Aurisonics ASG-1.2 [worldwide shipping]
Will Ship To: Anywhere
Up for sale are these minty, "like-new" phones:
- Aurisonics ASG-1 rev. 1.2: $OLD. Just got them back from Dale two weeks ago. Sweet mid with thumbing bass. Much better than the original.
As you can see in the FR curve, after Dale's modification these phones are more audiophile-friendly. And yes, Dale did more than just adding filters (rev. 1.1 vs. rev. 1.2).
Comes with all original accessories: Otterbox, tips, and stock SPC (silver-plated copper) cable.
Prices include CONUS shipping. Accepts PayPal personal or buyer adds 4% (Amazon payment is free BTW).
International buyers: please add $10 for additional shipping fee. I will help you with the shipping and logistics when ASG-2 upgrade becomes available.
Thanks for looking!
The most striking thing to me was the difference in POWER that the ASG-1.2 has over the GR07 . . . . makes my GR07 sound positively anemic in comparison. The best part component of the ASG-1's sound, and the nail in the GR07's coffin, is the midrange . . . . I had maybe my third "wow" hi-fi moment when listening to John Mayer's "Slow Dancing in a Burning Room," and Taylor Swift's "Never Grow Up," and also her "Last Kiss" (I make no apologies for my music tastes, they are very diverse). Going back to my GR07 was just...underwhelming.
Bass: Aurisonics has a body that is just large enough to create the presence that is needed . . . . Both of these IEMs present the bass is a different, yet unique way that makes them both really at the same level for me . . . .
Mids*: This is where the 232s have their weakenss, however, the midrange is the ASG-1s strength. Both the Phonak and Aurisonics have great energy, detailing, and soundstage. However . . . . the ASG-1s are more of a layering rather than a space sound stage to my ears. The Aurisonics definitely have lots more energy over the Phonak. The thing that the Aurisonics really wins at regarding midrange is the clarity in the midrange . . . .
Highs: This is a no competition round for the Phonak . . . . The Aurisonics have one main problem with the highs, and one tiny one. The tiny one being that it can have a partially metallic sibilance sound . . . .
Bass: Yes, Eric is saying this>>>> the ASG-1 (a universal no less) obliterates the 1964-Q's bass. You all know I LOVE the 1964-Q's bass, but truth is truth. The bass of the ASG-1 extends much further than the 1964-Q (which I thought was deep as hell); it's a weightier bass; a more natural bass; a taller bass; and a more layered bass. And the bass is not muddy; the ASG-1 bass has nice clarity. Mids: Torn on the mids. The 1964-Q's mid has more transparency (which is generally the nature of great BA drivers) and a tad bit more clarity, but the ASG-1 clarity is there too with - again - more weight and much more realistic and natural sounding timbre. . . . Both IEMs are pushing out massive amounts of micro-details, but the ASG-1 just has depth in the stroking and caressing of the piano keys, kick drums and reverb of the snare and tom tom drums that's not there in the 1964-Q (well, it's there but it's nowhere near as heavy or realistic). Treble: I think the 1964-Q's treble has a bit more shimmer and sparkle although more smoothed out more than the ASG-1's treble. . . . They just sound different but neither are too harsh (as it suppose to be in-ear monitors). It's a tie . . . but the nod to realistic sound goes more toward the Aurisonics . . . . Soundstage: The 1964-Q wins if you want a wider soundstage, but the ASG-1 wins in height, weight, density, instrument separation, timbre, and natural realistic sound. . . . So my verdict is that overall the ASG-1 universal beats my much loved 1964-Q overall (slightly), and obliterates it in the bass, timbre and natural sound of music (weight, echo, reverb, thickness, density, etc). Yes, I have found a universal - finally - that I think sounds better than a custom. To be fair, however, we do have to admit that the ASG-1 is a custom made into a universal.
Edited by ulogin - 6/7/12 at 11:45am