[miceblue]

it merely critiqes with footnoted references and offers no truly scientifically tested counter to the Vanderbilt study. And the author acknowledges that Ambrose, apparently the brains behind Adel,  is a respectable person.


And my original intent was to point out the 64 Audio is the one who cannot make any third party claim with their Apex knock-off product which they announced when they were breaking off their relationship with Asius.  

That is correct. The article's main purpose was just to point out some things that didn't necessarily add up in the end. One does not simply just create a truly scientific "counter" to a study, but an in-depth critique with some skepticism can offer some insight to a given study or technology and perhaps with enough interest, create a follow-up report. I just pointed out, with what limited available resources I had, some points in the study that weren't totally explained or tested, which prompted my initial skepticism of the technology. Even a year after initially writing the article, not very many additional resources were made available.

It is also true that 64 Audio cannot exactly reproduce what ADEL is because ADEL is patented technology owned by Stephen and Asius Technologies.

it's not a study - but an opinion piece.  I find it rather interesting that the writer (hes on Head-Fi as miceblue) did not take the time to actually contact Stephen with his concerns and comments.  Anyone who knows Stephen also knows that he is extremely passionate and approachable with his work, and more than happy to go over the science - including giving examples with measurement gear.  He spent a couple of hours with me - all you have to do is reach out to him.

It reads to me more like someone took specific parts of some of the claims, then applied their own logic to it, but almost with a set goal to cast doubt. I'd suggest they actually interview Stephen with their concerns - then rewrite the piece.

All I know is that I am listening at lower levels with Adel, and my tinnitus (which is permanent) does not play up as much when wearing them. Stephen has shown me some of the things which happen (on his scope) with a sealed cavity once Adel is introduced.  That coupled with the results I'm hearing is enough for me to appreciate that there is definitely something to the claims.

I actually did reach out to Stephen via a Skype video chat last year, and I have met him in-person during one of the local meets [back when he was still business partners with 1964 Ears].

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bol9igi5MIQ[/video]


Prior to that local meet, I had already written about 90% of the article, and it was a surprise to everyone that he attended the meet. I brought up some of the points I mentioned in the article to him during that meet and, at the time, he did have plans to go back to Vanderbilt University to further work on ADEL's claims, some of which were in my concerns regarding the article.

And yes, he is every bit as excited and passionate about the technology as he ought to be; I too am very excited for it and its potential uses, but I would like to see more scientifically-structured studies done on the technology to quantify the claims made by it.

I offered him to look through the article for any suggestions and/or edits, but I suppose he was too busy and didn't get around to it.

^ that was sent and acknowledged by Stephen in September 2015

Everything I wrote in the article has some truth to it in one way or another. A reasonable amount of skepticism is beneficial to the scientific community since it can bring up ideas that were previously not thought of at the time, and is a also good discussion-starter for those not as technically inclined. I had to spend a pretty sizable amount time of looking up information regarding ADEL, its patents (in which Stephen was impressed that I actually did read into them), sources of information, sources of funding, relevant peer-reviewed papers to back up claims, talking to Stephen on Skype, checking out actual reference books recommended by Stephen from the library, and structuring and wording the article in a way that would be accessible to many.

As mentioned above, I just pointed out, with what limited available resources I had, some points in the study that weren't totally explained or tested, which prompted my initial skepticism of the technology. I didn't say the technology doesn't work, but I also didn't say it does work. I merely point out things that were claimed that are not necessarily backed by scientific results, or are unclear from what was posted.





That being said, this is the 1964 Ears ADEL thread. Any 64 Ears product with the Apex technology cannot be guaranteed to meet the same claims as ADEL. I'm not sure what products have Apex at the current moment, but the original universal-fit A12 with the non-adjustable ADEL module sounded fantastic to me, easily among the best universal in-ears I have heard.

