[REVIEW] Aurisonics ASG-2 & 2.5 (with many comparisons)

[vwinter]

I'd like to know at least 75 of those 100 variables — or maybe I'd like to know all 100 since there seem to be over a hundred of them. 

It's a classic non-answer indeed.

More midbass oriented but also mids, again very UM3X like. I feel like this iem lacks detail, but it really makes sense as a stage monitor, no way can this pass as a reference iem or studio monitor, not that it was aim to be so.

Now I want to hear the UM3X lol.
Any comment on the large channel mismatch in the low end? And just the upper treble >12k in general?

 

[kyuuketsuki]

Quote:

Interestingly, I'd agree less with the specifically midrange oriented part, but agree more on the UM3X part just based on descriptions I've heard about it being able to isolate the midrange. But then it would probably have a wider sound than the UM3X (correct this if I'm wrong please).

I disagree with the midrange oriented because as i hear it and as the levels show, it has just about as much presence at 10k and 150hz as it does at 1k. In that way, if there was more upper treble, then I'd call it well balanced but, realistically it's oriented toward the bottom 2/3's of the spectrum instead of just the midrange.


Note this is with bass port open 1/3 to the first notch.



Would you say you hear about a 4-5db drop from 80 - 20hz?

 
That actually sounds just about right to my ears. Though I can still hear bass at 20 and lower it is very quiet. Again, the cross valve mod can correct this, and it could make the IEM infinitely more enjoyable to me. But it doesn't sound like 10 like Rin's graph seems to suggest.
 
Quote:

More midbass oriented but also mids, again very UM3X like. I feel like this iem lacks detail, but it really makes sense as a stage monitor, no way can this pass as a reference iem or studio monitor, not that it was aim to be so.

 
It lacks detail retrieval compared to my brief impressions of the 1+2, but I don't feel like I'm missing anything at the price point. It has plenty of detail to me. But yeah, it is definitely meant to be a stage monitor. There is no doubt in tuning. But Dale was pretty upfront about his tuning aim, so that should be unsurprising. I listen to complicated orchestral pieces often, and while I don't feel like the instrument separation is the best I've heard of all the headphones I've ever listened to, for an IEM, it is (but I didn't demo complex orchestral pieces with my time with the 1+2 or the TG!334). It is really a give and take. 
 
I'm looking forward to Carlsan's furthered impressions between this and the SD3 really. I'd love to hear both, I think both would match my tastes, the question is really which one would match better. I'm thinking the ASG-2 if only for the fact that I like the reproduction of bass better on dynamic than on BA drivers. 
 
As an aside... After listening to a lot of violin pieces, I can see where kkcc is coming from. I still don't hear the metallic sounds he is talking about, but then again I don't think I've ever heard a metal string violin so I have no idea what that sounds like. The timbre is indeed off though. It isn't bad, but it is noticeable if that's the only thing you are listening to. With other instruments playing the timbre is less noticeable, so I'm not as bothered. Even with a string quartet it isn't AS noticeable to me. 
 
That said, on the other hand brass and woodwind instruments simply sound fantastic. Especially brass, I feel that the ASG-2s nail the timbre. Because of this I really don't agree with what kkcc said about jazz. These are fantastic with jazz. 
 
Also someone mentioned about piano sounding good but like you were inside a piano. I just flat out disagree. Piano oriented pieces, aside from having a great timbre, sounds like you are in an intimate room, like a small jazz club, rather than inside the piano itself. Though that could be an effect of how it was recorded. 

 

[UnityIsPower]

Nope on all counts lol.
look down
Was not responding mad.
Ok, sweet! Cuz if this ended like that PM I got, I would feel quite bad. Someone here knows what I'm talking bout.
Didn't think you were attacking me.
Good to know mate
Only removed the one line you already mentioned.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Read it again with this in mind. Man I really must suck at this
Added a couple of words to make the sentences make more sense.
Thanks!

I was just trying to elaborate for you and address one of the points in your post with a possible answer.

 

[Eugguy]

It's a classic non-answer indeed.
Now I want to hear the UM3X lol.
Any comment on the large channel mismatch in the low end? And just the upper treble >12k in general?

IMHO, the asg2 and um3x are totally different animals. I feel trapped in a room when I listen to the um3x. For listening to some acoustic and songwriter artists, the um3x is really nice. Both of these are essentially stage monitors built for live musicians. I can see why. The asg2 is much more exciting as well as enjoyable across the genre spectrum. I was actually playing with the bass vent over the past few days and to me keeping it open at 1/3 to 1/2 is the best. I love bass. However, with he vents fully open, the sound changes too much to my liking. I actually kept it tuned to the max for the first few months I've owned it. It's like a while new iem now. With my new cable, this is now my go to iem. It does everything well in my ears/eyes except deep house music. It lacks the sub-bass reverb and lushy punch-tone. It isn't bad, but I have a feeling that the cross-valve mod may be the final call for me. If this iem has a bit more subbass, I will be the happiest person until an asg3.

