[rawrster]

I've decided to do a brief comparison in order to give me a guideline or a reference for when I have more time with the 1964-T. I have plenty of hours on my LiveWire Trips and I know them well so no worries there. I still have to get adjusted to the 1964-T (as well as my other gear that came in the mail recently).
 

 
I used the various tracks
Eva Cassidy - Fields of Gold [Songbird]
Markus Schulz - I Am [Progression]
Sarah McLachlan - Building a Mystery [Surfacing]
 
 
I won't be comparing the tracks since this not a review but just a quick A/B. My dac/amp has dual outputs and I put a 1/8 to 1/4 adapter over one of the outputs so switching should be easy. I volume matched to the best of my ability by hearing. I also may not get a better chance to A/B as well so might as well.
 
The treble is more airy with the Trips and detail on top seems to be around the same with just a different presentation. The 1964-T is more laid back than the Trips here.
 
The midrange is definitely more forward with the Trips but not overly done. The midrange is one of the strengths of the Trips imo and just seems to grab your attention. The 1964-T isn't forward or recessed and seems to be more flat in response than the Trips.
 
The bass seems to hit a bit harder with the Trips. Extension on both are good and I don't feel like I'm missing much. There really isn't a bass hump on either so not one of those if that's what you are looking for. Quality on both are great and just about right for me. They are neither bass heavy or light for me.
 
Stage is definitely less with the 1964-T. The Trips have a good sound stage for an iem and it surpasses many closed earphones so not surprising it has a larger stage.
 
 
As of right now they are both good. I'm not wowed over by the 1964-T but I think it's perspective in that I already had a custom so it's not like this is brand new territory. The 1964-T is flatter in response and doesn't have something that grabs your attention immediately like the midrange of the Trips but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. The 1964-T is better when making comparisons with other gear since it is flatter and that's what I want when comparing to other phones. You can't argue the value of the 1964-T at $350 plus impressions which is right around the cost of a very good universal.
 
I definitely need more time however so maybe in a month or so I'll have more valid comparisons.
 
 
I may get my LiveWires reshelled however since the 1964-T looks much nicer so have to see prices since 1964 does already have my impressions so thats $55 or so saved including shipping and impressions. I have always wanted to get something done via UM but don't think i want to wait a month.

 

[buffalowings]

rawster, looking at the specs of both phones, the livewires probably have a better soundstage because of the third crossover (i couldn't actually find how many crossovers it has, but I'm assuming three versus the two in the triples) because from reviews and talking to vitaly at 1964 ears, the quads have a better soundstage than the triples. and phones with three crossovers seem to have the best soundstage in general

 

[rawrster]

They both should have the same. The Livewires uses a dual driver for the highs and a single for the low while its the other way around for the 1964-T. Actually I find that the more crossovers there are the more difficult it is for it to sound coherent. 

 

[project86]

I've been going by the assumption that the LiveWires Trips use a 3-way crossover all this time. I believe it was told to me directly by the company. But now that you mention it.... nowhere on their website does it specifically mention that fact. So you could be correct. Either way it does sound like a 3-way with the spacious soundstage.
 
From your description the 1964T sound rather boring compared to the Trips. Not that you are doing a poor job of describing because that's how it is when I try to explain it too. Yet the sound is not boring at all, just even and neutral. As you said a great reference sound to compare to other IEMs. Kind of in the same spirit as the AKG K240DF.
 

 

[JSoriginal]

Ahhhh ! I just got my RSA Hornet-M, Now I really cant wait for my ear impressions on the 20th ! even more so for the Quad order to arrive after
 
Thank you all for your feedback on 1964 ears & I will be sure to post mine after I get them, will also mention their performance paired with a Hornet-M and my Iphone 4 will do a with and without comparison for those wondering.
 
Head-fi is going to make me broke, i cant help but find something new to buy every other day.

 

[rawrster]

Quote:

I've been going by the assumption that the LiveWires Trips use a 3-way crossover all this time. I believe it was told to me directly by the company. But now that you mention it.... nowhere on their website does it specifically mention that fact. So you could be correct. Either way it does sound like a 3-way with the spacious soundstage.
 
From your description the 1964T sound rather boring compared to the Trips. Not that you are doing a poor job of describing because that's how it is when I try to explain it too. Yet the sound is not boring at all, just even and neutral. As you said a great reference sound to compare to other IEMs. Kind of in the same spirit as the AKG K240DF.
 

I got no idea on if it's a 3 way or 2 way or whatever. However I really don't get caught up in all the technical aspects and I really don't care. If it sounds great then that is all I care about.
 
I'll see about the sound when I get more used to it since I do have to switch between the 1964-T and some universals that I got in the mail lately since I do want to write a review on one of them but typically my thoughts from out of the box to many hundred of hours later does not change much if at all.
 
Either way I'll say the money I spent was not wasted which is a good thing. I think I might like the longer tube on the cable that comes with the 1964-T compared to the ES cable since the short memory wire does cause some annoyance and sometimes a bit of pain on the outer area of the ear but the cable might solve that but I'll have to see about that over a longer period of time.

 

[matto]

Those custom sleeves look reallyyy tempting :O

 

[aamefford]

I'm thinking more and more about custom art.  I sent the photo linked or posted or whatever below in with a question as to how well the 1964ears gang thought it would come out, and what color to make the iem's so it looks the best.  I thought I'd pose the same question to the gallery here, just for fun:
 

Yes, it's someone I love, my beautiful, amazing 6 year old daughter.  So, aside from the sentimental part for me, will it look good when it gets shrunken down (Honey, I shrunk the advocate ribbon!), and what color to put it on?  Translucent black, or green?  Clear? another suggestion?  Skip it?  What do you all think?