 

[radiohead7]

I made the same argument in the beginning with APEX not being tested to the standard of Adel but its not the end of the world.I think that they just want to get it on the market this quarter then University testing can come later. I am guessing that 1964 ears must have diagnostic equipment that tested the ADEL modules for pneumatic pressure and are using it to do the same testing for APEX. You have to understand that 1964ears and Asius shared technologies and so 1964ears has some engineering working knowledge of how the artificial eardrum works. Maybe they improved on the concept of ADEL.As far as i know no one has heard the APEX modules and if they want more people to take a leap of faith on there new product then they should offer it at a discount to get more people to buy it, review it, and create buzz....if its as great as they say it is. I would be willing to be a guinea pig on a pair of customs if they discount them. I think if they were smart they would offer a labor day sale so there is more information out there for the Christmas sale to make a buying decision.  

 

[Yyvs]

My apex A12 came in recently and have been listening to them for a bit, but would rather spend a few months with them before articulating detailed thoughts.
 
In light of the past 30 or so pages of accusatory claims by head-fi'ers regarding apex, I wanted to weigh in a little bit.
 
My initial impressions are that the A12's (paired with AK240 primarily) sound very natural, fairly neutral with a tilt of warmth. Mids have superb layering, well controlled and openly presented; bass is textured and treble has decent extension and airiness. Soundstage could be wider, and there is slight congestion, a bit more noticeable when playing through native 128 dsd recordings. At lower volumes, the A12 still sound very full. Moreover, I normally get physical pain from fatigue after listening about 1-2 hours but I was able to go for 6 straight hours without noticing discomfort (maybe I will push for 10 on a quiet day).
 
The point? I think my initial impressions are largely consistent with what you can find online regarding the adel A12's. And frankly, I think that should matter the most when choosing to drop nearly $2000 on a totl CIEM.
 
Unfortunately, unless a large sample of well trained reviewers test the A12s in both apex and adel in a double blind setting, we won't ever know whether there is a perceptible difference in how the modules interact with pneumatic pressure. Admittedly, new shoppers have to have faith in 64 audio that the apex does not compromise and the technology was developed over time. It's hard to imagine that a respected brand, well regarded even before the adel collaboration, would ruin its image for short-term gains by offering a fake product to a community that actively looks for faults. 
 
But, even those who are feverishly advocating for adel are putting an enormous amount of faith in something they do not know. Citing 'science' as a casual listener is phenomenologically the same as a villager citing his chieftain's elaborate rain dance movements. Maybe 64 audio will publish lab tests that are confirmed by some third party but even then, naysayers will find something else to disparage. 
 
So back to the A12's; they are not technically impressive or linear as the layla's nor as musical as the K10's but that's how I want them to be. I have a toxic cables hydra 22 silver iem cable coming in about 8 weeks which I hope will help the resolution. I have a ares ii+ copper cable at hand for those times I don't care about high fidelity. 
 
In all, I think these are quite excellent CIEMs. I listen to quite a bit of modern rock, indie acoustic, folk and r&b with some classical (romantic movement mostly) and I can say that they A12s are a great match for me. While I can't say the sound quality was compromised when compared to the adel or provide the same amount of benefits to my long-term hearing (which none of us will really know until much later anyways), I can say to prospective buyers that my impressions of the new apex A12s do not seem to substantially deviate from previous adel reviewers' thoughts on sound signature and comfort during long listening sessions.

 

[Matte82]

I received my u3 and u6's today. I've literally had maybe 30-40 mins with them. No where near enough to make any serious comments about the sound. I will say that so far it'll probably be the u6's that stay. Unless I just go ahead and order a6's. And at this point that could be likely. Well likely that I sell the u3's fairly soon, wait and order some a6's during a sale, and then sell the u6's after the a6's arrive. Because I am really digging these.

 

[Majid Mute]

hi Friends
1964ears u8 VS shure se846 which on better overal SQ???
and which Difference in SQ???plz Comparison for me.
TNX...

