[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
Call it argumentum ad populum or appeal to people. Here's the evidence:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/606471/aurisonics-impressions-reviews-discussions-thread

 
Bandwagon...  LOL...  Yeah, I guess some people really jumped on it in this thread.  I can't say much about that.  I've decided not to though.  No reason to make these seem larger than life, I think it really demeans the reader and creates extremely inaccurate information.  
 
Quote:

For what it is worth, I took Tinyman's comment to be directed at the ASG-2 as well.  TIny: Regardless of your intent, the meaning did not come through.

 
People really need to start reading more carefully then.  Don't assume (ever), or you'll fall into traps.  You can't just read my statement, you have to read his (in order and entirely).  No skim over (which is what I think 3 people did in this thread, read...  Which also involves interpreting).  
 
Quote:

Does anyone know if the AS-2 has crossovers? I am assuming yes.

 
That's a good question.  I think I read that they do.  Don't quote me though.  

 

[ulogin]

Quote:

 
Bandwagon...  LOL...  Yeah, I guess some people really jumped on it in this thread.  I can't say much about that.  I've decided not to though. 

Well, didn't you give ASG-1 a numeric value of 4.8 or 4.9 (out of 5)?

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

Does anyone know if the AS-2 has crossovers? I am assuming yes.

 
Last I heard, they don't. The dynamic is the same full range driver in the AS-1 and the tweeter is only supposed to compliment the highs.

 

[vocalist]

Quote:

 
Get a Westone cable?  IDK if it'll change the sound too much, but the jack is a lot smaller.  

Nope - going from the Westone website the jack is exactly the same size as the Aurisonics.  The cables look fairly similar, too from what I can see.  I'll just grab one case to use with them and another for general use/protection. Or I'll get a smaller adaptor.
 
Someone gave me advice to remove the cable and see if the fit was still an issue and this helped a lot.  I think the nub still hits me a little funny but I've got a much better idea of what the fit is now supposed to be and can see how I can move the cable around to help with that. They are a little veiled at times but overall, I'm really enjoying the sound on these quite a bit - especially vocals and strings. I honestly can't wait to upgrade as I think it's going to end my iem search for a long time to come.

 

[ulogin]

Quote:

Well, didn't you give ASG-1 a numeric value of 4.8 or 4.9 (out of 5)?

My bad. Actually these worth five stars:
http://www.ifans.com/blog/43537/
 
P.S. Just to confirm: the full mark is five, right?

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
(1) I'll grant you that without EQ the highs on the W4 are better. However, the mids on the ASG-1 are so much more tactile, give a good sense of space, all without being excessive. 
 
When I apply my treble boost, highs are more natural on the ASG-1, and the mids become even better. (1) Without EQ I'd call them equal because some people may place more weight on the W4's high end. With EQ, the ASG-1 is a good 15-20% better. That percentage comes from the improvement I detect in the ASG-1 with boosted highs.
 
Soundstage hands down belongs to the ASG-1. Power is a big win for the ASG-1. Speed is about equal (using kiteki's speed test). (2) Detail resolution is remarkable on the ASG-1 (though it may not be that apparent without EQ). (3) Timbre is just magnificent. Then there is that awesome guitar crunch, especially grunge guitars
 
I don't know what else there is.
 
I also feel like I have to explain my choice of using EQ. I'm coming from the GR07, (4) a balanced IEM. I like all frequencies to be in similar proportions, which is what the GR07 does. (5) The stock ASG-1.2 is heavily weighted towards the mids and bass, making the treble seem overly recessed as a result. In reality, it's not that bad. I just like my stuff a certain way. 
 
The drivers in the ASG-1 are worth triple their weight in gold though.

 
Comparing one IEM EQed vs another un-EQed is a little unfair, don't you think?  If you're going to EQ the ASG-1 to fit your preferences, you must do the same for the W4R.  However, with the EQ, we run into pitfalls of plenty.  No two EQs are really built the same.  So the reproduction can only get so close.  If you stick to un-EQ for both, then it's more fair of an assessment.  In other words, you've created a bias from the start by EQing the ASG-1 and not the W4(R).  Can you please EQ the W4(R) and tell me how they compare?  This may spruce up a few things in the midrange, as well as the low end.  
 
