1964 Ears
Mar 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM Post #1,876 of 7,417

ericp10

Sits up all night comparing IEMs.
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Posts
7,446
Likes
998

Nice initial impressions spekkio
Quote:
Oops I forgot to state they were 1964Qs.
After listening to them for a few hours - I would say their bass signature is really strong. The kick drums are very satisfying and bass lines are clearly rendered. However, what the MTPC wins in is timbre. On the MTPC the kick drum really sounds natural and very 'beaty', you can feel the air being moved. On the 1964Q's it's a bit less 'visceral'. But clarity wise, i went back to the MTPC after listening to the Qs for a while: No competition, the 1964Qs win hands down.



 
 
Mar 25, 2011 at 1:36 PM Post #1,877 of 7,417

Rip N' Burn

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Posts
1,774
Likes
32
Dynamic drivers offer a more musical experience for me more often than not. It still sounds like I would enjoy the 1964Q sound signature. I've read that UM is working on a new custom where they use a dynamic driver for lows and 2 BA drivers for mids and highs. If done right, it would have the best of both worlds in terms of BA and dynamic sound signatures.
 
Quote:
For me, they have opened up the soundstage a lot compared to the MTPCs.
It is also able to maintain a bass-heavy sound signature while keeping the highs and mids forward and clear. The highs are crisp and not sibilant. It is definitely a warm sound signature.
 
Of course, one thing I miss is the blended sound - BA IEMs tend to give me the feeling the sound is in layers. I used a UM3x some time ago, and I have no idea why I don't like the 'BA' sound anymore. Probably too much dynamic driver exposure while waiting for the Quads to arrive.



 
 
Mar 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM Post #1,878 of 7,417

DKaz

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
715
Likes
10
I figure I'll give a few impressions of the 1964-T since I have had them for a week.  For what it is worth, these are my first customs, and I currently own the DBA and recently sold my TF10.  I listend via uDac, Sansa clip+, Sony A818, Sony E345, Cowon U2.
 
The fit came out very good.  I have only lost my seal while eating, but I have not run with them yet (not sure that I will).  I have even found the comfort to be better then any universal I have ever owned, and I typically use foam.  The quality is very good other then the "glue issue" I posted about on the previous page. Although it isn't a structural issue, I am fairly disappointed at the look.  The cable is fantastic.  The pelican case is much nicer then you would think.
 
When I first put these in and played them out of my uDac my heart sank, but not in a good way.  There was no AHA! moment like I had with the DBA.  My first thoughts were "Crap I just spent $350 on customs that I don't think are better then my universals".  After several days of listening and some direct A/Bing I have come to love the 1964-T though.  It has a fullness of note that the DBA is ever so slightly lacking.  The DBA has more air, but the trade off is a thinner note.  This is most noticeable in the lower mids, making male vocals sound more authoritative.  The 1964-T still has the clarity and detail of the DBA, but the highs are slightly less sparkly and aggressive.  IMHO it sounds more natural and accurate.  It makes the DBA seem a little too aggressive.  I don't find the 1964-T "laid back", but simply smoother.  I can listen for HOURS and do not find it fatiguing in the least.  The sound stage is very good in my opinion.  I find it to be the right "average size"; not expansive, but not overly intimate.  I feel the separation is very good, but maybe a hair behind the DBA due to it's airiness.
 
Comparing to the TF10, I find the 1964-T to be everything I wanted the TF10 to be.  The mid-bass hump is gone, and the mids are no longer recessed.  Plus the comfort is worlds apart.  The TF10 had more sparkle from what I remember.  I always found the TF10 highs to be very refined though.
 
In summary, if you own any high end IEMs, do not expect to be blown away out of the gate by the 1964-T.  It instead takes a little time to realize that it does almost everything very well.  Although I found other IEMs in that category boring, the 1964-T still seems to stay very musical.  It is the first time I have owned an IEM where I feel that my sources / amps are now the weakest link in my chain.
 
