[mcnoiserdc]

Well, the thing is I bought my HD600 before joining head-fi and bought the pk3 because it was a great deal, lol
 
Quote:

Wow, we do. And stranger is that we even have the same sources (J3 and Fuze). I suppose head-fi does recommend some headphones/earphones/players more often than others and we just believed the community and made the purchase. 

 

 

[dom1610]

Quote:

Quad owners (and Triple owners too). Take a listen and tell me how this comes through to your ears. Thank you in advance.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_M_27ciAKI

Never heard the song before but seems to come through with all right SQ. Nothing special though.
 
Why?
 

 

[tkalee]

I'm certainly not an audiophile in the class of many here, so take all that follows with a huge grain of salt!
 
I thought the mids were very forward and broke up a bit when this range was crowded. Bass was good and the bass line well separated. Trebles didn't jump out at me, but how much this was because of the quads, my laptop, or the recording is hard to tell.
 
I thought the soundstage was very good, quite detailed, but how it compares to a portable source, I can't really say.
 
Quote:

Quad owners (and Triple owners too). Take a listen and tell me how this comes through to your ears. Thank you in advance.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_M_27ciAKI

 

 

[FlySweep]

Here are my quads..
 

 

 

 
I finally gave the EX600's (which I had been listening to almost exclusively since they arrived three days ago) a rest and popped in the quads for a change of pace, and boy.. I'm immediately smacked across the face by 1964's flagship reminding me just how great a phone they are.  Obviously a clear step ahead of the Sony, as should be expected.
 
To my ears, the Quads sound crisper than I last remember.. not sure if this is just placebo or not, but I distinctly remember the quads sounding noticeably smoother when I got them.  Now, the slightly mid-forward sound is more prevalent and the treble definitely has a crispness and sparkle that was not there before.  They're still a smooth phone in overall character, but they definitely sound clearer than the last time I listened to them.  In fact, everything sounds more dynamic.. maybe it's me getting used to them but I can't rave about these phones enough.  I'm sure there might be better customs out there, but the Quad doesn't leave me wanting in the slightest.  I'm not sure if these fall in the "monitor" category of IEM sound type, but they're actually some of the most musical sounding phones I own.
 
I appreciate the signature of the Quads more and more with every listen.. some wring their hands over wanting a more emphasized treble, but I've done some extended listening sessions with these (6+ hours straight) and I like the fact my ears aren't fatigued after that many hours from excessive treble, yet I'm not missing out on any of the microdetails.  Being a big fan of the RE0 & DBA, the Quad's treble is obviously tuned differently.. but I'm more than satisfied with their overall tonality and detail.  I'm not partial to any one signature, I am partial to phones that are tuned for a cohesive and well organized sound.. which the Quad delivers in spades.

 

[ericp10]

Nice @ FlySweep!  Yes, the Quad does possess a dynamic-sort-of sound signature, and they are still my favorite too. I do understand, however, you enjoying the EX600 the way you have been. So have I. Sure, there are a few who don't like the Quad's sound signature for whatever reason, but the majority that I know who own it actually love it. And you right about the treble, it's tuned differently (it is an in-ear monitor that is designed to protects the musician's hearing), but the details are there and extend quite far in the highs region. I love reading others findings and experiences with the 1964-Q (felt like the lone voice in the wilderness for awhile...lol). Please keep them coming. I really like the look of your Quads by the way.
 
Quote:

Here are my quads..
 

 

 

 
I finally gave the EX600's (which I had been listening to almost exclusively since they arrived three days ago) a rest and popped in the quads for a change of pace, and boy.. I'm immediately smacked across the face by 1964's flagship reminding me just how great a phone they are.  Obviously a clear step ahead of the Sony, as should be expected.
 
To my ears, the Quads sound crisper than I last remember.. not sure if this is just placebo or not, but I distinctly remember the quads sounding noticeably smoother when I got them.  Now, the slightly mid-forward sound is more prevalent and the treble definitely has a crispness and sparkle that was not there before.  They're still a smooth phone in overall character, but they definitely sound clearer than the last time I listened to them.  In fact, everything sounds more dynamic.. maybe it's me getting used to them but I can't rave about these phones enough.  I'm sure there might be better customs out there, but the Quad doesn't leave me wanting in the slightest.  I'm not sure if these fall in the "monitor" category of IEM sound type, but they're actually some of the most musical sounding phones I own.
 
