Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 & comparisons (Added K3003, XBA-H3, S-EM6)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 & comparisons (Added K3003, XBA-H3, S-EM6) - Page 147

post #2191 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras View Post

 

Yes to the first

No to the second

:-D

 

i just share my impressions and not asking anyone to love anything.

 

i find it weird when people pick comparisons like this and make others believe in what might be untrue.

let me explain, i saw many people doubting 1+2 and putting them against some cheaper IEMs claiming the premia was not worth. it led me to purchase some IEMs which otherwise i would not. later when i got audition of 1+2 i realized how stupid i was believing all those opinions.

 

see my point better now?

 

NB: there is no invitation to like what i have but there is no sense putting bold statements that might happen to be just incorrect. Reference Monitors from UE (quickly auditioned by me thanks to James444) sounded dead clean, neutral BUT soooooooo boring and lifeless that i would not take them. HOWEVER some other people would marvel at them and most likely these people would never look at ASG2 or SD3.

 

I'm looking at UERMs for reference monitors, but the problem is I am not sure they are worth the price. I'm also considering getting the F111 and a Flat-4 of some kind. I know I don't like the sound or rather the presentation of the Etymotic. Maybe it is time for me to give them another go, but I just recall not liking them... 

post #2192 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

You got a signature that wasn't for you.  The GR07 is close to neutral, the ASG-2 is nowhere near there.  I think that's where all your problems stemmed from.  The ASG-2 was never made to be an "accurate" phone, rather a musical one.  You are a lot like me, you prefer something that's closer to accurate, a lot of people do.  There is also the crowd that likes their headphones to be colored and musical, different in a sense. That being said, I think your problems stem from sound preference rather than an actual problem with the IEM.  You were looking for a specific sound, and didn't get it. 

 

With that said, the bass can't be explained because the graph is off on the bass regions.  Looking at the measurements I do not see blurry, flabby or bloated, I find light, soft and inadequate quantity.  Point number one is that your subjective analysis doesn't match the objective data for the bass.  Something happened to the ASG-2, I can feel it that made the measurements look off.  I'll agree that the bass is slower, if you turn it down, I wouldn't say bloated or flabby.  You'll have to explain more on the mids and highs not being so great.  Where, why, how?  The highs are non-fatiguing, I did make that statement, I also made the statement that they were backgrounded a bit signature-wise.  The measurements do show missing detailing as you extend higher.  It may be that the fact that the treble is recessed a little that makes it appear to lack detail as well. 

Hmm didn't Dale state it was suppose to be a "reference" IEM, a term that pretty much means it follows a neutral stance. 

 

Looking at the measurements, I do see flabby and bloated, see the graph as a whole not just specific regions, it's clearly a bass oriented signature that is midbass focused, the emphasis on midbass to the whole signature will make it sound like that. Interpretation of graphs is not subjective, some just have more experience interpreting than others, they're basically numbers that don't lie. 

post #2193 of 4775

Reply in bold

Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

It's not the scientific parts. The graphs are welcome, though the FR strikes me as erroneous in the bass and upper treble.

 

What is troubling is this:

 

 

 

tuner.jpg

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but isn't <60hz considered sub-bass?

 

Yes, but it's masked by midbass. Based on the data the ASG2 can do subbass [transient data] when tested with a subbass frequency, but when all the other frequencies kick in, the bass is basically midbass focused by quite a long shot. Correction for Rin, when he said "there is no treble" he basically means no high treble [past 10k], technically the ASG2 does have treble, it's just all low treble. 

 

post #2194 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Reply in bold

I also found it sounded better* with simple music and turned into a slouch when more sounds started going at it.

*Better but still bad.

Also,


I was like O, great sub bass.... 😃
Tries them... Where? 😕
post #2195 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnityIsPower View Post

"I find light, soft and inadequate quantity."

Yes with ports closed, but still sounds off. Opening ports then starts heading towards bloated and flabby.

Mids: I say good in that they sound clear(vocals) as you listen up from the bass. Maybe it's just the contrast that gives me that impression.

Highs: Yes, non fatiguing and missing detail.

"Point number one is that your subjective analysis doesn't match the objective data for the bass." How?

