Aurisonics ROCKETS: Impressions Thread
Nov 6, 2014 at 3:38 PM Post #2,041 of 3,446

soundstige

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Posts
1,836
Likes
250
Enter: the review! Thanks so much to gnarlsagan for letting me audition his beloved Rockets. It was a blast!
 
PREFACE
First, a little back story about how I was able to test these out. I was very fortunate to be able to borrow a pair of the Rockets by way of the graciousness and generosity of fellow member gnarlsagan. I've traded with him before – notably the first pair of Etymotic ER4S I owned. His life was changed ever since, he says, in a way similar to mine. The ER4S has been my reference point for detail and clarity in IEMs for a long time, and from the get-go the Aurisonics Rockets intrigued me as a possible challenger to this title. All of my testing was done on an ODAC+O2 combo with lossless music, mostly metal, pop, and chiptunes.
 
BUILD
The build quality of the Rockets is incredible. I thought the ER4S had industrial design down to a science, but the cable of the rockets is far more durable. It looks like it will last forever. The housing for the 3.5mm plug is considerably thicker than most and reminds me of what you would get on a full-sized headphone, not a tiny IEM. That can be a good or bad thing depending on just how portable you're looking for them to be, but it's definitely going to let them last for years, where tons of IEMs I've had have produced a short in that area I the past. The driver housings are incredibly light and strong, just like everyone keeps saying. The fact that they come in a variety of colors is a great touch.
 
ACCESSORIES
We all know already what accessories come with the Rockets, so I'll just give my impressions of them. The anti-loops didn't do anything for me – I kept them off. I didn't have tri-tabs to put on and wasn't interested in using those either. The leather case they come with is well-made, and useful. The tips they came with were, generally, not to my liking. The silicone that they're made of is very tacky and didn't sit comfortably in my ear. Gnarlsagan was kind enough to include an extra assortment of tips to try, between some Sony MH1 tips, stout bi-flange tips, and normal-length bi-flange tips. My favorite were the normal length bi-flange tips, similar to what HiFiMan, Meelectronics, and Ultimate Ears dish out. Worthy of note, I found bore size to be really important to how I heard the Rockets. The smaller bore tips of the MH1 made them sound harsh. With the large-bore bi-flanges, the sound really opened up – sound stage width, depth, and treble range were most impacted, and all positively, by having the wider bore.
 
THE LOWS
Right off the bat let's make it clear, the Rockets have considerably more bass response than the ER4S. The bass has a bit more texture and weight to each impact, but I find the detail to be a little less than the ER4S. The bass actually sounds just like another IEM I recently auditioned, the HiFiMan RE-400. It has the same weight, nearly the same roll-off (starts to dip around 80-90Hz it sounds like), and the same good texture. There is a tiny bit of sub-bass rumble, but only when it's really evident in the track already. Not quite bass-head IEMs, but the texture is very realistic above 100Hz.
 
THE MIDS
The middle frequency range of the Rockets really impressed me. The detail that pours out in this range easily rivals the ER4S, and in some ways surpasses the ER4S. The thickness and richness of the notes is considerably greater than the ER4S, although delivery is not quite as 'fast'. Vocals, especially male vocals, really come alive and sound just like a live acapella performance. The overall performance here is pretty flat, although sometimes certain vocals can sound a little distant or hollow compared to the ER4S – sometimes this is a sign of there being frequency dips and spikes, but it may just be the more realistic sound staging the Rockets offer, in comparison with the in-the-head presentation of the ER4S.
 
THE HIGHS
The super-realistic treble reproduction the ER4S offers has always been one of the main reasons I've kept coming back to them. This is the one area I feel the Rockets fall a bit short. By no means is the treble unpleasant on the Rockets, provided you have a good set of tips on; but it can be a little lacking in detail and extension. Of course, we're comparing two $250-300 earphones, so you can rest assured the treble you get is going to be excellent quality with either pair. It's just more lifelike with much better range on the ER4S.
 