 
Mar 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM Post #1,879 of 7,417

music_4321

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Posts
5,120
Likes
340
^^ Thank you for what seem to me to be very concise & balanced impressions, avoiding hype. I agree with you about the cosmetic aspect - it shouldn't be there and doesn't look very nice. Very nice colour, though.
 
Mar 25, 2011 at 5:30 PM Post #1,880 of 7,417

Anthony77

New Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Posts
36
Likes
10
arrggg... I am getting so impatient... I dropped off my impressions, order form, and money on the 11th... They replied to an email I sent them and said the 11th of April is when I should expect them... I am hoping for less time than that... because that is 31 days!  But I used to work at Apple, and we would always over estimate on time so the customer was pleasantly surprised when they turned up "early"... I hope this is the case here... Thanks for the review of the 1964-T can't wait until I get mine... 
 
 
Mar 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM Post #1,881 of 7,417

mikop

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Posts
373
Likes
12


Quote:
arrggg... I am getting so impatient... I dropped off my impressions, order form, and money on the 11th... They replied to an email I sent them and said the 11th of April is when I should expect them... I am hoping for less time than that... because that is 31 days!  But I used to work at Apple, and we would always over estimate on time so the customer was pleasantly surprised when they turned up "early"... I hope this is the case here... Thanks for the review of the 1964-T can't wait until I get mine... 
 

11th of April would only be the 21st business day for your order... 
 
 
 
Mar 25, 2011 at 8:37 PM Post #1,883 of 7,417

project86

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
7,379
Likes
2,985

Wow this thread moves fast! If I miss a day then I have 4-5 pages to read through.
 
Quote:
Dynamic drivers offer a more musical experience for me more often than not. It still sounds like I would enjoy the 1964Q sound signature. I've read that UM is working on a new custom where they use a dynamic driver for lows and 2 BA drivers for mids and highs. If done right, it would have the best of both worlds in terms of BA and dynamic sound signatures.
 


Others have already done hybrid dynamic/BA customs, but they were either flawed (the old UE-Hybrid custom which was basically a custom version of the SF5EB), or only available from smaller companies overseas so they weren't very accessible.
 
UM is calling theirs the Merlin and it is taking longer than they anticipated to fine tune it. One of these days when it is finished I'll get a demo model for review. I've been putting off buying the Miracle in case the Merlin is even better, so at that point I'll finally decide. I suspect they will be equal overall but different with regards to quantity of bass, but we'll see. 
 
Quote:
I figure I'll give a few impressions of the 1964-T since I have had them for a week.  For what it is worth, these are my first customs, and I currently own the DBA and recently sold my TF10.  I listend via uDac, Sansa clip+, Sony A818, Sony E345, Cowon U2.
 
The fit came out very good.  I have only lost my seal while eating, but I have not run with them yet (not sure that I will).  I have even found the comfort to be better then any universal I have ever owned, and I typically use foam.  The quality is very good other then the "glue issue" I posted about on the previous page. Although it isn't a structural issue, I am fairly disappointed at the look.  The cable is fantastic.  The pelican case is much nicer then you would think.
 
When I first put these in and played them out of my uDac my heart sank, but not in a good way.  There was no AHA! moment like I had with the DBA.  My first thoughts were "Crap I just spent $350 on customs that I don't think are better then my universals".  After several days of listening and some direct A/Bing I have come to love the 1964-T though.  It has a fullness of note that the DBA is ever so slightly lacking.  The DBA has more air, but the trade off is a thinner note.  This is most noticeable in the lower mids, making male vocals sound more authoritative.  The 1964-T still has the clarity and detail of the DBA, but the highs are slightly less sparkly and aggressive.  IMHO it sounds more natural and accurate.  It makes the DBA seem a little too aggressive.  I don't find the 1964-T "laid back", but simply smoother.  I can listen for HOURS and do not find it fatiguing in the least.  The sound stage is very good in my opinion.  I find it to be the right "average size"; not expansive, but not overly intimate.  I feel the separation is very good, but maybe a hair behind the DBA due to it's airiness.
 