I've bolded (and italicized) a few statements that you made and added a number in front of them to pick your brain more:

• You made a statement that the W4(R) is better in the high end than the ASG-1.  However, later on, you go on to state that the ASG-1 is at the level of the W4(R) un-EQed.  However, with EQ, you make a statement that the ASG is better than the W4.  With that said, the ASG, from your specific words is either >= to the W4 with treble at any given time.  This is a contradiction to your first statement.  Please clarify.
• No comparisons to the W4.  Once again, I must bring up the EQ business.  If you EQ one to your taste, you must do both in order to keep consistency.  Otherwise, you create a bias in one as it suites your tastes (preference) better.  If something fits your preferences better, you may call it better when in fact it isn't technically better.  
  
  That said, you make no comparisons to how the W4 handles detailing.  Only the ASG-1.  
• Once again, you make no reference to the W4.  Instead you flaunt the ASG-1 without fair comparison.  I see you doing this a lot.  Essentially, I get the feeling that you overstate the ASG-1.
• Similar in proportions is not very detailed in my mind towards what your actual preference is.  You say balanced IEM.  In terms of how |Joker| defines this, it means V-shaped (ranges from slight V to deep V; things like the M4s have been classified as balanced).  To me, balanced is closer to flat without being flat through the entire spectrum.  That said, neither definitions go towards the "all frequencies in similar proportions".  That said, even on this forum, "all frequencies in similar proportions" can refer to two things.  A straight neutral sound (Etymotic HF, HiFiMan RE0, etc.) or a sound that boosts sub-bass a bit (basically Golden-Ears "target curve").  My question, what kind of balanced sound is the GR07?  What kind of balanced is your preference?
  
  Please note: I have not heard the GR07, so I can't account for what sound it has (reason for the confusion).  From what I've read, I get the feeling that it has a more emphasized lower end that digs into the sub-bass.  With the mids and treble more balanced (in-line) with each other.
• I agree with this statement entirely.  This includes that the treble is not bad, it's good (at best) in my eyes, much of the time a little less though  Remember, I listen unamped.  

 
With all this said, I feel a really positive bias towards the ASG-1 from you.  This bias is not small, rather large.  In many ways, you make the AS seem like it's the absolute best thing in the world. This comparison does justice for what I feel fully.  Adjusting the ASG to fit your tastes, but leaving the W4 to not to start the bias.  Flaunting the ASG without comparison to the W4s to add to the bias.  Turning every negative stated into a positive regarding the ASG (to make them seem not bad) while specifying why the W4 does stack up to the ASG.  You successfully create a neutral stance on the W4, however, your overly-positive stance on the ASG makes both lose their neutrality even further.  The bias from this reading is toward the ASG rather than a fair, unbiased assessment.  Please note that I chewed another review for being overly negative about the ASG do to an opposite bias.  I'm just stating that I read a bias, and giving the reasons why.    

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

My bad. Actually these worth five stars:
http://www.ifans.com/blog/43537/
 
P.S. Just to confirm: the full mark is five, right?

 
I think he soured up when they "fixed" the shoutiness in the ver 1.0. Ever since he got his rev 1.2 he hasn't been a happy camper 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

My bad. Actually these worth five stars:
http://www.ifans.com/blog/43537/
 
P.S. Just to confirm: the full mark is five, right?

 
Five star is overall (including design, build, comfort, etc).  If you read the actual audio score (scroll down to the Amendment I), it's 4.5.  The 5.0 score refers to the original ASG-1 (1.0/1.1; whichever I had).  The 4.5 refers to the 1.2 revision.  

 

[ulogin]

Quote:

 
Five star is overall (including design, build, comfort, etc).  If you read the actual audio score (scroll down to the Amendment I), it's 4.5.  The 5.0 score refers to the original ASG-1 (1.0/1.1; whichever I had).  The 4.5 refers to the 1.2 revision.  

