bhschap
100+ Head-Fier
Also weird that they chose a fairly polarizing model for their [mass]drop
The Official 64 Audio Thread | apex & tia Technologies
Vitaly2017
Headphoneus Supremus
Crap not sure if thats a good sign
Maybe they're clearing stock for a new flagship...
I know I mentioned in my Nio review that I won't go crazy with kilobuck cable rolling, but someone asked me today how does Nio pairs up with PlusSound PPH8, since it was my favorite pair up with Fourte. Based on what I'm hearing while comparing PPH8 vs 64audio Premium Silver and Eletech Socrates, with PPH8 the soundstage spreads even wider, a very common change I noticed while pairing different IEMs with this cable. And also, Nio's mids/vocals are more forward and more transparent. Tested it with LPGT.
I'm not saying you have to spend on a cable as much, or more, than IEM itself, so please, put down your pitchforkI'm just sharing what I'm hearing and if you have PPH8 in your collection, give it a shot with Nio.
Loved your very detailed and informative review and really think the Nio might be an ideal tuning for my preferences. However, given my general distaste for stock 64 Audio cables, I was wondering if you had any other recommendations in the $100 range. In general, would you say a high quality copper, SPC, or silver cable synergizes best with the Nio? I've always been a fan of pure copper litz cables, but was initially thinking copper may not be the ideal pairing, but in your review you've mentioned the Socrates goes extremely well with the Nio, which is pure copper. Thanks!
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Posts
- 15,520
- Likes
- 49,616
Don't have too many budget cables, but copper EA Vogue series Maestro has a good pair up with Nio and priced at $99 (but gives a warmer tonality), and if you can stretch your budget to EA Vogue series Grandioso (hybrid with pure copper and pure silver) priced at $199 - it pairs up even better than Maestro, with more clarity and transparency. Also, hard to generalize which cable material will pair up better without actually hearing that pair up. 64 Audio stock cable is SPC, and their premium Silver cable is a hybrid of silver alloy core with SPC strands around it, but the sound is different. And I can try a bunch of other SPC cables none of which will sound identical. Thickness/gauge of the wire, impedance of the overall cable, purity of the material, quality of the actual connectors, etc. Also, the reason why Maestro is cheaper than Socrates.
Both the U18t and Fourté are on sale at Hifi Headphones here in the UK as well.... This is usually (based off of prior experience) a good indicator that something new might be on the horizon.
May I suggest the PW Audio No. 10. I have the 8-wire version ($350) on my Nio, but you're not losing too much going with the 4-wire ($200, or less if you shop around) and I find it smoother and more revealing than the 64 Audio Premium cable. It's also very well made with quality parts, as you'd expect from PW.
Did anyone catch the 64 Audio documentary that was linked on YouTube a few days ago before being made private? Called '10 Years In The Making'? Wanted to watch it now but can't access it.
Edit: found it again:
Edit: found it again:
Last edited:
Thought I would make a little shill post commemorating my new toy. Some of you may remember that I reviewed the Nio a couple of months ago, and while I had only a short week with it, I just couldn't get it out of my mind. It hit my target preferences oh-so-closely. Well, cue a few days ago when I couldn't help myself and ended up pulling the trigger.
The first thing I did was slap it on the coupler to verify channel matching; aside from a slight 2dB difference in the lowest octaves, it looks good. Next, I swapped out the janky stock cable. I wish this didn't have to be the case, but alas, I wasn't going to take any chances after my fiasco with the U12t.
Let's talk actual sound. My preferences lie with the M15 module. I've tried the M10 module and - blargh - I really dislike it, as much as it cleans up the response. So bass is as dirty as I remember it being. The mid-bass suffers from a sort of rounding to the attack, and coupled with the overt sub bass emphasis, translates to bloat and transient smearing. However, sheer dynamic slam, decay, and sub-bass texturing are present in spades, more than making this a worthy trade-off to my ears. The midrange is thick and lush. Whatever BA drivers 64 Audio uses are not your run-of-the-mill ones, as all of their IEMs seem devoid of that edgy transient behavior - grain - that most BAs exhibit. They mostly fall prey to the "plasticky" descriptor (although it's not bad at all!) and this is most noticeable if you're listening to the U12t. My thoughts have changed a bit on the treble which I initially characterized as more muted...when I wrote my review, I'd been using the Final E tips - you know, the ones that kill the highs quite a bit. It should have occurred to me to swap tips, and someone mentioned this to me after I wrote the review. With the Spinfit CP145, you definitely get some more air. I'm inclined to say it's neither as detailed as the U12t's highs, nor as elevated as the Trio's, but perfectly acceptable by most standards.
