[applehead]

Quote:

Look who met today:
Now some informal A/B impressions:
(insert impressions here)
Overall? Great job to Aurisonics

 
Special thanks applehead for the time and experience. Getting a Fuze soon?

 
The meet-up earlier was fun; learned a lot about modding as usual. I'm really surprised how well the Rockbox'd Fuze generic EQ matched with both ASGs. It was my first time to actually play with Rockbox and I liked it a lot Compared to the treble boost EQ of the nano 6g, the mids on the nano sounded recessed and flat. It's good I had an alternate DAP with me.
 
I agree with your impressions, though I'd like to add some thoughts on the difference between mid presentation. The v1de sounded a lot smoother then the v1.2, which can still sound shouty sometimes despite using the EQ settings listed by eke2k6 above. I think that the inadvertent vent in the shell of the v1de caused the smooth mids. It's essentially a toss-up between the two, because the v1de has wider genre bandwidth while the v1.2 mids can sound absolutely amazing with some tracks while sounding a bit off on others. I think the v1de was better balanced as a whole too because most of my headphones are on the bright to neutral side, but I can appreciate darker soundsigs as well.
 
A note on the cable: coming from the stock cable, the silver dragon cable added some treble extension while making the mids a little brighter. However, Dogears noted that the bass seems to have become more rounded.

 

[cn11]

Sort of mirrors my thoughts on the Silver Dragon when I had it on my custom MG6Pros.... I thought treble and detail improved, but that was about it. Soundstage maybe a little... but I thought bass took a hit- became weaker, as well as rounder. Then I got a copper cable made by qusp, and that improved everything all around. But it's tarnishing so badly I hardly ever use it. And the plugs won't fit the recessed sockets of the ASG-1.2. Hence the order on the Toxic Cables Viper w/translucent black coating. 

 

[tinyman392]

About 25 hours in with burn in...  With around 5-8 hours of total use.  My impressions of the sound is as follows:
 

1. Bass presence is definitely improved here.  The do dig deeper than the previous revisions and offer greater impact.  Punch is still as strong as it needs to be.  The low end does have slight focus on these headphones in my opinion.  Texturing is still absolutely brilliant while the impact and punch really add up to seal in the deal with the low end.
2. The midrange has turned from an energetic, sweet signature to a warm, darker signature.  It is 100% non-fatiguing simply due to the way the entire signature is set up.  Detailing and clarity with the instruments has improved greatly.  However, vocal dynamics in the vocals has taken a shot, as well as sweetness.  There is just about 0 sweetness in any male vocalist (which is a downer for me).  Female vocals get a touch of sweetness to them which can help bring some life to the party.  Soundstage and separation are still brilliant as before.
3. The high end really didn't take too big of a hit compared to how I remember the original I had.  The snare snaps are still strong, but not as strong as they were before.  I do get a couple more hints of treble splashes which shimmers nicely.  Extension is still missing with the ASG-1 though (something that is definitely needed).  Detailing is all there, clarity is improved as well.  I'm still looking for energy here though.

 
Overall, the non-fatiguing signature is a nice touch, and will be helpful to many.  However, giving just about zero sweetness doesn't make the vocals as strong as they need to be.  The warmth and increased detailing in the midrange is a nice touch, but the sacrifice of sweetness is what really kills me.  The ASG-1 1.2 is a much different animal to the original.  Overall, I feel that the ASG-1 1.0/1.1 revision was technically better than the 1.2.  The 1.2 remains more musical, smoother and better suited for a stage monitor. 
 
For reference, this is how I perceive the ASG-1.2 sound signature:
 

 
Again, the PFE232 and W4R comparisons will come at the end of next week (probably next week Friday).

 

[dnullify]

Quote:

 
I agree with your impressions, though I'd like to add some thoughts on the difference between mid presentation. The v1de sounded a lot smoother then the v1.2, which can still sound shouty sometimes despite using the EQ settings listed by eke2k6 above. I think that the inadvertent vent in the shell of the v1de caused the smooth mids. It's essentially a toss-up between the two, because the v1de has wider genre bandwidth while the v1.2 mids can sound absolutely amazing with some tracks while sounding a bit off on others. I think the v1de was better balanced as a whole too because most of my headphones are on the bright to neutral side, but I can appreciate darker soundsigs as well.
 
A note on the cable: coming from the stock cable, the silver dragon cable added some treble extension while making the mids a little brighter. However, Dogears noted that the bass seems to have become more rounded.

 
I thought the 1.2 was supposed to resolve the shout-y mids.
 