 

[Theogenes]

Quote:

I'd like to know at least 75 of those 100 variables — or maybe I'd like to know all 100 since there seem to be over a hundred of them. 

 
This seems unnecessarily smarmy to me. The general point that there are many factors that affect measurements would seem to be pretty uncontroversial, and the number 100 is common slang for "many," so I'm not sure what was added to the thread by this comment. If you had a genuine interest in learning, shoot Dale a PM; otherwise, why not wait until you've something reasonable to contribute? 
 
Hope you don't get huffy about this; just trying to steer us away from the types of incendiary comments that can get this thread locked. 

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

This seems unnecessarily smarmy to me. The general point that there are many factors that affect measurements would seem to be pretty uncontroversial, and the number 100 is common slang for "many," so I'm not sure what was added to the thread by this comment. If you had a genuine interest in learning, shoot Dale a PM; otherwise, why not wait until you've something reasonable to contribute? 
 
Hope you don't get huffy about this; just trying to steer us away from the types of incendiary comments that can get this thread locked. 

 
Well, I guess that's just one of at least a hundred many times you've disagreed with music_4321
 
Quote:

I don't often agree with music_4321...

 

[Kunlun]

People wanting Dale to somehow answer for Rin's measurements are greatly misinformed about just how variable measurement results are.
 
I've been told by every major ciem maker I've spoken to (a handful) that there are no set standards for precisely how to set up measurements and that small changes in set up making a big difference in results.
 
That's just the truth and Dale's giving the best, most honest answer from the point of view of an audio engineer who actually understands how variable measurements are, period.
 
Again, that's the most honest answer you would get from another ciem maker as well, I want to be clear about that. It's only a non-answer to people who think they are seeing something they aren't--objective measurements of how an earphone sounds. Yeah, objective measures aren't so objective when you've got each individual with their own, unique, non-replicatable apparatus and procedure. Think about it. That's not to say there isn't value in measurements, when used rightly, a good measurement can aid us in describing what our ears are telling us.
 
As an aside, Rin doesn't seem to give the impression that he understands the limits of his measurements in the little I've read of him. For example, another hobbyist audio-measurement person always gives subjective findings with his measures and for iems makes sure to cut things at 9khz or so because the measurement is unreliable above that. Rin, meanwhile, presents data above 9khz as though it actually tells you something about how the earphone sounds--which it probably doesn't... I like Rin, but it's not clear at all that he knows what he doesn't know.

 

[lee730]

It would nice if Purrin could measure these. His measurements tend to be spot on IMO. He also doesn't use his measurements to burn people at the stake (Judge, Jury and Executioner .

 

[Kunlun]

Quote:

It would nice if Purrin could measure these. His measurements tend to be spot on IMO.

Yup.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

People wanting Dale to somehow answer for Rin's measurements are greatly misinformed about just how variable measurement results are.
 
I've been told by every major ciem maker I've spoken to (a handful) that there are no set standards for precisely how to set up measurements and that small changes in set up making a big difference in results.
 
That's just the truth and Dale's giving the best, most honest answer from the point of view of an audio engineer who actually understands how variable measurements are, period.
 
Again, that's the most honest answer you would get from another ciem maker as well, I want to be clear about that. It's only a non-answer to people who think they are seeing something they aren't--objective measurements of how an earphone sounds. Yeah, objective measures aren't so objective when you've got each individual with their own, unique, non-replicatable apparatus and procedure. Think about it. That's not to say there isn't value in measurements, when used rightly, a good measurement can aid us in describing what our ears are telling us.
 
As an aside, Rin doesn't seem to give the impression that he understands the limits of his measurements in the little I've read of him. For example, another hobbyist audio-measurement person always gives subjective findings with his measures and for iems makes sure to cut things at 9khz or so because the measurement is unreliable above that. Rin, meanwhile, presents data above 9khz as though it actually tells you something about how the earphone sounds--which it probably doesn't... I like Rin, but it's not clear at all that he knows what he doesn't know.

 
So true in so many different ways.  There is no standard set to measuring headphones.  Even further, in many ways, we still don't know precisely what the graph means.  We have an idea...  But when it comes to scientific inquiry, an idea isn't strong enough. 
 
Quote:

It would nice if Purrin could measure these. His measurements tend to be spot on IMO. He also doesn't use his measurements to burn people at the stake (Judge, Jury and Executioner .

 
This would be interesting to see.  I want to see a different pair measured though, personally. 

 

[Carlsan]

From continuing to check the range of the ASG2, I found this helpful wiki site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_frequency
 
I clearly detected sound on the lowest audible frequency - 32.70 Hz. (sub-bass area) (Lowest C on a standard 88-key piano.)
But it was louder on the next level - 65.41 Hz. (Lowest note for cello)
The rest of the spectrum was fine, except that I could not hear the highest, 16744 Hz. but I believe that is because of my hearing.
 
