[Randius]

Quote:

just curious. for those waiting (anxiously i guess) for your custom to be shipped, will you be having the "1964 EARS" logo on the faceplate?

By default, the logo will be on the faceplates. You can request for them not to put the logo.

 

[MINGF5]

I asked for no marking on faceplate, because i think their logo is too big too crowded. but now I'm thinking I could have asked for "1964" on one side and "EARS" on another side. They have option to engrave the logo/artwork on the inside face of the faceplate, so the exterior remains smooth. 
 
Quote:

just curious. for those waiting (anxiously i guess) for your custom to be shipped, will you be having the "1964 EARS" logo on the faceplate?

 

[9homme]

Yep,  I asked him to put 1964 ears logo inside of right ear and my initials on left ear. because he told me that there are not enough for both logo and my initials on both ears.
Quote:

I asked for no marking on faceplate, because i think their logo is too big too crowded. but now I'm thinking I could have asked for "1964" on one side and "EARS" on another side. They have option to engrave the logo/artwork on the inside face of the faceplate, so the exterior remains smooth. 
 
Quote:

just curious. for those waiting (anxiously i guess) for your custom to be shipped, will you be having the "1964 EARS" logo on the faceplate?

 

 

[Pisn4e]

I think i said it was fine to put their logo on. I'm not fussed really. $50 is pretty standard for custom art but i just can't do it. It's like the tattoo i will never get, i just can't decide.

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

Well, rawrster my friend, I have access to words; I'm a journalist, not a photographer....lol. Luckily, however, one of my uncles is a Pulitzer Award winning photographer. So the plan is to have him take a few shots for me. He doesn't know this yet, but I did tell him about he IEMs and he's excited about seeing them, so I'll kill two birds with one stone. I can't wait for you to get your triple, as that might help me to spring for a second pair of customs from this company (probably will do it anyway though).
 
 
This would be nice... 

 

[Sil3nce]

Anyone have any opinions on the single driver?

 

[MINGF5]

I think the consensus here is to save up and get the dual or triple.
 
Quote:

Anyone have any opinions on the single driver?

 

[project86]

Wow, once again lots of activity here. I'm away for a few days and the thread has hundreds of posts. It's difficult to keep up!
 
A don't have a problem with anyone raising issues. That applies to new companies as well as longtime established firms. My expectation though is that we do it for a proper reason, rather than just speculation. Anyone who has been around here for long has seen the problems faced by custom IEM companies as they got more popular, including LiveWires, JH Audio, FreQ, and Hearyourself.com/Alien Ears. But let's not penalize 1964 Ears until such time when it happens to them, if that time ever comes.
 
I also know where people are coming from when they question these threads. Lots of hype over new products can cause justifiable suspicion. All we can do look at the people involved, check their history on the forum, listen to the passion they have (or don't have) for the product, and try to determine if we think it is legit. As for me, I always point out if I'm reviewing a loaner sample, which I have done a few times. In most cases though, just like this one, I paid with my own hard earned cash (or paypal as the case may be). I was honest when I described my build quality as good but not perfect. I just feel like myself and a few other early purchasers have the opportunity to help people by sharing out experiences, whether they be good or bad.
 
Bunch of questions about the triple driver model came up, I can't answer them all now but will generalize: For me, the triples have very adequate bass response. "Adequate" makes it sound like "just barely good enough" but that's not the case. The lows are powerful, plentiful, and hard hitting, with good extension into the deepest regions. Although overall I would agree that they are fairly well balanced, I wouldn't worry for lack of bass with the triples.
 
Without having heard the quads, I'll speculate that the triples will likely please the most broad range of potential users. Forgive me if I've already said this, but I suspect the quads are to the triples what the JH16 is to the JH13. They both have their place for sure, but unless you are specifically out to get tons of bass, you might go for the less bassy model of the two. Others might disagree with me though.
 
Perhaps as a point of reference, I can say that the triples hit harder than my Westone ES3X (which I rarely find lacking in that department). They have similar extension, with the slight edge going to the triples.

 

[rroseperry]

Quote:

 
Bunch of questions about the triple driver model came up, I can't answer them all now but will generalize: For me, the triples have very adequate bass response. "Adequate" makes it sound like "just barely good enough" but that's not the case. The lows are powerful, plentiful, and hard hitting, with good extension into the deepest regions. Although overall I would agree that they are fairly well balanced, I wouldn't worry for lack of bass with the triples.
 

I emailed Vitaly about the triples, saying that I had the TF10s and asking how they compared.  He said that he thought they would have similar bass extension, but that the 1964 triples might (and he did say might) have more detail. I'm planning to order after the new year and drive up to Portland to pick them up.

 

[project86]

Quote:

Quote:

 
Bunch of questions about the triple driver model came up, I can't answer them all now but will generalize: For me, the triples have very adequate bass response. "Adequate" makes it sound like "just barely good enough" but that's not the case. The lows are powerful, plentiful, and hard hitting, with good extension into the deepest regions. Although overall I would agree that they are fairly well balanced, I wouldn't worry for lack of bass with the triples.
 

I emailed Vitaly about the triples, saying that I had the TF10s and asking how they compared.  He said that he thought they would have similar bass extension, but that the 1964 triples might (and he did say might) have more detail. I'm planning to order after the new year and drive up to Portland to pick them up.

