[mcnoiserdc]

I don't think you'll need an amp, Customs tend to be very sensitive.
 
Quote:

Do you recommend using 1964Q with amp?
I have a Xoom tablet and Nexus phone and wonder if I will need amp between the source and the quads.

 

 

[ericp10]

You don't need an amp, but the quad works great with the Fiio E9.

 

[High_Q]

From my experience, triples are very sensitive, and it's finicky to high power output.  That's the nice part about my customs, it's sensitive so, it shines without an amp. I think it sounds great out of ipod headphone out.  Kinda like the UM3X I've owned, I think UM3X were more sensitive though.  I am starting to favor sensitive IEMs

 

[cigarillofiend]

so my custom triples get shipped out tomorrow... I'm so anxious to receive them... It's been over a month; I hope its worth the wait.

 

[BRCMRGN]

Quote:

Hey guys I was thinking of getting one of these but I wanted to know which is better the S or D version. Im mainly going to use it for outside use. with my source of ipod touch or nano with e11 amp.
Music choice well its only all kinds of rock and techno dubstep and little of hip hop

If you like Dubstep, save up your pennies for a while and get the Quads. The bass on the Quads is visceral. I was listening to some Dubstep with Earsonics SM3s and thought "nice bass and maybe even a little sub-bass". Listening to the same tracks with the Quads I thought "Oh, now I get what this genre is all about!".

 

[BRCMRGN]

Quote:

If you like Dubstep, save up your pennies for a while and get the Quads. The bass on the Quads is visceral. I was listening to some Dubstep with Earsonics SM3s and thought "nice bass and maybe even a little sub-bass". Listening to the same tracks with the Quads I thought "Oh, now I get what this genre is all about!".

 
Just for fun, I dug out the Radius DDMs and listened to the same tracks. The DDM has very good, very deep bass, but it was a little flabby compared with the Quads and definitely intruded on the mid-range, obscuring some of the mid-range detail.
 
 

 

[Rip N' Burn]

I have received the 1964Q a little while ago and have burned them in for a week straight just in case if anyone should argue with my impressions. I'm currently using them with my Leckerton UHA-4. Right out of the box, the fit was perfect and the build quality is on par with Unique Melody. I have a few UM customs and I'm very impressed that 1964 Ears can match UM's craftsmanship. The major difference that I have noticed is that UM likes to use shorter stems while 1964 Ears likes to use longer stems which does provide a bit more isolation for me.
It has a remarkable bass reproduction and I'm putting it mildly. It's incredibly tight, controlled, powerful, has great impact, and extends very low. No bleeding into other ranges whatsoever. The separation and clarity of the bass is very surprising. I'm more use to the blended bass sound that I hear from other universals iems.
The mids sound very spacious with vocals sounding more forward. It's more neutral from my perspective and can sound a bit dry but still maintains a high level of detail production.
The highs are done well but it could be improved. Probably the worst aspect of the Q but to be fair it only sounds slightly recessed. It could also have sharper brighter sound with better extension. Considering that these are meant to be stage monitors I'll cut 1964 ears some slack. 
 
To sum things up:

 
 

 

[aamefford]

Quote:

I have received the 1964Q a little while ago and have burned them in for a week straight just in case if anyone should argue with my impressions. I'm currently using them with my Leckerton UHA-4. Right out of the box, the fit was perfect and the build quality is on par with Unique Melody. I have a few UM customs and I'm very impressed that 1964 Ears can match UM's craftsmanship. The major difference that I have noticed is that UM likes to use shorter stems while 1964 Ears likes to use longer stems which does provide a bit more isolation for me.
It has a remarkable bass reproduction and I'm putting it mildly. It's incredibly tight, controlled, powerful, has great impact, and extends very low. No bleeding into other ranges whatsoever. The separation and clarity of the bass is very surprising. I'm more use to the blended bass sound that I hear from other universals iems.
The mids sound very spacious with vocals sounding more forward. It's more neutral from my perspective and can sound a bit dry but still maintains a high level of detail production.
The highs are done well but it could be improved. Probably the worst aspect of the Q but to be fair it only sounds slightly recessed. It could also have sharper brighter sound with better extension. Considering that these are meant to be stage monitors I'll cut 1964 ears some slack. 
 
To sum things up:

 
 

I agree.  I use EQu on an ipod touch.  I sometimes add about +3db from either 2kHz on up, or about 8 kHz on up, depending on what I am looking for.  It adds back just about the right amount of treble, if I feel it lacking.  Most of the time, I don't bother.  I have always preferred a slightly attenuated treble.
 
