[tkalee]

Quote:

Hello tkalee and welcome to head-fi on behalf of the older member here (time-wise). You know the funny about getting into hobby, I use to eq all the time no matter what. I joined head-fi over a year and a half ago and then stop eq-ing. So have no idea. I tried to eq the Quad one time,  just messing around with it, and I didn't like the sound at all. Seems like it's balanced just right for my ears the way it is.

I hear you.  I've quickly got out of the habit, though at times you'll catch me adding +3/4 db to the bass end of the CK10s.  I used to add bass to the RE0s until they burned in.
 
However, I don't think I've really settled on a preferred sound signature for all occasions; sometimes I like some bass punch (FX500) and sometimes I don't (CK10 with no EQ).  Does anyone out there know if EQ'ing some bass to the 1964-T is effective?  Or perhaps I should get the Q and subtract bass when desired?

 

[aamefford]

 
Quote:

I have a question about EQing the 1964 EARS.  From what I've read, it seems I would like both the 1964-T and the 1964-Q.  My favourite universals at the moment are the CK10, RE0, and FX500, and I alternate between them depending on my mood.  Sometimes I like the bass of the FX500, and sometimes I like the detail of the CK10 and RE0.
 
However, I'm on a budget and plan on getting only one custom IEM and then setting up EQs on my portable player.  Which takes EQ better -- the T or the Q?
 
Thanks, by the way, to all the experienced Head-fi denizens.  It's an education just reading through the threads.

I have the quads.  I use EQu with my touch 4G.  I will occasionally add +3 db from 4k to 6k on up, and occasionally -3 db in a curve that is 0 at 20 and 500hz, -3 db at 64 hz.  I don't do either very often.  I boost the treble with crossfeed, mostly, and very seldom cut the bass.  The more I listen to them, the less I EQ them at all.
 

 

[patanin1st]

I usually prefer cutting bass than adding in the bass though. Sometimes the added bass sounds distorted and unnatural, but cutting the bass out just seems like that part is quieter and with less volume. IMHO though...

 
Quote:

I hear you.  I've quickly got out of the habit, though at times you'll catch me adding +3/4 db to the bass end of the CK10s.  I used to add bass to the RE0s until they burned in.
 
However, I don't think I've really settled on a preferred sound signature for all occasions; sometimes I like some bass punch (FX500) and sometimes I don't (CK10 with no EQ).  Does anyone out there know if EQ'ing some bass to the 1964-T is effective?  Or perhaps I should get the Q and subtract bass when desired?

 

 

[roy_jones]

Quote:

I'm also thinking about taking the dive and getting a pair of 1964-T. I already called the local audiologist and asked about pricing (12 bucks for both ears, what a deal!) and the Triples sound right up my alley. I have yet to hear a bad thing about them. Just gotta work out how to pay for them without being too irresponsible.

 

If I was trying to be as objective as possible in looking at the potential downside of the triples, I would point to the bass roll-off.  I might also be conscious of their having laid back treble. 

 

[rroseperry]

Quote:

If I was trying to be as objective as possible in looking at the potential downside of the triples, I would point to the bass roll-off.  I might also be conscious of their having laid back treble. 

I don't think it's fair to say the treble is laid back. It's clear and detailed. This iem doesn't have the pronounced V shape of the TF10 (as an example that I'm familiar with), but laid back isn't accurate, imo.
 

 

[roy_jones]

Quote:

I don't think it's fair to say the treble is laid back. It's clear and detailed. This iem doesn't have the pronounced V shape of the TF10 (as an example that I'm familiar with), but laid back isn't accurate, imo.
 

 
As an outsider, it's very tricky to try to filter through some of the descriptions to try to come up with an objective assessment.  I'm not saying you're wrong at all; it's just that it seems that there are some here who would dispute anything that doesn't end with "everything's perfect." 
 

 
 

 

[rroseperry]

Quote:

 
As an outsider, it's very tricky to try to filter through some of the descriptions to try to come up with an objective assessment.  I'm not saying you're wrong at all; it's just that it seems that there are some here who would dispute anything that doesn't end with "everything's perfect." 
 

 
 

 
True enough and I wouldn't say the 1964-Ears are perfect. They probably have real shortcomings if you're a bass-head or prefer that V sound. I like mine a lot and I'd recommend them to someone looking for a triple armature phone made by some nice folks in Portland. They've got good detail.
 
(added in edit) I don't think that you can get objectivity when talking about something like headphones, the best we can do is be clear about how experience and biases.

