[strojo]

Considering the A6t, but am wondering whether I should hold out for the A12t.

Anyone done a direct comparison of the two?

 

[Deezel177]

Considering the A6t, but am wondering whether I should hold out for the A12t.

Anyone done a direct comparison of the two?

I compared my A6t against the U12t and found them similar in tone (or sound profile), but the latter had way more headroom and resolution. Tracks had more room to grow and build on the U12t, while the same tracks on the A6t would almost hit a ceiling, like if you set the threshold on a compressor a bit too low. Not only does it allow well-mastered tracks to have more dynamic range, but it also delays the onset of fatigue IMO. Notes were better formed and fleshed out on the U12t as well, hence the greater resolution.

 

[nocturne19]

I compared my A6t against the U12t and found them similar in tone (or sound profile), but the latter had way more headroom and resolution. Tracks had more room to grow and build on the U12t, while the same tracks on the A6t would almost hit a ceiling, like if you set the threshold on a compressor a bit too low. Not only does it allow well-mastered tracks to have more dynamic range, but it also delays the onset of fatigue IMO. Notes were better formed and fleshed out on the U12t as well, hence the greater resolution.

I find them similar yet complementary in some way. 6t gives better bite on vocals because of 1) thicker lower mids and 2) lack of the 4k dip, while 12t gives a better overall soundscape. 12t still tops my (and many others) list till today, just can't get over its vocal presentation if I have to nitpick (that 4k dip was a boon and a bane).

Considering the A6t, but am wondering whether I should hold out for the A12t.

Anyone done a direct comparison of the two?

Had a similar issue a while ago, and after countless of sleepless nights (seriously!) I came up with the following conclusion: If you plan to keep an all-rounder set - just go for A12t. If you are searching for a vocal-centric set to complement your collection, the A6t still has it.

 

[Neweymatt]

Considering the A6t, but am wondering whether I should hold out for the A12t.

Anyone done a direct comparison of the two?

I compared my A6t against the U12t and found them similar in tone (or sound profile), but the latter had way more headroom and resolution. Tracks had more room to grow and build on the U12t, while the same tracks on the A6t would almost hit a ceiling, like if you set the threshold on a compressor a bit too low. Not only does it allow well-mastered tracks to have more dynamic range, but it also delays the onset of fatigue IMO. Notes were better formed and fleshed out on the U12t as well, hence the greater resolution.

Well, I can compare the other way around, I've had U6t and A12t for over 2 years now. Thought for sure I'd sell the U6t when I got the A12t, but for an EDC the U6t is hard to beat. I don't find U6t fatiguing in the slightest, in fact one reason I've kept it is for long-haul flights, using it for 15+ hours straight is not an issue at all.

I find them similar yet complementary in some way. 6t gives better bite on vocals because of 1) thicker lower mids and 2) lack of the 4k dip, while 12t gives a better overall soundscape. 12t still tops my (and many others) list till today, just can't get over its vocal presentation if I have to nitpick (that 4k dip was a boon and a bane).


Had a similar issue a while ago, and after countless of sleepless nights (seriously!) I came up with the following conclusion: If you plan to keep an all-rounder set - just go for A12t. If you are searching for a vocal-centric set to complement you collection, the A6t still has it.

I find them damn-near identical tuning-wise, with the slight difference being the 6t's additional warmth in the lower mids, vs the 12t's deeper sub-bass. 12t does have more noticeable technical strengths in it's overall soundstage size, punchier dynamics and resolution of fine details.


If you can pull together the funds for A12t, I'd say go for it. It's probably the safest CIEM you can get in the hobby, as it's all-round strengths make it something you'll enjoy for many years no matter what music you may one day decide to listen to with it.

 

[strojo]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. My favorite cans are the OG Utopias, so it sounds like I may be better off finding the extra coin for the A12t as the descriptions of their sound signature appears to be closer to my preference than the A6t.