THE REST
The ER4S has always been known for a lack of a wide sound stage. I agree completely. Compared to them, the Rockets are wide and spacious. However, the Rocket's sound stage presentation is still a bit 2D sounding. It's definitely out of your head, unlike the ER4S, but doesn't really build upon itself as much as I'd like. Micro-details can kind of walk over each other and get lost behind one another. There is not a distinct placement for every sound you hear with razor-sharp accuracy like there is in the ER4S.
 
THE END
The Rockets, overall, are detail kings especially in range between 200-8000 Hz. Their physical durability is absolutely top-notch and I couldn't ask for better. The MSRP in my opinion is very fair, especially considering their performance and the warranty you get. For many people, the Rockets may literally be “the last headphone you ever need to buy”, for both their sound quality and the amount of thought that was put into their design and manufacture. I put a lot of strain on the Rockets comparing them not only to a top of the line $300 IEM, but one that just happens to almost perfectly fit my listening preferences: the Etymotic ER4S. The mid range on the Rockets have really made me think about incorporating them into my line-up and one day I'll probably own a pair. For genres like rock, metal, classical, and live performances, these really come alive and feed off of high-end DACs with all the details you could ever hope for.
 
Unfortunately, though, there were two main points where I couldn't give the Rockets a perfect score: the fact that micro-details can get lost in the music when it gets really intricate and busy, in comparison to the ER4S; and, the somewhat shouty treble. It was only ever shouty on tracks that are treble-heavy in the first place, but the ER4S handles that range a lot better. The Rockets never quite get sibilant, though, so for people who have a really low tolerance for that, I wouldn't be worried.
 
I would recommend the Rockets to someone who is really turned off by the lack of bass and out of the head presentation of a detailed earphone like ER4S and can live with a small dip in speed of delivery and fullness of treble extension. I would also suggest them to anyone looking for an “end game” headphone in the $200-300 range – a flat do-it-all earphone that will sound very good no matter what kind of music you like. The durability alone sets them apart from literally every other earphone I've ever seen and their waterproof rating would make them a great hi-fi pair of gym/workout IEMs. There are so many boxes that the Rockets tick that it would be very easy to overlook their shouty treble and occasionally 2D presentation.
 
Nov 6, 2014 at 3:45 PM Post #2,042 of 3,446

james444

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Posts
7,080
Likes
2,315
I suspect the next set of impressions will talk about the surprising bass timbre, speed and note weight
tongue.gif

 
Not quite.
wink.gif

 
The next set of impressions talks about how much I like these sticky "skin-soft" tips. Imo they strike a perfect balance between softness and support.
Plus, they're actually the first tips ever that fit me in both large and medium size.
 
Large size, shallow fit:
  1. less microphonics
  2. less treble presence, overall slightly dark-ish sound signature
  3. slightly more spacious soundstage
 
Medium size, deeper fit:
  1. more microphonics
  2. better treble presence, overall more neutral sound signature
  3. slightly more intimate soundstage
 
At this stage, I'm not quite convinced that I'll need the Rockets. But I'm definitely sure that I'll need those tips.
 
Do play with the volume ever so slightly higher if you haven't already, it a unique earphone IMO in regard to how it reacts to adjustments in volume, in regard to imaging especially.

 
Thanks for the tip, will do.
 
Nov 6, 2014 at 3:55 PM Post #2,043 of 3,446

vlenbo

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Posts
2,646
Likes
146
   
Not quite.
wink.gif

 
The next set of impressions talks about how much I like these sticky "skin-soft" tips. Imo they strike a perfect balance between softness and support.
Plus, they're actually the first tips ever that fit me in both large and medium size.
 
Large size, shallow fit:
  1. less microphonics
  2. less treble presence, overall slightly dark-ish sound signature
  3. slightly more spacious soundstage
 
Medium size, deeper fit:
  1. more microphonics
  2. better treble presence, overall more neutral sound signature
  3. slightly more intimate soundstage
 
At this stage, I'm not quite convinced that I'll need the Rockets. But I'm definitely sure that I'll need those tips.
 
