[kiteki]

Originally Posted by average_joe /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
/ Speaking of the CX6, while I can't say how any of the CX line sounds, I have heard all of the Rooth LS lineup and the LS6 may just be the best in the lineup as it is so very neutral (and on the bright side) with a liquid presentation that combines amazing clarity and reminds me of the NT-6 in many ways.  
 
As far as the CX8, I was told there are two options, one with the dual super lows, or, like the LS8, dual super tweeters.  If the CX8 came in that configuration, sounded like the LS6 but with better treble extension, that would be a very nice CIEM.

 
Hi Joe,
 
Yeah, I've had the impression the CX6 / LS6 is the best one in the series too.  They seem to be identical.  I have one on the way now, finally.

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

Wow, thank you very much!  That is more than I could have asked for.  Glad to hear that there are so many good options for me in this range.  I will take a closer look at these recommendations and pick one.  Thank you again again and I hope that you have a wonderful day.
 
Brian

 
No problem, I am happy to help.  Let us know what you decide to get and what you think once you get it.
 
Quote:

The V6 is really a steal for 650$. It can almost match the NT6 Pro in clarity. Very close. But they are far from burned in. I have only used them for like 3 hours maybe. The V6 has alot more bass than I thought they would have. More than the NT6 Pro but less than Wan Xuan I9 Pro. Mids are more forward compared to the NT6 and the soundstage is a little bit smaller. Need to burn in the V6 more.
 
I found them both better in everyway than Heir 8A and Westone ES5.

 
Wow, that sounds quite impressive, shocking actually.  How much clearer is the V6 compared to the i9pro and 8.A?
 
Quote:

Average_joe, I noticed that you did mention that the ACS T1 Live! sounds quite similar to the LCD-2. Would you mind doing a brief comparison between the two?

 
Yes.  Both share a warm and organic note with similar sound signatures, except the T1 Live! has a bit more energy in the upper midrange area making it sounds brighter and a bit livelier.  The LCD-2 sounds larger since it is a headphone, but depending on the song the difference isn't huge.  The LCD-2 has a bit more deep bass while the warmth is close between the two.  The midrange of the LCD-2 sounds slightly better integrated with the midrange than the T1 Live!, mainly because the T1 Live! mids are a bit more forward.  The LCD-2's laid back treble can make it sound slightly dark in direct comparison with some tracks.  I would give the detail edge to the T1 Live!, especially in the top end while the LCD-2 has better bass texturing.
 
Quote:

Hi Joe,
 
Yeah, I've had the impression the CX6 / LS6 is the best one in the series too.  They seem to be identical.  I have one on the way now, finally.

 
Welcome back, long time no see.  Nice!  I have fond memories of the LS6 demo and could be very happy owning one!  Let us know what you think when you get it.

 

[tomscy2000]

Does anyone know much about the newer models from Gregorz? In particular, the 3-Way Pro and 1-Way Pro seem interesting...
 
From the Spiral Ears website:
 
3-Way Pro:

Technical capabilities and resolution characteristics resemble, to a very large degree, the presentation of SE 5-way Reference monitors, except for overall less bass weight, making them a brighter and thinner version of SE-5’s.
 
Low notes can go deep when provided by recordings, but overall, the main goal of the 3-way Pro is to deliver a sound that is coherent, hi-resolution, more analytical, but still natural and neutral, that is focused mainly on ultra clear mids and highs rather than raw bass power capabilities that SE-5’s are also able to deliver when necessary. They also share similar ADSR and PraT traits, though the SE-5’s are capable of more variations in sustain and release of notes in this regard.

 
1-Way Pro:

The focus of the sound signature is on producing a very clean and analytical sound (resembling Etymotic ER-4’s), with enhanced mids and sharp highs but also with a slight improvement in lower end spectrum, achieved through better isolation. Lightweight bass presentation compared to other SE monitors.

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

Does anyone know much about the newer models from Gregorz? In particular, the 3-Way Pro and 1-Way Pro seem interesting...
 
From the Spiral Ears website:
 

 
Only by reading, not by ear.  But I am intrigued.

 

[Xymordos]

The Hong Kong distributor of the CX series said that CX6 is more balanced and more detailed than the CX8.

 

[tomscy2000]

I just listened to demos of the 1964-Q and V6; at this point, I think the V3 is the best price/performance product in 1964Ears' entire product line. Nevermind the boost bass (which is fine for its purpose), the Q is very unnatural in the treble region; I know they intended it to be a drummers' monitor, and the tuning definitely will bring out the snap of snares and cymbals, but it's a bit ridiculous --- it's definitely not for regular music listening. The V6 is a balanced product, with ample bass and very good high frequency extension/resolution; it utilizes a TWFK driver that I haven't seen/heard yet, and it's one of the few that doesn't brickwall downwards around 10 kHz before recovering around 12 kHz; this variant dips comparatively little. However, I think the V6's cardinal flaw is its lack of good center focus; I don't know if it's an issue of phase coherence or a relatively recessed region around 2.5 kHz, but I didn't find vocals on it particularly inspiring; this might improve with a custom shell, but for a monitor designed for the 'audiophile sound', I think this area can stand to improve. Lower mids are also a bit too smoothed out for my tastes.

 

[kiteki]

The Hong Kong distributor of the CX series said that CX6 is more balanced and more detailed than the CX8.

 
The Singapore distributor uses a CX6 himself too, instead of a CX8.  I like the CX series better than LS, since the CX's are still crafted by the sole inventor of CX / LS.  UM is a joke, i.e. 6-month turn-around times.
 
