[xtasi]

I'm curious of any of the 1964 customs need amping.

 

[Confispect]

@Eric 
 
I know your getting bombarded with questions but I gotta hit you with one. How do these compare to your Fx700 as far as Timbre goes, can you easily pick apart which instrument is which?
 
Do drums sound like drums, snares as snares and violins as violins? What can it be described as sound signature wise? Natural is the word I'm looking for......not analytical when it comes to dynamics we're on the same page so does this satisfy? 
 
 
 
 
 
Edit: Warm, cold, slightly lush, boring....?
 
 

 

[Guidostrunk]

I'm curious how the soundstage stacks up compared to the Sm3, i just love how big and open and liquid and the 3D presentation the Sm3 has. So far my wallet is starting to whimper LOL. So far your impressions that I'm gathering is strong Bass emphasis which can be good if balanced with the rest of the spectrum. I also agree with burn in even with BA'S. I'm really looking forward as they progress in your burn in. Thanks a bunch for all your input on them, I'm sure we are driving you nuts but your help is much appreciated.

 

[ericp10]

Hey guys (and ladies if you're here),
 
Just made it home with the quad firmly planted in my ears (had one of those trooper's fur caps on and hanging down over my ears so no one knew my joy). First, like all customs, you have to make sure these IEMs are firmly placed inside of your ear canals. I had a loose fit about one tenth of my way home on public transportation, and the quad didn't sound that good to me. I thought maybe there was a defect or something. Then something told me to push down on the bottom end of the IEM, which would make the part that's actually in the ear canal go deeper. POW and WOW! It was like a whole new set of IEMs. Yes, it goes deep, but not too deep where it feels uncomfortable (as I said earlier) like when I tried using those triple flange tips on universals.
 
Okay, here we go with some more detailed impressions on sound: The quad simply possess some of the best bass I've ever heard in an IEM, easily surpassing the SM3, which was the best I've heard in a BA driver until now. It goes deep like the IE8, but beats the IE8 hands down in quality. It gives you the amount of bass that the recording calls for, whereas the IE8 just seems to stay bloated (based on my recollection). I mentioned the IE8 first (I know it's not a BA), because someone asked me about that comparison in pm. Now, for Confispect's question comparing the bass of the quad to the FX700. There is nothing like the timbre of the FX700. I think it has a lot to do with its all-wood driver. So, timbre-wise, the FX700 reigns supreme for my ears. Quality-wise, the quad and Fx700 are almost equal, but one does something better than the other. I said the FX700 is better, but clarity and detail is better with the quad. I mean I hear reverberation off bass strings being plucked that I've never heard before when listening through the quad. It's clarity is wonderful and the bass guitar notes really reverberate and go down deep. But if the bass is not deep in the music, it will reflect that too. Oh, and it's fast! I was just listening to the Police "Message In The Bottle" and I heard Sting's bass like I have never heard it before (this was just on an iPod Nano). But the speed of Copeland's drums and Andy's guitar were right there. These are fantastic and meet my expectations for customs (I can say exceeded them since I really didn't know what to expect). 
 
Snare drums have great echo and reverb, and on the tom tom drums too. Now jermng and I discussed this a little bit in pm, and he hears things a little differently from me. He's definitely coming from a more technical point of listening than I am, but I think these are an audiophile's dream. The best mid drums I've ever heard in an IEM was in the e-Q7. That sound is how I judge all mid-range drums on a kit (it had great tonality and echo and reverberation). The quad meets and surpass the e-Q7. And already said the bass surpass the SM3.
 
I'm listening to the best of Radiohead now (I use them as a test for all of my IEMs) and the quad is delivering. Acoustic instruments seem to do a tad bit better with the FX700, but again, I haven't listened to enough acoustic music with the quad yet. But "High and Dry" drums and bass sound wonderful, but the acoustic guitar struck me as being a bit more natural with the FX700. Not sure about the comparison with the SM3 as of yet. 
 
As for sound signature, not too warm and not very cold. Somewhere in the middle. Vocals are outstanding and seem to possess a lot of details like some analytical IEMs I've heard (HF5 comes to mind), but a bit to the warm side of analytical. Horns are in your face and very detailed. I picked this up listening to a Lossless version of Mile Davis' "So What." Bass was there as expected and drums had nice transparency and snap. Cymbals - as project86 and I think jermng said - are a little laid back. It's there with good extension and decay, but it's a bit warmish. It's definitely nowhere near as sharp or as cool as the HJE900 or FX700 treble. This may be an issue for some, but whereas I like treble, it's not my favorite part of the sound spectrum. So the treble sounds just right to me. Some may find the treble a bit recessed, but I don't hear it that way. I hear it as just right.
 