 
Thanks for the tip, will do.

I see what you did there (of course it is unintentionally, correct?)
 
Nov 6, 2014 at 3:57 PM Post #2,044 of 3,446

james444

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Posts
7,080
Likes
2,315
Filter modded RE600? Eww. I though this were more like the Tenore...

 
First thing that came to mind, just off the top of my head. No A/B listening to the RE600 or Tenore yet.
 
(The filter modded RE600 have significantly more treble presence than stock)
 
  Enter: the review! Thanks so much to gnarlsagan for letting me audition his beloved Rockets. It was a blast!
 
PREFACE
First, a little back story about how I was able to test these out. I was very fortunate to be able to borrow a pair of the Rockets by way of the graciousness and generosity of fellow member gnarlsagan. I've traded with him before – notably the first pair of Etymotic ER4S I owned. His life was changed ever since, he says, in a way similar to mine. The ER4S has been my reference point for detail and clarity in IEMs for a long time, and from the get-go the Aurisonics Rockets intrigued me as a possible challenger to this title. All of my testing was done on an ODAC+O2 combo with lossless music, mostly metal, pop, and chiptunes.
 
BUILD
The build quality of the Rockets is incredible. I thought the ER4S had industrial design down to a science, but the cable of the rockets is far more durable. It looks like it will last forever. The housing for the 3.5mm plug is considerably thicker than most and reminds me of what you would get on a full-sized headphone, not a tiny IEM. That can be a good or bad thing depending on just how portable you're looking for them to be, but it's definitely going to let them last for years, where tons of IEMs I've had have produced a short in that area I the past. The driver housings are incredibly light and strong, just like everyone keeps saying. The fact that they come in a variety of colors is a great touch.
 
ACCESSORIES
We all know already what accessories come with the Rockets, so I'll just give my impressions of them. The anti-loops didn't do anything for me – I kept them off. I didn't have tri-tabs to put on and wasn't interested in using those either. The leather case they come with is well-made, and useful. The tips they came with were, generally, not to my liking. The silicone that they're made of is very tacky and didn't sit comfortably in my ear. Gnarlsagan was kind enough to include an extra assortment of tips to try, between some Sony MH1 tips, stout bi-flange tips, and normal-length bi-flange tips. My favorite were the normal length bi-flange tips, similar to what HiFiMan, Meelectronics, and Ultimate Ears dish out. Worthy of note, I found bore size to be really important to how I heard the Rockets. The smaller bore tips of the MH1 made them sound harsh. With the large-bore bi-flanges, the sound really opened up – sound stage width, depth, and treble range were most impacted, and all positively, by having the wider bore.
 
THE LOWS
Right off the bat let's make it clear, the Rockets have considerably more bass response than the ER4S. The bass has a bit more texture and weight to each impact, but I find the detail to be a little less than the ER4S. The bass actually sounds just like another IEM I recently auditioned, the HiFiMan RE-400. It has the same weight, nearly the same roll-off (starts to dip around 80-90Hz it sounds like), and the same good texture. There is a tiny bit of sub-bass rumble, but only when it's really evident in the track already. Not quite bass-head IEMs, but the texture is very realistic above 100Hz.
 
THE MIDS
The middle frequency range of the Rockets really impressed me. The detail that pours out in this range easily rivals the ER4S, and in some ways surpasses the ER4S. The thickness and richness of the notes is considerably greater than the ER4S, although delivery is not quite as 'fast'. Vocals, especially male vocals, really come alive and sound just like a live acapella performance. The overall performance here is pretty flat, although sometimes certain vocals can sound a little distant or hollow compared to the ER4S – sometimes this is a sign of there being frequency dips and spikes, but it may just be the more realistic sound staging the Rockets offer, in comparison with the in-the-head presentation of the ER4S.
 
