[tomscy2000]

JM2C: I think a third, nonpartisan party should directly compare the Apex and ADEL and report on the differences in effect (and compared to no module). Problem is, the vast majority of people involved in audio journalism (and everyday reviewers) don't have the technical know-how and/or equipment capability to do a proper assessment, so something like that would probably not be possible.

 

[Yyvs]

It's not that I am disregarding scientific studies. My point was that the result of the technology is entirely based on the subjective perception of sound from listeners. The nature of the data is different from your generalized umbrellaed category of 'science'. The comparable analogy is evaluating the efficacy of antidepressants which are entirely subjective, at the mercy of the patient's qualitative assessment of their perceived well-being, instead of a drug to treat hypertension in which you can measure blood pressure directly as the measure of objective data. Pharmaceuticals don't market antidepressants by releasing technical information on the makeup of the molecular structure of the drug in its class, nor should an objective criterion be any useful if the patient doesn't respond to it. 
 
If 64 audio releases a study that says their lab equipment performed within a negligible standard deviation of Asius' benchmarks in each category, would that then satisfy you? Probably not because you'd want them to go use Vanderbilt's lab equipment for measurement and for that matter use the same test subjects in the same environmental condition.
 
Outside of a controlled physics experiment, data from academic literature are generally not replicable, even well-funded ones. I say this, not to dismiss the work of generations of researchers, but because I do academic research in a quantitative discipline for a living and it's just the nature of the job given the constraints of publication in a journal. Unless you have at least a doctorate in audiology or some relevant discipline (as a crude measure of your understanding of this subject) and fully 'comprehend' what data is being measured and produced, your reading of the papers or listening of what Dr. Ambrose has to say does not amount to more than a villager requiring his chieftain to do more elaborate dance moves in his rain dance ritual, phenomenologically speaking. Even proofs written in pure math are tautological to the extent of the language of what is conceptually possible (see husserl's ideas ii, wittgenstein, kuhn etc).
 
Personally, a 'scientific study' that isn't using some expensive particle accelerator at CERN probably will require a bit of suspension of rationality on my end to accept the legitimacy of the data in the first place. So I really don't care what 'science' an IEM specialist has to publish to back up their product. I don't work in business so I can't really comment on what is 'business savvy' and marketing gimmicks.
 
Instead, it would be much more helpful if previous owners of the adel module A/U series can buy the $99 apex module and give their impressions. At one point if enough head-fi'ers do, opinion should converge on whether apex is a flop. I would most certainly be interested in whether I made a leap of faith on a fraudulent product. 
 
 

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.

 

[ken6217]

 
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."

So I'll get better bass and slightly less soundstage with the G1 over the B1, but not as muddy and congested as the S1 I imagine.

 

[miceblue]

 
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

Is there a chart/summary of what the different modules do? I was pretty curious to see what each one did when 1964 Ears announced their prototype handy protective case that can house different modules.

 

[John2e]

I can only infer as I do not own the G-1. But I think so
 
I have the S-1, B-1 and MAM
 
B-1 has more bass than the MAM
Bass in B-1 is not as overwhelming (muddy) as in the S-1 
MAM has better pressure relief at the expense of isolation and decreased sub bass impact.  B-1 has better isolation than the MAM. B-1's isolation is less than  S-1
Highs are better in the MAM's because of the bass drop.  Same with the sound stage MAM has a wider sound stage than B-1 ( not by much).  Sound stage is wider in the B-1 than the S-1.
 
I listen through a Plenue S so I can EQ and decrease some of the bass bump and increase the treble and maintain the benefit of the added isolation of the B-1.  So for me I am currently using the B-1 EQ'ed... but pressure is an issue for me so I listen at a lower volume.
 
It is a delicate balancing act with trade offs and benefits.  If I were unable to EQ I'd use the MAM's at the expense of the added isolation given by using the B-1.  
 