I'd say he was correct. I haven't used my TF10 in ages but I always felt their bass was their biggest strength. I think the 1964-T has the advantage though, likely due to the much better fit. I suppose it could be possible if you are the rare person who achieves perfect fit with your TF10s, that the 1964-T would only match it in bass and not improve it. But I doubt it. In all other areas the 1964-T is a big improvement on the TF10 (IMHO of course).
 

 

[rroseperry]

Quote:

I'd say he was correct. I haven't used my TF10 in ages but I always felt their bass was their biggest strength. I think the 1964-T has the advantage though, likely due to the much better fit. I suppose it could be possible if you are the rare person who achieves perfect fit with your TF10s, that the 1964-T would only match it in bass and not improve it. But I doubt it. In all other areas the 1964-T is a big improvement on the TF10 (IMHO of course).
 

As much as I love my TF10 (and I do), they do have that recessed mid problem which makes them not such a good match for some recordings. That's really what I'm looking for in the 1964 triples, that solid bass, but better mids.

 

[rawrster]

If the 1964-T has that amount of bass then the quads must be bass monsters for me at least. It does seem like the triples and quads are targeting different audiences. I wonder if there's any difference in technical ability between the two but I think it will be some time before someone owns both.

 

[ericp10]

Project86 thank you again for your thoughts and views. And I greatly respect that you feel the need to say whether you purchased something with your hard earned cash or got it for free. I, on the other hand, don't feel that same need as stated before as I'm not following any ethical code on head.fi.org but my own. It smacks of hypocrisy to me when certain people jump on this thread out of the blue to question head.fi members who so graciously give their views on a product that many haven't heard, whether the opinions are negative or positive. Except for Kunlun (I have no issues with his concerns about the FB matter), others who commented and went into long diatribes about ethics and such haven't even been on the thread to say they were interested in 1964 EARS or not. No, they only appeared so they could go into negative rants and cause trouble, as they have done on other threads, probably because of some warped vendetta against certain head.fi members. That's why I felt it was none of their concern how I personally came about my quad. If they want to speculate from that I say feel free. I have no one to answer to except for publications I do reviews for, and trust me when I state I have never been questioned by an editor on what method I obtained an item for review, so no way am I going to allow it in a forum where I give my opinion freely (especially when I usually get paid for giving my opinion). With that said, any reader of what I say has the right to accept that I am being fair, honest and impartial about an item, or reject what I say totally. I wouldn't be offended either way. I have given impressions on every item you see in my signature (and then some), and my impartiality wasn't questioned then (not out in the open anyway), but now that I take a risk on a new company (and like what I am hearing) it is questioned? Give me a break!
 
Like I said, I respect the route you feel is proper and right @ project86. I know one thing, with all the comments about a particular magazine in the UK and how they prove how ethical they are, along with the speculation and innuendo, the great fictional Sherlock Holmes would never have to worry about being displaced in his day job...lol.
 
As much as I am loving (really loving) the quad, you and others keep raising my interest in the triple @ project86. Hmmmm? Decisions.

 

[ericp10]

I think they are tuned differently @ rawrster, but I'll get clarity on that for you (if you don't beat me to it). My understanding, however, is that the quad has greater bass extension than the triple, not so much that it is a bass monster. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty deep bass in the quad (clear, tight accurate deep bass), but it doesn't drown out the mids or highs at all. I'll try to describe this better when I do my full review.
 
Quote:

If the 1964-T has that amount of bass then the quads must be bass monsters for me at least. It does seem like the triples and quads are targeting different audiences. I wonder if there's any difference in technical ability between the two but I think it will be some time before someone owns both.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

Project86 thank you again for your thoughts and views. And I greatly respect that you feel the need to say whether you purchased something with your hard earned cash or got it for free. I, on the other hand, don't feel that same need as stated before as I'm not following any ethical code on head.fi.org but my own. It smacks of hypocrisy to me when certain people jump on this thread out of the blue to question head.fi members who so graciously give their views on a product that many haven't heard, whether the opinions are negative or positive. Except for Kunlun (I have no issues with his concerns about the FB matter), others who commented and went into long diatribes about ethics and such haven't even been on the thread to say they were interested in 1964 EARS or not. No, they only appeared so they could go into negative rants and cause trouble, as they have done on other threads, probably because of some warped vendetta against certain head.fi members. That's why I felt it was none of their concern how I personally came about my quad. If they want to speculate from that I say feel free. I have no one to answer to except for publications I do reviews for, and trust me when I state I have never been questioned by an editor on what method I obtained an item for review, so no way am I going to allow it in a forum where I give my opinion freely (especially when I usually get paid for giving my opinion). With that said, any reader of what I say has the right to accept that I am being fair, honest and impartial about an item, or reject what I say totally. I wouldn't be offended either way. I have given impressions on every item you see in my signature (and then some), and my impartiality wasn't questioned then (not out in the open anyway), but now that I take a risk on a new company (and like what I am hearing) it is questioned? Give me a break!
 
Like I said, I respect the route you feel is proper and right @ project86. I know one thing, with all the comments about a particular magazine in the UK and how they prove how ethical they are, along with the speculation and innuendo, the great fictional Sherlock Holmes would never have to worry about being displaced in his day job...lol.
 
As much as I am loving (really loving) the quad, you and others keep raising my interest in the triple @ project86. Hmmmm? Decisions.

There's so much I could say about this post, but I'll keep it very short: No comment.