 

[gLer]

I'll just leave this here. The most beautiful (and beautiful sounding) 64 Audio IEM I've had the pleasure of owning. Review coming soon.

 

[clixkk]

hey folks, I'm considering getting custom IEMs and would love to hear if anyone has any insights... initially I was looking at the A3e, but was wondering if the A3t would be worth springing a couple hundred dollars extra for? Can anyone explain, functionally speaking, what the difference would be that I could likely hear between the two? I imagine the A3t should just hands down be better with the tia technology, but I'm not really understanding what exactly is better about it.

Also curious to know, though this may be a bit beyond my budget, since I'm already spending this much for customs, would it make sense to spring for the A6t instead?

No idea if any of the following info will help:
I would not call myself an audiophile and genuinely don't think I'd be able to hear the difference between comparing two high end IEMs. I do enjoy being able to hear the clarity and distinction between instruments with better IEMs/headphones, but beyond that, I'd be lying if I say I could really hear the difference between a "great" headphone vs. an "average" headphone. I haven't tried a ton of different IEMs, but I believe I prefer neutral/reference tuning. I do know that I don't like heavy bass. I currently have the Shure SRH440 and Moondrop Blessing 3 so those are really the only references I have, if that helps at all.

As for my use case, I'm a (hobby) vocalist and want to use them as monitors for singing. That would be my main functional purpose for springing for customs, but of course would likely be wearing them a lot throughout the day just for listening to music as well, though on that front I'm actually happy with what I already have and wouldn't necessarily expect or need these to outperform those.

Happy to provide more information if that helps give better advice/suggestions. Thanks so much!!

 

[Neweymatt]

hey folks, I'm considering getting custom IEMs and would love to hear if anyone has any insights... initially I was looking at the A3e, but was wondering if the A3t would be worth springing a couple hundred dollars extra for? Can anyone explain, functionally speaking, what the difference would be that I could likely hear between the two? I imagine the A3t should just hands down be better with the tia technology, but I'm not really understanding what exactly is better about it.

Also curious to know, though this may be a bit beyond my budget, since I'm already spending this much for customs, would it make sense to spring for the A6t instead?

No idea if any of the following info will help:
I would not call myself an audiophile and genuinely don't think I'd be able to hear the difference between comparing two high end IEMs. I do enjoy being able to hear the clarity and distinction between instruments with better IEMs/headphones, but beyond that, I'd be lying if I say I could really hear the difference between a "great" headphone vs. an "average" headphone. I haven't tried a ton of different IEMs, but I believe I prefer neutral/reference tuning. I do know that I don't like heavy bass. I currently have the Shure SRH440 and Moondrop Blessing 3 so those are really the only references I have, if that helps at all.

As for my use case, I'm a (hobby) vocalist and want to use them as monitors for singing. That would be my main functional purpose for springing for customs, but of course would likely be wearing them a lot throughout the day just for listening to music as well, though on that front I'm actually happy with what I already have and wouldn't necessarily expect or need these to outperform those.

Happy to provide more information if that helps give better advice/suggestions. Thanks so much!!

Where to start…

First of all, if you listen to me long enough, I just might convince you to get an A12t or even A18t . Ha ha, no don’t actually let me do that and, honestly, do stay within your budget.

Jokes aside, if you do decide to get a custom, and it’s likely to be the only one you’ll ever get, then it could be worth stretching yourself to the next tier up. No point going cheaper now and then realising 12 or 18 months later you coulda/shoulda spent more.

Now I don’t know the 3e or 3t, so I can’t offer any advice there, but I’ve had the U6t for a few years now and I still love it despite all the more expensive stuff I’ve acquired in the meantime. It’s so smooth and easy to listen to for many long hours. It’s bassy without being aggressive or fatiguing, and this can be tuned with the APEX modules.

Lastly, don’t underestimate your ability to discern differences between IEMs and their performance. Especially with a custom, you’ll have perfect seal, isolation and fit to hear it exactly as intended.