Comparing to the TF10, I find the 1964-T to be everything I wanted the TF10 to be.  The mid-bass hump is gone, and the mids are no longer recessed.  Plus the comfort is worlds apart.  The TF10 had more sparkle from what I remember.  I always found the TF10 highs to be very refined though.
 
In summary, if you own any high end IEMs, do not expect to be blown away out of the gate by the 1964-T.  It instead takes a little time to realize that it does almost everything very well.  Although I found other IEMs in that category boring, the 1964-T still seems to stay very musical.  It is the first time I have owned an IEM where I feel that my sources / amps are now the weakest link in my chain.
 


Excellent summary of how the 1964-T sounds! I agree 100%. It isn't an immediate "knock your socks off" kind of sound, but over the long haul you really start to appreciate it for what it is. I also agree with Rawrster when he says they are one of the most neutral IEMs he has experienced, yet as you said they manage to stay musical and avoid being sterile or boring. Good post. 
 
    Quote:
I recently placed an order for a pair of Q4's. I'm upgrading from Westone 3's, has anyone here owned a pair of 3's and upgraded to Q's or T's and tell me the difference?


I've got the W3 around here somewhere. In comparison to the 1964-T, the W3 has significantly hotter treble, and more bass quantity (not quality). It's like you took a smiley face EQ and applied it to the 1964-T, but lost some clarity and smoothness in the process. Some might find the W3 more exciting, and I totally understand that. Others find the W3 fatiguing or harsh, and I can see that point too. So it sort of depends on your preferences. For me, I really liked the W3. It remains one of my favorite universals. The only area where I think the W3 is actually superior (and even then only by a marginal amount) is soundstage expansiveness. But I can only listen for a while before the W3 gets old.... like the poster above said, the 1964-T can play for hours and hours and I never get tired of it.
 
 
 
Mar 25, 2011 at 8:44 PM Post #1,884 of 7,417

aamefford

I have a custom title!
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Posts
3,914
Likes
657


Quote:
I recently placed an order for a pair of Q4's. I'm upgrading from Westone 3's, has anyone here owned a pair of 3's and upgraded to Q's or T's and tell me the difference?


I had the Westone 3's but it's been a while.  I found them fatiguing a bit on bass and treble.  The comfort was always just a tad questionable for me, and the lame cables are what finally drove me away from them.  Aside from being slightly fatiguing, though, I generally liked the sound quite a bit.  This is a real stretch on my memory, so take these comments with a grain of salt.  I find the bass on the Q's to be almost visceral in the D7000 type sense, and the highs rolled off a bit as compared to both my D7000's and to my departed Westone 3's.  The quads to me are a very accurate presentation, save for the 6 db or so mid bass hump centered on about 64 hz.  This gives them a warm and musical tone.  The Westones, as I recall, were brighter, with a bit of exaggerated sparkle on top.  I hope that helps a bit, and please take my comparison with a grain of salt.  I am listening to the Q's right now, so I am comfortable with those comments, but it's been a while for the Westone 3's.
 
 
Mar 25, 2011 at 9:07 PM Post #1,885 of 7,417

rawrster

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Posts
10,567
Likes
209


Quote:
I figure I'll give a few impressions of the 1964-T since I have had them for a week.  For what it is worth, these are my first customs, and I currently own the DBA and recently sold my TF10.  I listend via uDac, Sansa clip+, Sony A818, Sony E345, Cowon U2.
 