THE HIGHS
The super-realistic treble reproduction the ER4S offers has always been one of the main reasons I've kept coming back to them. This is the one area I feel the Rockets fall a bit short. By no means is the treble unpleasant on the Rockets, provided you have a good set of tips on; but it can be a little lacking in detail and extension. Of course, we're comparing two $250-300 earphones, so you can rest assured the treble you get is going to be excellent quality with either pair. It's just more lifelike with much better range on the ER4S.
 
THE REST
The ER4S has always been known for a lack of a wide sound stage. I agree completely. Compared to them, the Rockets are wide and spacious. However, the Rocket's sound stage presentation is still a bit 2D sounding. It's definitely out of your head, unlike the ER4S, but doesn't really build upon itself as much as I'd like. Micro-details can kind of walk over each other and get lost behind one another. There is not a distinct placement for every sound you hear with razor-sharp accuracy like there is in the ER4S.
 
THE END
The Rockets, overall, are detail kings especially in range between 200-8000 Hz. Their physical durability is absolutely top-notch and I couldn't ask for better. The MSRP in my opinion is very fair, especially considering their performance and the warranty you get. For many people, the Rockets may literally be “the last headphone you ever need to buy”, for both their sound quality and the amount of thought that was put into their design and manufacture. I put a lot of strain on the Rockets comparing them not only to a top of the line $300 IEM, but one that just happens to almost perfectly fit my listening preferences: the Etymotic ER4S. The mid range on the Rockets have really made me think about incorporating them into my line-up and one day I'll probably own a pair. For genres like rock, metal, classical, and live performances, these really come alive and feed off of high-end DACs with all the details you could ever hope for.
 
Unfortunately, though, there were two main points where I couldn't give the Rockets a perfect score: the fact that micro-details can get lost in the music when it gets really intricate and busy, in comparison to the ER4S; and, the somewhat shouty treble. It was only ever shouty on tracks that are treble-heavy in the first place, but the ER4S handles that range a lot better. The Rockets never quite get sibilant, though, so for people who have a really low tolerance for that, I wouldn't be worried.
 
I would recommend the Rockets to someone who is really turned off by the lack of bass and out of the head presentation of a detailed earphone like ER4S and can live with a small dip in speed of delivery and fullness of treble extension. I would also suggest them to anyone looking for an “end game” headphone in the $200-300 range – a flat do-it-all earphone that will sound very good no matter what kind of music you like. The durability alone sets them apart from literally every other earphone I've ever seen and their waterproof rating would make them a great hi-fi pair of gym/workout IEMs. There are so many boxes that the Rockets tick that it would be very easy to overlook their shouty treble and occasionally 2D presentation.

 
Great writeup, thanks!
 
Nov 6, 2014 at 8:51 PM Post #2,045 of 3,446

Dinerenblanc

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Posts
1,575
Likes
187
  Enter: the review! Thanks so much to gnarlsagan for letting me audition his beloved Rockets. It was a blast!
 
PREFACE
First, a little back story about how I was able to test these out. I was very fortunate to be able to borrow a pair of the Rockets by way of the graciousness and generosity of fellow member gnarlsagan. I've traded with him before – notably the first pair of Etymotic ER4S I owned. His life was changed ever since, he says, in a way similar to mine. The ER4S has been my reference point for detail and clarity in IEMs for a long time, and from the get-go the Aurisonics Rockets intrigued me as a possible challenger to this title. All of my testing was done on an ODAC+O2 combo with lossless music, mostly metal, pop, and chiptunes.
 
BUILD
The build quality of the Rockets is incredible. I thought the ER4S had industrial design down to a science, but the cable of the rockets is far more durable. It looks like it will last forever. The housing for the 3.5mm plug is considerably thicker than most and reminds me of what you would get on a full-sized headphone, not a tiny IEM. That can be a good or bad thing depending on just how portable you're looking for them to be, but it's definitely going to let them last for years, where tons of IEMs I've had have produced a short in that area I the past. The driver housings are incredibly light and strong, just like everyone keeps saying. The fact that they come in a variety of colors is a great touch.
 
