[milkpowder]

Excellent posts guys.  I've taken delivery of the PureSound tips.  They do indeed have quite a wide sound tube.  The overall sound signature is unchanged, but the tonal balance certainly takes a step forward (bad pun ha!).  In fact, the whole soundstage may have shrunken slightly, and I'm not hearing as many microdetails as I did with the Comply foamies.  The lower midrange bloom that I've harped on about is still there, but there's certainly more deep bass presence, and the midrange in general takes more of a front seat.  Violins sound pretty good, but the viola-cello range is a little loose.  Tremendous detail, but the bloom/veil is there.  These are some pretty good tips, I must say, and I can't believe I'm having to use the large tips for a decent seal.  Never ever considered my ears canals to be large, especially when the seal with Comply slims is usually more than adequate.  Thank goodness I didn't go for a pair of mediums!  Isolation is not as great as Comply foams and nor is (I suspect) the long term comfort, but so far so good.  They're immensely fiddly to put on at first due to their slightly kinked 'ergonomic' shape, but practice makes perfect.  It's like the very first time one puts on a pair of custom IEMs or behind the ear IEMs... fiddly!
 
Bottom line - more forward upper midrange, better deep bass presence, soundstage shrinks and everything is very forward (?fatiguing), microdetail is noticeably diminished/masked (by what? can't put it into words yet), better clarity (?), surprisingly good comfort, initially fiddly fit
 
I'll certainly look into the EX1000.  I've already read through many of the major reviews on Head-Fi.  A promising prospect, especially for my musical preferences.  The FA FI-BA-SS is too expensive.  I'm not quite ready to spend that much on an IEM just yet, and if I was, I would take a gamble with the Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 

I've said it here before, I believe the W4's short sound tube is (at least partly) responsible for the veil that some folks are experiencing. IME tips with soft stems/tubes (e.g. silicons) are no-go with the W4, I recommend using tips with solid tubes instead. I get good results with reversed Shure Olives, but I guess any other tips with solid tubes will work similarly well.
 
Regrading your doubts, I think the Sony EX1000 are perfectly on par with the W4 regarding detail and offer more clarity and a different presentation that I prefer with orchestral music. Final Audio's FI-BA-SS are the epitome of clarity among the universals I've heard and at least equal in detail to the W4, but silly expensive. Their much cheaper FI-BA-A1 siblings also surpass the W4 in clarity, yet may fall just a tiny bit short in detail. (Nevertheless, at their current price of £150 from iheadphones UK, they're one of the best bang/buck IEMs out there IMO.)

Everyone's ear canals are differently shaped, so what works for you won't necessarily work for someone else. I find them incredibly clear with zero veil with either the medium complies or Shure olives. YMMV.
 

 

[Naim.F.C]

For those that dislike the veil, just use my EQ settings and these will sing. You may want to extend the mids a bit, but with these IEM's I like them with this balance, tending to the W4's strong suit, instrumental separation. Once you clear some of that low end murkiness (there's not much but it's there) the detail is astounding. Anyway, try it.
 

 
For those who are not as bass loving, drop the low frequencies. Also, depending on your listening volume and the track, you may want to drop the last two green orbs at the higher end of the spectrum (mainly the 7-8k orb), to reduce sibilance. For some reason certain tracks have it, though the vast majority don't. Try the above settings and let me know how you guys find it compared to default.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Again, absolutely no veil to my ears (un'eq'd). Most likely a HRTF issue. What ear tips have you tried?

 

[Naim.F.C]

Quote:

Again, absolutely no veil to my ears (un'eq'd). Most likely a HRTF issue. What ear tips have you tried?

Tried Trip flanges, Comply's, the clear white buds and Olives. Sticking with the Shure Olives. There's less of a veil with some of the other tips (downside being there's also less bass emphasis), but it's still there. It's more noticeable when I switch from my W4 to my T1's or to EQ'd W4. It's not that noticeable mind, but it is still apparent and affecting.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Tried Trip flanges, Comply's, the clear white buds and Olives. Sticking with the Shure Olives. There's less of a veil with some of the other tips (downside being there's also less bass emphasis), but it's still there. It's more noticeable when I switch from my W4 to my T1's or to EQ'd W4. It's not that noticeable mind, but it is still apparent and affecting.

That's too bad. That is the one issue of universal IEMs...they're not really completely "universal" for everyone's ears.
 
 
 

 

[james444]

Quote:

Everyone's ear canals are differently shaped, so what works for you won't necessarily work for someone else. I find them incredibly clear with zero veil with either the medium complies or Shure olives. YMMV.

