[Anaxilus]

Great review Joker.  I notice you used the term 'laid-back' a few times.  How would you compare the attack and aggression of the sound compared to the DBA for example?  Hopefully these aren't laid-back in typical Sennheiser fashion.

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

Great review Joker.  I notice you used the term 'laid-back' a few times.  How would you compare the attack and aggression of the sound compared to the DBA for example?  Hopefully these aren't laid-back in typical Sennheiser fashion.

I can't speak for the triple, but the quad sounds nothing like a Sennheiser. No veil at all. 

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Quote:

Great review Joker.  I notice you used the term 'laid-back' a few times.  How would you compare the attack and aggression of the sound compared to the DBA for example?  Hopefully these aren't laid-back in typical Sennheiser fashion.

I can't speak for the triple, but the quad sounds nothing like a Sennheiser. No veil at all. 

Yeah, doesn't sound like any veiling from any of the impressions.  Senns usually (HD800 and 25 excluded) seem to be a bit sleepy w/ there energy.  Which feels more agressive to you Eric, the SM2 or the Quad?  Is the SM2 brighter or on par?

 

[Poetik]

Joker that was a great review and I'm sure a ton of people, myself included, have been waiting for this to come out.  Now we just need a review on the quads so the ball is in your court eric!!

 

[ljokerl]

Quote:

Thank you for your excellent review, it is very well done! As a fellow 1964-T owner I find it satisfying that your conclusion is nearly identical to mine. Here is my review:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/530335/review-1964-t-triple-driver-customs-from-1964-ears
 
Rather long winded compared to yours, and my photography skills are vastly inferior. Aside from a few minor differences in the way we perceived things, it does seem like we are in agreement overall. If you have no objections I am going to link to this thread in my review, as I will with other 1964 Ears reviews when they are posted. Thank you again for posting this, and for all your work on helping people find the product that suits them best.

 
Thanks, just read your write-up. Lengthy indeed 

. It does seem like we came to the same conclusion though from different directions - me coming from lower-end universals and you from higher-end customs (among others). 
 

Quote:

Great review Joker.  I notice you used the term 'laid-back' a few times.  How would you compare the attack and aggression of the sound compared to the DBA for example?  Hopefully these aren't laid-back in typical Sennheiser fashion.

There's really two kinds of 'laid back' - one is of the derogatory sort, which I imagine is what you think about most Sennheiser earphones, meaning lazy, slow, veiled, etc, and the other is just a term of relative positioning, i.e. the antonym to 'forward'. I was using it in the second sense. There is no veil over the 1964-T whatsoever and the attack is exactly what you'd expect from a high-end BA-based IEM.

 

[ericp10]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Great review Joker.  I notice you used the term 'laid-back' a few times.  How would you compare the attack and aggression of the sound compared to the DBA for example?  Hopefully these aren't laid-back in typical Sennheiser fashion.

I can't speak for the triple, but the quad sounds nothing like a Sennheiser. No veil at all. 

Yeah, doesn't sound like any veiling from any of the impressions.  Senns usually (HD800 and 25 excluded) seem to be a bit sleepy w/ there energy.  Which feels more agressive to you Eric, the SM2 or the Quad?  Is the SM2 brighter or on par?

The quad is more aggressive to my ears @ Anaxilus. For the first time, both Earsonics' IEMs sound smaller headstage and soundstage wise to my ears. There is less details and instrument separation in the SM3 and SM2 compared to the quad, again, to my ears. !964-Q definitely has more weight in sound and the it's fast! 

 

[project86]

I can't speak for Joker, but I used the term "laid back" to describe the overall tonal balance of the 1964-T. That doesn't necessarily imply a lack of details, just a lack of relative brightness. Examples of this might be the LCD-2, or perhaps the HE-5LE compared to the HE-5.
 

 

[GeorgeGoodman]

Nice review! Very descriptive. They don't sound like they would have enough bass for me as I would probably be a quad guy, but everything else about them sounds really good. I appreciate you taking the time to review a new company that looks like it is trying to upset the pricing structure of some other manufacturers customs...

 

[JxK]

Joker, when plugged directly into a portable player like your fuze, what is the level of hiss with the 1964T?

 

[ljokerl]

Quote:

Joker, when plugged directly into a portable player like your fuze, what is the level of hiss with the 1964T?

Low to none - I can get hiss out of them but not at listening volumes.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

From the looks of it, it appears that the 1964-D has the best high end extension, but poorest low end extension. Weird, but it has convinced me to order the 1964-D as supposed to the 1964-T and 1964-Q. I like it bright.

 

[project86]

Quote:

From the looks of it, it appears that the 1964-D has the best high end extension, but poorest low end extension. Weird, but it has convinced me to order the 1964-D as supposed to the 1964-T and 1964-Q. I like it bright.

The 1964-D does appear to offer slightly more extension in the highs, but the response also looks a bit more ragged. I'm interested to know how it would sound. The lows still look decent and it might actually be a great performer if you like that type of sound.
 

 

[Confispect]

Nice review, 

 

[mark2410]

so is this the beginning of a multi customs review thread?

 

[ljokerl]

 
Quote:

so is this the beginning of a multi customs review thread?

You're lucky to be halfway around the world or my wallet would be knocking on your door right now holding a baseball bat.