit more emphasis on the low end, so I'm expecting it should be perfect for me on stage.

It's important to stress that everyone has a different idea of what sounds good. Even more when viewed in the context of how they will be used. For me I need stage monitors in a live band context operating at controlled stage volumes.

At this level of awesomeness, we're talking minor differences in the inherent EQ config, crossover points and driver isolation as it affects portions of the sound spectrum. For home listening I'd be all over the Quads or more likely the v6's...
post #422 of 896

Mongo, just to get an idea of your sound preferences, what are some other headphones you own/owned/love/loved?

post #423 of 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongo2112 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhone IEM View Post

Wow, I did not expect you to choose V3 over both the V6 and Quads. Now I feel I can save up for V3's and tell myself they're just as good! All you V6 owners just let me keep believing this. ..biggrin.gif

It made the most sense to me. The V6's sound incredible. I have them with me right now. The V3 has a bit more emphasis on the low end, so I'm expecting it should be perfect for me on stage.

It's important to stress that everyone has a different idea of what sounds good. Even more when viewed in the context of how they will be used. For me I need stage monitors in a live band context operating at controlled stage volumes.

At this level of awesomeness, we're talking minor differences in the inherent EQ config, crossover points and driver isolation as it affects portions of the sound spectrum. For home listening I'd be all over the Quads or more likely the v6's...

 

Hey Mongo,

 

Would you say the brightness in quads and V6 are the same, or is one brighter than the other? I'm kind of on the fence between the two myself, but I prefer a brighter sounding IEM.

post #424 of 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by PANGES View Post

Hey Mongo,

Would you say the brightness in quads and V6 are the same, or is one brighter than the other? I'm kind of on the fence between the two myself, but I prefer a brighter sounding IEM.
I'm pretty sure Mongo originally said the V6 was brighter and he missed the toe-tapping bass of the Quads. If you go back a couple pages you'll see the first impressions.biggrin.gif

Edit: added smiley biggrin.gif
Edited by iPhone IEM - 12/4/12 at 4:18pm
post #425 of 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by anoxy View Post

Mongo, just to get an idea of your sound preferences, what are some other headphones you own/owned/love/loved?

 

I've not owned any notable cans or universals. My primary onstage IEM's were Shure E2's and E3's until I got the 1964 demo's. I started using them in October and went from the Duals to the V3's, Quads and then V6's. My appreciation for quality sound changed overnight. At first I thought the Duals were amazing. Compared to anything I had heard they were! Hearing a BA driver for the first time was really an experience. The definition and clarity were unparalleled to anything I had previously placed in my ears. I knew from experiencing the same revelation for the first time back in the 80's with a custom home stereo that I had to take time to let my ears 'learn to hear again'.

 

I enjoyed the Duals for a long time before popping in the V3's. I then again experienced a widening of the sound spectrum and a distinct focus of the highs, mids and lows. It was very exciting how the music came alive. This repeated with the Quads, but with them adding a sub range that really punched, while never sounding muddy. The difference between the V3's and the Quads was not very significant, mostly isolated in the low range. They seemed to me to be tuned very similar, but I am very likely too inexperienced (and lacking any quality reference equipment) to be able to distinguish the subtleties that make them more unique. They are both great, with the Quads providing a deeper bottom that was more upfront and wider. 

 

The V6's were noticeably different to me. It could be because I currently only have the Quads to compare, but they are most definitely tuned differently. When I just listen to the V6's at length and acclimate back to their presentation I REALLY love them. I listened to them for several hours today. I find I want to push them more, but that could just be because I'm using an iPhone 5 for a reference. They seem very neutral across the entire range (not lacking), just nicely balanced with no noticeable bump. 1964 uses the term audiophile. I agree, not harsh, not mid'y, not bassy. A superb blend for listening. Its just not what I look for in a live monitor for stage use. I need more high mids and a hair more low grunt.

 

When I put the Quads back in there is immediately noticed a thick bottom end that can rumble your brain if the music has that in it. If you have tunes that can shake the windows of the houses on a street due to kicker subs in a car, the Quads will easily reproduce that in your head! At the same time the top end (high mids/highs) is just a bit further up front. Not harsh at all, just more present. Snares pop a bit more while at the same time kick drums hit deeper. It's a bass player/drummers dream signature!

 

What surprised me was after spending a week listening to only the V6's, I was finding my taste had shifted to wanting less bottom. The V3's suddenly found their place between the Quads and V6's in my taste. I'm glad I took the sage advice here and let my ears learn to hear again. I can't speak from long term experience, just persistent dedication to seeking an objective understanding of what 1964Ears has to offer. I expect I will probably get a set of V6's down the road for daily listening, but for today my need is for the V3's.

post #426 of 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhone IEM View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PANGES View Post

Hey Mongo,

Would you say the brightness in quads and V6 are the same, or is one brighter than the other? I'm kind of on the fence between the two myself, but I prefer a brighter sounding IEM.
I'm pretty sure Mongo originally said the V6 was brighter and he missed the toe-tapping bass of the Quads. If you go back a couple pages you'll see the first impressions.biggrin.gif

Edit: added smiley biggrin.gif

 

Ahh! Sorry about that! :(

 

edit: Side note to mongo. I totally agree with you that your ears really get used to a sound signature, and when you switch to something else, you find you prefer whatever you've gotten used to directly before.


