[gnarlsagan]

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.

 

[UnityIsPower]

.

 

[Eugguy]

.

.

 

[kkcc]

.

 

[Gintaras]

.

 

[eke2k6]

Really?

 

[Mini0510]

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.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

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

 

[Mini0510]

Quote:

 
 
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

 

[Inks]

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.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

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.

 

[MoonYeol]

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.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

What about attack/speed? Decay? Just curious.

 
 
While you're at it,
 
Imaging, layering, separation, texturing, etc.

 

[Inks]

Quote:

What about attack/speed? Decay? Just curious.

 
 
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. 

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

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.