ACCESSORIES
We all know already what accessories come with the Rockets, so I'll just give my impressions of them. The anti-loops didn't do anything for me – I kept them off. I didn't have tri-tabs to put on and wasn't interested in using those either. The leather case they come with is well-made, and useful. The tips they came with were, generally, not to my liking. The silicone that they're made of is very tacky and didn't sit comfortably in my ear. Gnarlsagan was kind enough to include an extra assortment of tips to try, between some Sony MH1 tips, stout bi-flange tips, and normal-length bi-flange tips. My favorite were the normal length bi-flange tips, similar to what HiFiMan, Meelectronics, and Ultimate Ears dish out. Worthy of note, I found bore size to be really important to how I heard the Rockets. The smaller bore tips of the MH1 made them sound harsh. With the large-bore bi-flanges, the sound really opened up – sound stage width, depth, and treble range were most impacted, and all positively, by having the wider bore.
 
THE LOWS
Right off the bat let's make it clear, the Rockets have considerably more bass response than the ER4S. The bass has a bit more texture and weight to each impact, but I find the detail to be a little less than the ER4S. The bass actually sounds just like another IEM I recently auditioned, the HiFiMan RE-400. It has the same weight, nearly the same roll-off (starts to dip around 80-90Hz it sounds like), and the same good texture. There is a tiny bit of sub-bass rumble, but only when it's really evident in the track already. Not quite bass-head IEMs, but the texture is very realistic above 100Hz.
 
THE MIDS
The middle frequency range of the Rockets really impressed me. The detail that pours out in this range easily rivals the ER4S, and in some ways surpasses the ER4S. The thickness and richness of the notes is considerably greater than the ER4S, although delivery is not quite as 'fast'. Vocals, especially male vocals, really come alive and sound just like a live acapella performance. The overall performance here is pretty flat, although sometimes certain vocals can sound a little distant or hollow compared to the ER4S – sometimes this is a sign of there being frequency dips and spikes, but it may just be the more realistic sound staging the Rockets offer, in comparison with the in-the-head presentation of the ER4S.
 
THE HIGHS
The super-realistic treble reproduction the ER4S offers has always been one of the main reasons I've kept coming back to them. This is the one area I feel the Rockets fall a bit short. By no means is the treble unpleasant on the Rockets, provided you have a good set of tips on; but it can be a little lacking in detail and extension. Of course, we're comparing two $250-300 earphones, so you can rest assured the treble you get is going to be excellent quality with either pair. It's just more lifelike with much better range on the ER4S.
 
THE REST
The ER4S has always been known for a lack of a wide sound stage. I agree completely. Compared to them, the Rockets are wide and spacious. However, the Rocket's sound stage presentation is still a bit 2D sounding. It's definitely out of your head, unlike the ER4S, but doesn't really build upon itself as much as I'd like. Micro-details can kind of walk over each other and get lost behind one another. There is not a distinct placement for every sound you hear with razor-sharp accuracy like there is in the ER4S.
 
THE END
The Rockets, overall, are detail kings especially in range between 200-8000 Hz. Their physical durability is absolutely top-notch and I couldn't ask for better. The MSRP in my opinion is very fair, especially considering their performance and the warranty you get. For many people, the Rockets may literally be “the last headphone you ever need to buy”, for both their sound quality and the amount of thought that was put into their design and manufacture. I put a lot of strain on the Rockets comparing them not only to a top of the line $300 IEM, but one that just happens to almost perfectly fit my listening preferences: the Etymotic ER4S. The mid range on the Rockets have really made me think about incorporating them into my line-up and one day I'll probably own a pair. For genres like rock, metal, classical, and live performances, these really come alive and feed off of high-end DACs with all the details you could ever hope for.
 