Quote:

About 25 hours in with burn in...  With around 5-8 hours of total use.  My impressions of the sound is as follows:
 

1. Bass presence is definitely improved here.  The do dig deeper than the previous revisions and offer greater impact.  Punch is still as strong as it needs to be.  The low end does have slight focus on these headphones in my opinion.  Texturing is still absolutely brilliant while the impact and punch really add up to seal in the deal with the low end.
2. The midrange has turned from an energetic, sweet signature to a warm, darker signature.  It is 100% non-fatiguing simply due to the way the entire signature is set up.  Detailing and clarity with the instruments has improved greatly.  However, vocal dynamics in the vocals has taken a shot, as well as sweetness.  There is just about 0 sweetness in any male vocalist (which is a downer for me).  Female vocals get a touch of sweetness to them which can help bring some life to the party.  Soundstage and separation are still brilliant as before.
3. The high end really didn't take too big of a hit compared to how I remember the original I had.  The snare snaps are still strong, but not as strong as they were before.  I do get a couple more hints of treble splashes which shimmers nicely.  Extension is still missing with the ASG-1 though (something that is definitely needed).  Detailing is all there, clarity is improved as well.  I'm still looking for energy here though.

 
Overall, the non-fatiguing signature is a nice touch, and will be helpful to many.  However, giving just about zero sweetness doesn't make the vocals as strong as they need to be.  The warmth and increased detailing in the midrange is a nice touch, but the sacrifice of sweetness is what really kills me.  The ASG-1 1.2 is a much different animal to the original.  Overall, I feel that the ASG-1 1.0/1.1 revision was technically better than the 1.2.  The 1.2 remains more musical, smoother and better suited for a stage monitor.

 
I'm not gonna lie, i was just about to pull the trigger on a pair of ASG-1s, yet now i'm apprehensive again. I thought wonderful vocals was one of the strong points of the ASG-1.
How come both of your impressions differ so much from the 1.2 impressions earlier in this thread?
 
tinyman, would you still compare these with the likes of the W4? I wonder whether your impressions will change more burn in.
 
 
Terribly confused here.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
I thought the 1.2 was supposed to resolve the shout-y mids.
 
 
I'm not gonna lie, i was just about to pull the trigger on a pair of ASG-1s, yet now i'm apprehensive again. I thought wonderful vocals was one of the strong points of the ASG-1.
How come both of your impressions differ so much from the 1.2 impressions earlier in this thread?
 
tinyman, would you still compare these with the likes of the W4? I wonder whether your impressions will change more burn in.
 
 
Terribly confused here.

 
OK, my original impressions were those of the 1.0/1.1.  Yesterday, I made a few statements about what changed in terms of sound between the 1.0/1.1 and 1.2 sound.  They were first impressions, like 0 hour impressions.  After spending some time with them (5-8 hours listening, 25 hours total burn in), I came to these conclusions.  I'm still listening, and the headphones are more than likely still changing.  Before, the treble came in at the 120 hour mark, I'm hoping the vocals come in better as well.  We'll see though.
 
This signature really reminds me a lot about the V-Moda M80s with better clarity, but less vocal energy and more rolled off highs. 

 

[dnullify]

The sweetness in the mids aren't likely to come back are they?

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

The sweetness in the mids aren't likely to come back are they?

 
I hope they do.  At this point in time, I'm hoping they come back, I love vocals a lot, and sweetness is something that is required.  As I stated when the 1.0/1.1 versions were out, I think the terms shouty and sweet were reversible.  The headphones were simply too sweet for the people who didn't like them.  Revision fixed the problem, but in my eyes, took it too far.  I hope it changes though and I can take these words back. 

 

[gnarlsagan]

Hey guys what is vocal sweetness?

 

[tinyman392]

Hey guys what is vocal sweetness?

Higher frequency pitches in the vocals create this sort of "energy". It is close to resonance, but never is resonant. This is sweetness.


Sent from an iPod touch with TapaTalk... Autocorrect may alter the meaning of this message

 

[tinyman392]

OK, update on a few things.  I finally had a chance to fully play with tips to "adjust" the sound.  After testing various tips:

1. Comply Foam
2. Sony Hybrids (XS/S)
3. Ultimate Ears XS silicone single flange (the stock tips I've been doing impressions with)
4. MEElectronics A161 S triple flange
5. ACS T15 S triple flange
6. Aurisonics single flange small
7. Monster SuperTip S (I don't know why I test this one anymore )

 
I found that the Aurisonics dual flange (S) with a shallow insertion (I still get the same bass response) worked the best for me to keep the sweetness as a maximum.  Does it solve the problem?  Unfortunately not (hopefully burn in will, still hopeful). 
 
Outside the loss of vocal energy, everything else is really either left the same or improved with the revision.  The bass presence, the treble presence, better treble splash, smoothness, and warmth are all incorporated.  Aurisonics was able to also make this the least fatiguing, but inoffensive IEM I've heard to date.  These IEMs now remind me a lot of the RE0's midrange (from what I remember).  This isn't a bad shot at them either as the RE0 had a nice quality midrange.
 
