Latest Thread Images

1964 Ears
Jul 24, 2011 at 8:45 PM Post #2,657 of 7,417
Hi all!!

I've gotta say I'm pretty pumped! Booking myself in to get impressions done next time I'm home( I working in Western Australia's mining industry). Then by the time thats done my tax return should be back for me to place my order for a pair of quads!!!!

The wait begins :/
 
Jul 25, 2011 at 5:19 AM Post #2,658 of 7,417
rawrster said:
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.
Click to expand...

 
Being able to use replaceable cables on a remold is an additional cost from 1964 Ears.  I believe you can have them make the remolds so they are able to use an aftermarket cable w/o having to purchase a cable.. I didn't clarify the cost of that.  I assumed that a replaceable cable service was going to cost around the same as ordering a cable from them anyways.  I decided to go with a new cable instead of the DBA's stock cable simply for convenience and durability.  I never had an issue with the stock cable (but I can see how others could have)..
 
You're right with not having to get additional impressions by going with a company I've already ordered with.. 1964 Ears will also send you back your impressions if desired.  Being comfortable with my first order through 1964 played a big part in going with them again.  I didn't go with UM simply because I didn't want to deal with the overseas shipping/wait & 1964 was simply more convenient.. nothing against UM, though.. everything I've read about their service and customs has been extremely positive and based on Joker's review of the Miracle, it feels like I'll be ordering some customs from UM sooner rather than later.  I'll have to wait for the price to come down a bit.. and I'm more that happy with the Quads right now.
 
I decided to reshell the DBA out of pure curiosity.  It's is a bit of an expensive endeavor for curiosity-sake though ($250 for reshell/shipping/cable/pouch), but there's value in that cost that can't necessarily be measured.  I'm not too worried about screwing the FQ balance cause I feel like I've got more than enough enjoyment out of them in respect to how much I paid for them 10 months ago.  1964 assured me they'll preserve the fq curve but if for any reason crap hits the fan and they turn out wack, I'm not going to shake my fist and curse the sky (probably just buy the B2).  I got a good seal with the Comply tips, but realized I was still losing some clarity and extension (even with the tips trimmed).
 
I really like the DBA sound sig too.. I love the fit and feel of a custom.. add to that, any other custom, dual-BA would cost around a $100 more.. so I figured why not reshell the DBA?
 
Jul 25, 2011 at 12:28 PM Post #2,659 of 7,417
 
So I just received my full silicone 1964-Ts today.
 
SQ wise, they seem fine to me, definitely not night and day compared to either my UM3X or HF2s. There seems to be a distinct dip (recess?) in the mids/vocals compared to the strong treble and bass presence, especially at lower listening values. I prefer listening at lower volumes and it could just be that I am not so used to having so much bass at low volumes, but YMMV of course. I like that the bass is quite tight though, and the amount is really something very different from what I am used to. 
 
I do have an issue with the fitment though, both earpieces seem to be significantly larger than the moulds I had sent in (open mouth and all) and there is a fair amount of discomfort for both left and right sides, with the right side approaching/approximating pain. I would say this is a little worse than Ety triple flanges. Is this typical? I appreciate the super isolation that this provides but comfort is #1 for me, so as above YMMV.
 
 
I'll have to revisit an overall grade for them at some point in the future when the fitment is fixed and I get used to the sound signature, but on first impression, generally very positive.
 
J
 
 
 

 
Jul 25, 2011 at 8:16 PM Post #2,661 of 7,417
I don't think too many people got the full silicone custom so that probably is one of the few out there. I do think if I ever get anything with 1964 Ears again I would get it with the softer tips since I've always wanted that and Westone is expensive untill of course I get the ES5..
 
Jul 28, 2011 at 5:15 AM Post #2,662 of 7,417
I have a fit question/issue. I've noticed a difference in seal between when my jaw is closed (e.g., biting down lightly) and when my jaw is slightly slack so that my lower teeth are in front of my upper teeth. The quads have better isolation in the closed position, but feel tighter. In the slack position, they let in (slightly) more ambient noise, but are more comfortable.
 
