[project86]

Anybody know what happened to the FR charts on the 1965 Ears website? I've been enjoying my 1964-T lately and wanted to check out the chart again.... but the charts seem to be missing from the site. 

 

[Randius]

Quote:

Anybody know what happened to the FR charts on the 1965 Ears website? I've been enjoying my 1964-T lately and wanted to check out the chart again.... but the charts seem to be missing from the site. 

Strange. Seems like they removed the FR charts. I do have the old spec sheet which has the FR graphs for all 4 models but it is about 5MB in size. Do you still want it?
 

 

[project86]

Quote:

Strange. Seems like they removed the FR charts. I do have the old spec sheet which has the FR graphs for all 4 models but it is about 5MB in size. Do you still want it?
 

Nah I think I have it saved as well, now that you mention it. Thanks for the offer though - I'll let you know if I end up needing it.
 
It is strange that they say "coming soon" when they had previously been posted for a long time. 

 

[rroseperry]

Nah I think I have it saved as well, now that you mention it. Thanks for the offer though - I'll let you know if I end up needing it.

It is strange that they say "coming soon" when they had previously been posted for a long time. 

Maybe a re-tuning going on?

 

[FlySweep]

I'm continually impressed with how well the Quads scale up with better sources & amps.
 
They sound quite good out of a nice DAP like the iPhone 4.. but feed them clean, robust power from a desktop source/amp and they'll pants you with their abilities.  I've said before that I have a hard time listening to them unamped after running them through my portable amps (Headstage Arrow & the Audinst MX-1).  Well for the last three hours, I've been listening to deep/tech house mixes with my Quads & a recently-acquired Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11.. I'm yet to pick my jaw up off the floor.  I don't think I can go back to listening to them through the portable sources now!  LOL.
 
Bass is so tight, punchy, quick, and textured.. the mids are as lively and natural sounding as I've ever heard, boasting incredible depth and accuracy.. treble is smooth, crisp, clear, balanced and having much more presence vs when unamped.  The phones sound as effortless & dynamic as I've ever heard them.  Instrumentation separation is amazing, they're very clean sounding, & the soundstage is startlingly 3D.  With low power sources, the Quads tend to sound a bit grainy and loose.. amped, they sound very refined, articulate, and engaging.  These IEMs truly live up to the "stage monitor" moniker but are capable of providing an impressively rich, lively, musical experience.

 

[benzoylmethyl]

Quote:

 
Do you have any comparisons of the PRO900 to the Qs? I'm looking for customs IEMs that sound close to the 900s for use on the go.
 

Sure thing, man.  Right here.
 
But the simple answer is: The Q has most of the bass of the PRO900; it's more articulated and less robust (the digiZoid ZO improves this situation greatly, adding robustness without sacrificing the low frequency detail retrieval of the Q).  The Q does not, however, have even remotely the high frequency extension that the PRO900 does.  It's pretty good, but the bottom line is that they're stage monitors.  That means they're easier to listen to than the PRO900, but nowhere near as exciting.  I go into more detail in my review above.
 
From what I understand, the TF10 might fit what you're looking for.  I would try them out first, since you can actually return them to amazon or wherever if you don't like'em.  If you do like them, you can always have 1964 reshell them for you...they do an FR graph before and after the reshelling to ensure they don't change the tonal quality of the IEMs.  And if you don't...well, just send them bitches back and buy the Q afterwards.

 

[yenny]

Quote:

Sure thing, man.  Right here.
 
But the simple answer is: The Q has most of the bass of the PRO900; it's more articulated and less robust (the digiZoid ZO improves this situation greatly, adding robustness without sacrificing the low frequency detail retrieval of the Q).  The Q does not, however, have even remotely the high frequency extension that the PRO900 does.  It's pretty good, but the bottom line is that they're stage monitors.  That means they're easier to listen to than the PRO900, but nowhere near as exciting.  I go into more detail in my review above.
 