Mids. Hmmmm? As I said earlier, Vitaliy told me he designed the quad not to have mids too forward as you hear in the JH or UE products that are comparable. Does this mean the mids are recessed? No. The mids just aren't as forward, for example as the SM3 or SE535. It's not recessed either. It's just right to my ears. If anything, the vocals seem to be a tad bit more forward than other parts of the mids. So if a singer is being accompanied by piano, that piano sounds like it's playing behind the vocalist somewhat to give the singer room to shine. In "So What," the piano was a bit recessed compared to the other instruments, but clear and transparent. The piano is very up-close and personal with the SM3. 
 
Instrument separation is very nice. The instruments are tall, or nice headstage. As for soundstage, sometimes the quad sounds very monitor-like (and they are that), but at other times there is space, especially where there is string instruments in the background. I can get a more medium concert hall feel than I do with the SM3, which always feels like you're in a studio or in a small jazz club right by the stage. The crossover is very nice in the quad. That's it for now. I need more listening time. Oh, so far these things sound wonderful straight out of my ipod classics (latestest generations), nano and my Sony S545 (no eq-ing). It sounded the best with Radiohead and the Police out of the Nano. I will connect it to the Fiio E7 and uDAC in a bit.  

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

Hey guys (and ladies if you're here),
 
Just made it home with the quads in firmly planted in my ears (had one of those trooper's fur caps on and hanging down over my ears so no one knew my joy). First, i would like all customs, you have to make sure these IEMs are firmly place in your ears. I had a loose but snug fit about one tenth of my way home on public transporation, and the quads didn't sound that good to me. I thought maybe there was a defect or something. Then something told me to push down on the bottom end of the IEM, which would make the part that's actually in the ear canal go deeper. POW and WOW! It was like a whole new set of IEMs. Yes, it goes deep, but not too deep where it feels uncomfortable (as I said earlier) like when I try to use triples flange tips on universals.
 
Okay, here we go with some more detailed impressions on sound: The quads are simply possess some of the best bass I've ever heard in an IEM, easily surpassing the SM3, which was the best I've heard in BA driver until now. It goes deep like the IE8, but beats the IE8 hands down in quality. It gives you the amount of bass that the recording calls for, whereas the IE8 just seems to stay bloated based on my recollection. I mentioned the IE8 first (I know it's not a BA, because someone asked me about that comparison in pm. Now, for Confispect's question comparing the bass of the quad to the FX700. There is nothing like the timbre of the FX700. I think it has a lot to do with its all-wood driver. So, timbre-wise, the FX700 reigns supreme for my ears. Quality-wise, the quads and Fx700 are almost equal, but one does something better than the other. I said the FX700 is better, but clarity and detail is better with the quad. I mean I hear reverb off bass strings being plucked that I've never heard before with the quads. It's clarity is wonderful and the bass guitar notes really reverberate and go down deep. But if the bass is not deep in the music, it will reflect that too. Oh, and it's fast! I was just listening to the Police "Message In The Bottle" and I heard Sting's bass like I have never heard before (this was just on an iPod Nano). But the speed of Copeland's drums and Andy's guitar were right there. These are fantastic and meet my expectations for customs (I can say exceed since I really didn't know what to expect). 
 
Snare drums have great echo and reverb, and the tom tom drums. Now jermng and I discussed this a little bit in pm, and hears things a little different from me. He's definitely coming from a more technical point of listening than I am, but I think these are an audiophile's dream. The best mid drums I've ever heard in an IEM was in the e-Q7. That sound is how I judge all mid-range drums on a kit (it had great tonality and echo and reverberation). The quads meet and surpass the e-Q7. And already said the bass surpass the  SM3.
 
I'm listening to the best of Radiohead now (I use them as a test for all of my IEMs) and the quads are delivering. Acoustic instruments seem to do a tad bit better with the FX700, but again, I haven't listened to enough acoustic music with the quads yet. But I "High and Dry" drums and bass sounded wonderful, but the acoustic guitar struck me as being a bit more natural with the FX700. Not sure about the comparison with the SM3 as of yet. 
 