 

Still not detailed enough with the midrange description...  It might be the contrast.  As for the point number one, it's the bass that I was talking about specifically.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Hmm didn't Dale state it was suppose to be a "reference" IEM, a term that pretty much means it follows a neutral stance. 

 

Looking at the measurements, I do see flabby and bloated, see the graph as a whole not just specific regions, it's clearly a bass oriented signature that is midbass focused, the emphasis on midbass to the whole signature will make it sound like that. Interpretation of graphs is not subjective, some just have more experience interpreting than others, they're basically numbers that don't lie. 

 

Dale stated it had boosted treble (compared) to the "reference" IEM.  Their reference, when they started talking about the ASG-2, was the ASG-1.  So no, not neutral. 

 

It's a 5 dB bump, IMO, I've had plenty of IEMs with a 5 dB bump in that region, it's not enough to be flabby and bloated.  Interpretations are subjective as a whole, you can try to argue that, but your second statement (bolded) shows that it isn't objective.  If it improves with experience, it isn't truly objective, rather, it's an art.  Objective means some input creates some output, the same output, 100% of the time (skews as we get to the quantum level; we're not at that level).  Rin's, and your analysis of many headphones don't follow that trend.  I'm not going to argue any further about that. 

 

Yes, the measurements show an emphasis on the midbass...  It contradicts just about every impression of the IEM up to now. 

 

____

 

There is also the possibility that the IEM you received is not in proper working order...  Something looks well off with the graph, I'm sorry, but something does. 


Edited by tinyman392 - 7/31/13 at 10:47pm
post #2196 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

Still not detailed enough with the midrange description...  It might be the contrast.  As for the point number one, it's the bass that I was talking about specifically.

 

 

Dale stated it had boosted treble (compared) to the "reference" IEM.  Their reference, when they started talking about the ASG-2, was the ASG-1.  So no, not neutral. 

 

It's a 5 dB bump, IMO, I've had plenty of IEMs with a 5 dB bump in that region, it's not enough to be flabby and bloated.  Interpretations are subjective as a whole, you can try to argue that, but your second statement (bolded) shows that it isn't objective.  If it improves with experience, it isn't truly objective, rather, it's an art.  Objective means some input creates some output, the same output, 100% of the time (skews as we get to the quantum level; we're not at that level).  Rin's, and your analysis of many headphones don't follow that trend.  I'm not going to argue any further about that. 

 

Yes, the measurements show an emphasis on the midbass...  It contradicts just about every impression of the IEM up to now. 

 

It also contradicts the ASG-1 measurements which use identical drivers, with just two additional tweeters with resistors to limit their power so that the treble doesn't become overbearing. Which some people, like soundbear, liked and had adjustments made. 

 

But hey, what do I know? I'm only an amateur who trusts his ears over measurements. I know how to read graphs but prefer subjective experiences. There are plenty of headphones that have issues and are still well regarded. Measurements are simply not everything. I'm no audiologist or a sound science expert. I do know advanced physics, just not the physics of sound (I only know basics for that). I've learned a lot on Head-fi but I'm still no where near a professional. 


Edited by kyuuketsuki - 7/31/13 at 10:54pm
post #2197 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

Still not detailed enough with the midrange description...  It might be the contrast.  As for the point number one, it's the bass that I was talking about specifically.

 

 

Dale stated it had boosted treble (compared) to the "reference" IEM.  Their reference, when they started talking about the ASG-2, was the ASG-1.  So no, not neutral. 

 

It's a 5 dB bump, IMO, I've had plenty of IEMs with a 5 dB bump in that region, it's not enough to be flabby and bloated.  Interpretations are subjective as a whole, you can try to argue that, but your second statement (bolded) shows that it isn't objective.  If it improves with experience, it isn't truly objective, rather, it's an art.  Objective means some input creates some output, the same output, 100% of the time (skews as we get to the quantum level; we're not at that level).  Rin's, and your analysis of many headphones don't follow that trend.  I'm not going to argue any further about that. 

 

Yes, the measurements show an emphasis on the midbass...  It contradicts just about every impression of the IEM up to now. 

Wow ASG1....