Unfortunately, though, there were two main points where I couldn't give the Rockets a perfect score: the fact that micro-details can get lost in the music when it gets really intricate and busy, in comparison to the ER4S; and, the somewhat shouty treble. It was only ever shouty on tracks that are treble-heavy in the first place, but the ER4S handles that range a lot better. The Rockets never quite get sibilant, though, so for people who have a really low tolerance for that, I wouldn't be worried.
 
I would recommend the Rockets to someone who is really turned off by the lack of bass and out of the head presentation of a detailed earphone like ER4S and can live with a small dip in speed of delivery and fullness of treble extension. I would also suggest them to anyone looking for an “end game” headphone in the $200-300 range – a flat do-it-all earphone that will sound very good no matter what kind of music you like. The durability alone sets them apart from literally every other earphone I've ever seen and their waterproof rating would make them a great hi-fi pair of gym/workout IEMs. There are so many boxes that the Rockets tick that it would be very easy to overlook their shouty treble and occasionally 2D presentation.

I'm surprised that a pair of IEMs with the word rocket in its name suffers from a lack of bass. 
 
Nov 6, 2014 at 9:03 PM Post #2,046 of 3,446

gnarlsagan

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Posts
2,128
Likes
244
Enter: the review! Thanks so much to gnarlsagan for letting me audition his beloved Rockets. It was a blast!

PREFACE


First, a little back story about how I was able to test these out. I was very fortunate to be able to borrow a pair of the Rockets by way of the graciousness and generosity of fellow member gnarlsagan. I've traded with him before – notably the first pair of Etymotic ER4S I owned. His life was changed ever since, he says, in a way similar to mine. The ER4S has been my reference point for detail and clarity in IEMs for a long time, and from the get-go the Aurisonics Rockets intrigued me as a possible challenger to this title. All of my testing was done on an ODAC+O2 combo with lossless music, mostly metal, pop, and chiptunes.


 


BUILD


The build quality of the Rockets is incredible. I thought the ER4S had industrial design down to a science, but the cable of the rockets is far more durable. It looks like it will last forever. The housing for the 3.5mm plug is considerably thicker than most and reminds me of what you would get on a full-sized headphone, not a tiny IEM. That can be a good or bad thing depending on just how portable you're looking for them to be, but it's definitely going to let them last for years, where tons of IEMs I've had have produced a short in that area I the past. The driver housings are incredibly light and strong, just like everyone keeps saying. The fact that they come in a variety of colors is a great touch.


 


ACCESSORIES


We all know already what accessories come with the Rockets, so I'll just give my impressions of them. The anti-loops didn't do anything for me – I kept them off. I didn't have tri-tabs to put on and wasn't interested in using those either. The leather case they come with is well-made, and useful. The tips they came with were, generally, not to my liking. The silicone that they're made of is very tacky and didn't sit comfortably in my ear. Gnarlsagan was kind enough to include an extra assortment of tips to try, between some Sony MH1 tips, stout bi-flange tips, and normal-length bi-flange tips. My favorite were the normal length bi-flange tips, similar to what HiFiMan, Meelectronics, and Ultimate Ears dish out. Worthy of note, I found bore size to be really important to how I heard the Rockets. The smaller bore tips of the MH1 made them sound harsh. With the large-bore bi-flanges, the sound really opened up – sound stage width, depth, and treble range were most impacted, and all positively, by having the wider bore.


 


THE LOWS


Right off the bat let's make it clear, the Rockets have considerably more bass response than the ER4S. The bass has a bit more texture and weight to each impact, but I find the detail to be a little less than the ER4S. The bass actually sounds just like another IEM I recently auditioned, the HiFiMan RE-400. It has the same weight, nearly the same roll-off (starts to dip around 80-90Hz it sounds like), and the same good texture. There is a tiny bit of sub-bass rumble, but only when it's really evident in the track already. Not quite bass-head IEMs, but the texture is very realistic above 100Hz.


