vinnievidi
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Posts
- 828
- Likes
- 27
My Quads went back for another refit... ugh.
My experience with the Quads is only about two hours worth of listening, but I would agree with the statement that they are more rolled off in the treble compared to the TF10. With that said, they have a more balanced overall sound. Each time I get my Quads back—after sending them in for refits—my first thought is always that they are a bit bland and not at all exciting. But after getting acclimated to their sound, the other IEMs that I put at the top of my list (like the TF10 and W3) I find to be too shrill and the upper bass to be too bumped up. Whereas I think the Quads has a more pleasing overall sound. Also, more than the aforementioned IEMs, I think that the Quads have great instrument separation and clarity; though not the widest soundstage I've heard in an IEM.
With symphonic classical, opera, and choral music the Quads are fantastic. As said before, the soundstage is not that large—so it's more like being at a recital than at a symphony hall—but the sound is very clear and cohesive and never sibilant. This is highly welcome when listening to sopranos like Natalie Dessay, who's highs sometime hurt my ears through the TF10 and W3. Jazz is probably represented better than large symphonic works, since jazz ensembles are much smaller and they typically perform in smaller venues. The warmth of the bass, breathiness of the sax, and shimmer of the cymbals on Coltrane's Ballads album came through perfectly on the Quads.
Rock goes from good to great, depending on the recording. I only got to listen to some Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam and Sigur Ros so far. Siamese Dream was interesting through the Quads. I could hear the harmonic tones in Billy's Big Muffed guitars and a lot of the 40+ guitar layers (I can't possible distinguish between ALL of them), but I think that the album sounded slightly better/more immediate when I tipped up the bass (around 60hz) and the treble (around 10khz).
Pearl Jam's Ten Redux and Vs. both sounded amazing through the Quads with a flat EQ. It was like listening to the albums on studio monitors. Not much more to say there except that I found my self listening to these albums at a slightly higher volume level than I typically would with the TF10 and W3--like 1 or 2 clicks more on the iPhone, though never past the halfway point.
The last album I remember listening to was Sigur Ros's Ágætis Byrjun. While they lacked the expansiveness of listening to AB on full sized headphones, the Quads really surprised me with how lush, yet articulate they were able to render the album. The keyboard was able to go deep with no effort, the drums and bass were easily distinguishable, Jonsi's vocals were crystal clear, and the bowed guitar was very stirring.
I know that this mini-review probably needs more explanation, but this is the best I can do until next week when I get my Quads back (hopefully for good).
**Equipment used: 1964 Ears Quads, iPhone 3Gs, Apple Lossless files streamed via Airport Express and home sharing**
My experience with the Quads is only about two hours worth of listening, but I would agree with the statement that they are more rolled off in the treble compared to the TF10. With that said, they have a more balanced overall sound. Each time I get my Quads back—after sending them in for refits—my first thought is always that they are a bit bland and not at all exciting. But after getting acclimated to their sound, the other IEMs that I put at the top of my list (like the TF10 and W3) I find to be too shrill and the upper bass to be too bumped up. Whereas I think the Quads has a more pleasing overall sound. Also, more than the aforementioned IEMs, I think that the Quads have great instrument separation and clarity; though not the widest soundstage I've heard in an IEM.
With symphonic classical, opera, and choral music the Quads are fantastic. As said before, the soundstage is not that large—so it's more like being at a recital than at a symphony hall—but the sound is very clear and cohesive and never sibilant. This is highly welcome when listening to sopranos like Natalie Dessay, who's highs sometime hurt my ears through the TF10 and W3. Jazz is probably represented better than large symphonic works, since jazz ensembles are much smaller and they typically perform in smaller venues. The warmth of the bass, breathiness of the sax, and shimmer of the cymbals on Coltrane's Ballads album came through perfectly on the Quads.
Rock goes from good to great, depending on the recording. I only got to listen to some Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam and Sigur Ros so far. Siamese Dream was interesting through the Quads. I could hear the harmonic tones in Billy's Big Muffed guitars and a lot of the 40+ guitar layers (I can't possible distinguish between ALL of them), but I think that the album sounded slightly better/more immediate when I tipped up the bass (around 60hz) and the treble (around 10khz).
Pearl Jam's Ten Redux and Vs. both sounded amazing through the Quads with a flat EQ. It was like listening to the albums on studio monitors. Not much more to say there except that I found my self listening to these albums at a slightly higher volume level than I typically would with the TF10 and W3--like 1 or 2 clicks more on the iPhone, though never past the halfway point.
The last album I remember listening to was Sigur Ros's Ágætis Byrjun. While they lacked the expansiveness of listening to AB on full sized headphones, the Quads really surprised me with how lush, yet articulate they were able to render the album. The keyboard was able to go deep with no effort, the drums and bass were easily distinguishable, Jonsi's vocals were crystal clear, and the bowed guitar was very stirring.
I know that this mini-review probably needs more explanation, but this is the best I can do until next week when I get my Quads back (hopefully for good).
**Equipment used: 1964 Ears Quads, iPhone 3Gs, Apple Lossless files streamed via Airport Express and home sharing**