 

[Randius]

Quote:

I'm thinking more and more about custom art.  I sent the photo linked or posted or whatever below in with a question as to how well the 1964ears gang thought it would come out, and what color to make the iem's so it looks the best.  I thought I'd pose the same question to the gallery here, just for fun:
 

Yes, it's someone I love, my beautiful, amazing 6 year old daughter.  So, aside from the sentimental part for me, will it look good when it gets shrunken down (Honey, I shrunk the advocate ribbon!), and what color to put it on?  Translucent black, or green?  Clear? another suggestion?  Skip it?  What do you all think?

Unfortunately, once shrunk down, it may be too small to make out the "advocate" word. The other word may fare better. You may wanna simplify the symbol.

 

[rawrster]

Artwork should be kept relatively simple. The shell isn't that large of area to have too complicated artwork.
 
I'm getting more used tot he 1964-T and aesthetically they are better than the Trips I have and fit better but I think the latter is a bit more engaging. I've been using the 1964-T more lately but I'll see down the line since I do plan to reshell them as they look dull and boring next to the 1964-T. Maybe something like UM would do the job.
 
If the 1964-T had some more treble energy instead of being so laid back and sound more like the signature of the CK10 it would be what I want in a custom

 

[aamefford]

Randius, rawrster, you both echo my concerns.  I'll either ditch the lettering, come up with something else (I have an idea...) or likely save $50 skip the artwork, and minimize people staring at me trying to figure out just what is in my ears...  Thank you for the input.  rawrster, yur comments and others that echo yours are why I finally went for the trips DOH, I meant quads.  I'm not doing mixing or monitoring work - I LIKE fun phones.  Hence the quads for me, and hence my love for my D7000's.

 

[Poetik]

What constitutes a larger sound stage in custom iems? Aren't the custom shells around the same size? It's probably the placement of the driver inside the shell right? I'm trying to get a gauge of how wide the 1964-Q or T's would be but all I have for reference right now is the ie8.  Can anyone compare the the sound stage width to the tf10?

 

[aleki]

 
Quote:

Randius, rawrster, you both echo my concerns.  I'll either ditch the lettering, come up with something else (I have an idea...) or likely save $50 skip the artwork, and minimize people staring at me trying to figure out just what is in my ears...  Thank you for the input.  rawrster, yur comments and others that echo yours are why I finally went for the trips.  I'm not doing mixing or monitoring work - I LIKE fun phones.  Hence the quads for me, and hence my love for my D7000's.

 
You can always have them re-done by SleekAudio. IIRC, they charge $50 for the graphics, and they can do 3d etching (although I'm not sure if that means they need to open the shell)
 
Quote:

What constitutes a larger sound stage in custom iems? Aren't the custom shells around the same size? It's probably the placement of the driver inside the shell right? I'm trying to get a gauge of how wide the 1964-Q or T's would be but all I have for reference right now is the ie8.  Can anyone compare the the sound stage width to the tf10?

+1
I am about ready to place an order, but my biggest reserve is the treble extension, or from what it appears, lack of. I read eric saying how it's just right, but to me, that could mean it has roll-off like the miles davis or copper's.
Do the quads sound something like the MD lows + TF10 highs? I'm trying to imagine this in my head

 

[buffalowings]

aleki, I asked randius the same questions about the quads, here were some of his thoughts,
 
 
I am sorry to let you know that the MTPC was sold off for more than 6 months and my comments will be based on memory. Please do take it with a pinch of salt.

 

"Compared to MTPC, the quads has better bass in terms of quantity, extension and tightness. Its bass has great impact and the sub-bass can really make your ears rumble. However, please do not think that the bass is overwhelming. Like what Eric had mentioned, it overwhelms only when recorded so. I had listened to tracks featuring vocals and cymbals and the they are very clear.

 

As for midrange, IMO, quads is a little more forward than MTPC. Quads also do a better job on handling sibilance than MTPC. Treble-wise, it is certain audible but does not carry a lot of sparkle and transparency. I can't recall the treble on MTPC so I cannot comment further.

 

Sound stage is a non-competition. Quads simply triumphs over the MTPC when the recording tries to portray the spaciousness and sounds really surrounded, unlike the disjointed hemisphere feeling on the IE8. Sometimes, the bass sounds as if it disappears into the horizon. In the IEMs I had owned, instrument separation is second to UM3X and better than MTPC, SM3, TF10 but remains musical.

 

Treble on quads is more energetic sounding than on SM3. Cymbals on SM3 doesn't have the "edge" and sounds further away.

 

If you love the treble on TF10, you may be a little disappointed because quads is not as bright and less sparkle. But if you find TF10 to be fatiguing, quads will be more comfortable to listen to."

 

many thanks to randius for his thoughts on the quads

 

james

 

[rawrster]

Quote:

What constitutes a larger sound stage in custom iems? Aren't the custom shells around the same size? It's probably the placement of the driver inside the shell right? I'm trying to get a gauge of how wide the 1964-Q or T's would be but all I have for reference right now is the ie8.  Can anyone compare the the sound stage width to the tf10?

I wonder about sound stage and how one earphone has a large one and another has a small one. In universals those that do are open have larger sound stage such as the IE8 due to design but I wonder about customs where the shells should be the same size. It may very well be driver placement as well as tuning but I wouldn't know. Either way the LiveWires has a more realistic sound stage since it has good width and depth. Many times I find an earphone that does really well with one or the other but not both. The 1964-T sound stage isn't small but just isn't as large as the LiveWires which is what I have gotten used to over the last couple of weeks.