 

[miceblue]

I made the same argument in the beginning with APEX not being tested to the standard of Adel but its not the end of the world.I think that they just want to get it on the market this quarter then University testing can come later. I am guessing that 1964 ears must have diagnostic equipment that tested the ADEL modules for pneumatic pressure and are using it to do the same testing for APEX. You have to understand that 1964ears and Asius shared technologies and so 1964ears has some engineering working knowledge of how the artificial eardrum works. Maybe they improved on the concept of ADEL.As far as i know no one has heard the APEX modules and if they want more people to take a leap of faith on there new product then they should offer it at a discount to get more people to buy it, review it, and create buzz....if its as great as they say it is. I would be willing to be a guinea pig on a pair of customs if they discount them. I think if they were smart they would offer a labor day sale so there is more information out there for the Christmas sale to make a buying decision.  

Yup, it looks like 64 Audio and Asius Technologies had some issues regarding supply and demand, which is unfortunate to hear about.

http://www.64audio.com/blog/2016/08/03/regarding-the-end-of-64-audios-partnership-with-adel/

We reached a point where the communication issues and differences in vision between the two companies were beginning to threaten our inventory levels. We did not know when or even if we would be receiving the next shipment of ADEL modules. Our R&D team kicked into high gear to find a new solution. We tried numerous methods and materials, and discovered that there are many ways to relieve pneumatic pressure in a sealed ear canal. We found using a multi-cell studio-grade TPE material to be very effective and it actually yields more consistent results than what we had been getting with ADEL modules we received from Asius.

Who knows, maybe Apex is actually better than ADEL! For 64 Audio at least, and for the people who order their products, Apex seems to be the better option.

 

[glassmonkey]

Unfortunately, unless a large sample of well trained reviewers test the A12s in both apex and adel in a double blind setting, we won't ever know whether there is a perceptible difference in how the modules interact with pneumatic pressure. Admittedly, new shoppers have to have faith in 64 audio that the apex does not compromise and the technology was developed over time. It's hard to imagine that a respected brand, well regarded even before the adel collaboration, would ruin its image for short-term gains by offering a fake product to a community that actively looks for faults. 

You don't need double blind testing to confirm reduction of pneumatic pressure, it is measurable, and Stephen Ambrose has demonstrated the effect on video multiple times. I've not seen anything similar from APEX, and APEX has no known scientific studies backing it up.

 

[Brooko]

Yup, it looks like 64 Audio and Asius Technologies had some issues regarding supply and demand, which is unfortunate to hear about.

http://www.64audio.com/blog/2016/08/03/regarding-the-end-of-64-audios-partnership-with-adel/
Who knows, maybe Apex is actually better than ADEL! For 64 Audio at least, and for the people who order their products, Apex seems to be the better option.

 
You are jumping to some huge conclusions after just hearing one side of the story.  I'd imagine Asius viewpoint will come out eventually (I've already been privy to some of it, but I cannot disclose).  All I can say is that I'm sorry to see the two companies part ways - as the ADEL series of 64 Audio IEMs were truly special.  I've enjoyed working with both companies as a reviewer.

 

[Yyvs]

  You don't need double blind testing to confirm reduction of pneumatic pressure, it is measurable, and Stephen Ambrose has demonstrated the effect on video multiple times. I've not seen anything similar from APEX, and APEX has no known scientific studies backing it up.

Yes, I agree that there is no avoiding some objective measure of pneumatic pressure to compare the two products when 'scientific studies' are touted around and surely 64 audio would better make its case to consumers by presenting more data to the critics.
 
But, the technical specifications of adel are evaluated via the subjective perception of high fidelity sounds at lower volumes; that listeners can enjoy the same experience at lower volumes and are less prone to listening fatigue is the material outcome of the technology. If listeners have close to the same perceptible experience at lower volumes for a prolonged listening session, does it then matter which patent originated the experience? Personally for me, it doesn't.
 
