[squirrelman]

That is what I remembered him saying, it could have been bull but who knows. I think they probably were just worried it was too good for the price and would hurt orders of their more expensive lines.

 

[Deezel177]

That is what I remembered him saying, it could have been bull**** but who knows. I think they probably were just worried it was too good for the price and would hurt orders of their more expensive lines.

That's extremely peculiar. Well, I don't know, maybe they said it the other way around and they meant the price was too high for the performance, or maybe they did mean it. Either case, I'll definitely give the U3t demo a try next time I go visit Singapore and determine for myself.

 

[squirrelman]

I honestly never even asked him if they had the U3t demo there, just the N8t (on your recommendation none the less).

 

[Deezel177]

I honestly never even asked him if they had the U3t demo there, just the N8t (on your recommendation none the less).

They do! A friend of mine who's opinion I trust quite a bit called the U3t the weakest of the whole lot, which is why I questioned your initial post. But, nevertheless, I'll try it out myself within the next couple months or so.

 

[squirrelman]

Haha ok maybe he was just trying to put a nice spin on why they were canceling them, that would certainly make a lot more sense than canceling it due to it being too good haha.

 

[Rock Hayes]

When I saw 64 Audio at Axpona last weekend, they told me the N8t had been pushed back until "They are hoping June" but they aren't giving a solid date. I think he mentioned they ran into a couple issues they had to work out. I remember him also mentioning they were canceling the A3t because I think he said it was too high of a performance to the price if I remember correctly. They had a universal of the N8t and I got to try it out, it sounded great.

To add some clarity here, pricing and product line up is still to be determined. The A3t "build cost" was too high to maintain a $699 price point, which we feel is important to offer. A new three driver earphone is in development to fulfill that need. The new custom line up will be released in early June.

 

[dthong]

i asked earlier but got no answer, anyone pair the u18t with the mojo?any impressions?i dont feel like buying another 1k DAP

I have an a18t with a mojo for home use - quite a musical combo, on the warmer side but I feel missing a little bit of sparkle and air up top.

It could be bc I predominantly use a fiio x7ii at work with my a18 so I’m more used to it’s analytical presentation.

 

[491326]

(deleted)

 

[491326]

To add some clarity here, pricing and product line up is still to be determined. The A3t "build cost" was too high to maintain a $699 price point, which we feel is important to offer. A new three driver earphone is in development to fulfill that need. The new custom line up will be released in early June.

would 64 audio release a special edition a3t at a slightly higher price point? that would be super cool

 

[weishayuelfjj]

would 64 audio release a special edition a3t at a slightly higher price point? that would be super cool

I would be more looking forward to 64's new flagships in the future.

 

[want]

Hi all

I'm new to head-fi but just wanted to post my thanks to 64 Audio and Paul at Custom IEM in the UK.

I love music and have a hi end 2 channel system (Naim, Linn). I like listening with headphones but am deaf in one ear, so find it frustrating to miss out on 1 channel.

I approached Paul with this problem and with the help of 64 Audio now have a single a12t with a cable adapted to send both stereo signals to the single monitor. I'm still missing out on imaging but the music I'm hearing is brilliant!

Thanks again to 64 Audio and Paul.

Best wishes from sunny London!

Ian

 

[Marat Sar]

After trying out the pw audio no5 and the penon OS849 -- both cables have been suggested with the tzar, no 5 also in professional reviews -- I am really beginning to doubt the usefulness of cheaper aftermarket cables for the u18.

Mind you that I already have a really good stock cable. It's the so called "premium" one from 64 audio, which doesn't really add anything, except one important thing: it has a 4.4 pentaconn balanced connector. This beast is often considered one of the best connectors out there, and as we've recently found out, connectors can affect soundstage size and sound clarity. (Even when comparing two balanced connectors)

So, Compared to my stock cable, both no 5 and OS849 introduce more hiss into the signal. The background isn't as black. Both cables -- the no 5 in a superior way -- attempt to add a bit of bass boost, and mid range thickness, a "copper" sound. This audibly reduces detail retrieval and lessens the soundstage on the tzars. The natural resolution and 3d soundstage are the main things about them. Messing with these seems sacrilage on paper -- and in my ear. The sound just gets muddied up. Some lesser recordings may benefit from this, but not much -- with the m20 module the tzars are already very forgiving earphones, and still very clear too. I suspected this when I ordered the cables. My hope was that a warmer, more forgiving sound could let me use the m15 modules, which have a gorgeous treble, but are too thin and unforgiving with the stock cable. Well, no game. The no5 fixes the thinness, but also ruins the treble, plus takes away the m15s extended soundstage effect.

Some good words.

Out of the two cables the no 5 is definitely the prettier. It's smooth as silk and beautifully made, very comfy. The stock cable looks very pedestrian but sounds way better. I do wonder -- what if pw audio had used a pentaconn connector instead of whatever type of 4.4 is attached to this? I'm a little disappointed they didn't actually. With a pentaconn it could have sounded better. Pity, since it's so nice looking.

The OS849 -- I have no kind words for. It's ugly, uncomfortable and just as blurry as the no 5.