I think it is 5.1 easily.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
I think he soured up when they "fixed" the shoutiness in the ver 1.0. Ever since he got his rev 1.2 he hasn't been a happy camper 

 
It is still a full five stars, but the audio is no longer five due to the fact that the ASGs can't catch the dynamics in the vocals (again, to my ears).  They did fix the shoutiness everyone was hearing, but this was at the expense of the sweetness that the ASGs had.  The increased bass response removed a bit of the lushness IMO.  There was an increase in bass response overall, which creates a more euphoric setting, but it was an area I felt really didn't need improvement technically, only an improvement to better fit a certain taste.  That said, the improvement did slow down bass speed IMO (EG, decay needs to be speed up a bit).  However, the improvements in the presence, as well as texturing overall makes the improvements = to the losses (slower decay/less speed + loss of dynamics).  It was an equal trade off, I do state that.  However, the trade offs weren't in the same area.  The main gains were in the bass that made it more preferable to a larger audience, but didn't really add too much technically.  The loss was in the mids in my eyes.  I would add treble, but it's come in nicely with the last few times I've had to listen to them thoroughly.  

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

I think it is 5.1 easily.

 
LOL  Naw...  Not close, more like 4.8.  New one is actually a 4.7 (due to midrange loss)

 

[ulogin]

Quote:

 
LOL  Naw...  Not close, more like 4.8.  New one is actually a 4.7 (due to midrange loss)

.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

 
Comparing one IEM EQed vs another un-EQed is a little unfair, don't you think?  If you're going to EQ the ASG-1 to fit your preferences, you must do the same for the W4R.  However, with the EQ, we run into pitfalls of plenty.  No two EQs are really built the same.  So the reproduction can only get so close.  If you stick to un-EQ for both, then it's more fair of an assessment.  In other words, you've created a bias from the start by EQing the ASG-1 and not the W4(R).  Can you please EQ the W4(R) and tell me how they compare?  This may spruce up a few things in the midrange, as well as the low end.  
 
I've bolded (and italicized) a few statements that you made and added a number in front of them to pick your brain more:

• You made a statement that the W4(R) is better in the high end than the ASG-1.  However, later on, you go on to state that the ASG-1 is at the level of the W4(R) un-EQed.  However, with EQ, you make a statement that the ASG is better than the W4.  With that said, the ASG, from your specific words is either >= to the W4 with treble at any given time.  This is a contradiction to your first statement.  Please clarify.
• No comparisons to the W4.  Once again, I must bring up the EQ business.  If you EQ one to your taste, you must do both in order to keep consistency.  Otherwise, you create a bias in one as it suites your tastes (preference) better.  If something fits your preferences better, you may call it better when in fact it isn't technically better.  
  
  That said, you make no comparisons to how the W4 handles detailing.  Only the ASG-1.  
• Once again, you make no reference to the W4.  Instead you flaunt the ASG-1 without fair comparison.  I see you doing this a lot.  Essentially, I get the feeling that you overstate the ASG-1.
• Similar in proportions is not very detailed in my mind towards what your actual preference is.  You say balanced IEM.  In terms of how |Joker| defines this, it means V-shaped (ranges from slight V to deep V; things like the M4s have been classified as balanced).  To me, balanced is closer to flat without being flat through the entire spectrum.  That said, neither definitions go towards the "all frequencies in similar proportions".  That said, even on this forum, "all frequencies in similar proportions" can refer to two things.  A straight neutral sound (Etymotic HF, HiFiMan RE0, etc.) or a sound that boosts sub-bass a bit (basically Golden-Ears "target curve").  My question, what kind of balanced sound is the GR07?  What kind of balanced is your preference?
  
  Please note: I have not heard the GR07, so I can't account for what sound it has (reason for the confusion).  From what I've read, I get the feeling that it has a more emphasized lower end that digs into the sub-bass.  With the mids and treble more balanced (in-line) with each other.
• I agree with this statement entirely.  This includes that the treble is not bad, it's good (at best) in my eyes, much of the time a little less though  Remember, I listen unamped.  

 
With all this said, I feel a really positive bias towards the ASG-1 from you.  This bias is not small, rather large.  In many ways, you make the AS seem like it's the absolute best thing in the world. This comparison does justice for what I feel fully.  Adjusting the ASG to fit your tastes, but leaving the W4 to not to start the bias.  Flaunting the ASG without comparison to the W4s to add to the bias.  Turning every negative stated into a positive regarding the ASG (to make them seem not bad) while specifying why the W4 does stack up to the ASG.  You successfully create a neutral stance on the W4, however, your overly-positive stance on the ASG makes both lose their neutrality even further.  The bias from this reading is toward the ASG rather than a fair, unbiased assessment.  Please note that I chewed another review for being overly negative about the ASG do to an opposite bias.  I'm just stating that I read a bias, and giving the reasons why.    