Is it normal to have this difference between closed and slack positions?
 
Jul 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM Post #2,663 of 7,417
I recently received 1964 custom sleeves for my MTPC.   I am THRILLED.  I also recently got Etymotic custom tips through one of their official manufacturers and after multiple refits, etc. I was most unhappy.  Fit was never satisfying, and most of all the sound was WAY altered.  I simply gave up.
 
The quality of these sleeves have made me take the jump to order a pair of quads.  I can't wait.
 
(Full review of their custom sleeves coming soon in seperate thread.)
 
Jul 28, 2011 at 12:05 PM Post #2,664 of 7,417


Quote:
tkalee said:
I have a fit question/issue. I've noticed a difference in seal between when my jaw is closed (e.g., biting down lightly) and when my jaw is slightly slack so that my lower teeth are in front of my upper teeth. The quads have better isolation in the closed position, but feel tighter. In the slack position, they let in (slightly) more ambient noise, but are more comfortable.
 
Is it normal to have this difference between closed and slack positions?
Click to expand...


Yup it's normal. As you open your mouth the size of your ear canals get widened. That's why they ask for an open-jaw impression. In the end it's a tradeoff, if you want them to have great seal with your mouth open, then it will be tighter when your mouth is closed. Unfortunately they made mine so large that even when my jaw was open they felt waaay to large. It's a hard thing to get right for sure...
 
Jul 28, 2011 at 12:57 PM Post #2,665 of 7,417


Quote:
barihunk said:
Yup it's normal. As you open your mouth the size of your ear canals get widened. That's why they ask for an open-jaw impression. In the end it's a tradeoff, if you want them to have great seal with your mouth open, then it will be tighter when your mouth is closed. Unfortunately they made mine so large that even when my jaw was open they felt waaay to large. It's a hard thing to get right for sure...
Click to expand...


My customs stay sealed no matter what I do.  Eat a one pound burger or laugh my ass off.  Nothing gets in.  Guess I got lucky.  I'm not slack jawed though.
 
 
Jul 28, 2011 at 4:02 PM Post #2,666 of 7,417
Hmmmm?
rolleyes.gif
deadhorse.gif

 
Quote:
anaxilus said:
My customs stay sealed no matter what I do.  Eat a one pound burger or laugh my ass off.  Nothing gets in.  Guess I got lucky.  I'm not slack jawed though.
 
Click to expand...



 
 
Jul 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM Post #2,667 of 7,417
Got a TF10 and a JH13 remolded by 1964 ears. They did a spectacular job with the remolds and the fit is perfect. I do notice that the mids are more forward with the TF10 remold but obviously the JH13 impresses me the most. Now for more listening...
 
Jul 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM Post #2,668 of 7,417
I got the W4 today... I don't have my 1964-Q with me to A/B, but I will say right off the back the W4 is a nice 4-driver universal. I will also say right off the back that the W4 bass comes nowhere near the quad in quantity. Quality of bass, however, seems about even until I A/B both IEMs. Because of the bass I am pretty sure I will continue to like the 1964-Q the best, but this universal quad is not bad at all.
 
Jul 30, 2011 at 5:31 AM Post #2,669 of 7,417
Just preparing for my quads in a few weeks, how sensitive are they to "lesser" quality music?

I've noticed most of my music is 192kbps-256kbps.

Should I be looking for music of a higher bitrate?

I can't wait to not have to keep pushing my universals back in every 3 minutes!!


Cheers-

Pete
 
Jul 30, 2011 at 7:19 AM Post #2,670 of 7,417


Quote:
sneekypete said:
Just preparing for my quads in a few weeks, how sensitive are they to "lesser" quality music?

I've noticed most of my music is 192kbps-256kbps.

Should I be looking for music of a higher bitrate?

I can't wait to not have to keep pushing my universals back in every 3 minutes!!


Cheers-

Pete
Click to expand...



 
It's all subjective really. I mean, if YOU yourself can't tell the difference, what would be the point honestly?
 
On a side note, even if I'm unable to tell the difference, I ALWAYS choose the 320kbps/FLAC option (or nothing at all)
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top