 

[Deezel177]

hey folks, I'm considering getting custom IEMs and would love to hear if anyone has any insights... initially I was looking at the A3e, but was wondering if the A3t would be worth springing a couple hundred dollars extra for? Can anyone explain, functionally speaking, what the difference would be that I could likely hear between the two? I imagine the A3t should just hands down be better with the tia technology, but I'm not really understanding what exactly is better about it.

Also curious to know, though this may be a bit beyond my budget, since I'm already spending this much for customs, would it make sense to spring for the A6t instead?

No idea if any of the following info will help:
I would not call myself an audiophile and genuinely don't think I'd be able to hear the difference between comparing two high end IEMs. I do enjoy being able to hear the clarity and distinction between instruments with better IEMs/headphones, but beyond that, I'd be lying if I say I could really hear the difference between a "great" headphone vs. an "average" headphone. I haven't tried a ton of different IEMs, but I believe I prefer neutral/reference tuning. I do know that I don't like heavy bass. I currently have the Shure SRH440 and Moondrop Blessing 3 so those are really the only references I have, if that helps at all.

As for my use case, I'm a (hobby) vocalist and want to use them as monitors for singing. That would be my main functional purpose for springing for customs, but of course would likely be wearing them a lot throughout the day just for listening to music as well, though on that front I'm actually happy with what I already have and wouldn't necessarily expect or need these to outperform those.

Happy to provide more information if that helps give better advice/suggestions. Thanks so much!!

I've only heard the A3e, so I can't say how it compares to the A3t. But, tia technology basically means there's an open, tubeless driver in the in-ear. In the A3t's case, it's the tweeter (or high driver). Without getting too far in the weeds, tia tweeters tend to bring an airier, cleaner, more open treble that's crisper and less compressed-sounding than most tubed tweeters. This means the music you're listening to will have more clarity (without becoming harsher or artificially sharp), and this also means your voice will cut through the mix easier when you're using them as monitoring devices. It's also worth noting that the A3t is a much newer model than the A3e, so it's likely they're using newer models of balanced-armature drivers in the former, which should result in stronger technical performance. Bass-wise, the A3e is on the neutral side, and I don't expect the A3t to be much different. In any case, you can always tune the low-end to your liking with the in-ear's interchangeable apex modules.

 

[clixkk]

Where to start…

First of all, if you listen to me long enough, I just might convince you to get an A12t or even A18t . Ha ha, no don’t actually let me do that and, honestly, do stay within your budget.

Jokes aside, if you do decide to get a custom, and it’s likely to be the only one you’ll ever get, then it could be worth stretching yourself to the next tier up. No point going cheaper now and then realising 12 or 18 months later you coulda/shoulda spent more.

Now I don’t know the 3e or 3t, so I can’t offer any advice there, but I’ve had the U6t for a few years now and I still love it despite all the more expensive stuff I’ve acquired in the meantime. It’s so smooth and easy to listen to for many long hours. It’s bassy without being aggressive or fatiguing, and this can be tuned with the APEX modules.

Lastly, don’t underestimate your ability to discern differences between IEMs and their performance. Especially with a custom, you’ll have perfect seal, isolation and fit to hear it exactly as intended.

thank you! I really appreciate your perspective. I'm definitely excited to try out the different APEX modules as well hence deciding on 64audio

I've only heard the A3e, so I can't say how it compares to the A3t. But, tia technology basically means there's an open, tubeless driver in the in-ear. In the A3t's case, it's the tweeter (or high driver). Without getting too far in the weeds, tia tweeters tend to bring an airier, cleaner, more open treble that's crisper and less compressed-sounding than most tubed tweeters. This means the music you're listening to will have more clarity (without becoming harsher or artificially sharp), and this also means your voice will cut through the mix easier when you're using them as monitoring devices. It's also worth noting that the A3t is a much newer model than the A3e, so it's likely they're using newer models of balanced-armature drivers in the former, which should result in stronger technical performance. Bass-wise, the A3e is on the neutral side, and I don't expect the A3t to be much different. In any case, you can always tune the low-end to your liking with the in-ear's interchangeable apex modules.

really appreciate your response as well. I'm definitely leaning more towards A3t if I'm going with the 3-driver option considering the tubeless technology. Your explanation makes a lot of sense and is definitely something I would like (more clarity and voice will cut through the mix).