The SD3 could not capture the the 32.70 Hz at all, but could capture 65.41 Hz.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

People wanting Dale to somehow answer for Rin's measurements are greatly misinformed about just how variable measurement results are.

 
As far as I know, there was a single person only who wanted Dale to explain Rin's results and Dale responded the way he did. Whether Dale's reply was the best he could give is a different matter.
 
Quote:

 
I've been told by every major ciem maker I've spoken to (a handful) that there are no set standards for precisely how to set up measurements and that small changes in set up making a big difference in results.

 
Every major ciem maker? Every one? May I ask who exactly are those "major" ciem makers (apart, perhaps, from Sensaphonics & Future Sonics)? I'm actually very surprised to learn you actually spoke to every one of them about the subject of "how to set up measurements".
 
Quote:

 
That's just the truth and Dale's giving the best, most honest answer from the point of view of an audio engineer who actually understands how variable measurements are, period.

 
That's your opinion, you think "Dale's giving the best, most honest answer", and that may well be the case, but you do NOT know that for a fact. Manufacturers—regardless of whether they are audio engineers or not—say all kinds of things, some quite true, some not so true, and sometimes they tell downright lies. Forgive me if I take your comments with a (large) pinch of salt for the simple fact that you have reviewed a couple of Aurisonics products, as I personally am quite sceptical of people who have close ties / relationships with manufacturers.
 
Dale said, "People perceive sound differently from person to person and from ear to ear depending on the seal you get, fit, cables, sound source and at least a hundred other variables also". He did mention the "seal you get, fit, cables, sound source" as variables and many of us are well aware of those variables, but to speak of "at least a hundred other variables also" seems a little, er, vague, or as vwinter called it a "non-answer answer". And, in this instance, we're talking about the perception of sound by each individual NOT about measurements, BTW.
 
Quote:

 
Again, that's the most honest answer you would get from another ciem maker as well, I want to be clear about that. It's only a non-answer to people who think they are seeing something they aren't--objective measurements of how an earphone sounds.

 
I'm sorry, but I suggest you speak for yourself and not on behalf of other customs makers. And, if you do speak on their behalf, I'd very much appreciate it if you mentioned the name of the person, the company AND exactly what they said, not your own interpretation of their words.
 
Measurements exist for a reason and manufacturers themselves use them. I have myself stated several times that I've questioned several graphs / measurements I've come across. And then, of course, there's also the subject of knowing how to interpret graphs / data, but that's a different matter.
 
Quote:

 
As an aside, Rin doesn't seem to give the impression that he understands the limits of his measurements in the little I've read of him. For example, another hobbyist audio-measurement person always gives subjective findings with his measures and for iems makes sure to cut things at 9khz or so because the measurement is unreliable above that. Rin, meanwhile, presents data above 9khz as though it actually tells you something about how the earphone sounds--which it probably doesn't... I like Rin, but it's not clear at all that he knows what he doesn't know.

 
Forgive me for saying this, but I find it quite presumptuous of your part to criticise Rin the way you do. My educated guess, after having read his analysis of several phones, is that he's much more knowledgeable than you are even though he can certainly make mistakes / get things wrong from time to time. And for the record, I am by no means a Rin fan / follower / enthusiast, but I do respect the work he's put into his blog and acknowledge the fact he certainly has a lot more technical knowledge than I do.

 

[kyuuketsuki]

Quote:

From continuing to check the range of the ASG2, I found this helpful wiki site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_frequency
 
I clearly detected sound on the lowest audible frequency - 32.70 Hz. (sub-bass area) (Lowest C on a standard 88-key piano.)
But it was louder on the next level - 65.41 Hz. (Lowest note for cello)
The rest of the spectrum was fine, except that I could not hear the highest, 16744 Hz. but I believe that is because of my hearing.
 
The SD3 could not capture the the 32.70 Hz at all, but could capture 65.41 Hz.

 
That's about what I heard too when I was using a wave form generator.
 
In fact... here is a great tool I found... It is equal loudness test. The points where I stopped is when it became audible, even at the lowest point.
 

 
Of course there is some variance even with this test as to seal, volume of input and the like, but overall I really like this site. 

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

It would nice if Purrin could measure these. His measurements tend to be spot on IMO. He also doesn't use his measurements to burn people at the stake (Judge, Jury and Executioner .

 
Apart from the 1plus2 graphs, which were only posted 2 days ago, which other measurements make you think purrin's are spot on? Of course I'm talking about phones you own (or have owned) and that purrin has measured, otherwise...

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
That's about what I heard too when I was using a wave form generator.
 
In fact... here is a great tool I found... It is equal loudness test. The points where I stopped is when it became audible, even at the lowest point.
 

 
Of course there is some variance even with this test as to seal, volume of input and the like, but overall I really like this site. 

 
Equal loudness contour also does a great deal into that as it defines the minimum level required for you to hear a certain frequency...  You'd need to compensate for that as well if I'm not mistaken.