I appreciate the signature of the Quads more and more with every listen.. some wring their hands over wanting a more emphasized treble, but I've done some extended listening sessions with these (6+ hours straight) and I like the fact my ears aren't fatigued after that many hours from excessive treble, yet I'm not missing out on any of the microdetails.  Being a big fan of the RE0 & DBA, the Quad's treble is obviously tuned differently.. but I'm more than satisfied with their overall tonality and detail.  I'm not partial to any one signature, I am partial to phones that are tuned for a cohesive and well organized sound.. which the Quad delivers in spades.

 

 

[Yuceka]

I am getting my impressions on Monday and I would like to ask you guys before I place my order. Are the bass in Quads balanced, meaning that do they in any way interfere with other frequencies? I am certainly not a basshead and I prefer a bit more bright cans in the past to darker/lean or bassy phones. I am now using Westone UM3X, and although I find them to be quite balanced, sometimes sub bass can blend with the other frequencies. So in choosing Ts or Quads, can you help me out a bit? 
 
Thanks 

 

[ericp10]

The bass doesn't smear or interfere with the other frequencies.

 

[ericp10]

 
A song I enjoy listening to through the 1964-Q

 

[patanin1st]

 
This is my current setup as of about yesterday (got the cables yesterday and the D12 last week). These cables are the Beat Audio - Supreme Elegance. For a more detailed review of the cable alone, try reading project86's review on it.
 
Previously I've been using the Quads with stock cables and the iBasso D10. It was a good match, but there was a lot of background noise, probably because the D10's were pouring too much into the sensitive Quads. There was always this bed of faint white noise in the background, which was constant and you eventually habituate to. However, there were those times between music (gaps) that were so quiet that you do hear and notice the noise again. I heard the D12's were much more silent and stable, thus went out and searched for one.
 
As a combo of the D12 and the cable, the Quads have gotten MUCH tighter IMO. the bass is clearly much tighter and hitting harder. I believe both the cable and the D12 are said to be "quite open and bright", therefore leading to my logic of pairing it with the smooth-treble Quads. Much better imaging and instrument, more crisp trebles. I might be getting more microdetails, but that may be a placebo, but the tightness and the more pronounced treble is clearly physical IMO. And as expected, the background is totally black and silent, no noise whatsoever until I turned the D12's volume knob up to 12 o'clock. For reference, I usually listen at around 8:45 o'clock volume, and 11 o'clock volume is ear-splitting and probably may bust the Quads drivers.
 
I tried comparing D12+stock cable with D12+Beat Cable, difference is pretty much close to described as above, but to a less magnitude. However, the bass tightness is clearly different here as well.
 
I do know there's a lot of controversy regarding cables and their improvements here, and I totally respect all opinions. For those who do believe in the cable influence, you may interpret this as a synergy/improvement due to the upgrade of both D10 to D12 and the stock cable to the Beat Audio. As for those who do not believe in such cable influence, you may take it as solely the improvement from upgrading the D10 to D12's.
 
Please do take this impression with a grain of salt, for these Quads are my first customs, and the beat cables are my first cables besides from the stocks that usually come with the phones. I haven't done much impressions before, but do hope what I'm saying here is getting the message through. The cables have not even reached 10 hours of use, and I doubt the D12's have reached 50 hours, much less 100 hours of use, so those who believe in burn-ins, please take this into consideration, YMMV.
 
Overall, am very pleased with my choice so far, starting with the Quads, then the D10 --> D12 upgrade, then the Beat Audio cable upgrade. Next goal is to get a better USB cable than the current stocks to pair with this awesome combo. Will update you guys if any progress comes up.

 

[ericp10]

Nice setup, and I've heard some DIY cables that made a big difference in the quad's sound (no amp).. So I am a believer too that cables can make a difference. Thanks for sharing.
Quote:

 
This is my current setup as of about yesterday (got the cables yesterday and the D12 last week). These cables are the Beat Audio - Supreme Elegance. For a more detailed review of the cable alone, try reading project86's review on it.
 
Previously I've been using the Quads with stock cables and the iBasso D10. It was a good match, but there was a lot of background noise, probably because the D10's were pouring too much into the sensitive Quads. There was always this bed of faint white noise in the background, which was constant and you eventually habituate to. However, there were those times between music (gaps) that were so quiet that you do hear and notice the noise again. I heard the D12's were much more silent and stable, thus went out and searched for one.
 