As an overarching question, what's the tldr on what more drivers actually mean? I've read a lot of conflicting messages, including some where people say more drivers simply means better dynamics but actually decreases the clarity, but looking at the price I would assume more = better...

 

[mattv]

As an overarching question, what's the tldr on what more drivers actually mean? I've read a lot of conflicting messages, including some where people say more drivers simply means better dynamics but actually decreases the clarity, but looking at the price I would assume more = better...

In the case of our CIEM's generally more drivers means more headroom and better power handling. Essentially by stacking multiples of the same drivers that are covering the same frequency range you can get more volume out of those drivers without working them as hard, which results in lower distortion as well as slightly different drive and impedance characteristics that we can use to our advantage when designing and tuning the IEM. So it's not always true that more drivers are better, but in our higher driver count IEM's we use those higher driver counts to hit specific design targets that we are unable to hit with lower numbers of drivers, which translates to better performance. The price is also higher because high driver counts add to the cost on our end, as well as typically requiring a bit more labor to assemble.

The truth is that some of my favorites of our models are not the most expensive or highest driver counts. They're all good in their different ways. We wouldn't be selling them if we didn't think so.

 

[Frankie D]

hey folks, I'm considering getting custom IEMs and would love to hear if anyone has any insights... initially I was looking at the A3e, but was wondering if the A3t would be worth springing a couple hundred dollars extra for? Can anyone explain, functionally speaking, what the difference would be that I could likely hear between the two? I imagine the A3t should just hands down be better with the tia technology, but I'm not really understanding what exactly is better about it.

Also curious to know, though this may be a bit beyond my budget, since I'm already spending this much for customs, would it make sense to spring for the A6t instead?

No idea if any of the following info will help:
I would not call myself an audiophile and genuinely don't think I'd be able to hear the difference between comparing two high end IEMs. I do enjoy being able to hear the clarity and distinction between instruments with better IEMs/headphones, but beyond that, I'd be lying if I say I could really hear the difference between a "great" headphone vs. an "average" headphone. I haven't tried a ton of different IEMs, but I believe I prefer neutral/reference tuning. I do know that I don't like heavy bass. I currently have the Shure SRH440 and Moondrop Blessing 3 so those are really the only references I have, if that helps at all.

As for my use case, I'm a (hobby) vocalist and want to use them as monitors for singing. That would be my main functional purpose for springing for customs, but of course would likely be wearing them a lot throughout the day just for listening to music as well, though on that front I'm actually happy with what I already have and wouldn't necessarily expect or need these to outperform those.

Happy to provide more information if that helps give better advice/suggestions. Thanks so much!!

If there is any way for you to audition at least some of the 64 Audio line you should take the time to do it. As it seems you expect to be wearing them often, best to make sure you like the sound.

 

[clixkk]

In the case of our CIEM's generally more drivers means more headroom and better power handling. Essentially by stacking multiples of the same drivers that are covering the same frequency range you can get more volume out of those drivers without working them as hard, which results in lower distortion as well as slightly different drive and impedance characteristics that we can use to our advantage when designing and tuning the IEM. So it's not always true that more drivers are better, but in our higher driver count IEM's we use those higher driver counts to hit specific design targets that we are unable to hit with lower numbers of drivers, which translates to better performance. The price is also higher because high driver counts add to the cost on our end, as well as typically requiring a bit more labor to assemble.

The truth is that some of my favorites of our models are not the most expensive or highest driver counts. They're all good in their different ways. We wouldn't be selling them if we didn't think so.

thanks for the explanation. I really appreciate it!

