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 6

post #76 of 917

Can't wait. Agree with the impacful textured bass response whilst retaining sparkle in the high's. But not too much that you get overt sibilance.

post #77 of 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naim.F.C View Post

Can't wait. Agree with the impacful textured bass response whilst retaining sparkle in the high's. But not too much that you get overt sibilance.


Please give us some highs.  If the v6 is anywhere suited towards the audiophiles instead of the stage musicians then we NEED those details in the highs. 

 

 

 

post #78 of 917

I recently bought a secondhand pair of Quads. They're away at UM for a reshell and 2 extra drivers (plus new crossover) at the moment. Maybe a taste of how the new 1964 will sound?

post #79 of 917

Don't compromise the Mids!  People are sounding like they want a TF10 lol.

post #80 of 917

Save the mids, save the world!

post #81 of 917
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

Don't compromise the Mids!  People are sounding like they want a TF10 lol.



Not me. I have to have my mids. And oh no!! Not the dreaded TF10 (to my ears anyway). I think 1964 EARS loves the mids too.

post #82 of 917

We don't want a TF10, we want everything the same as the quads but without a whole 1/3rd of the frequency spectrum missing.  We, the people of head-fi, want to have a 1964 iem with all the positives of the 1964-Q but with non recessed (or "extended" for ericp10) highs. 

 

I know that can't be too much to ask right? The stage musicians have the 1964-Q but the v6 is for the audiophiles that enjoy the whole sound frequency spectrum. 


Edited by Poetik - 7/29/11 at 1:09am
post #83 of 917

Anymore news?

post #84 of 917
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poetik View Post

Anymore news?



I will have some additional information for you soon, or perhaps the company will enlighten us here with a tidbit or two.

post #85 of 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poetik View Post

We don't want a TF10, we want everything the same but without a whole 1/3rd of the frequency spectrum missing. 


In actuality it's more than 1/3rd when you consider most music occurs in that 1/3rd portion of the spectrum.

 

post #86 of 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




In actuality it's more than 1/3rd when you consider most music occurs in that 1/3rd portion of the spectrum.

 


Good point, I meant that statement towards the 1964-Q rather than the TF10's though. 

 

post #87 of 917
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poetik View Post




Good point, I meant that statement towards the 1964-Q rather than the TF10's though. 

 


Then I am confused by that statement. The 1964-Q sounds nothing like the TF10 ( I can't stand the TF10 personally). So, did you ever have the 1964-Q with shells customized to your ears, or did you try listening to someone else's Quads? There are no recessed mids in the 1964-Q like with the TF10. You lost me there sir.

 

post #88 of 917

Yep.. if anything, the mids are slightly forward on the Quads.. not recessed in any way whatsoever.

post #89 of 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poetik View Post

We don't want a TF10, we want everything the same but without a whole 1/3rd of the frequency spectrum missing.  We, the people of head-fi, want to have a 1964 iem with all the positives of the 1964-Q but with non recessed (or "extended" for ericp10) highs. 

 

I know that can't be too much to ask right? The stage musicians have the 1964-Q but the v6 is for the audiophiles that enjoy the whole sound frequency spectrum. 

 

I truly meant to put, "we want everything the same as the quads but without a whole 1/3rd of the frequency spectrum missing.".  I'll change the original post so no one gets confused anymore. 

 

Obviously not everyone is gonna feel the same way about that statement above but that's my personal opinion.  I really do believe that if this iem is going to be made for music listeners then the highs must be presented properly.  Also when I say properly I mean not recessed like the 1964-Q. 

 

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstandings. 

 

 

 

post #90 of 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericp10 View Post




Then I am confused by that statement. The 1964-Q sounds nothing like the TF10 ( I can't stand the TF10 personally). So, did you ever have the 1964-Q with shells customized to your ears, or did you try listening to someone else's Quads? There are no recessed mids in the 1964-Q like with the TF10. You lost me there sir.

 


Yea I ended up getting a great seal on my friends pair while doing a comparison with the demo version of the UM Merlin.  Definitely not the best way to experience them but it reaffirmed my initial thoughts of it having great bass, great mids, and recessed highs. 

 

I'm very interested in a 1964 iem due to them being in my country and just one state away from me.  I want to buy from them but I need for them to first create an IEM that I would truly enjoy.  I'm really hoping the v6 could really be the one I'm searching for. 

 

 


Edited by Poetik - 7/29/11 at 1:25am
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