As a combo of the D12 and the cable, the Quads have gotten MUCH tighter IMO. the bass is clearly much tighter and hitting harder. I believe both the cable and the D12 are said to be "quite open and bright", therefore leading to my logic of pairing it with the smooth-treble Quads. Much better imaging and instrument, more crisp trebles. I might be getting more microdetails, but that may be a placebo, but the tightness and the more pronounced treble is clearly physical IMO. And as expected, the background is totally black and silent, no noise whatsoever until I turned the D12's volume knob up to 12 o'clock. For reference, I usually listen at around 8:45 o'clock volume, and 11 o'clock volume is ear-splitting and probably may bust the Quads drivers.
 
I tried comparing D12+stock cable with D12+Beat Cable, difference is pretty much close to described as above, but to a less magnitude. However, the bass tightness is clearly different here as well.
 
I do know there's a lot of controversy regarding cables and their improvements here, and I totally respect all opinions. For those who do believe in the cable influence, you may interpret this as a synergy/improvement due to the upgrade of both D10 to D12 and the stock cable to the Beat Audio. As for those who do not believe in such cable influence, you may take it as solely the improvement from upgrading the D10 to D12's.
 
Please do take this impression with a grain of salt, for these Quads are my first customs, and the beat cables are my first cables besides from the stocks that usually come with the phones. I haven't done much impressions before, but do hope what I'm saying here is getting the message through. The cables have not even reached 10 hours of use, and I doubt the D12's have reached 50 hours, much less 100 hours of use, so those who believe in burn-ins, please take this into consideration, YMMV.
 
Overall, am very pleased with my choice so far, starting with the Quads, then the D10 --> D12 upgrade, then the Beat Audio cable upgrade. Next goal is to get a better USB cable than the current stocks to pair with this awesome combo. Will update you guys if any progress comes up.

 

 

[mtntrance]

Listening to "Days OF Future Passed" and the treble sparkles.  This is a 1967 recording.  My best audio purchases ever: Audeze LCD 2s and 1964 Quads.
 
Quote:
 

I am getting my impressions on Monday and I would like to ask you guys before I place my order. Are the bass in Quads balanced, meaning that do they in any way interfere with other frequencies? I am certainly not a basshead and I prefer a bit more bright cans in the past to darker/lean or bassy phones. I am now using Westone UM3X, and although I find them to be quite balanced, sometimes sub bass can blend with the other frequencies. So in choosing Ts or Quads, can you help me out a bit? 
 
Thanks 

 

 

[FlySweep]

 
I'm having my DBAs reshelled by 1964 Ears.  I was contemplating going with Kozee or Fisher Hearing.. but reading the tremendous lack of communication, professionalism, and timliness by Kozee (not helping their cause is that they didn't reply to three of my emails which mentioned wanting to place an order).. as well as the fact I sent three or four emails to Fisher Hearing and never heard a peep of acknowledgement.. I decided to not risk an order with those companies.
 
The most attractive thing about those two vendors is the pricing.. which is significantly less than 1964's remold service ($200 base price, not including detachable cables).  The thing you can't put a price tag on is customer service.. which I was 110% satisfied with when I ordered the Quads from 1964.  Add to this that they got the fit of my Quads perfect on the first try (!!).  Taking all that into consideration, I'm willing to pay the premium for a service that I know will deliver professionalism, timely communication, and a reliable product from a company I have a (successful) personal track record with.

 

[rawrster]

Actually the premium with the 1964 Ears isn't that high if you think about it. I don't know if the $200 base price includes having the customs have a replacement cable option since I do remember that making it with a replaceable cable may have been additional but I don't quite remember. You don't have to pay for impressions again so thats like a $50 savings compared to the other companies. As long as you are comfortable with the companies offering reshelling that's all that matters. I personally would go with UM since I do like the quality of their work but they are in China vs USA and 1964 Ears is definitely much more convenient than UM and they communicate better than Kozee and Fisher.
 
I'm curious for the reasoning behind reshelling the DBA-02 however. I found them comfortable with a good cable and pretty low profile so I'm not sure what benefits a reshell would have but maybe the fit was different for you than it was for me.

 

[Trillian]

Does anyone have an opinion on how a reshelled tf10/universal tf10 would fare against a 1964-T?

 

[Poetik]

Quote:

I'm certainly not an audiophile in the class of many here, so take all that follows with a huge grain of salt!
 
I thought the mids were very forward and broke up a bit when this range was crowded. Bass was good and the bass line well separated. Trebles didn't jump out at me, but how much this was because of the quads, my laptop, or the recording is hard to tell.
 
I thought the soundstage was very good, quite detailed, but how it compares to a portable source, I can't really say.

Haha, reading that statement makes me chuckle =)