[project86]

Tom, thanks for your impressions about the V6, Quad, V3. I have only ever heard the V3 and while a recognize its limitations, it just hits the spot for me in terms of signature and presentation. Interesting to hear your take on the V6 - I tend to hear things similar to you so I'm a bit surprised about that model. It seems that some people love it, others not so much.
 
And for those who mentioned disappointment from the original JH13 - I too was never a huge fan of it, but I gotta say I'm really impressed with the new FreqPhase iteration. It's a big step up to these ears. 

 

[kiteki]

I can believe that the FreqPhase iteration is a step up, but at the same time it's conceding that the JH13 and JH16 were flawed!  Which makes me feel better about preferring the JH11 to them.

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

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.

 
Wow, very interesting stuff.  Of course I think we all know demos can vary significantly from the real thing.  For example, the PP6 demo didn't have as large a soundstage nor was it as detailed as my $1K CIEMs, but I expect the real thing to be much better.  The V6 sounds like it has a similar issue to the Alclair Reference.  While the reference isn't bad, it is something that is noticeable when compared with my other monitors (however it is the lowest cost monitor I have at $399 and performs very well IMO at that price).  Also, the same issue the EX1000 has to my ears.
 
Quote:

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

 
I can see that due to the looser bass and more recessed midrange from my experience with the LS6 and LS8.  I think the LS6 may image better than the LS8.  But, the LS8+ is a step up from the LS8 with less bass boost/warmth and a better 3D space and imaging.
 
Quote:

 
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.

 
I wonder how much different the CX series is than the LS series.  Have they been changed since the LS series?  I know the CX8 can have double bass drivers or double treble drivers.
 
For your conclusion, have you compared them head-to-head?
 
Quote:

 
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.

 
Ooh, you demoed the LSX5!  Please share your thoughts as I thought the LSX5 integrated the dynamic and BA drivers quite well.  
 
Quote:

The JH13 is uninspiring for sure.  All hype.

 
I wouldn't say all hype, at least the JH16.  It is a good CIEM for those that listen to pop music (i.e. not well mastered).
 
Quote:

 
I find it alot clearer than the I9pro and a bit above the 8.A.
 
 
Less than the 8A and alot less midbass.

 
That's odd as the differences for me are quite significant.  I wonder there is something wrong with the fit of your NT-6 pro.  What source are you using and what music are you listening to?  How much time does the i9pro and NT-6 pro have on them.
 
Quote:

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.

 
I used the Anedio D1 for that comparison.  The DX100 does outclass my RoCoo BA in pretty much every way and I am very impressed with the T1 Live! from that source.  The DX100 outperforms all my other portable sources.

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

Tom, thanks for your impressions about the V6, Quad, V3. I have only ever heard the V3 and while a recognize its limitations, it just hits the spot for me in terms of signature and presentation. Interesting to hear your take on the V6 - I tend to hear things similar to you so I'm a bit surprised about that model. It seems that some people love it, others not so much.
 
And for those who mentioned disappointment from the original JH13 - I too was never a huge fan of it, but I gotta say I'm really impressed with the new FreqPhase iteration. It's a big step up to these ears.

 
I think the V6 is a definite technical improvement over anything else in their lineup, but musically, it leaves me wanting. Of course, these things might change between the demo mold and the actual custom. I was lucky to have heard a fully-custom V3 (the owner's ears were quite similar to mine, so I got a pretty good seal), while the Q and V6 were just demos.
 
Quote:

  Ooh, you demoed the LSX5!  Please share your thoughts as I thought the LSX5 integrated the dynamic and BA drivers quite well.  

 
I only got to listen to Tomo's personal pair (he was in town for business, so we met) and his ears didn't fit too well into mine, so I had to struggle with the fit. From what I was able to hear, however, it sounded quite promising. The bass was ample, but yet tight and never intrusive, while the midrange was nicely intimate, and like you mentioned very liquid smooth, with a pleasant bit of warmth. I couldn't get a good feel for the imaging or detail level, though, as the fit was just not the best. I think I'll get to hear the universal version in a few weeks, though, so that'll be interesting. Word is, Rooth will be revamping their packaging soon, and they're working with Japanese designers. They're not quite yet ready with the universal LS-X5, as they're still finalizing the shape of the mold to fit as many ears as possible.

 

[LyPForever]

@tomscy2000 + Joe : why don't you give FrogBeats C4 a try ) this C-IEM is really really good xD

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

@tomscy2000 + Joe : why don't you give FrogBeats C4 a try ) this C-IEM is really really good xD

For reasons I won't get into here, I have cause to believe that the C4 and the 4.A sound extremely similar.