As for sound signature, not too warms and not very cold. Somewhere in the middle. Vocals are outstanding and seem to possess a lot of details like some analytical IEMs I'ver heard (HF5 comes to mind), but a bit to the warm side of analytical. Horns are in your face and very detailed. I picked this up listening to a Lossless version of Mile Davis' "So What." Bass was there as expected and drums had nice transparency and snap. Cymbals - as project86 and I think jermng said - are a little laid back. It's there with good extension and decay, but it's a bit warmish. It's definitely nowhere near as sharp and cool as the HJE900 or FX700 treble. This may be an issue for some, but whereas I like treble, it's not my favorite part of the sound spectrum. So the treble sounds just right to me. Some may find the treble a bit recessed, but I don't hear that way. I hear it as just right.
 
Mids. Hmmmm? As I said earlier, Vitaliy told me he designed the quads not have as forward mids as the JH or UE products that are comparable. Does this mean the mids are recessed? No. The mids aren't as forward, for example as the SM3 or SE535, but it's not recessed either. It's just right to my ears. If anything, the vocals seem to be a tad bit more forward than other parts of the mids. So if a singer is being accompanied by piano, that piano sounds like it's playing behind the vocalist somewhat to give the singer room to shine. In "So What," the piano was a bit recessed compared to the other instrument, but clear and transparent. The piano is very upclose and personal with the SM3. 
 
Instrument separation is very nice. The instruments are tall, or nice headstage. As for soundstage, sometimes the quads sound very monitor-like (and they are that), but at other times there is space, especially where there is string instruments in the background. I can get more a medium concert hall feel than I do with the SM3, which always feels like you're in a studio or in a small jazz club right by the stage. The crossover is very nice in the quads. That's it for now. I need more listening time. In spelling errors or words missing, please forgive me. I'm typing fast trying to answer questions and enjoy the music, among a couple of other chores on the computer. I'll clean this post up later.  Oh, so far these things sound wonderful straight out of my ipod classics (latestest generations), nano and my Sony S545 (no eq-ing). It sounded the best with Radiohead and the Police out of the Nano. I will connect it to the Fiio E7 and uDAC in a bit.  

Nice impressions Eric I think I might pass.....dynamics do something to me having just heard the Atrio's, dynamic get my vote. I'll keep a watch on this though....

 

[ericp10]

I understand at Confispect. Dynamic certainly have their own unique thing going on, but the BAs seem to have a clarity and transparency that some Dynamics get quite close to (the FX700), but never hit the mark. It's almost a tie for me comparing the FX700 and quad, but the quad clearly does several things better than FX700 from a technical standpoint. As for BAs, it's quickly becoming apparent that my custom is the best BA IEM I've yet to hear. I'm not saying that definitively yet, but the best BAs I'ver heard (universals of course) are the SM3, e-Q7 (I know it's a hybrid), SE535 and SM2 (no particular order). The quads are putting them all to shame to my ears at the moment. The closes would be the SM3 and SM2. I think the quads give a big more space like the SM2, but with more details and transparency. The Earsonics are definitely warmer sounding BAs. 
 
But if I could only keep one universal - BA or Dynamic - it would be the FX700 dynamic. I would choose it and my custom BA is how I feel at the moment.

 

[rawrster]

Nice impressions Eric. I think if you're like me then after some time you will look to letting most of your universal earphones go in the FS area. I'm pretty set with my M2 and RE262 right now and my Livewires and another custom yet to be determined instead of just a bunch of universals.
 
Does the timbre of the quads come close to the FX700 or is it still a long ways off. I usually find that dynamics are better in timbre in certain areas and BA are better in different areas at least from a universal perspective. Does the FX700 do better in some but not as good in others? I need to hear this jvc timbre one day ;p

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

I understand at Confispect. Dynamic certainly have their own unique thing going on, but the BAs seem to have a clarity and transparency that some Dynamics get quite close to (the FX700), but never hit the mark. It's almost a tie for me comparing the FX700 and quad, but the quad clearly does several things better than FX700 from a technical standpoint. As for BAs, it's quickly becoming apparent that my custom is the best BA IEM I've yet to hear. I'm not saying that definitively yet, but the best BAs I'ver heard (universals of course) are the SM3, e-Q7 (I know it's a hybrid), SE535 and SM2 (no particular order). The quads are putting them all to shame to my ears at the moment. The closes would be the SM3 and SM2. I think the quads give a big more space like the SM2, but with more details and transparency. The Earsonics are definitely warmer sounding BAs. 
 