For most consumers who are not personally attached to either asius or 64 audio, I don't know whether it should matter so greatly whether it's apex or adel that's doing the heavy lifting. It's like choosing between os x or windows all-in-one desktop but then deciding otherwise because you are skeptical of 4k retina vs 4k OLED vs 4k led backlit lcd. Yes, one may be technically superior but I doubt that a user who wants a linux or windows based machine will compromise on this because of the associated display patent. Likewise, many listeners who are interested in the A12 (instead of other great CIEMs) are probably so, mainly for its sound signature with the added benefit of the technology. To that end, and the purpose of my previous post, I want to give a general impression that yes, I am able to enjoy a fuller sound at lower volumes with much less fatigue with the sound signature as I wanted them to be. 

 

[glassmonkey]

 
You don't need double blind testing to confirm reduction of pneumatic pressure, it is measurable, and Stephen Ambrose has demonstrated the effect on video multiple times. I've not seen anything similar from APEX, and APEX has no known scientific studies backing it up.

Yes, I agree that there is no avoiding some objective measure of pneumatic pressure to compare the two products when 'scientific studies' are touted around and surely 64 audio would better make its case to consumers by presenting more data to the critics.

But, the technical specifications of adel are evaluated via the subjective perception of high fidelity sounds at lower volumes; that listeners can enjoy the same experience at lower volumes and are less prone to listening fatigue is the material outcome of the technology. If listeners have close to the same perceptible experience at lower volumes for a prolonged listening session, does it then matter which patent originated the experience? Personally for me, it doesn't.

For most consumers who are not personally attached to either asius or 64 audio, I don't know whether it should matter so greatly whether it's apex or adel that's doing the heavy lifting. It's like choosing between os x or windows all-in-one desktop but then deciding otherwise because you are skeptical of 4k retina vs 4k OLED vs 4k led backlit lcd. Yes, one may be technically superior but I doubt that a user who wants a linux or windows based machine will compromise on this because of the associated display patent. Likewise, many listeners who are interested in the A12 (instead of other great CIEMs) are probably so, mainly for its sound signature with the added benefit of the technology. To that end, and the purpose of my previous post, I want to give a general impression that yes, I am able to enjoy a fuller sound at lower volumes with much less fatigue with the sound signature as I wanted them to be. 

You are acting like the scientific studies are garbage, they aren't. I suggest you go read them. I was skeptical during the Kickstarter and directly requested the studies, as they weren't easily available. They are now available on Asius's website. The fact remains that 64 Audio has demonstrated nothing scientifically. What you are experiencing could just as well be placebo effect.

I also disagree with your premise that sound is the primary sales driver of the model line with pneumatic pressure relief through modules. There are lots of amazing sounding headphones out there. The pneumatic pressure models are on the upper end of the price range of IEMs, what differentiates them is the modules.

Additionally, as I have previously stated, developing a product that duplicates a business partner's product in a very short period of time feels suspicious to me. I think Asius probably did a bad job making their patents defensible, and they should have made non-compete agreements on in ear module technology. I think that 64 Audio has probably taken advantage of Asius's business inexperience.

64 Audio's explanation falls flat for why they developed the APEX, as Canyon Runner has dispelled the supply and demand argument. 64 Audio has clearly developed the APEX module to compete with ADEL modules, hence the scorched earth policy of ensuring backwards compatibility is not possible. 64 Audio is obviously savvy in business. The APEX module let Asius do the heavy lifting on developing the concept and proving it worked, which significantly reduces R&D costs. Additionally, moving production in house lowers production expenses. I think that 64 Audio did this for profits and that any other explanation is disengenguous.

It very well may be that the APEX is as good or better than the ADEL module, but 64 Audio has proven nothing, and the development of the technology timeline and 64 Audio's behaviour raises all kinds of ethics suspicions in me. These suspicions may not be fair, but 64 Audio has done nothing to alleviate my concerns.