From what I understand, the TF10 might fit what you're looking for.  I would try them out first, since you can actually return them to amazon or wherever if you don't like'em.  If you do like them, you can always have 1964 reshell them for you...they do an FR graph before and after the reshelling to ensure they don't change the tonal quality of the IEMs.  And if you don't...well, just send them bitches back and buy the Q afterwards.

Thanks for the review, it will help greatly with my decision.
 
I was considering reshelling the TF10s also, but the fact that for a couple hundred $ I can get the Qs is tempting. I was also under the impression that the Qs will be superior to the TF10s. Guess I'll have to think about this some more. 
 

 

[NewZJ]

i currently have gr07s, a Cowon J3, little dot mk3 tube amp.
i enjoy the vsonics but am itching for something better, I'm not familiar with sound signatures though so that terminology fails me. I'm looking for something that really makes vocals shine but without the ear fatigue i get from my vsonics that the pronunciation of S's and T's sounding very sharp i find undesirable.
my main music taste is metal ex. Trivium, Avantasia, Epica, Van Canto, Iron Maiden, Anthrax, Tristania, Disturbed. with some Deadmau5 and Skrillex to liven it up. i listen 10+ hours daily and need good isolation due to my loud working environment.
I'm interested in the Quads and would appreciate some recommendations and help regarding if these are a good purchase for my music taste.
thanks

 

[NewAKGGuy]

Quote:

Thanks for the review, it will help greatly with my decision.
 
I was considering reshelling the TF10s also, but the fact that for a couple hundred $ I can get the Qs is tempting. I was also under the impression that the Qs will be superior to the TF10s. Guess I'll have to think about this some more. 
 

 
I'm listening in on this convo too and finding it interesting.  Have been toying with either 1964 TF10 re-shell or full on customs purchase.  Having heard that the highs are a bit lacking in the Quad, I was thinking that maybe the Triples are the right 1964 for me as I don't need any more bass than the TF10 already offers and wouldn't mind a touch more neutrality.
 
For those who own the 1964-T, how would you compare them to the TF-10?
 
   
 
 

 

[project86]

Quote:

 
I'm listening in on this convo too and finding it interesting.  Have been toying with either 1964 TF10 re-shell or full on customs purchase.  Having heard that the highs are a bit lacking in the Quad, I was thinking that maybe the Triples are the right 1964 for me as I don't need any more bass than the TF10 already offers and wouldn't mind a touch more neutrality.
 
For those who own the 1964-T, how would you compare them to the TF-10?
 
   
 
 

I no longer own the TF10 but did for some time. The TF10 has more sparkle, a little more bass (by volume but certainly not quantity), and significantly more recessed mids. It's sort of a smiley face EQ type of sound.
 
The 1964-T has just a touch of warmth on the lows, and excellent clear mids which are somewhat forward in the mix yet tonally laid back (ie they aren't super high energy, but definitely more present and substantial than the TF10). Highs are detailed and present enough to satisfy, but don't have that sparkly liveliness to them like the TF10. Some people find that really engaging and some just find it fatiguing.
 
The 1964-T is definitely one that slowly grows on you. It might not blow you away in a back to back comparison, but spend a half hour with it and it will really start to impress with its smooth musicality. The TF10 quickly became grating for me, after just a few songs. 

 

[NewAKGGuy]

Thanks project86, the opinion is much appreciated even though...
 
I find your comparison a little disconcerting because:
 
1.  I don't want to lose the TF-10 treble sparkle.
2.  I don't find the TF-10 mids to be recessed unless I listen via my iPhone 3GS in which case they are slightly recessed or through my iPod Classic 7G, in which case they are pretty recessed.  As they don't sound at all recessed through either of those and my RSA Hornet, and sound even a smidgen too forward through my iPod 5.5G and (unrolled) iBasso P3+, I've come to believe that the TF10 is actually neutral, but many people are hearing a V-shape because their sources are V-shaped (perhaps to make up for many IEM bass/treble deficiencies).
3.  I only find the TF-10 grating when my source/recording is really crappy (like my rip of the original Outlandos d'Amour CD that just came up in random play), and I try to avoid those so it's not really a big problem.
 