Edited by PANGES - 12/4/12 at 8:06pm
post #427 of 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by PANGES View Post

 

Ahh! Sorry about that! :(

 

Neither can be properly defined as bright but I would say, as a point of comparison, V6 are brighter than the Quads. 

post #428 of 896
So I had my demo today of the Q, V6 and V3. I got about an hour with each so I got enough of an impression to form my own opinions on them. I obviously can't do a review from that little time but i know a couple of you were interested so if you've got any questions please ask.
post #429 of 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by noxa View Post

So I had my demo today of the Q, V6 and V3. I got about an hour with each so I got enough of an impression to form my own opinions on them. I obviously can't do a review from that little time but i know a couple of you were interested so if you've got any questions please ask.

 

No need for a full review, but what was your general impression of each of them and how did you think they compared to each other?

 

Thanks in advance!

post #430 of 896
Well firstly my personal preference went Q > V6 > V3. I have to say I really liked all of them, it seems 1964 have a house sound that I really enjoy. As a guide the Q were the darkest, warmest and thickest sounding of the three the V6 was far more neutral and the V3 was the brightest and thinnest by a considerable margin. It's hard to explain without writing a long review so I will just summarize and i'll answer specific question if I can.

Lows: Q >>> V6>> V3 The Q just blew me away I haven't heard a BA that has done lows anywhere near this level. The quantity is huge and the quality is also very good. There was punchy tight midbass and deep thundering sub bass. I must say though this really is a basshead ciem because it can intrude on the mids ever so slightly.

Mids: V6>> Q>> V3. This is where the V6 really shows it's might the vocals were not recessed but neither to forward, the were effortlessly smooth, the Q were next and we're slightly more recessed but with a strong forward projection and with a warmer lusher feel but not quite as detailed and natural as the V6. Then came the V3 I was certainly not disappointed but they felt sterile and lifeless compared to the others, the vocals were too thin and edgy, too forward for my liking and just too bright for me.

Highs: V6>>> Q>V3. Again the V6 one again showed why they're top of the tree of the trio, the highs were sparkly yet smooth refined yet kind of edgy without a hint of harshness, the next two are a far closer race I think the majority would prefer the V3 but I found it one again too thin sterile and harsh, not particularly sibilant but too sharp for me, next the Q witch at first seems too rolled of and un emphasised compared to the lows and mids but they are remarkably smooth with no sense of harshness of fatigue and no sibilence but also no real sparkle.

Soundstage: V6>>>Q>>V3. Basically the V6 far exceeds the others with the Q feeling smaller due to being confined by the bass which restrained the width but not the depth, again the V3 comes in at the bottom of the heap, everything just sounds closer more restrained but if feels as if there is space around the edges where theV3 should be filling but just isn't.

I hope that gave at least a slight insight and if you have a question i'll try to answer.
post #431 of 896

Oh absolutely, thanks for the impressions!

post #432 of 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by noxa View Post

Well firstly my personal preference went Q > V6 > V3. I have to say I really liked all of them, it seems 1964 have a house sound that I really enjoy. As a guide the Q were the darkest, warmest and thickest sounding of the three the V6 was far more neutral and the V3 was the brightest and thinnest by a considerable margin. It's hard to explain without writing a long review so I will just summarize and i'll answer specific question if I can.
Lows: Q >>> V6>> V3 The Q just blew me away I haven't heard a BA that has done lows anywhere near this level. The quantity is huge and the quality is also very good. There was punchy tight midbass and deep thundering sub bass. I must say though this really is a basshead ciem because it can intrude on the mids ever so slightly.
Mids: V6>> Q>> V3. This is where the V6 really shows it's might the vocals were not recessed but neither to forward, the were effortlessly smooth, the Q were next and we're slightly more recessed but with a strong forward projection and with a warmer lusher feel but not quite as detailed and natural as the V6. Then came the V3 I was certainly not disappointed but they felt sterile and lifeless compared to the others, the vocals were too thin and edgy, too forward for my liking and just too bright for me.
Highs: V6>>> Q>V3. Again the V6 one again showed why they're top of the tree of the trio, the highs were sparkly yet smooth refined yet kind of edgy without a hint of harshness, the next two are a far closer race I think the majority would prefer the V3 but I found it one again too thin sterile and harsh, not particularly sibilant but too sharp for me, next the Q witch at first seems too rolled of and un emphasised compared to the lows and mids but they are remarkably smooth with no sense of harshness of fatigue and no sibilence but also no real sparkle.
Soundstage: V6>>>Q>>V3. Basically the V6 far exceeds the others with the Q feeling smaller due to being confined by the bass which restrained the width but not the depth, again the V3 comes in at the bottom of the heap, everything just sounds closer more restrained but if feels as if there is space around the edges where theV3 should be filling but just isn't.
I hope that gave at least a slight insight and if you have a question i'll try to answer.

Fantastic! I say that's a perfect concise review, I especially like the individual rankings:D
post #433 of 896
Quote:
The short answer is.. yes. We are working on some new components to allow us to take the Q to the new V4. This will (hopefully) happen some time early next year.
 

 

Just asked vitaliy about the q series and if they planned on improving it.. this is what he sent back in reply. I think I'll get demos for the v3/quads/v6 and if I like the quads the best wait for the v4 to come out. Rather excited now actually.

post #434 of 896

You just sold me on the V6....if I was still looking to buy some. Kinda angry I passed on these, but hopefully I'll love my DreamEarz 7X.

post #435 of 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by anoxy View Post

You just sold me on the V6....if I was still looking to buy some. Kinda angry I passed on these, but hopefully I'll love my DreamEarz 7X.

ooo!! Give some impressions on those!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › 1964 EARS V6 Discussion & Appreciation Thread