 


THE MIDS


The middle frequency range of the Rockets really impressed me. The detail that pours out in this range easily rivals the ER4S, and in some ways surpasses the ER4S. The thickness and richness of the notes is considerably greater than the ER4S, although delivery is not quite as 'fast'. Vocals, especially male vocals, really come alive and sound just like a live acapella performance. The overall performance here is pretty flat, although sometimes certain vocals can sound a little distant or hollow compared to the ER4S – sometimes this is a sign of there being frequency dips and spikes, but it may just be the more realistic sound staging the Rockets offer, in comparison with the in-the-head presentation of the ER4S.


 


THE HIGHS


The super-realistic treble reproduction the ER4S offers has always been one of the main reasons I've kept coming back to them. This is the one area I feel the Rockets fall a bit short. By no means is the treble unpleasant on the Rockets, provided you have a good set of tips on; but it can be a little lacking in detail and extension. Of course, we're comparing two $250-300 earphones, so you can rest assured the treble you get is going to be excellent quality with either pair. It's just more lifelike with much better range on the ER4S.


 


THE REST


The ER4S has always been known for a lack of a wide sound stage. I agree completely. Compared to them, the Rockets are wide and spacious. However, the Rocket's sound stage presentation is still a bit 2D sounding. It's definitely out of your head, unlike the ER4S, but doesn't really build upon itself as much as I'd like. Micro-details can kind of walk over each other and get lost behind one another. There is not a distinct placement for every sound you hear with razor-sharp accuracy like there is in the ER4S.


 


THE END


The Rockets, overall, are detail kings especially in range between 200-8000 Hz. Their physical durability is absolutely top-notch and I couldn't ask for better. The MSRP in my opinion is very fair, especially considering their performance and the warranty you get. For many people, the Rockets may literally be “the last headphone you ever need to buy”, for both their sound quality and the amount of thought that was put into their design and manufacture. I put a lot of strain on the Rockets comparing them not only to a top of the line $300 IEM, but one that just happens to almost perfectly fit my listening preferences: the Etymotic ER4S. The mid range on the Rockets have really made me think about incorporating them into my line-up and one day I'll probably own a pair. For genres like rock, metal, classical, and live performances, these really come alive and feed off of high-end DACs with all the details you could ever hope for.


 


Unfortunately, though, there were two main points where I couldn't give the Rockets a perfect score: the fact that micro-details can get lost in the music when it gets really intricate and busy, in comparison to the ER4S; and, the somewhat shouty treble. It was only ever shouty on tracks that are treble-heavy in the first place, but the ER4S handles that range a lot better. The Rockets never quite get sibilant, though, so for people who have a really low tolerance for that, I wouldn't be worried.


 


I would recommend the Rockets to someone who is really turned off by the lack of bass and out of the head presentation of a detailed earphone like ER4S and can live with a small dip in speed of delivery and fullness of treble extension. I would also suggest them to anyone looking for an “end game” headphone in the $200-300 range – a flat do-it-all earphone that will sound very good no matter what kind of music you like. The durability alone sets them apart from literally every other earphone I've ever seen and their waterproof rating would make them a great hi-fi pair of gym/workout IEMs. There are so many boxes that the Rockets tick that it would be very easy to overlook their shouty treble and occasionally 2D presentation.


Great impressions stige. Thanks for getting them out there. Totally agreed on the bass and mids.

We do hear the treble differently, which is usually the most variable part of the FR. If you're not getting extended or emphasized enough treble,that can definitely affect the overall sound stage, closing it in a bit imo. So your impressions make a lot of sense.

I guess I'm lucky to get amazingly linear and extended treble with the Meelec biflanges.

Awaiting more from James...
 
Nov 6, 2014 at 9:10 PM Post #2,047 of 3,446

Idsynchrono_24

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Posts
3,895
Likes
522
  I'm surprised that a pair of IEMs with the word rocket in its name suffers from a lack of bass. 


