or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 & 2.5 (with many comparisons)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 & 2.5 (with many comparisons) - Page 217

post #3241 of 6782

GSG, i know, but when i describe this i prefer to use human language because not everyone will understand frequencies talk.

 

like i mentioned ASG2 is more mid centric IEM, it has good bite to mid bass but lower or sub bass is missing a bit. trebles tuning down aims to avoid affecting the mid range clarity which otherwise can be compromised if upper mid range is tuned up. what happens to ASG2 is because of mid centric tuning low bass becomes compromised a bit and drop in upper mid range shrinks the stage a bit. i believe describing this like this is easier than going into frequency range numbers. ASG2 mid centric presentation tuning displays common problem you have in many floorstanding loudspeakers, this is why some hard core audiophiles prefer often standmount loudspeakers to floorstanders.

post #3242 of 6782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras View Post

GSG, i know, but when i describe this i prefer to use human language because not everyone will understand frequencies talk.

 

 

That's exactly it's point, translate frequency to terms which are easy to understand yet are well defined.

post #3243 of 6782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras View Post

GSG...

 

GSG or SGS? gunshotgain or shotgunshane?

post #3244 of 6782

GnarlSaGan... sorry for oversimplification tongue.gif

post #3245 of 6782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

That's exactly it's point, translate frequency to terms which are easy to understand yet are well defined.

 

Inks, i recommend listen to 801 live concert album, one of the best ever concert recordings and great artists there.

listen to this and try tell me in frequency terms what you hear :-D

 

post #3246 of 6782
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Let's break this down.

 

1. I simply typed a LOL in surprise that someone found the GR07's subbass higher than ASG2 which in my experience had one of the worst subbass to midbass ratios I've heard anyway. Eke assumes I'm trying to offend and responds with personal attacks. He assumes my pair must be defective and that my impressions have to be wrong because a group of headfiers disagree.

 

2. Can it not be that even though my pair was faulty, it represents the sound signature for the most part in the subbass? I think it's very likely that only the mismatched channel was faulty the other being fine, as it's VERY rare for both channels to be completely off, this isn't a 7$ IEM here.

 

3.Matter of fact, gnarlsagan's post (#3225) sounds pretty spot-on about the whole situation. It doesn't matter if certain users have been longer than others, opinions are to be shared and not to be attacked and exiled. This is a FOTM IEM at the moment, whether it's warranted, time will tell, still too early to be definitive.

 

1. These were not personal attacks. I remember you did the same thing in the Heir Audio threads, the Earsonics threads, etc. Every post would sound like this: "LOL the (4Ai/SM64/many others) is a terrible iem. Look at the graphs. Nevermind that I didn't listen to them." I'd go through your past posts in a music_4321 manner, but I think that would start to toe a line I don't want to be on.

 

 

 

2. Absolutely. I'll defer you to SGS's impressions:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunshane View Post

I spent the morning, using my new headphone/amp switcher, conducting extensive a/b comparisons of the ASG-2 and TG334. My findings were considerably different from Eke's.

 

snip

 

The differences I hear in in the midrange and treble are born out in the various test tones I compared in my FreqGen app for the iPhone. The tones also showed very similar bass extension.  I find the G2's bass notes harder edged but both seem to have very similar decay. Surprisingly the treble extension was basically equal as well using this app, although they have different elevations: between 7.5 and 8k for the G2 and the TG334 has less variance on either side of that range, with maybe a small peak at 10k.

 

 

Now, here are some FR graphs of the 334.

 

FR_FitEarToGO334.gif

 

LL

 

 

 

 

Vs rin's plot of the ASG-2:

 

 

 

Now unless there's also a 10db drop off in the 334, I'd love to see those two reconciled...regardless of whatever differing graphing techniques that may have been used. Maybe it's my own ASG-2 that is faulty?

 

 

 

3. That's amazing to me, especially given this, just a few minutes later:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/664613/review-aurisonics-asg-2-plus-sd3-1plus2-tg334-senn-ie800-flat-4-sui-rdb-2v1/3225#post_9749833

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/664613/review-aurisonics-asg-2-plus-sd3-1plus2-tg334-senn-ie800-flat-4-sui-rdb-2v1/3225#post_9749844

 

 

May I remind us that there is a difference between being better delineated and having more of something. The ER4's single BA bass will be one of the cleanest in the world. Of course it's going to be better delineated than the ASG-2's up to a certain point. My HF5's bass is great until it just disappears. Sub-bass, as defined by the chart, is what is below 60Hz. Can you say, gnarl, that you heard more information from the ER4S below that point?