 

[Takeda`1537]

In the case of our CIEM's generally more drivers means more headroom and better power handling. Essentially by stacking multiples of the same drivers that are covering the same frequency range you can get more volume out of those drivers without working them as hard, which results in lower distortion as well as slightly different drive and impedance characteristics that we can use to our advantage when designing and tuning the IEM. So it's not always true that more drivers are better, but in our higher driver count IEM's we use those higher driver counts to hit specific design targets that we are unable to hit with lower numbers of drivers, which translates to better performance. The price is also higher because high driver counts add to the cost on our end, as well as typically requiring a bit more labor to assemble.

The truth is that some of my favorites of our models are not the most expensive or highest driver counts. They're all good in their different ways. We wouldn't be selling them if we didn't think so.

The Fourte and Trio have only 3 and 2 BAs (in addition to a DD) each. In these each BA covers only one frequency range. Does it mean that these drivers will be worked harder to get the same volume and as such they are more likely to distort?

"The price is also higher because high driver counts add to the cost on our end, as well as typically requiring a bit more labor to assemble."
What about Trio and Fourte with only 3 and 4 drivers respectively?

 

[Deezel177]

thank you! I really appreciate your perspective. I'm definitely excited to try out the different APEX modules as well hence deciding on 64audio


really appreciate your response as well. I'm definitely leaning more towards A3t if I'm going with the 3-driver option considering the tubeless technology. Your explanation makes a lot of sense and is definitely something I would like (more clarity and voice will cut through the mix).

As an overarching question, what's the tldr on what more drivers actually mean? I've read a lot of conflicting messages, including some where people say more drivers simply means better dynamics but actually decreases the clarity, but looking at the price I would assume more = better...

Increasing driver count is typically for two reasons. One is what Matt covered, where multiple drivers output the same frequency, so you get more amplitude without pushing the drivers as hard. Or, you can assign them each different frequencies, have better coverage over the entire range and have finer control over it as well. In the latter, think of the drivers like points or faders on a parametric EQ. The more points you have, the finer control you get over your EQ. So, rather than only having control over the lows and highs in a dual-driver IEM, you can manipulate the lows, mids and highs in a triple-driver. It allows the designer to EQ the IEM more precisely.

The possible decrease in clarity you're talking about may be referring to phasing. When you have drivers outputting different frequencies, there's a possibility that some of the frequencies they're outputting may overlap. For example, where the bass driver ends may slightly overlap with where the mid driver begins. Now, if those frequencies are misaligned in the time domain - meaning, they don't reach your ears at the same time - they may destructively interfere and do funky things like cancel each other out, resulting in an unfocused, often hollow sound. That's what may cause incoherence or unfocused-ness in multi-driver IEMs, but they're so advanced and their designers are so skilled now, that you're very unlikely to see phasing in a renowned brand like 64 Audio.

The Fourte and Trio have only 3 and 2 BAs (in addition to a DD) each. In these each BA covers only one frequency range. Does it mean that these drivers will be worked harder to get the same volume and as such they are more likely to distort?

"The price is also higher because high driver counts add to the cost on our end, as well as typically requiring a bit more labor to assemble."
What about Trio and Fourte with only 3 and 4 drivers respectively?

The Fourte and Trio's drivers are all tubeless, which changes their properties by quite a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to resolve and perform at a higher ability than most multi-driver designs. So, they don't need the extra headroom that stacking gives. Although they have relatively low driver counts, what drives their costs up is the R&D invested into the acoustics around them. Because they're open drivers, they radiate freely, and you can't tune them like you would a closed, spouted driver. You can add dampers and manipulate the length of sound tubes to shape the frequency curve of a traditional driver, but those options are obviously unavailable for a tubeless driver. The way to tune them would be similar to speakers, where you house them in a calibrated chamber that acoustically boosts wanted frequencies and dampens unwanted ones. The time and money taken to make all that work is what you're paying for when you get the Trio and Fourte, and it's what results in the performance that a lot of people have continuously raved about.