So, my question is -- a pentaconn 4.4 terminated stock cable produces a very clear and wide signal, but I'd like more mids thickness and a touch of bass. At what level do aftermarket cables not butcher the soundstage and detail retrieval I get from stock? Lionheart at 500 US seems like the point to me, if I know anything about the crazy world of head fi.

Also, people say the Janus "does not lessen details" for the u18, as if that's a selling point -- that a 1300 USD cable doesn't butcher detail retrieval?

I also wonder how cheaper aftermarket cables like the pw no 5 and OS get recommended. I think I have an answer. They certainly sound like upgrades if you're coming from the stock 3.5 mm unbalanced, to one of these balanced. Not because of their materials, or synergy, just because balanced audio is usually clearer. If you're looking to go balanced from unbalanced, order from 64 audio instead. Take one of their balanced "premium" ones and you get much better sq -- at least better than these two.

PS. Please do not misconstrue this as "cables don't work!". I understand what they do, analogue EQ basically, with a little detail retrieval added from materials. The right synergy is everything. All I'm saying is -- reports of the tzar benefiting from cheaper copper aftermarkets do not seem to hold true, when compared to a 64 audio stock cable terminated with a high quality balanced connector like the pentaconn. With my dx 200 -- I tried both amp3 and amp 4 -- the synergy isn't there either. The amp3 and amp4 are opposite sounding sources: analogue and super detailed, and both simply deteriorate from detail loss and soundstage shrinkage.

 

[Deezel177]

After trying out the pw audio no5 and the penon OS849 -- both cables have been suggested with the tzar, no 5 also in professional reviews -- I am really beginning to doubt the usefulness of cheaper aftermarket cables for the u18.

Mind you that I already have a really good stock cable. It's the so called "premium" one from 64 audio, which doesn't really add anything, except one important thing: it has a 4.4 pentaconn balanced connector. This beast is often considered one of the best connectors out there, and as we've recently found out, connectors can affect soundstage size and sound clarity. (Even when comaring two balanced connectors)

So, Compared to the 4.4 pentaconn stock cable, both no 5 and OS849 introduce more hiss into the signal. The background isn't as black. Both cables -- the no 5 in a superior way -- attempt to add a bit of bass boost, and mid range thickness. This audibly reduces detail retrieval and lessens the soundstage on the tzars. The natural resolution and 3d soundstage are the u18s top strengths. Messing with them seems sacrilage on paper -- and in my ear. The sound just gets muddied up. Okay, some lesser recordings may benefit from this, but not much -- with the m20 module the tzars are already very forgiving earphones, but still very clear. I suspected this when I ordered the cables -- my hope was that a warmer, more forgiving sound could let me use the m15 modules, which have a gorgeous treble, but are too thin and unforgiving with the stock cable. Well, no game. The no5 fixes the thinness, but also ruins the treble, plus takes away the m15s extended soundstage effect.

Some good words.

Out of the two cables the no 5 is definitely the prettier. It's smooth as silk and beautifully made, also very comfy. The stock cable looks very pedestrian but sounds way better. I do wonder -- what if pw audio had used a pentaconn connector instead of whatever type of 4.4 is attached to this? I'm a little disappointed they did not actually. I was expecting a pentaconn and I guess it could have sounded better with it. Pity, since it's so nice looking.

The OS849 -- I have no kind words for. It's ugly, uncomfortable and only a little less blurry than the no5.

So, my question is -- a pentaconn 4.4 terminated stock cable running out of the dx200 amp4 produces a very clear and wide signal, but I'd like more mids thickness and a touch of bass. At what level do aftermarket cables not butcher the soundstage and detail retrieval I get from stock? Lionheart at 500 US seems like the point to me, if I know anything about the crazy world of head fi.

Also, people say the Janus "does not lessen details" for the u18, as if that's a good thing! That's a sales point -- that a 1300 USD cable doesn't butcher detail retrieval? This worries me.

I also wonder how cheaper aftermarket cables like the pw no 5 and OS get recommended. And I think I have an answer. They only sound like upgrades if you're coming from the stock 3.5 mm unbalanced, to one of these balanced. Not because of their materials, or synergy, just because balanced audio is usually clearer. Order from 64 audio instead, take one of their balanced "premium" ones and you get a much better deal and much better sq -- at least better than these two.

PS Please do not misconstrue this as "cables don't work!". I understand what they do, analogue EQ basically, with a little detail retrieval added from materials. The right synergy is everything. All I'm saying is -- reports of the tzar benefiting from cheaper copper aftermarkets do not seem to hold true, when compared to a 64 audio stock cable terminated with a high quality balaned connector like the pentaconn.

Well, I wouldn’t make that generalisation if I were you. The PW Audio No. 5 isn’t known for its clarity or soundstage expansion. Reviews have stated that it sacrifices those aspects somewhat for a more organic timbre and a nicer tone. If “more detail” is your criteria, the No. 5 won’t fit the bill. I don’t think people are dumb enough to claim that the cable itself improves the sound of the A18t if they’ve knowingly swapped from unbalanced to balanced - they surely must’ve taken that into account. I think it’s just a matter of priority as to what you’re looking to improve from the A18t.