Now, intangibly, I don't think the Nio gets enough credit. The same transient smoothing that's on the U12t is also present on the Nio, and this has a couple of consequences:
1) It serves to compliment the crossover between the DD and the midrange BAs. I think this is a moot point from a coherency aspect, as it's quite clear that there's a DD present in the IEM. However, it still smoothes out that transition quite a bit, and I think it's what (largely) makes the Nio and U12t so easy on the ears. I'd posit that it's likewise somewhat to blame for why some have called the U12t boring.
2) Nio's resolution - the crispness by which notes are articulated - also takes a hit. Pretty self-explanatory. But I'm inclined to say that overall resolving capability, when you take into account detail retrieval, is actually quite good. Detail retrieval is not something that I (personally) can put my foot down on (eg. force-test), and admittedly, I act more on a gut instinct for it. However, I'd posit its the same case with the U12t.
And right, let's talk about the U12t - the other flagship IEM I own - vs. the Nio. Tonality aside, their biggest difference for me would be macrodynamics. The Nio isn't able to run along the quiet sections of tracks as low as the U12t, and its quiet-to-loud transitions are unmistakably more sluggish. It does, however, have ample dynamic ability for my tastes; this is largely what turned me away from purchasing a Trio instead. Imaging on the Nio is more intimate, particularly depth, as it doesn't have that 3-5kHz dip to the upper-midrange I love so much on the U12t. Product of a "gimmick" or not, the U12t's depth is unparalleled to my ears relative to any other IEM I've heard. Still, the Nio's ability to render positional cues is excellent. This results in a disconnect - to both IEMs - where imaging is not what I would consider holographic, but is something I enjoy quite a good deal nonetheless. Now, if you want real holographic imaging and exceptional stage size, well, that's where the Trio (and likely the Fourte, but I've heard less than stellar things about its tonality) comes into play.
That's probably my biggest critique: The Nio does enough differently to distinguish itself from its flagship brothers, if only barely. Each of the 64 Audio IEMs (at least that I've heard) have some unique quality; however, I feel like they're all very reminiscent of one another in more respects than one. On one hand, that's not a bad thing. It speaks to consistency. But conversely, it almost feels redundant for me to have both a U12t and Nio in my collection, and really, that was my biggest hesitation to purchasing the Nio. Nonetheless, here we are. The bass could be a lot cleaner, yet even I get tired of the Trio and IER-Z1R's uber-tight slam, and sometimes dirty is right up my alley. The Nio is unmistakably an excellent IEM, a guilty-pleasure, and one that I found worthy enough to have in my fairly small collection. Whether that'll hold in the long run, well, that remain to be seen - as I alluded to earlier, I think I could be perfectly happy with either my U12t or the Nio.
The first thing I did was slap it on the coupler to verify channel matching; aside from a slight 2dB difference in the lowest octaves, it looks good. Next, I swapped out the janky stock cable. I wish this didn't have to be the case, but alas, I wasn't going to take any chances after my fiasco with the U12t.
Let's talk actual sound. My preferences lie with the M15 module. I've tried the M10 module and - blargh - I really dislike it, as much as it cleans up the response. So bass is as dirty as I remember it being. The mid-bass suffers from a sort of rounding to the attack, and coupled with the overt sub bass emphasis, translates to bloat and transient smearing. However, sheer dynamic slam, decay, and sub-bass texturing are present in spades, more than making this a worthy trade-off to my ears. The midrange is thick and lush. Whatever BA drivers 64 Audio uses are not your run-of-the-mill ones, as all of their IEMs seem devoid of that edgy transient behavior - grain - that most BAs exhibit. They mostly fall prey to the "plasticky" descriptor (although it's not bad at all!) and this is most noticeable if you're listening to the U12t. My thoughts have changed a bit on the treble which I initially characterized as more muted...when I wrote my review, I'd been using the Final E tips - you know, the ones that kill the highs quite a bit. It should have occurred to me to swap tips, and someone mentioned this to me after I wrote the review. With the Spinfit CP145, you definitely get some more air. I'm inclined to say it's neither as detailed as the U12t's highs, nor as elevated as the Trio's, but perfectly acceptable by most standards.
