Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › UE 4 Pro or 1964 Ears Quad (1964-Q), Please help ... A poor noobie tread :(
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UE 4 Pro or 1964 Ears Quad (1964-Q), Please help ... A poor noobie tread :(

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

Hi guys, I am currently looking to buy out some custom In-Ear monitors and I was wondering wich of theses two models were the best choice I could make, I know for sure that UE has alredy a great reputation where 1964 Ears is a starting company. I read the review of both theses ears and the UE 4 gets great marks for a "Beginner" set, so are they really worth it ? Or would it be better for me to invest a little more (about 150$) and get the 1964 Ears best set. So what is your opinion ? Are the 1964 Ears best model better than UE's "worst" ?

 

Thank you for your time and opinion, and sorry for my poor english, I'm a french canadian ;)

 

Tyvm :)

post #2 of 12

imho... i havent heard the UE4 so my opinion might be invalid, but i think it would be a waste of money, might as well purchase a Triplefi10 and reshell it. Looking for customs depends on your your preferences too, personally i have the 1964Q and its a little too bassy for me, so i reshelled a pair of UM3x and now i'm happy.

 

btw french canadian? cool~ reminds me of avril lavigne , she wasnt born on april though, she was born on sept, haha.

post #3 of 12

If your priorities are  isolation and comfort over SQ then entry level customs are great. Otherwise, I would go for a top- tier universal.

post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 

But are 1964-Q Considered entry level C-IEM ?

post #5 of 12

You should try looking around for reviews.  I remember reading reviews on both the UE-4, 1964-Q, and many other entry level customs.

post #6 of 12
Thread Starter 

Ya I read some and they pretty much all says that both these IEM are good ... so considering the 1964-Q are not some entry level C-IEM and cost more (and they do have more channel, wether or not it is important), do they represent a better Price/Value than the UE 4 Pro ?

 

Tyvm :)

post #7 of 12
Thread Starter 

Indeed maybe I am ... I guess I'll just keep on reading more and more about this, still there is not much on the 1964-Q so that is why I asked so here :) Thank you very much for your time, If one day I happen to finaly make a choce I will let you know ;)

 

And if there is anything new on those two models plz keep me up, tyvm

 

See ya guys :)

post #8 of 12

It's a hard, hard choice. I've had to make a similar choice myself, very recently.

 

I can tell you this - a musician friend of mine started out using UE4's, then upgraded to UE7's. He says that the extra bass driver makes a big difference, and the UE7 sound a lot 'bigger'.

 

It all comes down to figuring out how much you can afford to spend, and exactly what your requirements are, and take a small risk.

 

I really wanted soft canals, as I don't want them falling out on stage, and I need all the isolation I can get, and so I was looking at Westone, but I couldn't afford $650 for the ES-2.

 

I considered the $400 customs (the UE4, JH5, and Westone AC2), but I play drums live, and so I liked the idea of a big low end to better reproduce kick and bass.

 

And so in the end I went with 1964-T. For my $400 bucks, I got a pair of well respected Triple Driver IEM's. I paid $50 for the soft canal upgrade, and $40 for international shipping. I think that I did well with my $490 US.

 

 

Good luck with your search!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #9 of 12

after owning the 1964 ears quads for about two-three months, my overall impression was that they were not worth the $500, too much bass, very little treble, very closed in soundstage with average separation, a bigger gripe was the positioning of instruments, frequently instruments that were meant to be left/right ended up slightly behind me, very very strange situation it was. the westone 3 had much better soundstage and positioning, instruments seemed taller and bigger and the bass didn't overpower the rest of the soundstage. overall, when i compared it with my brothers turbine standard, it didn't seem very much better in comparison, overall it was a very disappointing situation. also, customer service wasn't up to my standards, I was told that the cabling came from the same supplier of JH audio but it started unbraiding in less than a month, when i got a second cable at a discounted price, a week later the cabling unbraided again and i was told that it was my fault because that would only occur if it caught on something (which it did not)

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

after owning the 1964 ears quads for about two-three months, my overall impression was that they were not worth the $500, too much bass, very little treble, very closed in soundstage with average separation, a bigger gripe was the positioning of instruments, frequently instruments that were meant to be left/right ended up slightly behind me, very very strange situation it was. the westone 3 had much better soundstage and positioning, instruments seemed taller and bigger and the bass didn't overpower the rest of the soundstage. overall, when i compared it with my brothers turbine standard, it didn't seem very much better in comparison, overall it was a very disappointing situation. also, customer service wasn't up to my standards, I was told that the cabling came from the same supplier of JH audio but it started unbraiding in less than a month, when i got a second cable at a discounted price, a week later the cabling unbraided again and i was told that it was my fault because that would only occur if it caught on something (which it did not)

 

I must say for instrument separation and positioning, I will prefer UM3x over the quads. However, I don't really find its bass to overpower the rest of the spectrum. Simply put, it is not suited to your preference. As for the cable, I had used mine for 9 months and it had turned totally green but there's no unbraiding despite not being kept in case and got caught on stuffs a couple of times. Makes me wonder how you normally handle the cable?
 

 

post #11 of 12


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randius View Post



 

I must say for instrument separation and positioning, I will prefer UM3x over the quads. However, I don't really find its bass to overpower the rest of the spectrum. Simply put, it is not suited to your preference. As for the cable, I had used mine for 9 months and it had turned totally green but there's no unbraiding despite not being kept in case and got caught on stuffs a couple of times. Makes me wonder how you normally handle the cable?
 

 



the same way i treated my westone 3's, also, i think the difference may be in the color of the cables, clear versus black, others in the appreciation thread had similar issues complaining of the cable quickly debraiding

post #12 of 12

I would also agree that the soundstage and freq. that you are hearing is subjective. I really like the my 64-Q's. I listen to mine almost 4 times a week and my cable is still perfect. I have had mine since April. If you look at the freq. reponse of the Q's, I will say it apears as if it would be a little bass heavy, however once you add a little volume to them it is actaully a nice balance between the upper and lower ranges. I find it strange that I can not find a freq. spectrum of the UE's. Scientifically, that is what is being produced. So looking at a freq. chart removes any subjectiveness. Overall I have been very happy with mine.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › UE 4 Pro or 1964 Ears Quad (1964-Q), Please help ... A poor noobie tread :(