I feel like you’re referring to my post when you say the Janus doesn’t lessen detail retrieval, so I’ll attempt to explain myself. The Janus D performs well because it achieves the No. 5’s improvements in lushness, warmth and tone without compromising on detail and soundstage. It maximises the amount of stretch and air as much as possible without messing with tone. Whether that change - among others - is worth the money to you, is definitely up to you. Personally, for your needs (i.e. more detail and stage expansion), I’d recommend either the Lionheart or the PWAudio Saladin+. The latter resembles the No. 5 in tone, but vastly improves its treble extension, so you get a much larger and more stable stage with more headroom and thus an ease in rendering detail as well.

 

[Marat Sar]

Thanks for the reply @Deezel177. It's not just the treble though. The no 5 and OS reduce detail in the mids and lows too. And they add hiss. Do the lionheart and saladin+ keep midrange and bass detail similar and keep the background at pitch black? I imagine a pentaconn connector would help with the hiss...

 

[orifiel]

After trying out the pw audio no5 and the penon OS849 -- both cables have been suggested with the tzar, no 5 also in professional reviews -- I am really beginning to doubt the usefulness of cheaper aftermarket cables for the u18.

Mind you that I already have a really good stock cable. It's the so called "premium" one from 64 audio, which doesn't really add anything, except one important thing: it has a 4.4 pentaconn balanced connector. This beast is often considered one of the best connectors out there, and as we've recently found out, connectors can affect soundstage size and sound clarity. (Even when comparing two balanced connectors)

So, Compared to my stock cable, both no 5 and OS849 introduce more hiss into the signal. The background isn't as black. Both cables -- the no 5 in a superior way -- attempt to add a bit of bass boost, and mid range thickness, a "copper" sound. This audibly reduces detail retrieval and lessens the soundstage on the tzars. The natural resolution and 3d soundstage are the main things about them. Messing with these seems sacrilage on paper -- and in my ear. The sound just gets muddied up. Some lesser recordings may benefit from this, but not much -- with the m20 module the tzars are already very forgiving earphones, and still very clear too. I suspected this when I ordered the cables. My hope was that a warmer, more forgiving sound could let me use the m15 modules, which have a gorgeous treble, but are too thin and unforgiving with the stock cable. Well, no game. The no5 fixes the thinness, but also ruins the treble, plus takes away the m15s extended soundstage effect.

Some good words.

Out of the two cables the no 5 is definitely the prettier. It's smooth as silk and beautifully made, very comfy. The stock cable looks very pedestrian but sounds way better. I do wonder -- what if pw audio had used a pentaconn connector instead of whatever type of 4.4 is attached to this? I'm a little disappointed they didn't actually. With a pentaconn it could have sounded better. Pity, since it's so nice looking.

The OS849 -- I have no kind words for. It's ugly, uncomfortable and just as blurry as the no 5.

So, my question is -- a pentaconn 4.4 terminated stock cable produces a very clear and wide signal, but I'd like more mids thickness and a touch of bass. At what level do aftermarket cables not butcher the soundstage and detail retrieval I get from stock? Lionheart at 500 US seems like the point to me, if I know anything about the crazy world of head fi.

Also, people say the Janus "does not lessen details" for the u18, as if that's a selling point -- that a 1300 USD cable doesn't butcher detail retrieval?

I also wonder how cheaper aftermarket cables like the pw no 5 and OS get recommended. I think I have an answer. They certainly sound like upgrades if you're coming from the stock 3.5 mm unbalanced, to one of these balanced. Not because of their materials, or synergy, just because balanced audio is usually clearer. If you're looking to go balanced from unbalanced, order from 64 audio instead. Take one of their balanced "premium" ones and you get much better sq -- at least better than these two.

PS. Please do not misconstrue this as "cables don't work!". I understand what they do, analogue EQ basically, with a little detail retrieval added from materials. The right synergy is everything. All I'm saying is -- reports of the tzar benefiting from cheaper copper aftermarkets do not seem to hold true, when compared to a 64 audio stock cable terminated with a high quality balanced connector like the pentaconn. With my dx 200 -- I tried both amp3 and amp 4 -- the synergy isn't there either. The amp3 and amp4 are opposite sounding sources: analogue and super detailed, and both simply deteriorate from detail loss and soundstage shrinkage.

Ok, maybe you are not the only one...
I already have Lionheart and Leonidas from effect audio.
The Lionheart improves the warm tones on the Tzar, but...yes in my opinion it sacrifice the detail retrieval and the treble a little bit...
The Leonidas is already a very good cable, with this and the Lionheart the treble will never bother you, with the Leonidas you don’t lose any of the detail or soundstage, but in time i feel that his sound is in the north of neutral and i loose some of the fullness i felt with the 64 audio premium cable.
Finally i prefer the 64 audio premium cable over the most expensive cables
This is only my opinion and what i hear, take it with a grain of salt...
My source are the AK380 and mojo

Regards