Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 (Updated with ASG-2.5 and Tralucent Ref 1)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 (Updated with ASG-2.5 and Tralucent Ref 1) - Page 223

post #3331 of 5472
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikaveli06 View Post

Agreed completely there. While sound quality isnt tied to price, expectations of the quality is. Also, in general speaking, those with higher priced iems have probably heard more iems/cans in ge.eral. As most ppl start lower and upgrade over and over, most ppl dont go from apple earpods to customs, hd 800 etc. sothey again have broader range of products to compare.

Example....only steak u ever had was sirloin or round (lower iems), and one day u get a nice portehouse or ribeye (asg2). U could not compare ur steak as strictly as someone who had $300/lb kobe beef.

Though it is possible someone still likes there sirloin the best.

Yes it's pretty subjective. Wine is a better example. The label usually has more to do with subjective experience than taste.
Edited by gnarlsagan - 9/1/13 at 10:06am
post #3332 of 5472
.
post #3333 of 5472
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnityIsPower View Post

.

.
post #3334 of 5472
.
post #3335 of 5472

.

post #3336 of 5472
Thread Starter 

Really?

post #3337 of 5472

hahah LOL. combo breaker

 

 

Back on topic, I said this before. When comparing high end IEMs, it's all perception. You find the treble a bit soft? Someone else may find the treble just right. Imagine you can EQ the IEMs (with 0 distortion) to have a similar sound signature, then do blind test comparisons of the sound quality. I really doubt people will hear the difference of strictly sound quality on that test(s). Sound quality gets to a certain point where most ears won't be able to distinguish which one is better or worse. Some even failed to distinguish between flac and 320 mp3 music files on a good setup.

 

Well, I sent back the ASG-2 demos since FXZ200 has more subbass, which its quite important to me.

post #3338 of 5472
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini0510 View Post

hahah LOL. combo breaker

 

 

Back on topic, I said this before. When comparing high end IEMs, it's all perception. You find the treble a bit soft? Someone else may find the treble just right. Imagine you can EQ the IEMs (with 0 distortion) to have a similar sound signature, then do blind test comparisons of the sound quality. I really doubt people will hear the difference of strictly sound quality on that test(s). Sound quality gets to a certain point where most ears won't be able to distinguish which one is better or worse. Some even failed to distinguish between flac and 320 mp3 music files on a good setup.

 

Well, I sent back the ASG-2 demos since FXZ200 has more subbass, which its quite important to me.

 

 

It seems you are making the argument that most iems will sound alike when EQ'ed to have the same FR, and higher end audio is just about preferences...

 

My definition of high end sound has nothing to do with sound signature. I look for refinement (lack of grain), layering, separation, imaging, black space, extension (unless it's the FAD 160x series), speed, texturing, and overall realism. What is important is how close an iem gets to convincing you that the music you are listening to is not just coming from two tiny things inserted into your ears.

 

IMO, the FXZ series doesn't do a lot of those things well. If what you look for is just loudness of a particular frequency, then I'm not sure I can agree with you. Besides, couldn't you have EQ'ed up the ASG-2's sub-bass? I wrote a review of the FXZ-100 (supposedly 95% of the FXZ-200) a while back: http://www.head-fi.org/t/646964/review-jvc-fxz-100-fun-o-phile

 

 

As for the claims about SQ being equal when the sound signature is matched, James and I are testing this exact theory right now. Keep an eye on this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/672716/the-999-vs-99-challenge-tour

post #3339 of 5472
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

 

It seems you are making the argument that most iems will sound alike when EQ'ed to have the same FR, and higher end audio is just about preferences...

 

My definition of high end sound has nothing to do with sound signature. I look for refinement (lack of grain), layering, separation, imaging, black space, extension (unless it's the FAD 160x series), speed, texturing, and overall realism. What is important is how close an iem gets to convincing you that the music you are listening to is not just coming from two tiny things inserted into your ears.