 
I think you're the one who doesn't comprehend. 
 
1) I first put the ASG-1 above the W4 in terms of bass and mid quality. Then, because of the W4's increased treble response, I let it be equal with the ASG-1 for argument's sake. There was zero contradiction.
 
2) I did not EQ the W4 because it already matches my preference for the most part (all frequencies in similar quantity). When things are equal in quantity, the only thing you can do is compare their quality. The ASG-1's bass runs laps around the W4. It's mids are more natural, and the treble, though recessed, has great timbre.
 
3) By flaunting the ASG-1's qualities, it's implied that they do these things better than the W4.
 
4) Balanced means equal! There is no if or but about it. How the heck do you equate V-shaped with balanced? I've never seen joker put anywhere that balanced = v-shaped. If it's balanced, he says it's balanced (like his GR07 review), and if it's V-shaped, he says it's v-shaped (like I'm sure he will with the TF10). If you balance yourself on a tight rope, doesn't that imply that your body is not leaning over the edge? Even if it is, a counterbalance such as a heavy stick is used to cancel out the difference, restoring the balance.
 
As for the GR07, it's flat through the mid-bass all the way up to treble where it rolls off a bit. Sub-bass is boosted, but that's why it's the GR07, not the HF5.
 
I really don't see why you think I'm turning negatives into positives. My "bias" toward the ASG-1 is because it's simply the best thing I've heard when I turn up the treble. I even went as far as to underline and bold that in my review. My GR07, which are equal to the FX700 and better than the IE8 in my book, couldn't stand up to it.
I could easily say that you're doing the same thing. Look at your review of the 1.0: 9 out of10 ordinary listeners who heard the 1.0 thought the mids were simply too much. You however termed it "sweetness and power" when it was mostly shell resonance. Now that it's been tamed and more people like it, you find fault with its more restrained mid. Mids that are still magnificent by any measuring stick, are now so-so to you because they don't perforate your eardrum when Whitney Houston hits a high note. BTW, the Ety's have boosted mids.

 

[RapidPulse]

.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
I think you're the one who doesn't comprehend. 
 
1) I first put the ASG-1 above the W4 in terms of bass and mid quality. Then, because of the W4's increased treble response, I let it be equal with the ASG-1 for argument's sake. There was zero contradiction.
 
2) I did not EQ the W4 because it already matches my preference for the most part (all frequencies in similar quantity). When things are equal in quantity, the only thing you can do is compare their quality. The ASG-1's bass runs laps around the W4. It's mids are more natural, and the treble, though recessed, has great timbre.
 
3) By flaunting the ASG-1's qualities, it's implied that they do these things better than the W4.
 
4) Balanced means equal! There is no if or but about it. How the heck do you equate V-shaped with balanced? I've never seen joker put anywhere that balanced = v-shaped. If it's balanced, he says it's balanced (like his GR07 review), and if it's V-shaped, he says it's v-shaped (like I'm sure he will with the TF10). If you balance yourself on a tight rope, doesn't that imply that your body is not leaning over the edge? Even if it is, a counterbalance such as a heavy stick is used to cancel out the difference, restoring the balance.
 
As for the GR07, it's flat through the mid-bass all the way up to treble where it rolls off a bit. Sub-bass is boosted, but that's why it's the GR07, not the HF5.
 
I really don't see why you think I'm turning negatives into positives. My "bias" toward the ASG-1 is because it's simply the best thing I've heard when I turn up the treble. I even went as far as to underline and bold that in my review. My GR07, which are equal to the FX700 and better than the IE8 in my book, couldn't stand up to it.
I could easily say that you're doing the same thing. Look at your review of the 1.0: 9 out of10 ordinary listeners who heard the 1.0 thought the mids were simply too much. You however termed it "sweetness and power" when it was mostly shell resonance. Now that it's been tamed and more people like it, you find fault with its more restrained mid. Mids that are still magnificent by any measuring stick, are now so-so to you because they don't perforate your eardrum when Whitney Houston hits a high note. BTW, the Ety's have boosted mids.