 

[Metalboy]

Quote:

 
That's odd as the differences for me are quite significant.  I wonder there is something wrong with the fit of your NT-6 pro.  What source are you using and what music are you listening to?  How much time does the i9pro and NT-6 pro have on them.
 
 

 
No I think the NT6 Pro is clearer than all other custom iems I have heard and the V6 is in second place. I find the Heir 8A to be less clear than the V6. The i9pro is not in the same league as NT6 Pro, 8A, and the V6. I like it anyway except the fit. Its really fun sounding.
 
I have only one problem with the V6. The bass isn´t the most detailed but I have only used them for like 3 hours. Mids and treble are amazing.  I need to burn them in when I have time. On the NT6 Pro 200+ hours, I9Pro 30+ hours.

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

I can believe that the FreqPhase iteration is a step up, but at the same time it's conceding that the JH13 and JH16 were flawed!  .

You say some of the weirdest, most inflammatory stuff. LOL

 

[LyPForever]

Quote:

For reasons I won't get into here, I have cause to believe that the C4 and the 4.A sound extremely similar.

well , overall it's just your prediction , i also own the 4.Ai , but i can guarantee you 100% the C4s sound no thing like the 4.Ai , maybe the only thing which they are similar is neutral
Keep in mind the C4s and 4.A are similar because it will injure your wallet if you don't

 

[EveTan]

Quote:

well , overall it's just your prediction , i also own the 4.Ai , but i can guarantee you 100% the C4s sound no thing like the 4.Ai , maybe the only thing which they are similar is neutral
Keep in mind the C4s and 4.A are similar because it will injure your wallet if you don't

Although the 4As would injure it slightly less.

 

[3nenbgumi]

Quote:

well , overall it's just your prediction , i also own the 4.Ai , but i can guarantee you 100% the C4s sound no thing like the 4.Ai , maybe the only thing which they are similar is neutral
Keep in mind the C4s and 4.A are similar because it will injure your wallet if you don't

Actually that's saying something, since I think obviously there is a discrepancy in performance of the 4.A and the 4.Ai. If even the demo stock can actually perform differently from the real deal, then it's more than likely that the bona fide customs and its universalised sibling will differ in many ways also (aside from the core sound signature, of course). Would you mind elaborating on the comparison, aside from neutrality?

 

[LyPForever]

Quote:

Actually that's saying something, since I think obviously there is a discrepancy in performance of the 4.A and the 4.Ai. If even the demo stock can actually perform differently from the real deal, then it's more than likely that the bona fide customs and its universalised sibling will differ in many ways also (aside from the core sound signature, of course). Would you mind elaborating on the comparison, aside from neutrality?

i don't know if there is some different between the 4.A and 4.Ai because i don't have the 4.A but my friend do have it and he will recieve the 4.A next week . but i don't think there is a huge different between the 4.A and 4.Ai and overall sound they're still share the same core characteristics .
But the C4s vs 4.Ai ( or 4.A ) is another different story , the C4s sound quite different to­ the 4.Ai . sound on the C4s a little bit thicker than the 4.Ai . Bass on the C4s much deeper and much more impact than the 4.Ai . Mid is  smoother on the C4s . For the treble part , i find the 4.ai has a brighter and a bit thinner treble compare to the C4s . the C4s has the biggest soundstage and the best image i've ever heard . it's even better than my Fitear 334 not just the 4.Ai . ( also better than UERM )


For overall sound , i have to say the 4.ai is still far to catch up c4s

 

[anoxy]

All those shortcomings you mention of the 4.Ai seem like the types of things that improve with a custom mold. Leads me to suspect that the 4.A and C4 really aren't that different.

 

[kiteki]

 
I wonder how much different the CX series is than the LS series.  Have they been changed since the LS series?  I know the CX8 can have double bass drivers or double treble drivers.
 
For your conclusion, have you compared them head-to-head?

 
I'm not sure if CX has been changed since the LS series, I suppose I could try emailing GL and asking..., you never know if he may have tweaked some small details like crossovers, driver placement, filter placement (never know if he'll tell us either).
 
It was just a playful conclusion, I haven't heard a single LS or CX model, but the Singapore and Hong Kong agents have, and after comparing the JH11 / JH13 / JH16 three seperate times I couldn't personally detect any advantage in the JH16 =(, I found the JH11 more intact sounding, even if that's contrary to price and number of drivers.
 
That's where I was coming from with my "all hype" remark... Ok sure, it's not all hype, but I think there was a little hype and human instinct present with the JH16.
 
What I insinuated with my FreqPhase comment is you can't apply that technology to a single driver IEM, since there is nothing to 'fix' there, so the new iteration of the JH16 is in fact 'fixing' something, like an athlete that needs to go to the doctor.

 

[kiteki]

For reasons I won't get into here, I have cause to believe that the C4 and the 4.A sound extremely similar.

 
Haha.