When I first put these in and played them out of my uDac my heart sank, but not in a good way.  There was no AHA! moment like I had with the DBA.  My first thoughts were "Crap I just spent $350 on customs that I don't think are better then my universals".  After several days of listening and some direct A/Bing I have come to love the 1964-T though.  It has a fullness of note that the DBA is ever so slightly lacking.  The DBA has more air, but the trade off is a thinner note.  This is most noticeable in the lower mids, making male vocals sound more authoritative.  The 1964-T still has the clarity and detail of the DBA, but the highs are slightly less sparkly and aggressive.  IMHO it sounds more natural and accurate.  It makes the DBA seem a little too aggressive.  I don't find the 1964-T "laid back", but simply smoother.  I can listen for HOURS and do not find it fatiguing in the least.  The sound stage is very good in my opinion.  I find it to be the right "average size"; not expansive, but not overly intimate.  I feel the separation is very good, but maybe a hair behind the DBA due to it's airiness.

In summary, if you own any high end IEMs, do not expect to be blown away out of the gate by the 1964-T.  It instead takes a little time to realize that it does almost everything very well.  Although I found other IEMs in that category boring, the 1964-T still seems to stay very musical.  It is the first time I have owned an IEM where I feel that my sources / amps are now the weakest link in my chain.


I'm glad you  like the 1964-T. They are currently going through a refit and I'll get them back in around 10 days or so if their 5-7 day estimate is correct. I agree with just about everything here. I personally prefer a slightly larger stage but not much to complain at this price point. They are a bargain at $350 imo and I can't wait to get mine back although I do have the Westone 4 and 3 other really nice earphones so I'm not at a complete loss.
 
 
Mar 25, 2011 at 11:53 PM Post #1,886 of 7,417

Nightslayer

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 9, 2010
Posts
596
Likes
13


Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The fit came out very good.  I have only lost my seal while eating, but I have not run with them yet (not sure that I will).  I have even found the comfort to be better then any universal I have ever owned, and I typically use foam.  The quality is very good other then the "glue issue" I posted about on the previous page. Although it isn't a structural issue, I am fairly disappointed at the look.  The cable is fantastic.  The pelican case is much nicer then you would think.
 
When I first put these in and played them out of my uDac my heart sank, but not in a good way.  There was no AHA! moment like I had with the DBA.  My first thoughts were "Crap I just spent $350 on customs that I don't think are better then my universals".  After several days of listening and some direct A/Bing I have come to love the 1964-T though.  It has a fullness of note that the DBA is ever so slightly lacking.  The DBA has more air, but the trade off is a thinner note.  This is most noticeable in the lower mids, making male vocals sound more authoritative.  The 1964-T still has the clarity and detail of the DBA, but the highs are slightly less sparkly and aggressive.  IMHO it sounds more natural and accurate.  It makes the DBA seem a little too aggressive.  I don't find the 1964-T "laid back", but simply smoother.  I can listen for HOURS and do not find it fatiguing in the least.  The sound stage is very good in my opinion.  I find it to be the right "average size"; not expansive, but not overly intimate.  I feel the separation is very good, but maybe a hair behind the DBA due to it's airiness.
 
Comparing to the TF10, I find the 1964-T to be everything I wanted the TF10 to be.  The mid-bass hump is gone, and the mids are no longer recessed.  Plus the comfort is worlds apart.  The TF10 had more sparkle from what I remember.  I always found the TF10 highs to be very refined though.
 
In summary, if you own any high end IEMs, do not expect to be blown away out of the gate by the 1964-T.  It instead takes a little time to realize that it does almost everything very well.  Although I found other IEMs in that category boring, the 1964-T still seems to stay very musical.  It is the first time I have owned an IEM where I feel that my sources / amps are now the weakest link in my chain.
 

This post was extremely heartening to read, considering I am coming from the exact same situation as you are. Currently own the DBAs, and the most annoying thing about them is their lack of a full-bodied sound and a decent soundstage. I was hoping for a DBA-esque sound with more bass quantity, neutrality and a fuller sound in general, and apparently that is what you are hearing with your 64-Ts, so here's to hoping I end up hearing the same. :) That and that I don't have any fit issues. A dubious, contentious issue at that given its high possibility of occurring ):
 
 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top