 
OK, no reason to say I don't comprehend...  I already knew I didn't understand.  Obviously, if I ask you questions, I don't undersand, or I wouldn't ask them...  I'll admit ignorance rather than assume (which many people here seem to like to do...  Assuming makes an ass out of u and me).  I do my best not to assume things (but will slip up every now and then).  I simply explain my feelings and and give justification towards them.  
 
That said:

• The reason why I pointed this out is because the first statement you made was that the highs were better with the W4s compared to the ASG-1s without EQ.  Later you say they are about equal.  Thanks for the clarification on why you stated what you did.  I do understand now.
• OK,thanks for clarifying on that.
• Still no comparison to the W4, it's like you're leaving it out.
• Please refer to this post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/541204/concise-multi-iem-comparison-rha-ma-350-added-june-23th-2012#post_7297553
  
  He specifically states that: "A balanced sound signature is a treble and bass enhanced sound. More bass to compensate for headphone’s lack of tactual bass while more treble to give detail. It can go from mild U shaped FR curve to a more extreme V shaped FR curve, where mid range is often interpreted as recessed. Usually has good soundstage."

 
Thanks for clarifying the signature of the GR07.  I think that something like the HF5 with a little less treble aggression is neutral/flat.  To further add, I feel that the RE0 would be neutral/flat if it had a slight bump in the midrange vocal regions (1.3k?).  I now know what you believe is flat in regards to your ears.  It does differ from mine, neither is correctly, neither is wrong.  They are a feeling/opinion that is supported with evidence.  Please do note that a lot of times on this forum, I have seen the word balanced to mean:

1. Not entirely flat, but close to it (our definition). 
2. A slight V-shaped response (what I mainly see it as
3. A deep V-shaped response.
4. |Joker| has defined it to mean any V-shaped response.  

 
As for the bias, it's just something I read into as a whole.  It is not only in the one post you made, but many others.  Please note that everyone has a bias.  This is with disregard to whether or not they are aware of it.  Writers and reviewers become stronger when they become aware of this bias.  They can work to overcome it...  Or they can ignore it.  It's up to them.  I'm just letting you know (in a non-disrespectful manner) that I do read a bias in your comparisons/reviews/impressions of the ASG-1.  That's fine.  I have a bias to.  Many I am aware of, many that I'm not.  These biases tend to stem off of a preference they have to a sound.  Is it a bad thing?  No, it means you are human, you'll prefer one thing into another.  As writers/reviewers, we have to try our best to rid of these biases (although it's impossible to have a 100% unbiased statement).  
 
My bias (I'll admit) tends towards a warmer analytical sound (I want every detail).  What does this mean?  I expect more details (so dig into the sub-bass, extend past the 12k range), but also the midrange detailing and detailing in vocals becomes important as well as detailing in the instrumentals.  I am aware of this bias, and I try my best to oust it, but it isn't always possible.  |Joker| has admitted his preference leans towards the analytical sound as well.  Tyll (he may not know) favors a soft, but slightly crispy treble (from what I've pieced together in his reviews) and wants something that extends deep without too much mid-bass (again, what I piece together through his reviews).  Each and everyone of us has a bias, no one is an exception as we are human.  The best thing we can do is minimize the bias to the best of our abilities.  Easier said than done.  Now, with that said, if you smell any bias that I'm unaware of, please let me know so I can work on fixing it in my writings.
 
So to sum up the bias part, I'm informing you of it rather than telling you to change it.  I'm just letting you know that I, as a reader, see a bias in your writing.  It's up to you to take the red pill, or the blue pill.  Some people prefer the blue pill, others accept the red.
 
Please note that none of my responses have been an I'm right you're wrong regarding the sound of the ASG...  You are making it seem like it is.  Rather, I'd just like to pick your brain a bit on how you feel about them.  So lower your WMDs, they are starting to anger/scare me a bit.  It seems that just about every post you've made thus far has a hidden insult towards me (I don't know if it's intentional though).  Feeling, tone, and style all come together to create a feeling, a hidden message in writing.  Some readers are tone deaf, others see straight through it.  Just like you can send messages without talking, you can send the same ones without the need to write.