I would also like to make a nice shout to to Dale who did contact me to give me a few nice suggestions on how to alter the sound of the ASG-1.  Still has some stellar CS to help those in need
 
EDIT: burn in has also seemed to do some work on these as well (I'm assuming brain burn in here ).
 
EDIT 2: I don't know if it was the tip change, but vocal energy is definitely there now.  Enough for me to not have to worry about it (preference would be for a smidge more though ).  IDK why it just all popped up like that   Maybe brain burn in to new tips.  IDK now.  This IEM has questioned just about every myth that has ever popped up on Head-Fi on my side of things   Brain burn in, tip burn in, tip rolling, actual burn in, etc.

 

[applehead]

Quote:

 
I thought the 1.2 was supposed to resolve the shout-y mids.
 
I'm not gonna lie, i was just about to pull the trigger on a pair of ASG-1s, yet now i'm apprehensive again. I thought wonderful vocals was one of the strong points of the ASG-1.
How come both of your impressions differ so much from the 1.2 impressions earlier in this thread?
 
Terribly confused here.

 
I was writing about the mids with certain EQ settings, which I'm constantly experimenting with. However even with the EQ setting that brought back a bit of the "shouty" mids, I should note that they were nowhere near as bad as I thought they were on the ASG1 I auditioned before. It also depends on the mastering. The shouty mids only turn up on modern pop recordings, and even then I think it would have been more accurate to describe them as "fatiguing" instead, because of the upper treble boost on music that already has a treble boost (loudness wars). I don't get shouty mids at all while listening to 80s metal and old jazz recordings. Again, this is all with EQ on. 
 
With EQ off, it's not shouty at all but I feel like the soundstage is too congested. Raising the high frequencies really helps in this regard, but raising them too much can make the mids recessed. Even then, I'd also still recommend EQ-ing as much as you want. These are probably the most EQ-able (?) headphones or IEMs I've had.

 

[Insidious Meme]

Off their Facebook page:

Aurisonics will be launching our two series Digital-Hybrid Custom In Ear monitors dubbed the AS-2 at the NAMM Summer show 2012 in Nashville, TN. at booth number 1700. Please make plans to join us and demo the latest in the AS series custom monitors. Our representatives will be available to assist you with any questions as well as let you demo the generic version of the AS-2. Please feel free to bring your current CIEMs and directly compare them. We will also be making free ear impressions so here is your opportunity to get the next generation In-Ear monitors at a great show price.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Off their Facebook page:
Aurisonics will be launching our two series Digital-Hybrid Custom In Ear monitors dubbed the AS-2 at the NAMM Summer show 2012 in Nashville, TN. at booth number 1700. Please make plans to join us and demo the latest in the AS series custom monitors. Our representatives will be available to assist you with any questions as well as let you demo the generic version of the AS-2. Please feel free to bring your current CIEMs and directly compare them. We will also be making free ear impressions so here is your opportunity to get the next generation In-Ear monitors at a great show price.

 
If I was in Nashville, I'd show up and demo   It's a bit of a trip for me though.  Still can't wait for the generics to hit

 

[dogears]

Quote:

 
The meet-up earlier was fun; learned a lot about modding as usual. I'm really surprised how well the Rockbox'd Fuze generic EQ matched with both ASGs. It was my first time to actually play with Rockbox and I liked it a lot Compared to the treble boost EQ of the nano 6g, the mids on the nano sounded recessed and flat. It's good I had an alternate DAP with me.
 
I agree with your impressions, though I'd like to add some thoughts on the difference between mid presentation. The v1de sounded a lot smoother then the v1.2, which can still sound shouty sometimes despite using the EQ settings listed by eke2k6 above. I think that the inadvertent vent in the shell of the v1de caused the smooth mids. It's essentially a toss-up between the two, because the v1de has wider genre bandwidth while the v1.2 mids can sound absolutely amazing with some tracks while sounding a bit off on others. I think the v1de was better balanced as a whole too because most of my headphones are on the bright to neutral side, but I can appreciate darker soundsigs as well.
 
A note on the cable: coming from the stock cable, the silver dragon cable added some treble extension while making the mids a little brighter. However, Dogears noted that the bass seems to have become more rounded.

 
Well put bro.
I will leave my v1de's bass as it is so I can hear bass materials at 0dB when riding the bus. Then tone it down when I am in a quiet place like the office. EQ is an ASG1's best friend

 

[jrkong]

Btw everyone. The launch date of the AS-2 has been announced! It's on the Aurisonics FB page!
 
Link:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Aurisonics/209300975753348