 

 

[ericp10]

Welcome to the world of the 1964-Q @ Rip N' Burn!! It's about darn time. Now, give me a little bit more comparison with UM(s) have. Is quad sound signature close to any UM, or totally different? Looking forward to more impressions. Also, any comparison of the quad and your remolded Custom 3? Again, congrats!! 

Quote:

I have received the 1964Q a little while ago and have burned them in for a week straight just in case if anyone should argue with my impressions. I'm currently using them with my Leckerton UHA-4. Right out of the box, the fit was perfect and the build quality is on par with Unique Melody. I have a few UM customs and I'm very impressed that 1964 Ears can match UM's craftsmanship. The major difference that I have noticed is that UM likes to use shorter stems while 1964 Ears likes to use longer stems which does provide a bit more isolation for me.
It has a remarkable bass reproduction and I'm putting it mildly. It's incredibly tight, controlled, powerful, has great impact, and extends very low. No bleeding into other ranges whatsoever. The separation and clarity of the bass is very surprising. I'm more use to the blended bass sound that I hear from other universals iems.
The mids sound very spacious with vocals sounding more forward. It's more neutral from my perspective and can sound a bit dry but still maintains a high level of detail production.
The highs are done well but it could be improved. Probably the worst aspect of the Q but to be fair it only sounds slightly recessed. It could also have sharper brighter sound with better extension. Considering that these are meant to be stage monitors I'll cut 1964 ears some slack. 
 
To sum things up:

 
 

 

 

[Rip N' Burn]

My TF18, which is a Triple Fi 10 upgraded with 6 drivers, is the most comparable to the 1964Q. Differences being that the TF18 has more bass quantity but the Q has more impact, the mids sounds more neutral on both but sounds slightly warmer with the TF18, the highs are crisper, more detailed, and extend further with the TF18. Sadly the Custom 3 has taken the place of my least favorite custom. It still sounds good but can't really compare to my other customs.

 

[ericp10]

thanks for the info @ Rip n Burn

 

[hardtimes]

Man, you got away for a while and these threads can get unruly damn quickly!

I got my 1964T's yesterday. I was incredibly excited to get them; the only other IEMs I've owned, the HiFiMan RE 262's, have been a decidedly mixed bag. The sound is good/great, but the cables are among the worst I've ever used on headphones in terms of durability. I've basically never taken them out of my house -- in fact I pretty much only wear them in bed -- and after about 7 months of use they've become frayed in at least a half-dozen places. now i have thick wads of electrical tape holding them together.
 
But the main problem is that I have a very shallow concha, so there's not a lot of room for IEMs to sit, which makes them incredibly hard to get non-customs to make a good seal. For customs, it looks to me like this means they need to be larger because they need to fill a large, but shallow area.
 
One other point I should add -- I ordered mine with the soft canal but not a full silicone mold.
 
Almost immediately upon putting in the 1964s, they felt uncomfortable -- especially the left ear, which also didn't really seal properly. It's hard for me to describe the exact sensation, except to say it feels a little like there's something pushing out on the inside of my ear, which seems weird because the lack of seal also makes it feel like there's extra space in there.
 
I know people have sent there 1964s back in for refits -- I think both spekkio and randius did, to name two folks who talked about it in this thread -- so I'm going to contact them and get instructions for that, but out of curiosity -- does anyone know how they do this? Unless they get another impression of my ear, how would they make a better fit than the one they initially made -- and what would allow them to do that?
 
Also, because of the discomfort and since it looks like I'm going to need to do a complete refit anyway, does anyone think it makes sense to go for the full silicone mold instead of just the soft tip?
 

 

[Confispect]

That sucks.
 
Congrats I like the color.

 

[project86]

I too like the color. It works well with the clear tips.
 
To answer your question about refits: I think the general idea is that if your impressions were pretty good, and the customs were made accurate to them, then only a minor adjustment would be needed. So you would tell them exactly where it hurts or pinches or doesn't seal (or whatever) and they could slightly adjust that section accordingly. If there is too much pressure in one spot, they could sand it/file it/buff it/whatever their technique is, to give you just enough room there. Or if the tips are not quite sealing tightly in the canal, they could add a little bit of volume by layering more acrylic or silicone as needed. 
 
This all assumes it is a very minor deviation from perfect. If that's not the case for whatever reason, then it might require a whole new impression and remold be done. 

 

[yzfr191]

 
I got my 1964-T's about two days ago, after waiting a little less than a month.
This is my first pair of custom IEM's, and so far, I am very pleased. My IEM's
were a pair of Sleek Audio SA6's, which I enjoyed very much.
 
These however, completely blow those out of the water.
The sound separation is amazing, and very detailed as well.
I get a great seal with these, and have to try really hard to break it.
It took awhile to get used to them, but once they are settled, it's great.
 
 
Obligatory crappy phone pic: