[ericp10]

Quote:

Can i say that, if i like sm3's sound signature, most probably i will like the quads as well?

I would say no. It doesn't sound like the SM3 really. There's more space and instrument separation, and greater bass extension i the quads. Also, the mids are dialed up a bit more in the SM3. The quad doesn't sound as warm as the SM3 to my ears. Soundstage is definitely wider in the 1964-Q.

 

[jermng]

 
I have been going to & fro the Quads and my ES5 for most music I have been listening to for the past week. 
 
Ultimately, to me, there is no clear winner. 
 
Wearing two hats as a sound engineer and semi-pro bass player, I would pick both for different purposes. 
 
As a sound engineer, the ES5s are my clear choice given their flatter response and better treble extension. I find I can come to a fairly close mix while using the ES5s. 
 
As a bass player, I used the Quads briefly as monitors for a gig I sat in during the weekend and they absolutely rocked! There was enough low end punch while keeping the definition. The ES5s do the same job but lack the low end punch that's needed for live "energy". The Quads would definitely be my go to IEMs in this case. 
 
 
Listening to music for work (mixing, analyzing and transcribing), again, the ES5s are my choice, having a very wide & flat frequency response, good separation and sound stage. I have to say, contrary to popular belief, the ES5s DO NOT lack bass, it's just not boosted like most other headphones. It's there when it's there in the recording.
 
When listening to music "for fun", I go to the Quads for rock, alternative/pop, "LIVE" albums and bass heavy music. The Quads really add serious punch to music which in a way adds "excitement" to the music while still keeping the mids very well defined.
 
For vocal, classical and acoustic music, the ES5s are still my choice.
 
The Quads are also very forgiving of badly mastered music. A good example is John Mayer's "No Such Thing", my other headphones (ES5, Ultrasone Pro900, Beyer DT990) exhibit unbearable sibilance on that track which the Quads smoothens it out nicely. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that it's a "deficiency" in the Quads, my workforce mixing headphones, the Sony MDR-7509HD (very well regarded among sound engineers), also smoothens out the sibilance nicely.
 
At this point I have to say the Quads somehow prefer to be driven direct from my iPod 5G and Macbook Pro. They sound much better direct than paired with either of my portable amps. I also have to change a statement I made in my earlier impressions - after one week of listening, the iBasso D12 ultimately sounds better than the Go-Vibe Petite. I have the Topkit on the way to me from HiFlight and I'm hoping a different combination of opamps will help the D12 and Quads synergy.
 
The best sound I've heard from the Quads till now is with the Schitt Asgard. But sadly and obviously it's not portable. Also, the Asgard was not designed for IEMs so there is a hum with the Quads (not present with any of my other headphones but present with the ES5s).
 
 
I've got a pair of LCD-2s coming tomorrow which are supposed have "very good bass but recessed treble". I'm very interested to compare the two. It's not going to be a fair comparison at all but they can both be described with the exact same phrase above, so it's gonna be interesting.  
 
From my wife's description and the frequency response chart, the triples seem to sit very nicely between the Quads and ES5s. She says it's got a balanced tonal quality, good definition and soundstage (all subjective), so I really can't wait to hear for myself. At this point I'm GUESSING the Triples MIGHT be the IEMs to consider for people who only want one pair of customs unless they have specific uses for them.
 
That's it after one week of listening. I've taken quite a few notes and will write a longer review soon and will include more specific musical examples to illustrate what I'm hearing. 
 
This write-up is rather inconclusive - there is really no one clear winner - but a different IEM serves a different purpose, each having their own strengths. Use the right tool for the right job!

 

[MINGF5]

i want to know the answer as well. Eric provided some early impression/comparison. but we have to wait for his formal review. 


Quote:

Can i say that, if i like sm3's sound signature, most probably i will like the quads as well?

 

[Stan91]

Quote:

Quote:

Can i say that, if i like sm3's sound signature, most probably i will like the quads as well?

I would say no. It doesn't sound like the SM3 really. There's more space and instrument separation, and greater bass extension i the quads. Also, the mids are dialed up a bit more in the SM3. The quad doesn't sound as warm as the SM3 to my ears. Soundstage is definitely wider in the 1964-Q.

Uh oh, more space and instrument separation, greater bass extension and wider soundstage?! Sounds like a very good upgrade from the SM3. Now i'm planning to get the quads. ahahhaa. Can't wait for your formal review!

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

 
When listening to music "for fun", I go to the Quads for rock, alternative/pop, "LIVE" albums and bass heavy music. The Quads really add serious punch to music which in a way adds "excitement" to the music while still keeping the mids very well defined.
 

So I understand your comparisons are largely related to bass presentation there.  I have a couple questions.  Does the ES5 have the same or better sense of energy and attack as the Quads or is it more laid back like a Sennheiser of perhaps less so a Shure.  Does the body of the notes suffer at all by comparison on the ES5, is it ever thin in other words?  Without consideration of bass my main concerns are:
 
Full bodied sound (not unnaturally so) 
Sonority
Timbre
Attack/Aggressiveness
Clarity
Transparency
Headroom
Isolation
 
I'll probably ask again when your Trips come in w/ respect to them.  

  
 

 

[ericp10]

Great updated impressions @  jermng. Makes more interested in the ES5 too. Although, based on what your wife said, I'll probably get the 1964-T before the ES5.
 
 
Thanks @ Stan91 and MINGF5. In another week or two full impressions will be posted.

 

[jermng]

I think it's good to remind everyone that the ES5s cost double that of the Quads just to keep things in perspective.
 
@Anaxilus, I will put all that into my full review. At this point, I have to say very objectively that the ES5s do most things (those you listed) better than the Quads (some areas more so than others), which is the very reason why I am comfortable mixing with them. 
 
Like I mentioned, the ES5s DO NOT lack bass at all. They are definitely NOT "thin". I would even say they reach as deep or even deeper than the Quads, but not particularly boosted at any frequency while the Quads have a pretty wide bandwidth 6dB boost at 50Hz. 
 
In fact I would say the ES5s are very natural sounding - even a demanding instrument like the Acoustic Upright bass sounds more "real" on the ES5s. (I am an upright bass player and have been playing Jazz groups and big bands for 9 years so I know how an acoustic bass sounds - from the frequency ranges to the attack and resonance). But with the Quads, the "thump" impact is there to give the energy of the recording. 
 
Where the Quads shine are in bass heavy music or music that NEEDS the bass BOOST to make it sound better. As 1964ears have said, the Quads were primarily designed for Live stage usage and that is where they REALLY shine.
 
If you listen to a lot of Radiohead, the Quads would be for you. If you wanna separate the instruments in a big band recording, go for the ES5. If you wanna groove to the same music and swing with it, use the Quads. 
 
Again, it's really not a THIS OR THAT situation, it's difficult to describe in a short write-up, but they have very different voicings and qualities. It's not like you can't enjoy Radiohead with the ES5s or transcribe with the Quads, just that one trumps the other in that specific area. Besides there are tons of other IEMs out there, so this comparison is really a very narrow one. 
 
I don't even think the Quads and the ES5s should be considered in the same category in terms of purposes or sonic preferences. I would place the ES5s with maybe the UE Reference Monitors and older UE10s while the Quads might sit with the UE13s or JH13s (all these based on reviews I read, not personal experience). People usually narrow their choices down to these broad categories before zooming in on the specific model in that range. 
 
The only reason I'm comparing the two is just cause I happen to have both. 

 

[ramw5p]

First off, if I offended people with the liberal comment then my bad, i apologize!  Out of line, and it looked worse then i ment it
 
Ok, i have had seveal email conversations with 1964, have been great to deal with.  Looks like i am going to go with the remold of my triple.fi and add a mid driver.  Similar cost to UM, but dont have to send overseas.  They are a new company, so it is a gamble, buit if theie communication style is similar to their ability to produce a good product then i think it will work out fine.  I've got to get the impressions done then off go the new triple.fi.

 

[Anaxilus]

Nah man, that's great info!  Much appreciated.  Your further comments definitely give me the impression that the ES5 is definitely more aligned w/ my needs.  I think the cost differential is quite considerable and clear but obviously everyone is pondering in the back of their minds 'how close can I get for less money?'  

  If what you say above still holds true when your Trips arrive then the choice will be clear.  If not, then 1964 certainly has a compelling argument to make for my money.  Thanks again. 

 

[ericp10]

Can't wait to hear your impressions @ ramw5p.
Quote:

First off, if I offended people with the liberal comment then my bad, i apologize!  Out of line, and it looked worse then i ment it
 
Ok, i have had seveal email conversations with 1964, have been great to deal with.  Looks like i am going to go with the remold of my triple.fi and add a mid driver.  Similar cost to UM, but dont have to send overseas.  They are a new company, so it is a gamble, buit if theie communication style is similar to their ability to produce a good product then i think it will work out fine.  I've got to get the impressions done then off go the new triple.fi.

 

[music_4321]

As I said before, all reports of excellent customer service and QC are completely normal at this stage. Virtually any new company - which generally starts small - will go out of their way to please new customers, all the more so in our Internet age where practically everything is reported in real-time and a new product can suddenly become the hot new item.

Jerry Harvey, customs IEM supremo, was incredibly friendly & available at first; some people even visited his workshop and reported being treated in a very friendly and humble manner by the man himself. JH answered all manner of questions, and all emails were answered pretty swiftly, quite often by Jerry himself. As time went by, quite a few reports of cosmetic flaws, build quality, artwork issues (ie QC issues) started to pour in, no more unanimous reports of prompt replies to emails, and so on. This happened when JH Audio suddenly got many more orders than they could possibly handle so delivery times also got longer. And that was coming from JH Audio, HF's favourite customs manufacturer.

Yet, after hundreds of reports, these days people have a better idea of what to expect from JH Audio, and they're still regarded as possibly the best company in the industry. Recently, it seems, QC issues have been addressed as well as an improvement in CS, though perhaps not as they once were right at the very beginning.

As for those who claim that "1964 Ears could have told me this instead of that, or done this instead of that", I'll say that the mere fact that someone contacts 1964 Ears - a virtually unknown company - suggests that the customer in question very likely heard/ read about them on these very forums, and if said potential customer also happens to mention Westone, JH Audio, UE or UM, all the more likely they would know about HF. These companies are not mainstream like Shure, Sony, Bose or Sennheiser - where you find out about their products from many sources - so chances are that if you know about 1964 Ears, you'd know about HF.

It's not even necessary for that potential customer to mention HF, though it's always a good idea to do so, so the customer has better chances of getting a better than average product and good CS; if things started to go wrong, it would likely be reported back here pretty soon and have a negative effect on the company. It's no coincidence that, for instance, when several people have reported issues with a Westone, JH Audio, or UM product and felt they've not had an adequate response from the manufacturer, the customer (Hf'er) in question gets a PM pretty soon, or their emails are suddenly answered promptly and issues soon resolved. Fortunately, these days the consumer has more power thanks to the Internet.

As for not being anyone's business how much one pays for a product or whether it was free or heavily discounted -- something that happens here on HF and no that infrequently --, this happens in most industries, namely that the person doing a review will likely get 'special treatment' either by getting freebies or samples or at the very least the company will make sure the product being used for reviewing purposes is in absolute perfect condition, this is specially true of products which are not mass-produced. The same product may not have the same QC control when sold to the general consumer. When a restaurant knows a well-known food critic will be visiting their premises, it is often the case that the critic will say something along the lines of "both food & service were absolutely superb". Not always the same superb food & service is had when the restaurant in question doesn't know who their new customer is.

There is a highly regarded consumer magazine in the UK called Which?, which was first published in 1957, 53 years ago! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Which%3F -- they state "No advertising, no bias, no hidden agenda ". From Wikipedia: It maintains its independence by not accepting advertising or freebies; everything bought for testing is paid for at full price. Which? is funded entirely by its subscribers and has no shareholders. This justifies its tagline of "Independent expert advice you can trust".

Which? carries out systematic testing of consumer products and financial services, the results of which are published in reports in the magazine and on the website. The Which? 'Best Buy' tag is well-known and respected by industry and consumers. Tests are carried out on consumer items like electrical goods, cars, and computers, as well as health and financial services, and supermarkets. Testing highlights issues such as reliability and value-for-money.

The subscription to this magazine is not cheap, £9.75 ($15.30) a month, but it's for one reason: revenue comes from subscribers - the consumers- and not from advertising, where there is far too often a conflict of interest. Are so many British people so stupid that they will pay such a high price for this type of magazine when they can get plenty of free 'reviews' elsewhere? I think not.

Unfortunately, here in HF it's not always so easy to tell who's giving a 100% honest, unbiased view. And these issues are completely separate from one's opinions on good sound, sound-sig preferences, pricing, music taste, and so on. For obvious reasons - namely losing credibility - they will not say they got a free or heavily discounted piece of gear in exchange for a 'review', specially in the case of more expensive products.

There are also shills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill  -- and there have been quite a few of them here on HF, but that's another topic, though not entirely unrelated to some of the issues discussed here.

 

[MINGF5]

Did you ask them what mid driver they gonna put in there? is it the same bad boy sonion 2015? If you and 1964ears don't mind, can you share the cost for remold+adding driver? I was thinking of remolding my TF10+mid driver with Thousand Sound.
 
Quote:

First off, if I offended people with the liberal comment then my bad, i apologize!  Out of line, and it looked worse then i ment it
 
Ok, i have had seveal email conversations with 1964, have been great to deal with.  Looks like i am going to go with the remold of my triple.fi and add a mid driver.  Similar cost to UM, but dont have to send overseas.  They are a new company, so it is a gamble, buit if theie communication style is similar to their ability to produce a good product then i think it will work out fine.  I've got to get the impressions done then off go the new triple.fi.

 

[Confispect]

Interesting impressions...

 

[jermng]

IF the customer service or quality of 1964ears products drop, it will not and obviously cannot be hidden in this very open internet forum and others. Now, that's an IF.
 
For now, their customer service and quality are top notch and they should be taken as they are. 
 
I do not think you can foretell the future to any degree of accuracy other than basing your views on unrelated people (to 1964ears) and incidences relating to other companies. 
 
As you said, JH had a very good start, dropped and then got back up on their feet. It's a natural progression for start-ups to face hiccups and challenges as they become successful, but you seem to be pointing at all the negatives before they even happen (without knowing FOR SURE they WILL happen).  
 
Now, seriously, explain to me, what is your point? Bringing up what MIGHT happen in the future really doesn't mean anything. Are you suggesting we stay clear of all start-ups?
 
You clearly showed what a "Shill" is, with links and explanations in your last post. If you would, could you tell us what the opposite of a Shill is? Someone who might be paid in money or kind (or even relationship) by a company to defame it's competitors? Just like you said the Shills will not admit they get preferential treatment, the opposite is also true. 

 

[MINGF5]

+1.
 
Unfortunately, prejudice does prevail in somebody's mind. Just like the movie Minority Report, 1964Ears has committed "pre-crime", therefore that person must strike down 1964 before anything happens. 
 
By the way, the Minority Report soundtrack is great.
 
Quote:

IF the customer service or quality of 1964ears products drop, it will not and obviously cannot be hidden in this very open internet forum and others. Now, that's an IF.
 
For now, their customer service and quality are top notch and they should be taken as they are. 
 
I do not think you can foretell the future to any degree of accuracy other than basing your views on unrelated people (to 1964ears) and incidences relating to other companies. 
 
As you said, JH had a very good start, dropped and then got back up on their feet. It's a natural progression for start-ups to face hiccups and challenges as they become successful, but you seem to be pointing at all the negatives before they even happen (without knowing FOR SURE they WILL happen).  
 
Now, seriously, explain to me, what is your point? Bringing up what MIGHT happen in the future really doesn't mean anything. Are you suggesting we stay clear of all start-ups?
 
You clearly showed what a "Shill" is, with links and explanations in your last post. If you would, could you tell us what the opposite of a Shill is? Someone who might be paid in money or kind (or even relationship) by a company to defame it's competitors? Just like you said the Shills will not admit they get preferential treatment, the opposite is also true.