... both of which have solid tubes, don't they? My point exactly.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

... both of which have solid tubes, don't they? My point exactly.

???? Don't get your point.
 
You might want to read up on HRTF first.
 

 

[ericp10]

So I thought I would add a few more lines about the difference between the W4 and the 1964-Q, since I've been asked here a few times and in my inbox. I'm A/B-ing both now out of the Sony S545. The W4 has a bit more shimmer in the highs than the 1964-Q, although extension is about the same to my ears. The W4's highs just sound a bit more crisper. Separation is of instruments is really exceptional in the W4, and in some recordings it sounds as if the Westone beats the Quad in separation. In other recordings it sounds as if the Quads beat the W4. I will give it about a tie there.
 
Where the 1964-Q excels, however, and clearly beats the W4 is in weight, height and definition of the instruments. And before I continue on this path, let me first state that on its own merit the W4 has very nice weight, height and definition. But if you put the Quads in on the same song after hearing the Westone, the W4 sounded clearly thinner. And I can't say thinner by a little bit; it sounds significantly thinner. But I wouldn't say extremely thinner either. If I had to put it by notches, I think the 1964-Q would be ahead by about three notches in thickness and definition of notes.

Another way I can put it, is that the W4 sounds like it's approaching headphone quantity and quality of notes, whereas the 1964-Q sounds like it's there to my ears.
 
Let me talk about the W4's bass a little bit too. In terms of quality, I think the W4's bass is almost on par with the Quad. Of course, the 1964-Q wins hands down in quantity of bass - added to that great quality of the W4. Add to that the thicker note with more definition with the Quad. If there is reverb to hear in the bass or bass drum, you will hear it in both IEMs, but you are going to hear it in more details with the subtleties through the 1964-Q. This translates into the music sounding more realistic and liver to my ears with the 1964 EARS. But it's also a remarkable testament for the W4 to be so close.
 
I think that's about it. Oh, mids...Neither the W4 or the 1964-Q's mids are recessed, but the W4's mids sound just a tad bit more forward to my ears. I wonder if this could be due to the massive bass of the Quad (which is massive but somehow doesn't really impede on the mids)? If I had to say which one sounds more dynamic to my ears (for a BA), I would give it to the Quad. But I do think many W4 lovers (and lovers of highs) will find that extra shimmer of treble more refreshing in the W4. I like both presentations of the treble equally. Both sound great, just different in how it is presented.
 
So now that I own the W4, I never take my Quad out anymore. Every two days I seem to switch between the W4 and the GR07 (which is like the W4's dynamic little brother to my ears, but with more transparency) when traveling out to work and other destinations. On weekends  the 1964-Q and/or the EX600 gets time. I spend less time with the EX1000 loaner I have, although it is probably the best universal IEM I have heard from a technical standpoint. It's just a bit too refined for my ears, but I probably will purchase it down the road. From a technical standpoint, however, the W4 is my favorite universal for listening purposes now, with the GR07 being my favorite universal for overall listening enjoyment (or overall preference). I want to stress, I'm just speaking of universals, and the EX1000 and EX600 aren't too far behind at all in enjoyment. I hope this makes sense to some since I say those two (W4 and GR07) remind me so much of each other.

 

[au5t3n5]

@ericp10
 
Thanks for the write up. I was on the bridge between both of them as pricing was very similar, but opted for the W4's due to my young age and possibility of reshell problems. Seems like customs is the path to take from the W4 (unless significantly better universals come out?). 
 
On another note, I got a pair of monster red tip adapters from a generous forum member, and have tried them on my W4 with the monster triple flanger as well as the old shure e2c/scl2 silicon tips. I've used both for a few days and have settled on the shure tips as the monster triples just feel like they are penetrating too deep in an uncomfortable way after long periods of time. The larger sound hole does make it sound a little less congested. 
 

 

[Naim.F.C]

Thanks for the comparison Eric10, will be doing my own soon with the SE535 thrown in for good measure, along with an assortment of different portable amps. One thing I've noticed with some IEM's, including the W4, is that whilst it has fantastic instrumental separation and an astonishingly wide soundstage, it is really only wide horizontally speaking. In terms of depth, it's not quite as good. You can hear how widely different sounds are spaced, but not how deep in a stage they are. Everything sounds quite forward give or take a metre or so. Wheras (for example) with my Beyerdynamic T1's, there's the wide spacial separation but a lot more depth and three dimentionality. I can tell not only how far apart instruments or band players are, but how far back they are on stage too. Interestingly though, whilst the soundstage is more realistic with the T1's, the W4's are actually still horizontally wider and still easier to use to pick out individual sounds in a recording. They're just not as realistic or accurate.
 