 

[roy_jones]

Quote:

 
True enough and I wouldn't say the 1964-Ears are perfect. They probably have real shortcomings if you're a bass-head or prefer that V sound. I like mine a lot and I'd recommend them to someone looking for a triple armature phone made by some nice folks in Portland. They've got good detail.
 
(added in edit) I don't think that you can get objectivity when talking about something like headphones, the best we can do is be clear about how experience and biases.

Regarding the last point, I disagree that there isn't the possibility of objectivity, but that's more of a philosophical issue.  It is an important distinction, though, as there is a very wide range of beliefs about the possibility of using science to measure audio claims.  It's very important to know where someone falls on that spectrum if you're using their feedback to try to make a decision. 
 

 

[tkalee]

Thanks for all the replies.  Yes, I'm also worried about the bass roll-off of the 1964-T.  Looks like my plan to save money and avoid the quad is in jeopardy.  

 
An unrelated question:  Has anyone got custom sleeves from 1964?  I'm thinking of getting some as well as customs so that I can use them with my favourite universals, but don't know whether they'll stretch to fit all of them (FX500, CK10, RE0) or will be too loose.

 

[buffalowings]

Quote:

Thanks for all the replies.  Yes, I'm also worried about the bass roll-off of the 1964-T.  Looks like my plan to save money and avoid the quad is in jeopardy.  

 
An unrelated question:  Has anyone got custom sleeves from 1964?  I'm thinking of getting some as well as customs so that I can use them with my favourite universals, but don't know whether they'll stretch to fit all of them (FX500, CK10, RE0) or will be too loose.

I remember kunlun bought a pair for his monster coppers. They did in fact have fitment issues at first but 1964 ears sorted it out. Though I think it'll be a more cumbersome experience for you since you're located overseas

 

[unchain]

Quote:

If I was trying to be as objective as possible in looking at the potential downside of the triples, I would point to the bass roll-off.  I might also be conscious of their having laid back treble. 

 
Well, my tastes in headphones are not real bass heavy. My full size cans of choice are modified Grados and my IEMs right now are RE-0s, and I love them both, despite the lack of bass quantity.

 

[buffalowings]

 
Quote:

 
Well, my tastes in headphones are not real bass heavy. My full size cans of choice are modified Grados and my IEMs right now are RE-0s, and I love them both, despite the lack of bass quantity.

if you enjoy the amount of treble from the grados, i think you will be disappointed in the triples. I haven;t personally heard the triples, but I have heard the quads and read multiple insights on the triples

 

[unchain]

Quote:

 


if you enjoy the amount of treble from the grados, i think you will be disappointed in the triples. I haven;t personally heard the triples, but I have heard the quads and read multiple insights on the triples

I thought Triples=treble focused, Quads=bass focused? (Boiled down and simplified a whole lot, of course.)
 
 

 

[patanin1st]

I would personally conclude as Triple = Balanced, Quads = Triples + extraBass (totally "boiled down and simplified" again)
 
Quote:

I thought Triples=treble focused, Quads=bass focused? (Boiled down and simplified a whole lot, of course.)
 
 

 

 

[ericp10]

I keep seeing some people type that people say the 1964 EARS products are perfect. And I don't ever remember anyone saying that. Now, people have said that a certain sound signature is perfect for them. I fall into that camp. But I'm quite aware that some may not like the sound signature I like, and vice versa (perfect example, knowing the sound signature rawrster prefers, I have never recommended the quads to him. And knowing the sound signature I prefer, rawrster has never recommended the triples to me). 
 
And know that you're not going to get much more objectivity than that, whether someone like this company's products or not. So it's highly unfair to state - I believe - that people aren't being objective  (wrong word to use I believe) or less honest and true about the thoughts about these products because they sound like the perfect IEM they were looking  for? Would you prefer people lie and make things up and say they hate it when they don't? Will that be objectivity?  This is a subjective hobby. Either you like the product or you don't. And what good would it do a head-fi member to say something sounded wonderful when he or she knew that product sucked? Eventually everyone would know the product is a fraud and that would hurt the company (just like not admitting the product is good when you know it is will hurt the company). In the end, and I say this often, people can try to describe these products positively or negatively until they are blue in the face, but you will never know if it is for you until you hear for yourself. When I bought my quad, I knew no one who had it. I became the guinea pig. Yet, I took my time and researched the company, the sound signatures that were being offered, and asked tons and tons of questions. Instead of being so critical about whether 1964 EARS owners are being honest and/or objective, why not just take a risk of your own? Or, decide for whatever reason you're just not going to trust what people are saying about these products and move on to something else. Really the only two options one would have I think. Happy listening.