 

 

 

 

I also feel like I need to remind gnarl of his impressions, since his memory of the ASG-2 seems to sour more by the day:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

 

 

Overall Sound: The ASG-2 is not as linear as the ER4S. There are dips and peaks on the G-2 that do not exist on the 4S. Imaging, however, is just as good as the ER4. Layering and instrument separation are about equal, although they go about it in different ways. The slightly elevated treble and bass of the G-2 help to define individual instruments in their respective frequencies, while the ER4 uses driver speed and short decay times to define instrument separation. The ER4 sounds smoother as a result, and perhaps a bit more detailed, although not quite as layered, an effect of these iems' different approaches to imaging.

 

To give a better example, a cymbal and a low bass note on the G-2 will sound more pronounced than on the ER4, and the difference between them will be greater on the G-2. The same cymbal and low bass note are less pronounced on the ER4, and the smaller difference between the two sounds results in a bit less instrument separation, and the smoother sound I hear on the ER4.  

 

I've reported my findings as objectively as possible, and will leave it up to the reader to make value judgements accordingly (although I'm sure I'll make plenty later in this thread).

 

 

 

 

 

If the ASG-2's treble is so muted, how on earth is the cymbal more pronounced than that of the venerable ER4S? Also, "...and a low bass note is more pronounced on the ER4."

 

 

 

 


 

I hope no-one takes this as me being unreasonable or going out of my way to defend my FOTM iem. On the contrary, I've welcomed every set of impressions here. What I do despise is what just happened over the last couple of pages, where an iem has been proven to be faulty, yet people still try to make conclusions based on it. Even worse, such conclusions are made with the utmost certainty.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnityIsPower View Post



How's this G'man?


http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm
 

That's a great graph, Unity. I studied it when I first started trying to describe what I was hearing.


Edited by eke2k6 - 8/28/13 at 5:55am
post #3247 of 6782

guys, i believe that instead of discussing frequencies here and there we would better talk about Sound Tuning because this is what makes IEMs different.

there are 1001 reasons why IEMs sound so different. there are 1001 reasons why one IEM sounds more linear while another IEM sounds more bassy or mid centric...

 

i can well understand what Aurisonics engineers were looking to achieve and remember they come from stage monitors which is not a small thing to ignore.

 

tuning actually is very difficult act, i am not sure this is well described in IEM forums since portable never was true high end.

 

i would recommend those who want get some knowledge google for the materials about high-end speakers crossovers, cabinets, ports and etc.... you will learn so many interesting things.

 

knowing what i know i never expected IEM to sound flat neutral, in fact the only IEM i heard which sounds dead neutral are Musical Fidelity EB50. i love them despite single BA driver limitations but i doubt many will like them because EB50 is very honest IEM but is also uninvolving. EB50 sounds like a high calibre surgeon conducting complex operation on human brain which you do not want to see while eating.

 

so before going so much into graphs and frequency response we perhaps need to agree on basics of sound tuning. one issue i find on ASG2 is some tuning aspects affecting stage and sub bass. i can see why Aurisonics did it this way but i wish they would spend a bit more time on fine tuning this area since it can help a lot to bring more clarity and improve stage without sacrificing other things. overall i believe ASG2 are one of the most fun IEMs i heard (unfortunately my experience with different IEMs is limited). for me ASG2 is not about flat response or laser pin accuracy, for me ASG2 is all about fun and emotions. if you do not like it just pass this and go to another IEM. there is little point in discussing graphs and else in this particular case because there is nothing wrong Aurisonics would have done IMHO.


Edited by Gintaras - 8/28/13 at 6:05am
post #3248 of 6782
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

@sir sparrow, I passed my set around because it's fascinating to hear how differently we all describe the same things. IMO, the ASG-2 surpasses the 334 in performance, and loses out slightly to the IE800, which has the best mids I've heard. I know of other owners who own the 1P2, 334, etc all at the same time as the ASG-2 who agree, but are too busy to post impressions. One sold his 334 and 1P2 shortly after getting the G-2. On the other hand, there are others who don't agree, and others who think the IE800 is a turd.

 

All the same, I'm glad you get to hear it. I'd also love if you could test out the other cable included in the package to see if you hear a difference.

 

As promised, here are my findings with both cables.

 

Those who know me well know that I'm a cable sceptic, very sceptical, in fact. However, I did notice a small but clearly audible difference between the stock cable and the Tralucent Silver/Gold (S/G) cable.