But if I could only keep one universal - BA or Dynamic - it would be the FX700 dynamic. I would choose it and my custom BA is how I feel at the moment.

 
 
Figured that, my problem is as they get 'technically' better they get naturally worser another debate for another day. But....these are quite interesting did you post pics? (going back thread wise...) I do need/want a custom sounds like these atrio/ear sonic. Decisions, decisions...
 
 
EDIT: Good question I'd like to know this myself....timbre is a extremely needed thing it should never be forgotten. In my book.
 

 

[ericp10]

I'm going to do an official review of the quads in a couple of weeks or so with pics and all (will be my first). This was just my first impressions, and I don't know how to write short with questions you guys are asking...lol, but I will learn. I will probably incorporate some of what I have written tonight into the bigger package. So photos will have to wait. I will say that the packaging exceeded my expectations. I even got a nice booklet from 1964ears talking about their products, warranty, etc. The case is just gorgeous. Everything is of the highest caliber, as you would expect spending this sort of money on a product. Top notch!!
 
Quote:

Quote:

I understand at Confispect. Dynamic certainly have their own unique thing going on, but the BAs seem to have a clarity and transparency that some Dynamics get quite close to (the FX700), but never hit the mark. It's almost a tie for me comparing the FX700 and quad, but the quad clearly does several things better than FX700 from a technical standpoint. As for BAs, it's quickly becoming apparent that my custom is the best BA IEM I've yet to hear. I'm not saying that definitively yet, but the best BAs I'ver heard (universals of course) are the SM3, e-Q7 (I know it's a hybrid), SE535 and SM2 (no particular order). The quads are putting them all to shame to my ears at the moment. The closes would be the SM3 and SM2. I think the quads give a big more space like the SM2, but with more details and transparency. The Earsonics are definitely warmer sounding BAs. 
 
But if I could only keep one universal - BA or Dynamic - it would be the FX700 dynamic. I would choose it and my custom BA is how I feel at the moment.

 
 
Figured that, my problem is as they get 'technically' better they get naturally worser another debate for another day. But....these are quite interesting did you post pics? (going back thread wise...) I do need/want a custom sounds like these atrio/ear sonic. Decisions, decisions...
 
 
EDIT: Good question I'd like to no this myself....timbre is a extremely needed thing it should never be forgotten. In my book.
 

 

[Region2]

Quote:

As for sound signature, not too warms and not very cold. Somewhere in the middle. Vocals are outstanding and seem to possess a lot of details like some analytical IEMs I'ver heard (HF5 comes to mind), but a bit to the warm side of analytical. Horns are in your face and very detailed. I picked this up listening to a Lossless version of Mile Davis' "So What." Bass was there as expected and drums had nice transparency and snap. Cymbals - as project86 and I think jermng said - are a little laid back. It's there with good extension and decay, but it's a bit warmish. It's definitely nowhere near as sharp and cool as the HJE900 or FX700 treble. This may be an issue for some, but whereas I like treble, it's not my favorite part of the sound spectrum. So the treble sounds just right to me. Some may find the treble a bit recessed, but I don't hear that way. I hear it as just right.
 
Mids. Hmmmm? As I said earlier, Vitaliy told me he designed the quads not have as forward mids as the JH or UE products that are comparable. Does this mean the mids are recessed? No. The mids aren't as forward, for example as the SM3 or SE535, but it's not recessed either. It's just right to my ears. If anything, the vocals seem to be a tad bit more forward than other parts of the mids. So if a singer is being accompanied by piano, that piano sounds like it's playing behind the vocalist somewhat to give the singer room to shine. In "So What," the piano was a bit recessed compared to the other instrument, but clear and transparent. The piano is very upclose and personal with the SM3. 
 
Instrument separation is very nice. The instruments are tall, or nice headstage. As for soundstage, sometimes the quads sound very monitor-like (and they are that), but at other times there is space, especially where there is string instruments in the background. I can get more a medium concert hall feel than I do with the SM3, which always feels like you're in a studio or in a small jazz club right by the stage. The crossover is very nice in the quads. That's it for now. I need more listening time. In spelling errors or words missing, please forgive me. I'm typing fast trying to answer questions and enjoy the music, among a couple of other chores on the computer. I'll clean this post up later.  Oh, so far these things sound wonderful straight out of my ipod classics (latestest generations), nano and my Sony S545 (no eq-ing). It sounded the best with Radiohead and the Police out of the 

First off, thanks for the more indepth impression.  This review was a lot more relevant to me since I use Radiohead as a test for every headphone I purchase.  It really answered off quite a few of my questions (and some I didn't know I had).  

