BGVP DS1 vs TIN AUDIO T2
DS1 Its a 1000$ dollar heaphone killer ? HELL NO, IF IT IS, THE T2 IS AS WELL
Would you pay the full price of them and think it worth (having the t2 as 50$ reference) ? YES. - May be worth checking Fidue A65 tho
Yours is v1 or v2: Don't know.
This iem to you is: Excellent out of the box, perfect with just a little eq.
The t2 at sale price is a better cost benefit ? OF COURSE IT IS.
SPECS
Driver: Dual Balanced Armature +1 Dynamic Driver Hybrid
Frequency Response: 15Hz-35KHz
Sensitivity: 108dB / mW
Impedance: 13.5Ω
Distortion: <2%
Channel Difference: <1.5dB
The shape is the same as KZ ZST, TFZ KING... bealtifuly crafted. Has a metal nozzle with a tube for the BAs, not usual in this price range. Mine is the 2 cable version. The cable is very nice, It has simple connector, but the wires seem better than the wires of the cable that became with tin audio t2. It comes with one pair of foams and two bags of tips. The cable with mic is cheaper than the OCD but also good quality. Both cables has memory wires
The differences...
Technicaly equivalent in terms of no frequency leak, layering and tone. The BGVP DS1 has a less airier and less open stage than t2. However, the BGVP adds authority to the sound, With more punch and louder mids, being more prone to sibilance, tho. The bass on the bgvp is much more defined. More body and texture. This, together with the thicker, dryer mids, makes them less "natural" and airier than t2, being more close to "fatiguing", but never reaching that level with my sources.
I found the not at at all hyped impressions of
@Dsnuts actually precise. The ds1 is a mid forward iem, no giant killer.
The signature of both are'nt that distant. The level of detail is incredible close and the timbre also, only the vocals can sound sometimes "expensive" in the t2 by being more gentle with the same timbre and with plenty of air without getting any "SS", the "SS" is a bit more pronounced in the bgvp. Never, never uncontrolled and really sibilant tho. Layering is equivalent. The bgvp sound more organic and involving, having the smaller stage. The layering is better with t2 because the sound is flatter, but by being flatter, it sounds less involving. Again, the 2d hi-fi vs the vulgar basement...
The t2 really has more air and better highs. The mids on the bgvp the mids also are shouty. It looks like we have a clear picture of who's better here ? Well, not so fast.
The bass onthe bgvp are only a tiny bit of db more pronounced than t2. But they are indeed thicker, boomier and with a better definition an texture.
What actually makes the diferences and the mutual drawbacks...
The stage on the the t2 seems larger, but, artifical in the sense of the instruments not really atacking the field. Its flater, more binaral, 2d, not 3d. But a really expensive 2d. Because of the airier gentle timbre. The bgvp while looking smaler and less gentle, sounds like a loud basement of a band. With the instruments atacking the field with body, and authority. The t2 is like sitting beetwen a expensive hi fidelity system listening to a audiophile record. The bgvp is like being in the smaller room, with the actual band, with a not a world-class equipament, but still live.
Wich makes me realise that this is the most objetive difference beetwen them is the mid's. The stage are'nt exactly laaaarger on t2. The highs are just more pronounced. And the air is more abundant. While the bgvp is the other way arond. less air, and less texture on the highs. Making them thicker on the mids. With the better bass complementing those frequencies, it Makes the sound "warmer", but without being a warm iem. You can clearly see a diference listening to the drum's and cymbals in the last part of Dave brubeck's - take five. That job the t2 makes better. BUT, in the following track Strange meadow Lark, the piano sounds way fuller and richer on the BGVP DS1. It looks like there are'nt necessarily a more "audiophile" iem here....
The BGVP problem ? Not that much
If the bgvp has a real drawback, is the mids sounding shouty in comparision to t2. The suburbs by arcade fire sounds fatiguing. So the iem defnitely isn't itself better than t2, they complement each other. The t2 has a more refined and nature signature. I would put the two iem's on the same league however. Depending on the songs, preferences and smart usage of eq.
What the BGVP needs to be defnitely more attractive than t2 for me ? Well, they can easily be.
THE RULE OF SMALL EQ
You can eq mediocre iem to your absolutety prefence and they can't match a really superior iem
What makes the sound is the actual iem, and ther bgvp is a hell of a iem.
To me, putting 3-6 khz to less a few bd's and a few more db's on the 14-16 khz without touching the bass makes them the perfect iem for me. You does'nt need to really up the highs, just that the t2 spoiled me...
In that way they sound fun, full, technical, and revealing, without any drawback. A iem that will get more ear time than the original non EQed t2, mainly on the go, because of the better fit and seal. - t2 don't respond THAT well to eq.
I don't regret buying these iem's and i am sure they will be one of the most used of my collection.
Tracks used to critical listening:
Dave brubeck - take five
Dave brubeck - Strange meadow lark
Galimatias - South
Arcade fire - The suburbs
The arcs - put a flower in your pocket
The arcs - Cold companion
Jack White - Girl, you have no faith in medicine
Cone Crew Diretoria - Chama os muleques
Djonga - UFA
THX FOR READING, all of the informations above are based on my personal experience and view. I don't have technical knowledge on sound.
Have i said i love these iem's ?