Seems like I should be going for the re-shell, especially since it's $200 cheaper.

 

[FlySweep]

The 1964-T is definitely one that slowly grows on you. It might not blow you away in a back to back comparison, but spend a half hour with it and it will really start to impress with its smooth musicality. The TF10 quickly became grating for me, after just a few songs. 

This (very accurate) description could extend to the Quad, too.. amp the Quads well and you've got an incredibly capable, robust low end response (you probably won't find in the Triples) to go with a perfectly weighted, accurate midrange & smooth, extended, detailed treble that rolls of gently to prevent fatigue.  No artificiality is present there.
 
'Smooth Musicality' is a GREAT description of the Quads (haven't heard the Triples).  I've mentioned before that the 1964Ears 'house sound' is incredibly true to what can be considered a 'professional stage monitor' in terms of technicalities & signature.. I feel many people forget that (or at least don't qualify their impressions of said phones while keeping that in mind).

 

[JuicyBruce]

So this rolloff... how is it achieved? Body shape, passive filter, choice of driver?
Is it something that can be tweaked?

 

[project86]

Quote:

Thanks project86, the opinion is much appreciated even though...
 
I find your comparison a little disconcerting because:
 
1.  I don't want to lose the TF-10 treble sparkle.
2.  I don't find the TF-10 mids to be recessed unless I listen via my iPhone 3GS in which case they are slightly recessed or through my iPod Classic 7G, in which case they are pretty recessed.  As they don't sound at all recessed through either of those and my RSA Hornet, and sound even a smidgen too forward through my iPod 5.5G and (unrolled) iBasso P3+, I've come to believe that the TF10 is actually neutral, but many people are hearing a V-shape because their sources are V-shaped (perhaps to make up for many IEM bass/treble deficiencies).
3.  I only find the TF-10 grating when my source/recording is really crappy (like my rip of the original Outlandos d'Amour CD that just came up in random play), and I try to avoid those so it's not really a big problem.
 
Seems like I should be going for the re-shell, especially since it's $200 cheaper.

It sounds like the reshell option is the way to go then. Few IEMs have been described so differently by so many people as the TF10. If you are one of the ones who loves it (and I know several others who do, so you certainly aren't alone!) then the reshell makes perfect sense. 
 


Quote:

This (very accurate) description could extend to the Quad, too.. amp the Quads well and you've got an incredibly capable, robust low end response (you probably won't find in the Triples) to go with a perfectly weighted, accurate midrange & smooth, extended, detailed treble that rolls of gently to prevent fatigue.  No artificiality is present there.
 
'Smooth Musicality' is a GREAT description of the Quads (haven't heard the Triples).  I've mentioned before that the 1964Ears 'house sound' is incredibly true to what can be considered a 'professional stage monitor' in terms of technicalities & signature.. I feel many people forget that (or at least don't qualify their impressions of said phones while keeping that in mind).

Thanks for your impressions. I suspect that the T and Q share a similar sound overall, with the major changes coming at the frequency extremes. The Q will obviously have more and deeper bass than the T. If I recall the FR charts correctly, the T had a small increase in treble extension (or a slower rolloff, if it makes more sense to think of it in that way). But as you said, both should have that smooth 1964 house sound. 
 
I've been listening to the 1964-T a lot more recently, and I remember why I enjoy it so much. It won't be perfect for everyone, but I do find it very enjoyable. 
 


Quote:

So this rolloff... how is it achieved? Body shape, passive filter, choice of driver?
Is it something that can be tweaked?

Probably all of the above. 
 
It could be tweaked by the designer but not the end user, unless we are just talking about EQ. I don't think it would be practical for them to custom tweak each individual unit for each customer though. 
 

 

[Randius]

Wondering if there is any news on new models?