Conclusion:  CX6 is the best model.
 
Edit:  Not necessarily the best-looking though, I asked for a tiny bit of orange on the tips, he made it gushing with red.

 

[rubick]

I wonder how does the v6 fare against 4A or 8a

 

[kiteki]

Thx for the impressions Tom.  A Japanese blogger thinks he identified via twitter pictures the V6 is Sonion 33A007, DTEC, TWFK, if you want to add that to your driver chart.

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

  I wonder how does the v6 fare against 4A or 8a

 
I listened to the demo V6 against my 4.A; in keeping with my thoughts in the previous post, I think people looking for a looser, more 'natural' sounding low end might prefer the V6's bass to that of the 4.A's. The V6 has quite a bit of sub-bass boost. The 4.A is comparatively tighter and faster-sounding. The biggest difference is in the lower midrange and the main midrange. The 4.A has great center focus; it's main flaw is the narrow but significant drop off in the upper midrange that makes for slightly blunted harmonics. The V6 doesn't have this issue, but overall, it sounds bland throughout the midrange. I'd prefer the midrange of something like the 334 or the Rooth LS-X5 (that I just heard last week), or even the 111, which is highly accurate throughout the midrange with a bit of upper midrange boost (IMO). In the treble, the V6 is crisp and present, which is something that is surprising considering the typical laid-back 1964 house sound. It holds good resolution through this range as well. Overall, however, I find the V6 a little unsure of itself --- it wants to be bassy, but it's not quite, it wants to be warm, but has a surprisingly cold upper register, and therefore, it feels overall a bit uninspiring; a little like how I felt about the JH13 (pre-FreqPhase) before.

 

[rubick]

I listened to the demo V6 against my 4.A; in keeping with my thoughts in the previous post, I think people looking for a looser, more 'natural' sounding low end might prefer the V6's bass to that of the 4.A's. The V6 has quite a bit of sub-bass boost. The 4.A is comparatively tighter and faster-sounding. The biggest difference is in the lower midrange and the main midrange. The 4.A has great center focus; it's main flaw is the narrow but significant drop off in the upper midrange that makes for slightly blunted harmonics. The V6 doesn't have this issue, but overall, it sounds bland throughout the midrange. I'd prefer the midrange of something like the 334 or the Rooth LS-X5 (that I just heard last week), or even the 111, which is highly accurate throughout the midrange with a bit of upper midrange boost (IMO). In the treble, the V6 is crisp and present, which is something that is surprising considering the typical laid-back 1964 house sound. It holds good resolution through this range as well. Overall, however, I find the V6 a little unsure of itself --- it wants to be bassy, but it's not quite, it wants to be warm, but has a surprisingly cold upper register, and therefore, it feels overall a bit uninspiring; a little like how I felt about the JH13 (pre-FreqPhase) before.

Thanks for the input.
So will u reco the v6 over the 4A?

 

[kiteki]

The JH13 is uninspiring for sure.  All hype.

 

[Metalboy]

Quote:

 
Wow, that sounds quite impressive, shocking actually.  How much clearer is the V6 compared to the i9pro and 8.A?
 
 

 
I find it alot clearer than the I9pro and a bit above the 8.A.
 
Quote:

 
Which did you think was better than the ES5 and 8A? If the V6 is really better than those, I will need a look at them :O
 
How is the bass quantity compared to the 8A?

 
Less than the 8A and alot less midbass.

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

  Thanks for the input. So will u reco the v6 over the 4A?

It's hard to say; it depends on a person's taste. I don't have a particularly positive view of the V6, and I like my 4.A despite its flaws, but I can imagine someone liking the V6 a lot. As it stands, however, the only 1964 product I'd consider getting is the V3. It feels the most polished and definite of all their products. It understands what it is --- an enjoyable 'entry-level' CIEM that provides a very natural response. To me, the V6 feels like it's trying to do no wrong, but in the process, it doesn't do much right, either.
 
At the same time, there are certain aspects to the sound that I feel would improve over the demo mold if one were to get the actual custom. For example, from the 4.Ai to the 4.A, I heard a substantial improvement in depth of presentation, and the lack of annoying high frequency resonances otherwise found in silicone tips. For the V6, I tried to use tips that minimized these aspects, but there's no matching a true custom mold. On the other hand, a custom mold would make the presentation of the V6 that I heard even bassier, and that may potentially be problematic, if someone wants the tightest, fastest bass possible.

 

[3nenbgumi]

Yes.  Both share a warm and organic note with similar sound signatures, except the T1 Live! has a bit more energy in the upper midrange area making it sounds brighter and a bit livelier.  The LCD-2 sounds larger since it is a headphone, but depending on the song the difference isn't huge.  The LCD-2 has a bit more deep bass while the warmth is close between the two.  The midrange of the LCD-2 sounds slightly better integrated with the midrange than the T1 Live!, mainly because the T1 Live! mids are a bit more forward.  The LCD-2's laid back treble can make it sound slightly dark in direct comparison with some tracks.  I would give the detail edge to the T1 Live!, especially in the top end while the LCD-2 has better

Thanks a bunch, average_joe. That's actually quite shocking since I thought that the LCD2 would far exceed in technical prowess. I don't mean to say that the LCD2 would wipe the floor with the T1 Live!, but...argggh you made the wait even more excruciatingly painful now!
And while we are already at that, could you do one more favor favor for me and give sine comments on how the T1 Live! does when paired up with the DX100? I'm currently using a Studio V and given the warm signature of the T1, I'd expect them to pair up quite well. But if the DX100 eats the Studio for breakfast then I might consider a source upgrading also.