Rocket pertains to the actual shape of the IEM when it's outfitted with the tritabs and tips
 
Nov 6, 2014 at 10:22 PM Post #2,049 of 3,446

vwinter

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Posts
4,651
Likes
405


Am I the only one that gets linear bass down to like 40Hz?
 
Nov 6, 2014 at 10:24 PM Post #2,050 of 3,446

kyuuketsuki

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 10, 2008
Posts
1,573
Likes
118
Am I the only one that gets linear bass down to like 40Hz?

Probably not, I'm going to play around with the fit a bit. I'm pretty sure it is more linear past what I currently hear, and it is just a fit issue. 
 
Nov 7, 2014 at 12:38 AM Post #2,052 of 3,446

james444

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Posts
7,080
Likes
2,315
Am I the only one that gets linear bass down to like 40Hz?

 
Which tips are you using?
 
Bass has been a less satisfying aspect about my loaner pair so far. Not only because of limited extension, but it seems to lack immediacy and sounds a bit blanketed overall.
 
Nov 7, 2014 at 12:43 AM Post #2,053 of 3,446

fnkcow

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 2, 2013
Posts
3,070
Likes
1,282
Am I the only one that gets linear bass down to like 40Hz?

 
   
Which tips are you using?
 
Bass has been a less satisfying aspect about my loaner pair so far. Not only because of limited extension, but it seems to lack immediacy and sounds a bit blanketed overall.

 
Hmm, could this be a similar issue as the Tenore? A very pesky issue regarding getting the micro-dynamic drivers to perform as expected maybe?
 
Nov 7, 2014 at 12:47 AM Post #2,054 of 3,446

Idsynchrono_24

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Posts
3,895
Likes
522
I can't recall my original thoughts on when I perceived roll off on the Rockets but it was around the neighborhood of 40 Hz like V. Probably earlier at about 50 Hz when I noticed it start trailing in volume. FWIW, I took Dale's advice of using the smallest (stock) tip and going for deep insertion.

Hmm, could this be a similar issue as the Tenore? A very pesky issue regarding getting the micro-dynamic drivers to perform as expected maybe?


No because Gnarl wrote his review with my pair (which is in James' possession). I don't note any differences in extension between my pair and my sister's.

Edit: yep, 50 Hz. :

www.head-fi.org/t/694117/aurisonics-rockets-impressions-thread/1065#post_10759347
 
Nov 7, 2014 at 8:05 AM Post #2,055 of 3,446

shotgunshane

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Posts
6,057
Likes
1,773
Am I the only one that gets linear bass down to like 40Hz?

 
 
I can't recall my original thoughts on when I perceived roll off on the Rockets but it was around the neighborhood of 40 Hz like V. Probably earlier at about 50 Hz when I noticed it start trailing in volume. FWIW, I took Dale's advice of using the smallest (stock) tip and going for deep insertion.
No because Gnarl wrote his review with my pair (which is in James' possession). I don't note any differences in extension between my pair and my sister's.

Edit: yep, 50 Hz. :

www.head-fi.org/t/694117/aurisonics-rockets-impressions-thread/1065#post_10759347


For me there is just a slightly difference in volume from 50hz to 40hz with the majority of roll off happening after 40hz.  In the overwhelming majority of my music collection, there's no bass content below 40hz but most has content down to 40hz, so it is important to me to have noticeable volume down there with the music playing. The Rockets do this quite well. Since neutral sigs are what I look for and prefer, I find the Rockets bass very satisfying with very good texture.  Quantity is spot on to my ears (this isn't to say I don't sometimes enjoy more and that's why I own more than one phone).  The Rockets bass and sub bass is head and shoulders better than the Tenore IMO.
 
Edit: I should note I do not use the stock sure-seal tips.  I love their comfort and texture but I feel the bore is too small for the Rockets to have optimum SQ for me.  The Sennheiser dual flange are an excellent choice and I found a single flange silicone, in my arsenal, with the same bore size as the Senn's which works perfectly for me.  The wider bore gives the Rockets a more open sound IME.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top