Now, intangibly, I don't think the Nio gets enough credit. The same transient smoothing that's on the U12t is also present on the Nio, and this has a couple of consequences:
1) It serves to compliment the crossover between the DD and the midrange BAs. I think this is a moot point from a coherency aspect, as it's quite clear that there's a DD present in the IEM. However, it still smoothes out that transition quite a bit, and I think it's what (largely) makes the Nio and U12t so easy on the ears. I'd posit that it's likewise somewhat to blame for why some have called the U12t boring.
2) Nio's resolution - the crispness by which notes are articulated - also takes a hit. Pretty self-explanatory. But I'm inclined to say that overall resolving capability, when you take into account detail retrieval, is actually quite good. Detail retrieval is not something that I (personally) can put my foot down on (eg. force-test), and admittedly, I act more on a gut instinct for it. However, I'd posit its the same case with the U12t.
And right, let's talk about the U12t - the other flagship IEM I own - vs. the Nio. Tonality aside, their biggest difference for me would be macrodynamics. The Nio isn't able to run along the quiet sections of tracks as low as the U12t, and its quiet-to-loud transitions are unmistakably more sluggish. It does, however, have ample dynamic ability for my tastes; this is largely what turned me away from purchasing a Trio instead. Imaging on the Nio is more intimate, particularly depth, as it doesn't have that 3-5kHz dip to the upper-midrange I love so much on the U12t. Product of a "gimmick" or not, the U12t's depth is unparalleled to my ears relative to any other IEM I've heard. Still, the Nio's ability to render positional cues is excellent. This results in a disconnect - to both IEMs - where imaging is not what I would consider holographic, but is something I enjoy quite a good deal nonetheless. Now, if you want real holographic imaging and exceptional stage size, well, that's where the Trio (and likely the Fourte, but I've heard less than stellar things about its tonality) comes into play.
That's probably my biggest critique: The Nio does enough differently to distinguish itself from its flagship brothers, if only barely. Each of the 64 Audio IEMs (at least that I've heard) have some unique quality; however, I feel like they're all very reminiscent of one another in more respects than one. On one hand, that's not a bad thing. It speaks to consistency. But conversely, it almost feels redundant for me to have both a U12t and Nio in my collection, and really, that was my biggest hesitation to purchasing the Nio. Nonetheless, here we are. The bass could be a lot cleaner, yet even I get tired of the Trio and IER-Z1R's uber-tight slam, and sometimes dirty is right up my alley. The Nio is unmistakably an excellent IEM, a guilty-pleasure, and one that I found worthy enough to have in my fairly small collection. Whether that'll hold in the long run, well, that remain to be seen - as I alluded to earlier, I think I could be perfectly happy with either my U12t or the Nio.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Posts
- 15,520
- Likes
- 49,616
Thought I would make a little shill post commemorating my new toy. Some of you may remember that I reviewed the Nio a couple of months ago, and while I had only a short week with it, I just couldn't get it out of my mind. It hit my target preferences oh-so-closely. Well, cue a few days ago when I couldn't help myself and ended up pulling the trigger.
The first thing I did was slap it on the coupler to verify channel matching; aside from a slight 2dB difference in the lowest octaves, it looks good. Next, I swapped out the janky stock cable. I wish this didn't have to be the case, but alas, I wasn't going to take any chances after my fiasco with the U12t.
Let's talk actual sound. My preferences lie with the M15 module. I've tried the M10 module and - blargh - I really dislike it, as much as it cleans up the response. So bass is as dirty as I remember it being. The mid-bass suffers from a sort of rounding to the attack, and coupled with the overt sub bass emphasis, translates to bloat and transient smearing. However, sheer dynamic slam, decay, and sub-bass texturing are present in spades, more than making this a worthy trade-off to my ears. The midrange is thick and lush. Whatever BA drivers 64 Audio uses are not your run-of-the-mill ones, as all of their IEMs seem devoid of that edgy transient behavior - grain - that most BAs exhibit. They mostly fall prey to the "plasticky" descriptor (although it's not bad at all!) and this is most noticeable if you're listening to the U12t. My thoughts have changed a bit on the treble which I initially characterized as more muted...when I wrote my review, I'd been using the Final E tips - you know, the ones that kill the highs quite a bit. It should have occurred to me to swap tips, and someone mentioned this to me after I wrote the review. With the Spinfit CP145, you definitely get some more air. I'm inclined to say it's neither as detailed as the U12t's highs, nor as elevated as the Trio's, but perfectly acceptable by most standards.
Now, intangibly, I don't think the Nio gets enough credit. The same transient smoothing that's on the U12t is also present on the Nio, and this has a couple of consequences:
1) It serves to compliment the crossover between the DD and the midrange BAs. I think this is a moot point from a coherency aspect, as it's quite clear that there's a DD present in the IEM. However, it still smoothes out that transition quite a bit, and I think it's what (largely) makes the Nio and U12t so easy on the ears. I'd posit that it's likewise somewhat to blame for why some have called the U12t boring.
2) Nio's resolution - the crispness by which notes are articulated - also takes a hit. Pretty self-explanatory. But I'm inclined to say that overall resolving capability, when you take into account detail retrieval, is actually quite good. Detail retrieval is not something that I (personally) can put my foot down on (eg. force-test), and admittedly, I act more on a gut instinct for it. However, I'd posit its the same case with the U12t.
And right, let's talk about the U12t - the other flagship IEM I own - vs. the Nio. Tonality aside, their biggest difference for me would be macrodynamics. The Nio isn't as able to run along the quiet sections of tracks as low as the U12t, and its quiet-to-loud transitions are unmistakably more sluggish. It does, however, have ample dynamic ability for my tastes; this is largely what turned me away from purchasing a Trio instead. Imaging on the Nio is more intimate, particularly depth, as it doesn't have that 3-5kHz dip to the upper-midrange I love so much on the U12t. Product of a "gimmick" or not, the U12t's depth is unparalleled to my ears relative to any other IEM I've heard. Still, the Nio's ability to render positional cues is excellent. This results in a disconnect - to both IEMs - where imaging is not what I would consider holographic, but is something I enjoy quite a good deal nonetheless. Now, if you want real holographic imaging and exceptional stage size, well, that's where the Trio (and likely Fourte, but I've heard less than stellar things about its tonality) comes into play.
That's probably my biggest critique: The Nio does enough differently to distinguish itself from its flagship brothers, if only barely. Each of the 64 Audio IEMs (at least that I've heard) have some unique quality; however, I feel like they're all very reminiscent of one another in more respects than one. On one hand, that's not a bad thing. It speaks to consistency. But conversely, it almost feels redundant for me to have both a U12t and Nio in my collection, and really, that was my biggest hesitation to purchasing the Nio. Nonetheless, here we are. The bass could be a lot cleaner, yet even I get tired of the Trio and IER-Z1R's uber-tight slam, and sometimes dirty is right up my alley. The Nio is unmistakably an excellent IEM, a guilty-pleasure of sorts, and one that I found worthy enough to have in my fairly small collection. Whether that'll hold in the long run, well, that remain to be seen - as I alluded to earlier, I think I could be perfectly happy with either my U12t or the Nio.
I don't think MX module has 10dB isolation, relative to M15 and M20, cause it attenuates the bass down to nearly neutral level. You should try FirAudio Atom XL modules, their N0 which corresponds to N10 (10dB) gives bass a nice refinement relative to M15 if you want to knock it down by a few dBs.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Posts
- 2,806
- Likes
- 5,157
That would have been me on discord I think for the eartips recommendation hehe.
I was more of a fan of MX in general, but once I slapped spinfits on the M15 it became my overall preferred. I also really like MX with narrow bore symbios but they’re rare to find; it makes for a leaner U12t-ish sound with better low end texture but less bass, and less treble (air especially).
Ironically, now I have a U12T and I really like em. They close the gap tighter between KSE and Z1R personally than the Nio, but they also don’t have the fun factor of Nio.
Wish I had both simultaneously like you do!
Yeah, less fun in U12t but more balanced and gracious. Already missing my Trio haha (but U12t fit/seal better for me). Can’t have it all.
Very personal and emotional video. Family is most important whatever the problems, I wish I have more brothers as he has.
Best wishes to Vitaliy, his family and the @64Audio team for the next 10 years and beyond.
Says who? You can add Nio and Trio to the U12t for roughly the same price as one Odin, and even less if you buy them used in mint condition
I do get the struggle with fit though...the Trio is difficult to sit 'flush' on the ear like Nio and U12t, but once you make peace with that it's very comfortable.
Super impressions. I think most people would be perfectly happy with any one of Nio, Trio or U12t, because the 64 Audio house sound - at least with these three - makes them enjoyable as all-rounders for most genres. But I also find there are enough tonal and technical details between all three to make them very complementary with only some overlap, and each will have more strengths for some genres than others. All three together literally covers all your bases, from laid back, smooth, natural and organic, to highly detailed, holographic and energetic. And all three can be had for little more than the cost of one summit-fi IEM, especially on the pre-loved market.Thought I would make a little shill post commemorating my new toy. Some of you may remember that I reviewed the Nio a couple of months ago, and while I had only a short week with it, I just couldn't get it out of my mind. It hit my target preferences oh-so-closely. Well, cue a few days ago when I couldn't help myself and ended up pulling the trigger.