 

IMO, the FXZ series doesn't do a lot of those things well. If what you look for is just loudness of a particular frequency, then I'm not sure I can agree with you. Besides, couldn't you have EQ'ed up the ASG-2's sub-bass? I wrote a review of the FXZ-100 (supposedly 95% of the FXZ-200) a while back: http://www.head-fi.org/t/646964/review-jvc-fxz-100-fun-o-phile

 

 

As for the claims about SQ being equal when the sound signature is matched, James and I are testing this exact theory right now. Keep an eye on this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/672716/the-999-vs-99-challenge-tour

i mentioned high end IEMs... That's answers your first concern

 

and I just can't get ASG-2 to have a deeper bass than FXZ200 with the resources I have. It can easily have more impact. But it just doesn't hit as deep. Of course it's not night and day. Or else I would have return the demos on the second day


Edited by Mini0510 - 9/2/13 at 12:28pm
post #3340 of 5472
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post


It seems you are making the argument that most iems will sound alike when EQ'ed to have the same FR, and higher end audio is just about preferences...

My definition of high end sound has nothing to do with sound signature. I look for refinement (lack of grain), layering, separation, imaging, black space, extension (unless it's the FAD 160x series), speed, texturing, and overall realism. What is important is how close an iem gets to convincing you that the music you are listening to is not just coming from two tiny things inserted into your ears.

IMO, the FXZ series doesn't do a lot of those things well. If what you look for is just loudness of a particular frequency, then I'm not sure I can agree with you. Besides, couldn't you have EQ'ed up the ASG-2's sub-bass? I wrote a review of the FXZ-100 (supposedly 95% of the FXZ-200) a while back: http://www.head-fi.org/t/646964/review-jvc-fxz-100-fun-o-phile



As for the claims about SQ being equal when the sound signature is matched, James and I are testing this exact theory right now. Keep an eye on this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/672716/the-999-vs-99-challenge-tour

All those properties are due to FR, there is no mystery invisible factor that causes those. EQ can only do so much, a big dip In a region just can't be fixed. EQ is limited in itself,but does help.

The 99 vs 999 tour isn't testing anything, it's more of a general sharing of experiences. It's not controlled enough to have any merit to test a claim, it's going to have a bias in itself.
post #3341 of 5472
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post


All those properties are due to FR, there is no mystery invisible factor that causes those. EQ can only do so much, a big dip In a region just can't be fixed. EQ is limited in itself,but does help.

The 99 vs 999 tour isn't testing anything, it's more of a general sharing of experiences. It's not controlled enough to have any merit to test a claim, it's going to have a bias in itself.

 

Not today, Inks. Not today.


Edited by eke2k6 - 9/2/13 at 12:52pm
post #3342 of 5472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

All those properties are due to FR, there is no mystery invisible factor that causes those. EQ can only do so much, a big dip In a region just can't be fixed. EQ is limited in itself,but does help.
What about attack/speed? Decay? Just curious.
post #3343 of 5472
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonYeol View Post


What about attack/speed? Decay? Just curious.

 

 

While you're at it,

 

Imaging, layering, separation, texturing, etc.

post #3344 of 5472
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonYeol View Post


What about attack/speed? Decay? Just curious.
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

 

While you're at it,

 

Imaging, layering, separation, texturing, etc.

All due to FR, though with transients, it's more like the two working working together in unison. 

post #3345 of 5472
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

All due to FR, though with transients, it's more like the two working working together in unison. 

 

 

This reminds me of something...

 

Back in the pre-HIV days, biological scientists used to believe there there was one inalienable truth of life. DNA -> RNA -> Protein. They held this belief so dearly that it blinded them from making headway with therapeutics for HIV until someone could conclusively prove that it could be DNA <-> RNA -> Protein.

 

The Central Dogma, it was called.

 

I'd love to see you show what frequencies, or interactions between frequencies, back up your statement. I'd love to know what makes you so confident about the subject matter.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 (Updated with ASG-2.5 and Tralucent Ref 1)