1964 Ears
Nov 10, 2011 at 2:32 AM Post #2,912 of 7,417

csamantha11

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Posts
32
Likes
10
Can anyone give me a comparison of the T's and Q's to a universal IEM? I've been reading reviews of both of them and found out that the T's are more neutral and the Q's are more bass heavy. I haven't listened to alot of IEMs that are neutral, so i'm not sure how much I will like the sound. I listen to a mixture of different genres, but it is mostly pop and hip-hop that stand out. I've listened to the FX700s and the Westone 3 and enjoyed the bass, but i'd like to find out more about the T's. Thanks 
redface.gif

 
Nov 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM Post #2,913 of 7,417

project86

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
7,313
Likes
2,770


Quote:
Can anyone give me a comparison of the T's and Q's to a universal IEM? I've been reading reviews of both of them and found out that the T's are more neutral and the Q's are more bass heavy. I haven't listened to alot of IEMs that are neutral, so i'm not sure how much I will like the sound. I listen to a mixture of different genres, but it is mostly pop and hip-hop that stand out. I've listened to the FX700s and the Westone 3 and enjoyed the bass, but i'd like to find out more about the T's. Thanks 
redface.gif



Haven't heard the Q but I'll speak for the T - if you like the FX700 and W3, and you listen to a lot of hip-hop and pop, the Q is probably a better fit for you. The T has great bass but it is presented in a more neutral way than either of those that you mentioned. Quality is certainly there but the quantity might not be enough for you. 
 
It is also easier to EQ bass down if there is too much, rather than EQ up if there isn't enough.
 
I love my 1964-T but in this case I think the Q would likely be a better match.
 
Nov 11, 2011 at 12:45 AM Post #2,914 of 7,417

aamefford

I have a custom title!
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Posts
3,914
Likes
644

 
Quote:
Haven't heard the Q but I'll speak for the T - if you like the FX700 and W3, and you listen to a lot of hip-hop and pop, the Q is probably a better fit for you. The T has great bass but it is presented in a more neutral way than either of those that you mentioned. Quality is certainly there but the quantity might not be enough for you. 
 
It is also easier to EQ bass down if there is too much, rather than EQ up if there isn't enough.
 
I love my 1964-T but in this case I think the Q would likely be a better match.

I own the Q but haven't heard the T. I tend to agree with project86. The Q has enough bass for any situation, and every once in a while a bit more than necessary.  I don't listen to hip hop, but some of the music I listen to has a lot of bass, and I have never been left wanting for bass. I owned the Westone 3 and much prefer the quad. Bass is more realistic and the presentation is a bit less V shaped. The quads treble is not as bright and sparkly. A benefit to me, but not to all, I suspect. Hope it helps.  I do really like the Quads. 
 
 
 
 
Nov 11, 2011 at 4:23 AM Post #2,915 of 7,417

SneekyPete

New Head-Fier
Joined
May 26, 2011
Posts
27
Likes
0
 
Quote:
Haven't heard the Q but I'll speak for the T - if you like the FX700 and W3, and you listen to a lot of hip-hop and pop, the Q is probably a better fit for you. The T has great bass but it is presented in a more neutral way than either of those that you mentioned. Quality is certainly there but the quantity might not be enough for you. 
 
It is also easier to EQ bass down if there is too much, rather than EQ up if there isn't enough.
 
I love my 1964-T but in this case I think the Q would likely be a better match.

I own the Q but haven't heard the T. I tend to agree with project86. The Q has enough bass for any situation, and every once in a while a bit more than necessary.  I don't listen to hip hop, but some of the music I listen to has a lot of bass, and I have never been left wanting for bass. I owned the Westone 3 and much prefer the quad. Bass is more realistic and the presentation is a bit less V shaped. The quads treble is not as bright and sparkly. A benefit to me, but not to all, I suspect. Hope it helps.  I do really like the Quads. 
 
 
 


x2

As much as my wife would kill me, if my quads were stolen, I'd buy another pair tomorrow!
 
Nov 12, 2011 at 10:30 PM Post #2,919 of 7,417

benzoylmethyl

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Posts
330
Likes
14

 
Quote:
What about some IEMs that have a more neutral sound? I haven't tried any that are considered neutral, and i'd like to try some out to see what I can sort of expect if I decide to get the T's or not. 



vSonic GR07--very nearly a monitor in its neutrality.  My weirdly tiny ears precluded me from using them, unfortunately.  :frowning2:  I needed MOAR BASS anyway, so I got the Q.  Still not enough bass (or treble) for me personally, but then I'm one of them-thar PRO900 freaks.
 
|joker| has it in his review. Search for 2A15 on the page.  It's 14th out of 204 in his chart at the bottom of the page, and you can get it on "the streets" for around $150--I paid 140 for mine on amazon, though you can't always find them there. 
 