 
You should get a commission because you won me over with the bit about the vocals seeming to be a bit more forward than the other parts of the mids.  Having the vocals a bit forward is something I prefer.  I wonder if this carries over to the Triples as well (time to shoot Vitaliy another email).  
 
I do like that these are different than the JH or the UE in that it would be nice to have two customs as stable mates.  I'm looking forward to the rest of the review with the uDAC and FiiO!
 
Keep all the great info coming, ericp!

 

[ericp10]

You're quite welcome @ Region2 and the other guys. That's what we are here for, to share our experiences and opinions. I'll edit and clean up that post later, but I wanted to get some detailed first impressions to my head-fi members as quickly as possible.
 
These are definitely a bass and mids - focus custom, which gives a lot of weight to the music. For those who prefer the treble and high mids spectrum of music, these might not be for you. That spectrum is there and well represented, and there is neutrality, but the lower end is a focus with these customs. The sound is rich rich rich!! I am loving it!!

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

You're quite welcome @ Region2 and the other guys. That's what we are here for, to share our experiences and opinions. I'll edit and clean up that post later, but I wanted to get some detailed first impressions to my head-fi members as quickly as possible.
 
These are definitely a bass and mids - focus custom, which gives a lot of weight to the music. For those who prefer the treble and high mids spectrum of music, these might not be for you. That spectrum is there and well represented, and there is neutrality, but the lower end is a focus with these customs. The sound is rich rich rich!! I am loving it!!

ERIC your making this hard....but on the bright side since you don't seem to need your FX700's......I think we had this conversation already something about a will...I'm oh so honored no need to join the 'fan club' when your in the mans will. 

 But in all seriousness can't wait for the review don't make us wait!
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

[ericp10]

LOL @ Confispect. Yea, you weaseled into my IEMs will somehow. Hmmm? LOL.
 
After Xmas, I also plan on doing an nice Q & A with Vitaliy for a publication, but hopefully they will let me post it here, or I'll do a variation. We'll look at his inspiration for wanting to start this company and his background. I would love to this for many start-up companies. I will probably go back and get the same type of interview done with ThinkSound. These small companies are making a big impact on our hobby!!

 

[Randius]

Quote:

You're quite welcome @ Region2 and the other guys. That's what we are here for, to share our experiences and opinions. I'll edit and clean up that post later, but I wanted to get some detailed first impressions to my head-fi members as quickly as possible.
 
These are definitely a bass and mids - focus custom, which gives a lot of weight to the music. For those who prefer the treble and high mids spectrum of music, these might not be for you. That spectrum is there and well represented, and there is neutrality, but the lower end is a focus with these customs. The sound is rich rich rich!! I am loving it!!

So if I am liking the UM3X/SM3, will the treble and high mid on the quad be of same quality or better? Also, I have gotten my TF10 from Amazon and though I find the treble to be excellent, it gets fatiguing after a while. I am trying to understand if the quad is the one that I should go for. Your impression of the mid definitely leaves me wanting to get it more 

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

Quote:

You're quite welcome @ Region2 and the other guys. That's what we are here for, to share our experiences and opinions. I'll edit and clean up that post later, but I wanted to get some detailed first impressions to my head-fi members as quickly as possible.
 
These are definitely a bass and mids - focus custom, which gives a lot of weight to the music. For those who prefer the treble and high mids spectrum of music, these might not be for you. That spectrum is there and well represented, and there is neutrality, but the lower end is a focus with these customs. The sound is rich rich rich!! I am loving it!!

So if I am liking the UM3X/SM3, will the treble and high mid on the quad be of same quality or better? Also, I have gotten my TF10 from Amazon and though I find the treble to be excellent, it gets fatiguing after a while. I am trying to understand if the quad is the one that I should go for. Your impression of the mid definitely leaves me wanting to get it more 

I have never heard the UM3X, so I can't answer that. The treble on the Quad is there, but smoothed out. But I'm listening to Miles Davis' "Eight-One" now, which has a lot of hi-hat licks in it. There is definitely extension and the the treble is there, with a nice decay on the cymbal, but it's smoothed out - or not harsh and hot like other goo treble I've heard before. The SM3 treble is detailed and there, but warmer. I think this make many think the SM3' treble is recessed. It's not recessed to me. But I hear more extension in the Quad's treble.