 

[milford30]

You are acting like the scientific studies are garbage, they aren't. I suggest you go read them. I was skeptical during the Kickstarter and directly requested the studies, as they weren't easily available. They are now available on Asius's website. The fact remains that 64 Audio has demonstrated nothing scientifically. What you are experiencing could just as well be placebo effect.

I also disagree with your premise that sound is the primary sales driver of the model line with pneumatic pressure relief through modules. There are lots of amazing sounding headphones out there. The pneumatic pressure models are on the upper end of the price range of IEMs, what differentiates them is the modules.

Additionally, as I have previously stated, developing a product that duplicates a business partner's product in a very short period of time feels suspicious to me. I think Asius probably did a bad job making their patents defensible, and they should have made non-compete agreements on in ear module technology. I think that 64 Audio has probably taken advantage of Asius's business inexperience.

64 Audio's explanation falls flat for why they developed the APEX, as Canyon Runner has dispelled the supply and demand argument. 64 Audio has clearly developed the APEX module to compete with ADEL modules, hence the scorched earth policy of ensuring backwards compatibility is not possible. 64 Audio is obviously savvy in business. The APEX module let Asius do the heavy lifting on developing the concept and proving it worked, which significantly reduces R&D costs. Additionally, moving production in house lowers production expenses. I think that 64 Audio did this for profits and that any other explanation is disengenguous.

It very well may be that the APEX is as good or better than the ADEL module, but 64 Audio has proven nothing, and the development of the technology timeline and 64 Audio's behaviour raises all kinds of ethics suspicions in me. These suspicions may not be fair, but 64 Audio has done nothing to alleviate my concerns.

 
I disagree, they gave up timed exclusive rights to the bubble technology (demoed by AC/DC) so they can sell a few more apex units. Once other manufacturers comes in with adel tech, 64 audio has no advantage over other technically better iems. They just lost a significant portion of customers interested in the adel with different modules and future technologies such as the bubble.

 

[ken6217]

Whats is the difference between the B1 and G1 modules? I have both the B1 and S1 modules. I think the B1 is excellent with my U12's. I was wondering if the G1 would be better. 

 

[twister6]

  Whats is the difference between the B1 and G1 modules? I have both the B1 and S1 modules. I think the B1 is excellent with my U12's. I was wondering if the G1 would be better. 

 
I will post a short impression/mini-review later today

 

[ken6217]

   
I will post a short impression/mini-review later today

Thanks a lot.

 

[John2e]

  Whats is the difference between the B1 and G1 modules? I have both the B1 and S1 modules. I think the B1 is excellent with my U12's. I was wondering if the G1 would be better. 

Hi Ken,
 
I PM'ed canyon runner asking which module would provide the best pressure relief between the B-1 and G-1. He added some additional details.  His response : 
 
"Hey John, it sounds the the B1 is the best option for you really. It's a single membrane module, rather than the duals (S1 & G1). The B1 will give you the least amount of isolation however because of that single membrane, so if on-stage use is one of your requirements, I'd start to consider the G1. 
 
For the last few months I've used the B1 in my A12s, I preferred the wider sound stage and leaned out bass, dramatically over the S1 module. A month ago, I swapped over to the G1 modules. Soundstage isn't as wide as the B1, but for real bottom end bass, they're great. S1 kinda has a mid-bass bump compared to the G1, which to me makes the 12 sound kinda sloppy in that range.
 
The MAMs will give you the range of the most bass adjustment, where as the B1 gives everything about -3db of bass (compared to the S1) from 1500 down in a very flat manner. With the MAM, you can drop the bass much more when you have the membranes super floppy. If I had to put a number on things, you can probably drop -10db (I don't have the testing stuff in front of me at the moment). 
 
MAMS will give you more pressure relief since there are 6 ambient holes on the module, vs the 1 on the fixed modules, but with those singles a little goes a long way."