If there is any thing you'd like me to comment on with the 3 modules I own, I'd be glad to help
 
 
 
Regards,

 

[Canyon Runner]

   
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.

I'm afraid you are incorrect with some of it, the agreement always stood that there was a year long exclusive, then 64 were to get the newest batch of tech as we open up last years version to the other company that were willing to license ADEL to add to their products. This is a model that had been mentioned and known by a number of people. Part of what I do at shows is, go around and see what have something really great, then see if they had thought about adding ADEL to their line up.
 
64 was always in line to get the newest batch of technology to continue to have a leg up on everybody else, as we opened up the current passive ADEL module to other companies. That's been the game plan since day 1, they removed themselves from that golden child position however.

 

[twister6]

 

 
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."

So I'll get better bass and slightly less soundstage with the G1 over the B1, but not as muddy and congested as the S1 I imagine.

 
You get more controlled bass.  With G1 you still get the same mid-bass slam as with S1, but the bass response is more sculptured without spilling into lower mids.  As a result, with G1 you get more clarity and less congestion in mids, not exactly on the level of B1 but close.  With mids opening up a little more (talking about G1 in comparison to S1), you also get an improvement in soundstage expansion (approaching B1 level, but not exactly - somewhere half way between S1 and B1).  B1 has more bass attenuation, making overall signature more balanced, while G1 keeps the same strong mid-bass impact of S1 but adds more clarity to the mids in comparison to S1.  That's pretty much how I hear it in both cases with U12 and U6.
 
While I found S1 and B1 to be "fixed" presets of MAM adjustable tuning, G1 is a little different and more unique because I can't get that particular sound sig recreated with MAM.
 
Btw, I really like the new 3D printed case modules arrived in, a nice touch with ADEL carved into the cover.  Here are a few "pretty" pictures (click on images to expand):
 
 
 
 
@miceblue : Sorry, I don't think I came across any official spec/summary describing modules, except for isolation/attenuation figures.  Also, I don't trust 100% my Veritas measurements, thus prefer not to post it (those are for a personal use, mostly for relative comparison).  You should definitely check out Paul's review of U6 where he has comparison graphs (a more objective take on a module comparison).  My U12 and U6 reviews also cover ADEL module comparison, but more on a subjective level, based on how I hear it. 

 

[glassmonkey]

  It's not that I am disregarding scientific studies. My point was that the result of the technology is entirely based on the subjective perception of sound from listeners. The nature of the data is different from your generalized umbrellaed category of 'science'. The comparable analogy is evaluating the efficacy of antidepressants which are entirely subjective, at the mercy of the patient's qualitative assessment of their perceived well-being, instead of a drug to treat hypertension in which you can measure blood pressure directly as the measure of objective data. Pharmaceuticals don't market antidepressants by releasing technical information on the makeup of the molecular structure of the drug in its class, nor should an objective criterion be any useful if the patient doesn't respond to it. 
 
If 64 audio releases a study that says their lab equipment performed within a negligible standard deviation of Asius' benchmarks in each category, would that then satisfy you? Probably not because you'd want them to go use Vanderbilt's lab equipment for measurement and for that matter use the same test subjects in the same environmental condition.
 
Outside of a controlled physics experiment, data from academic literature are generally not replicable, even well-funded ones. I say this, not to dismiss the work of generations of researchers, but because I do academic research in a quantitative discipline for a living and it's just the nature of the job given the constraints of publication in a journal. Unless you have at least a doctorate in audiology or some relevant discipline (as a crude measure of your understanding of this subject) and fully 'comprehend' what data is being measured and produced, your reading of the papers or listening of what Dr. Ambrose has to say does not amount to more than a villager requiring his chieftain to do more elaborate dance moves in his rain dance ritual, phenomenologically speaking. Even proofs written in pure math are tautological to the extent of the language of what is conceptually possible (see husserl's ideas ii, wittgenstein, kuhn etc).
 