 

Read the whole response as a whole, it's one of the most emphasized region of the whole FR, emphasizing midbass like that will leave such impression. Yes, input and output are always the same. What's subjective is what is too much or too little in certain regions when the response isn't straying too far unlike on a SM64, which based on the data is devoid of a specific region, no doubt. It's not 100% of either. Actually gnarlsagan and UnityPower's impressions match, maybe more. 

post #2198 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunshane View Post



Holy Crap is that Eddie Van Halen?

post #2199 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurisonics View Post

Holy Crap is that Eddie Van Halen?

 

no, i was told this is the biggest friend of James444 biggrin.gif

post #2200 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyuuketsuki View Post

 

It also contradicts the ASG-1 measurements which use identical drivers, with just two additional tweeters with resistors to limit their power so that the treble doesn't become overbearing. Which some people, like soundbear, liked and had adjustments made. 

 

But hey, what do I know? I'm only an amateur who trusts his ears over measurements. I know how to read graphs but prefer subjective experiences. There are plenty of headphones that have issues and are still well regarded. Measurements are simply not everything. I'm no audiologist or a sound science expert. I do know advanced physics, just not the physics of sound (I only know basics for that). I've learned a lot on Head-fi but I'm still no where near a professional. 

 

The ASG-1 use the same full-range driver?  I had a hunch about this when I auditioned, but never really asked (probably should have).  With that said, I've measured the 1.3 (and 1.2) and they don't roll off like that. 

post #2201 of 4775
I'm trying tiny, like I've said, I don't know how to describe what I hear. I didn't feel I had enough experience to post my dissatisfaction and was even a bit afraid after I see what happens to those who do not assimilate frown.gif



This is why I sent them to Rin and inks.
Edited by UnityIsPower - 7/31/13 at 10:59pm
post #2202 of 4775

Same driver doesn't mean anything, since the whole configuration has changed. 

post #2203 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyuuketsuki View Post

 

I'm looking at UERMs for reference monitors, but the problem is I am not sure they are worth the price. I'm also considering getting the F111 and a Flat-4 of some kind. I know I don't like the sound or rather the presentation of the Etymotic. Maybe it is time for me to give them another go, but I just recall not liking them... 

 

if you value neutral, clean, detailed sound then UE RM must be for you.

if you value musical emotion and kraft sound then look elsewhere.

 

NB: i auditioned UE RM for short time thanks to James444 using my RWAK and i found UE RM being one of most neutral and accurate IEMs i have heard. what i did not care for though was dull presentation and less analogue feel to the sound.


Edited by Gintaras - 7/31/13 at 10:59pm
post #2204 of 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

The ASG-1 use the same full-range driver?  I had a hunch about this when I auditioned, but never really asked (probably should have).  With that said, I've measured the 1.3 (and 1.2) and they don't roll off like that. 

 

Yup, that's what Dale told me at the NY Head-fi meet. Same 15mm full range dynamic driver with 2 next gen tweeters using a crossover free design to augment the highs. Apparently he originally planned to use a second 7mm (iirc) to augment the highs but he later found these BA tweeters that he loved and tuned for his purposes for the ASG-2s. Which is why I was very confused at the Rin's ASG-2 measurements and think something is screwy. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Same driver doesn't mean anything, since the whole configuration has changed. 

 

 

So you are suggesting adding tweeters can knock out subbass on the opposite end of the spectrum? Is it because resistance changed? Please explain this logic, because it really doesn't make sense to me. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras View Post

 

if you value neutral, clean, detailed sound then UE RM must be for you.

if you value musical emotion and kraft sound then look elsewhere.

 

NB: i auditioned UE RM for short time thanks to James444 using my RWAK and i found UE RM being one of most neutral and accurate IEMs i have heard. what i did not care for though was dull presentation and less analogue feel to the sound.

 

Well it isn't that I value it, so much as that is what I am missing right now for my IEM collection. A true neutral accurate reference IEM. I just feel like it would be good to have. 


Edited by kyuuketsuki - 7/31/13 at 11:03pm
post #2205 of 4775

Again, it's not magically going to be identical cause it's the same driver, the whole configuration has changed, not only that the owner and another user clearly noted a lack of subbass. Faulty pair? Usually when it's faulty it's one channel, but both channels show the same exact curvature. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 & comparisons (Added K3003, XBA-H3, S-EM6)