Nov 12, 2011 at 10:40 PM Post #2,920 of 7,417

buffalowings

Went way too far, too many times.
Joined
May 14, 2010
Posts
4,542
Likes
39
the Q's have "unoffending" "slightly to recessed" treble, if you like grados, ad700, hd25,  hifiman  re2's, monster turbine coppers, any etymotic for that matter, I wouldn't get the quads
the bass really was the best i have ever heard in an IEM, it had very deep extension and weight but to my ears, it was overbearing. the treble and non stop fit issues were unbearable for me as well as the closed in soundstage with instruments positioned slightly behind my ears. also, I'm not sure about this, but 1964 ears told me they couldn't change the sound signature at all while reading the unique melody site, they said they can change the frequency range a couple degrees so.. yeah not sure about that anymore but alas, the quads aren't in my possesion anymore
 
 
 
 
Nov 14, 2011 at 9:10 AM Post #2,921 of 7,417

Coasterjeffry

Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Posts
76
Likes
11
1964-Q owners:  I've heard a good bit of love for pairing with UHA-4.  Any thoughts on Pico Slim?  Better yet, anyone tried both?
 
I'm still using my MiniBox E+ that I got for my ER4S because, well, it was basically made to pair with ER4S!  However, since it was designed to synergize so well with those I wonder if I'm missing out on a more "appropriate" amp....
 
Nov 14, 2011 at 6:36 PM Post #2,922 of 7,417

aamefford

I have a custom title!
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Posts
3,914
Likes
644

 
Quote:
1964-Q owners:  I've heard a good bit of love for pairing with UHA-4.  Any thoughts on Pico Slim?  Better yet, anyone tried both?
 
I'm still using my MiniBox E+ that I got for my ER4S because, well, it was basically made to pair with ER4S!  However, since it was designed to synergize so well with those I wonder if I'm missing out on a more "appropriate" amp....

I have used both with the Quad.  The UHA-4 is really a great package at it's price.  It is not as fantastic as the UHA-4 love thread cracks it up to be.  The DAC is merely decent, and the volume control, while good, is second to the Pico Slim.  It doesn't really drive low efficiency, high impedance headphones spectacularly.  It is a pretty decent little amp with the quads, though.
 
I ended up selling the UHA-4, and trying out the TTVJ Slim, then the Pico Slim alongside the TTVJ Slim.  I traded the TTVJ for the Pico Slim.
 
Notes - I listen at pretty low volume most of the time.  The Pico Slim has the best volume control I've ever used.  Even very efficient iems (like the quads) are easy to bring to dead silent, and have excellent control over the volume all the way up to too freakin' loud.  That is the main selling point for the Pico Slim for me.  Nothing I've tried works this well for this purpose.  It also sounds excellent.  It's also pricey.
 
The UHA-4 has decent volume control, but not as good as the Pico Slim.  It sounds great, and if I recall, a touch warmer the the Pico Slim.  I didn't need the DAC, but it wasn't bad.
 
The UHA-4 has crossfeed - A big plus!  The downside, is it has the Linkowitz circuit (pretty sure, could be wrong) which seems to add just enough lower frequency (or mask mid and upper, not sure) that it makes it border on too warm, and cross the border into too warm frequently.  I had the same trouble with my Headroom UDA (fantastic amp, by the way).  The treble boost never seemed to quite hit the right spot to "fix" it completely.  Still, I miss having crossfeed some of the time.
 
End result of my ramble - if you listen at low volume, and can get past the price - Pico Slim all the way - a wonderful amp with highly efficient phones and iems.  Otherwise, UHA-4 - save a few bucks, get a decent dac and crossfeed, and a nice amp to boot.
 
Edit - no condescension here - I sometimes regret selling the UHA-4, and if it wasn't for the Pico Slim, I'd buy another one.
 
 
Nov 15, 2011 at 11:03 AM Post #2,923 of 7,417

Coasterjeffry

Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Posts
76
Likes
11
Thanks so much for your excellent reply.  That was very helpful.....though I'm still not sure which one I will end up getting! :)  (The price difference might be the deciding factor.  Not sure that Pico Slim is worth DOUBLE the $$)
 
Nov 16, 2011 at 12:20 PM Post #2,924 of 7,417

aamefford

I have a custom title!
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Posts
3,914
Likes
644


Quote:
Thanks so much for your excellent reply.  That was very helpful.....though I'm still not sure which one I will end up getting! :)  (The price difference might be the deciding factor.  Not sure that Pico Slim is worth DOUBLE the $$)


Pico Slim used show up in the FS forum around $350 semi regularly.  The Leckertons seem to show up around $180 or $190 ish.  Pretty good deal on the leckerton.  It really is a good value.
 
 
Nov 17, 2011 at 8:32 PM Post #2,925 of 7,417

Yuceka

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Posts
1,114
Likes
43
My Quads just returned from re-fit today. I'm very glad that I sent them back because I can tell there's a difference between then and now. I always wondered why they were a bit treble heavy. Now they don't wiggle in my ears and there's more body to the music and the bass hits harder. I remember someone recently asking about the Quads and wondering if they would be too bass heavy for him or her. I can tell you now that their bass is definitely not "too much" or "bloated" or "boomy" but quite true to the recording. 
 
My HE-500 will be sitting in the bench for a while 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top