Personally, a 'scientific study' that isn't using some expensive particle accelerator at CERN probably will require a bit of suspension of rationality on my end to accept the legitimacy of the data in the first place. So I really don't care what 'science' an IEM specialist has to publish to back up their product. I don't work in business so I can't really comment on what is 'business savvy' and marketing gimmicks.
 
Instead, it would be much more helpful if previous owners of the adel module A/U series can buy the $99 apex module and give their impressions. At one point if enough head-fi'ers do, opinion should converge on whether apex is a flop. I would most certainly be interested in whether I made a leap of faith on a fraudulent product. 

You are missing something crucial here, a decrease in pneumatic pressure can be objectively physically measured, it is not something subjective in the slightest. There are legitimate questions as to whether this reduction in pneumatic pressure lowers long-term risk of hearing loss. I suggested to Stephen Ambrose that long-term studies would be worth doing, as the technology could be extremely cost-effective from a health economic perspective, but needs proof of the primary reported benefit beyond mechanical theories--I'm a health economist, by the way.
 
Don't be a luddite and just excuse science as being subjective if it isn't done in a particle collider--that is silly. Go check out the studies:
 
https://asius.myshopify.com/pages/technology
 
All the studies are listed on that page, along with some conference posters too. When I heard about the technology, Asius hadn't made any of the publications available, I asked for them and was sent them. Now they have made them available on an open access basis. These guys aren't trying to trick anyone. They really believe in the technology, they've shown the principles of how it works, and the physical explanation is plausible. All they are lacking is long-term effects of using the technology, which may be expensive to acquire--they'll need more NIH and other grants.
 
Here is a video of Stephen Ambrose demonstrating how occluding your ear canal affects pressure levels:
 

 
This isn't mumbo jumbo voodoo subjectivism. There is real science behind this and work spread over 30+ years by Stephen Ambrose.

 

[miceblue]

 : Sorry, I don't think I came across any official spec/summary describing modules, except for isolation/attenuation figures.  Also, I don't trust 100% my Veritas measurements, thus prefer not to post it (those are for a personal use, mostly for relative comparison).  You should definitely check out Paul's review of U6 where he has comparison graphs (a more objective take on a module comparison).  My U12 and U6 reviews also cover ADEL module comparison, but more on a subjective level, based on how I hear it. 

Ah okay, that definitely helps. Thanks!
Also nice photos; they certainly look very pretty in the metal enclosures. The plastic auto-modules I've seen and heard didn't look quite as nice.

 

[ken6217]

   
You get more controlled bass.  With G1 you still get the same mid-bass slam as with S1, but the bass response is more sculptured without spilling into lower mids.  As a result, with G1 you get more clarity and less congestion in mids, not exactly on the level of B1 but close.  With mids opening up a little more (talking about G1 in comparison to S1), you also get an improvement in soundstage expansion (approaching B1 level, but not exactly - somewhere half way between S1 and B1).  B1 has more bass attenuation, making overall signature more balanced, while G1 keeps the same strong mid-bass impact of S1 but adds more clarity to the mids in comparison to S1.  That's pretty much how I hear it in both cases with U12 and U6.
 
While I found S1 and B1 to be "fixed" presets of MAM adjustable tuning, G1 is a little different and more unique because I can't get that particular sound sig recreated with MAM.
 
 

Thanks for your impressions.

 

[Yyvs]

I still think my comparison to antidepressants hold; you can objectively state the level of serotonin reuptake from 40mg of paxil or prozac compared to 20mg but that doesn't translate to a guaranteed better response from the patient and maybe measurements of pneumatic pressure aren't the only qualifying indicator for the purpose of adel/apex. 
 
By no means am I trying to undermine the credibility of Dr Ambrose's work. Respecting another academic's lifelong passion for research is a given. But again, the emphasis is on the nature of the data collected and how much elaborate the rain dance has to be for you to acknowledge the credibility of the work. Most economists at the Fed can't solve a DSGE with explicit closed form solutions, there's no theoretical/empirical evidence to support Keynesian contemporary stimulus plans, people distrust the Chicago school's economics and fancy optimal control models but people still have firm convictions in one of these foundations. I brought up the particle accelerator earlier to point to something that is generally not contested in legitimacy or objectivity, not to discredit other forms of science. 
 
There is still the issue that 64 audio did not publish any data at all, which can obviously turn away potential customers such as yourself who require more fact checking. But, because of the nature of this research and that we are in the sphere of personal audio, I personally would prefer to read more about user impressions on the apex module and the SQ rather than a paper on how the technology works. To that end, I commented on my own subjective impressions on my apex a12s earlier to at least balance the much more damning and accusatory posts (not from you) posts regarding 64 audio's split with asius. 
 
 
Quote:

  You are missing something crucial here, a decrease in pneumatic pressure can be objectively physically measured, it is not something subjective in the slightest. There are legitimate questions as to whether this reduction in pneumatic pressure lowers long-term risk of hearing loss. I suggested to Stephen Ambrose that long-term studies would be worth doing, as the technology could be extremely cost-effective from a health economic perspective, but needs proof of the primary reported benefit beyond mechanical theories--I'm a health economist, by the way.
 
Don't be a luddite and just excuse science as being subjective if it isn't done in a particle collider--that is silly. Go check out the studies:
 
https://asius.myshopify.com/pages/technology
 
All the studies are listed on that page, along with some conference posters too. When I heard about the technology, Asius hadn't made any of the publications available, I asked for them and was sent them. Now they have made them available on an open access basis. These guys aren't trying to trick anyone. They really believe in the technology, they've shown the principles of how it works, and the physical explanation is plausible. All they are lacking is long-term effects of using the technology, which may be expensive to acquire--they'll need more NIH and other grants.
 
Here is a video of Stephen Ambrose demonstrating how occluding your ear canal affects pressure levels:
 

 
This isn't mumbo jumbo voodoo subjectivism. There is real science behind this and work spread over 30+ years by Stephen Ambrose.

 

[Taggerung]

 
 
 

The hole on the G1 looks larger than on the B1, yet supposedly provides more isolation? S1 isolation is just about adequate for me. I don't know if I want slight sonic improvements or more isolation with the G1 and S1 respectively.

 

[Canyon Runner]

  The hole on the G1 looks larger than on the B1, yet supposedly provides more isolation? S1 isolation is just about adequate for me. I don't know if I want slight sonic improvements or more isolation with the G1 and S1 respectively.

The hole on the G1s are larger, the G1 gives more isolation than the B1 because it's a dual membrane module, rather than the B1 which is a single. I don't know if we have isolation ratings for the G1 yet, I ballpark it for people but I'd say it's in the middle of the B1 & S1 modules. So something like -15db.
 
When I have music playing, I don't hear the outside world, but if it's a podcast and it's quiet spot then you can hear a loud car approaching from behind you and such.

 

[Ike1985]

I love G1 as well, it's a tossup between it and B1 and MAM. They are all so different and special in their own way. My impression of G1 will be up tomorrow. I am so glad I ordered the A12's when I did, I can't imagine not having the ability to use these awesome ADEL modules.

 

[tkteo]

  The hole on the G1s are larger, the G1 gives more isolation than the B1 because it's a dual membrane module, rather than the B1 which is a single. I don't know if we have isolation ratings for the G1 yet, I ballpark it for people but I'd say it's in the middle of the B1 & S1 modules. So something like -15db.
 
When I have music playing, I don't hear the outside world, but if it's a podcast and it's quiet spot then you can hear a loud car approaching from behind you and such.

G1 is rated as -10db isolation on the Asius Tech shop website. So is B1.
 
https://asius.myshopify.com/collections/all/products/adel-g1-auto-modules