There seems to be a slight but noticeable dip in the bass region as well as a slight but noticeable lifting of higher freqs with the S/G cable. I prefer the sonics of the ASG-2 with the Tralucent cable but the difference in SQ, to me, is not significant enough to warrant the purchase of an expensive aftermarket cable, all the more if these IEMs are used on the go where you have outside noise, in which case the 'improvement' may be almost completely insignificant / irrelevant. But, at home, in a very quiet environment the difference is there, quite small but noticeable. I think in a blind test I'd easily be able to tell each cable apart.

If one of the new FiiO cables, for instance, causes the same SQ differences, and I owned a pair of ASG-2s myself, I would very likely consider getting one as it retails for ~$50 (?) and I do most of my music listening in a very quiet environment. Also, the stock (Westone-type) ASG-2 cable is quite a bit more flexible than the Tralucent cable—something I've always very much appreciated about Westone-type cables—but workmanship on the S/G cable is very good (more premium).

 

I think I need to stress again that the ASG-2's SQ in its stock form is quite good and very enjoyable, and likely to be enjoyed by many people. It so happens that I personally have several IEMs I prefer over the ASG-2's sonics, most of which are (much) more expensive. I'd still easily recommend the FA-4 over the ASG-2, an IEM that is actually cheaper.

post #3249 of 6782
Music, thanks for intersting impressions, i hope you not joking about them :-P
post #3250 of 6782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras View Post

Music, thanks for intersting impressions, i hope you not joking about them :-P

 

Not joking and no sarcasm, specially when I have a loaner someone kindly sent my way, and I'm being asked for my (genuine) thoughts / impressions.

post #3251 of 6782
Music, happy for you :-)

So i am not the only mad person to hear differences between these two cables. :-P
post #3252 of 6782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras View Post

Music, happy for you :-)

So i am not the only mad person to hear differences between these two cables. :-P

 

No, you're not, but, unfortunately, the way people far too often describe these sonic differences between stock & (expensive) aftermarket cables makes it seem like these aftermarket cables make a big / huge difference sonically — always for the better, of course!

 

My guess is that the Tralucent cable I tried would probably make my K3003s & Parterres sound wrong or not as good (if the K3003s had removable cables, that is). Many people seem to automatically assume that an (expensive) aftermarket cable will improve the sonics of all IEMs because of some of the ridiculous claims posted all too frequently — looking at some of the recent posts in the Shure SE846 threads is a testament to that… yet again, IMO.

Like I said, I might not be prepared to pay more than $50-$100 for a cable if I owned the ASG-2s because of the music I listen to and many well-mastered albums I have, my sonic preferences AND my listening environment.

 

I was testing both cables only with well-mastered tracks. Perhaps some people would be perfectly happy with the ASG-2 's stock cable, or not really notice such SQ differences very easily—james444 already said he'd not easily be able to tell both cables apart in a blind test, for instance, even though he did notice very slight changes—, or if they indeed noticed said differences, they might still prefer the ASG-2's sonics in their stock form.

 

Bottom line: I still think there's FAR too much exaggeration, hype, misinformation, BS, bias, agendas, etc. in our so-called hobby.

post #3253 of 6782
Music, agree and not. Right cables will not make it night and day and Tralucent is a rare cable indeed and costs a lot. Still i am willing to pay for nice subtleys with aftermarket cables, just not for every cable because there is lot of garbage circulating in the market ... that said i never heard a better cable than Tralucent. I use Tralucent silver old stock model cable with another IEM and changes are not small, hey they are rather big.

I am glad you use high quality material and appreciate differences, as regards opinions i respect yours.
post #3254 of 6782
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

 

...

 

I think I need to stress again that the ASG-2's SQ in its stock form is quite good and very enjoyable, and likely to be enjoyed by many people. It so happens that I personally have several IEMs I prefer over the ASG-2's sonics, most of which are (much) more expensive. I'd still easily recommend the FA-4 over the ASG-2, an IEM that is actually cheaper.

 

If my FA-4's, currently on the slow boat from Germany, ever arrive, I'll give a comparison as well with my ASG-2's.

 

Thanks music for your thoughts and views.

post #3255 of 6782
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

 

As promised, here are my findings with both cables.

 

Thanks, M.

 

I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised that you found differences. I was fully expecting you not to smily_headphones1.gif

 

Thanks again for taking the time to listen and write up impressions.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 & 2.5 (with many comparisons)