Can't wait to see how the 1964-Q's perform.

 

[ubercaffeinated]

got my earportz tip in a size L from earplugstore and it turns out they are authentic sensorcom tips. says so right on the back of the package - they're just named differently to sell in the US. i'm gonna give a good listen to them tonight and see how i like em - still waiting on my size L shure olives.
 
edit: okay i tried to give these a listen, but even a size large is sort of loose in my ear. these are a no go for me. 
 

 

[i2ehan]

Quote:

Thanks for the comparison Eric10, will be doing my own soon with the SE535 thrown in for good measure, along with an assortment of different portable amps. One thing I've noticed with some IEM's, including the W4, is that whilst it has fantastic instrumental separation and an astonishingly wide soundstage, it is really only wide horizontally speaking. In terms of depth, it's not quite as good. You can hear how widely different sounds are spaced, but not how deep in a stage they are. Everything sounds quite forward give or take a metre or so. Wheras (for example) with my Beyerdynamic T1's, there's the wide spacial separation but a lot more depth and three dimentionality. I can tell not only how far apart instruments or band players are, but how far back they are on stage too. Interestingly though, whilst the soundstage is more realistic with the T1's, the W4's are actually still horizontally wider and still easier to use to pick out individual sounds in a recording. They're just not as realistic or accurate.
 
Can't wait to see how the 1964-Q's perform.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe it's headstage which you're referring to my friend. Is that correct fellas?

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

I wonder how the UM65 will sound with these.  There's no doubt I'm tempted by them, but it's all too apparent to me that good fit does not necessarily translate into the best sound.  Like you say, the gauge of the bore also plays an important part, as do other factors.  I have no doubt my tips collection will grow exponentially in diversity with the passing of time!

Absolutely.  I can get a good fit with 5-6 different tips, and I can get at least 3-4 different sound signatures with the various tips, and can also change the sound with varying the depth of insertion as well.  
 
I like the UM56 tips because I get the same fit every time, and the sound is very well balanced with them as well.  The UM56 also worked with my IM716, Shures, Image X10, and all my Westone IEM, so it was worth the price to me.  
 
I actually liked my first pair of UM56 in vinyl a little more, because although they were not as comfortable as my new silicone set, the IEM stayed attached to the vinyl set just a little better.  In the ears it doesn't matter too much because if the IEM come loose there is a little tiny handle to grab the tips and pull them out.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

...
 
Where the 1964-Q excels, however, and clearly beats the W4 is in weight, height and definition of the instruments. And before I continue on this path, let me first state that on its own merit the W4 has very nice weight, height and definition. But if you put the Quads in on the same song after hearing the Westone, the W4 sounded clearly thinner. And I can't say thinner by a little bit; it sounds significantly thinner. But I wouldn't say extremely thinner either. If I had to put it by notches, I think the 1964-Q would be ahead by about three notches in thickness and definition of notes.
Another way I can put it, is that the W4 sounds like it's approaching headphone quantity and quality of notes, whereas the 1964-Q sounds like it's there to my ears.
 
 
 
So now that I own the W4, I never take my Quad out anymore. Every two days I seem to switch between the W4 and the GR07 (which is like the W4's dynamic little brother to my ears, but with more transparency) when traveling out to work and other destinations. On weekends  the 1964-Q and/or the EX600 gets time. I spend less time with the EX1000 loaner I have, although it is probably the best universal IEM I have heard from a technical standpoint. It's just a bit too refined for my ears, but I probably will purchase it down the road. From a technical standpoint, however, the W4 is my favorite universal for listening purposes now, with the GR07 being my favorite universal for overall listening enjoyment (or overall preference). I want to stress, I'm just speaking of universals, and the EX1000 and EX600 aren't too far behind at all in enjoyment. I hope this makes sense to some since I say those two (W4 and GR07) remind me so much of each other.

Re: comments in bold - I wonder if improving the volume matching would bring the W4 closer in the weight of the instruments.  I find that is the case for me vs other IEM, since the W4 play a little softer than other IEM and I have to increase the volume, at which point the weight and fullness of the instruments comes in much better.  
 
And in my case, I mostly carry the W4 around with me, and when I'm on vacation I take the ES5 along too.  If I don't want isolation while portable I also have my Sunrise Audio AS-Charm, which are kinda like a Yuin PK1 I'm told, but at a lower cost.  I don't use my W3 or UM3X much (nor my TF10Pro and MTPG), but the ES3X and JH13Pro sometimes come out to play when I'm sitting around at home and want to mess around some.  For me I would be fine if the W4 were my only universal fit IEM.  I'd still want my customs however.