The first thing I did was slap it on the coupler to verify channel matching; aside from a slight 2dB difference in the lowest octaves, it looks good. Next, I swapped out the janky stock cable. I wish this didn't have to be the case, but alas, I wasn't going to take any chances after my fiasco with the U12t.
Let's talk actual sound. My preferences lie with the M15 module. I've tried the M10 module and - blargh - I really dislike it, as much as it cleans up the response. So bass is as dirty as I remember it being. The mid-bass suffers from a sort of rounding to the attack, and coupled with the overt sub bass emphasis, translates to bloat and transient smearing. However, sheer dynamic slam, decay, and sub-bass texturing are present in spades, more than making this a worthy trade-off to my ears. The midrange is thick and lush. Whatever BA drivers 64 Audio uses are not your run-of-the-mill ones, as all of their IEMs seem devoid of that edgy transient behavior - grain - that most BAs exhibit. They mostly fall prey to the "plasticky" descriptor (although it's not bad at all!) and this is most noticeable if you're listening to the U12t. My thoughts have changed a bit on the treble which I initially characterized as more muted...when I wrote my review, I'd been using the Final E tips - you know, the ones that kill the highs quite a bit. It should have occurred to me to swap tips, and someone mentioned this to me after I wrote the review. With the Spinfit CP145, you definitely get some more air. I'm inclined to say it's neither as detailed as the U12t's highs, nor as elevated as the Trio's, but perfectly acceptable by most standards.
Now, intangibly, I don't think the Nio gets enough credit. The same transient smoothing that's on the U12t is also present on the Nio, and this has a couple of consequences:
1) It serves to compliment the crossover between the DD and the midrange BAs. I think this is a moot point from a coherency aspect, as it's quite clear that there's a DD present in the IEM. However, it still smoothes out that transition quite a bit, and I think it's what (largely) makes the Nio and U12t so easy on the ears. I'd posit that it's likewise somewhat to blame for why some have called the U12t boring.
2) Nio's resolution - the crispness by which notes are articulated - also takes a hit. Pretty self-explanatory. But I'm inclined to say that overall resolving capability, when you take into account detail retrieval, is actually quite good. Detail retrieval is not something that I (personally) can put my foot down on (eg. force-test), and admittedly, I act more on a gut instinct for it. However, I'd posit its the same case with the U12t.
And right, let's talk about the U12t - the other flagship IEM I own - vs. the Nio. Tonality aside, their biggest difference for me would be macrodynamics. The Nio isn't able to run along the quiet sections of tracks as low as the U12t, and its quiet-to-loud transitions are unmistakably more sluggish. It does, however, have ample dynamic ability for my tastes; this is largely what turned me away from purchasing a Trio instead. Imaging on the Nio is more intimate, particularly depth, as it doesn't have that 3-5kHz dip to the upper-midrange I love so much on the U12t. Product of a "gimmick" or not, the U12t's depth is unparalleled to my ears relative to any other IEM I've heard. Still, the Nio's ability to render positional cues is excellent. This results in a disconnect - to both IEMs - where imaging is not what I would consider holographic, but is something I enjoy quite a good deal nonetheless. Now, if you want real holographic imaging and exceptional stage size, well, that's where the Trio (and likely the Fourte, but I've heard less than stellar things about its tonality) comes into play.
That's probably my biggest critique: The Nio does enough differently to distinguish itself from its flagship brothers, if only barely. Each of the 64 Audio IEMs (at least that I've heard) have some unique quality; however, I feel like they're all very reminiscent of one another in more respects than one. On one hand, that's not a bad thing. It speaks to consistency. But conversely, it almost feels redundant for me to have both a U12t and Nio in my collection, and really, that was my biggest hesitation to purchasing the Nio. Nonetheless, here we are. The bass could be a lot cleaner, yet even I get tired of the Trio and IER-Z1R's uber-tight slam, and sometimes dirty is right up my alley. The Nio is unmistakably an excellent IEM, a guilty-pleasure, and one that I found worthy enough to have in my fairly small collection. Whether that'll hold in the long run, well, that remain to be seen - as I alluded to earlier, I think I could be perfectly happy with either my U12t or the Nio.
It'll be interesting to see where 64 Audio goes next, because the documentary suggests they're going to be looking at more consumer-oriented products rather than niche high-end stuff like these.
Users who are viewing this thread
