AAW A3H

Faceplate shot​

Gear references

Favourite: D2000

Neutrality: SRH940 (audition experience with the ER4XR and the HD600)

IEM reference: Aurisonics ASG-2.0



Packaging and accessories

​

AAW really steps it up with their luxurious box. It opens up sideways on a hinge, sealed shut with a magnetic mechanism. Inside, you’ll receive your CIEMs (of course), a cleaning cloth, a cleaning tool, two-pin airplane adapter, a ¼” adaptor, with a warranty-and-policy booklet sealed with fancy stamped wax. It also comes with a little card with your name written on it. I don’t much care for it, but you’re the kind who’d like that kind of personalisation, it’ll be a nice treat for you.



Build quality and fit

To put it short: superb. No air bubbles as far as I can see them and consistent translucency throughout the acrylic shell. My selected faceplates, the red and blue Mother-of-Pearl, are very well made, though upon closer inspection you can see the seams where AAW joins individual shells. Which is something I’d willing close an eye for, considering the nature of working with MOP and how they hid the seams very expertly.

The tiny bass port​

As shown above, there is a bass port on the shell due to the dynamic driver. However, given the size of the port, it barely makes a dent in the shell’s isolation. There is hardly any difference in isolation between my custom made silicon plugs and my A3H-Pros.

What AAW did, as far as I can tell, is that they added additional layers to my ear impressions, making it a snug fit rather than a perfect one. This creates additional pressure against my ears, which makes it a very full sealing seal. This is in stark contrast to a previous custom I've had, a reshelled TF10 by a defunct company called Stage93. This reshell was slightly more comfortable as they've used my impressions as they received it, resulting in a more "perfect" fit. However, the seal in those customs broke with the slightly movement in my jaw (turning my head, opening my mouth etc.) which made it very annoying to wear.

Personally I think this fit is a good balance between comfort and seal. Obviously not perfect, but I have not had the seal break on me at all.

The cable is a Null Audio Brevity cable, a soft, smooth silicone-coated braided cable that is feels very comfortable against bare skin. Microphonics are higher than average, though the custom design along with the over-the-ear position makes it a non-issue.



Sound Quality

Frequency response

Slightly bass linear (bass > mids = treble). Bass emphasis all the way into the lower midrange where it valleys, followed by roll-off in the upper treble.


General sound signature

Warm and smooth with slightly laid-back treble, very non-fatiguing sound.


Genre and specific strengths

Jazz and vocals, instruments like trumpets, saxophones and cello


Bass
The bass is slightly emphasised at about 5dB+/- above neutral, valleying at 400Hz and running linearly into the sub-50 frequencies, creating good rumble and pushing air like nothing else. It extends deep into the double-digits and has extremely satisfying volume and texture.

It's a neither-here-nor-there bass that's slightly higher in quantity than the new Ety ER4XR but not as bassy as, say, the SE215. If you’re one who prefers this kind of "on-the-fence" signature, the A3H would be perfect for you.

On another note, the A3H’s bass is not very speedy. There is a resonant quality to its bass due to its slower driver speed and relative balance between sub-bass and mid-bass. This creates three very obvious qualities:

• It’s not very impactful but rather very volumetric and rumbly, making its bass very smooth and easy to listen to.
  
  
• This overlap between of the sub-bass over the mid-bass creates a lot of resonance at the cost of speed, making the A3H struggle with very fast tracks.
  
  
• Bass extension is superb, very easily picking out details from the lowest reaches of the bass frequencies.

Mids

The midrange itself is clear and detailed from the very capable TWFK driver, but when in tandem with the weight and volume of the bass frequencies creates a much more weighted sound that borrows some low-end heft from the lower-midrange frequencies.

The low-end influence of the A3H's dynamic driver over the midrange creates a sound that is very distinct from the signature TWFK mids, giving vocals that added richness and various instruments that much needed volume in their sound. The coherency between the dynamic driver’s bass and the BAs’ midrange is excellent, reminiscent of the Aurisonic’s own famous mids.

Onto its shortcomings, the emphasis in the lower midrange (200-600Hz) does result in a "veil" that is similar to the HD650 as well a more congested-sounding space, which weirdly matches with the rather excellent width of its soundstage. Dampening that range with an EQ improves clarity and apparent detail greatly. though at the cost of smoothness and some body.


Treble

Once out of the influence of the dynamic driver, the treble isn’t much to write home about. I can tell that the TWFK has been lightly damped, removing any stray peaks in the 3k-6k regions and resulting in a very smooth and non-fatiguing high-end. As stated above, AAW did leave a little sparkle in the treble in its tuning, so I wouldn’t exactly call this IEM dark by any means, but I wouldn’t call it bright either. There is definitely more treble quantity in the A3H as compared to darker IEMs like the SE215 and even AAW's own A2H.

There is a rather heavy roll-off after 9K, making the sound miss some of the “air” that’s ever-so-present in my full-sized headphones. I guess if there is a silver lining to this lack of treble extension, is that combination of the linearity of the upper frequencies along with the early roll-off greatly contributes to its signature non-fatiguing sound.


Soundstage

I’m not too familiar with IEM soundstaging, so I’ll be rather quick and brief on this aspect. Of course, it wouldn’t trade blows with my D2000s, but definitely presents a bigger stage than my ASG-2.0s. As stated above, it can present a very wide stage, but when coupled with the rather congested midrange creates the illusion not unlike a small band in an orchestral hall. EQing the 250Hz and 500Hz down slightly (special thanks to tz0531 for the tip) really helps to separate the midrange apart, opening up the soundstage very nicely.

If I remember correctly, in width it seems to be on par with the soundstage of the UE900, which according to a quick Google search seems to be pretty well-regarded.


Conclusion

A very solid contender in the realm of entry-level CIEMs, the A3H’s strong points lie in its non-fatiguing sound and well-textured bass, as well as amazing coherency between bass and mids. A very enjoyable IEM that you can listen to for hours on end.



Further readings:

Lachlan's review of an older revision of the A3H
tz0531's review of the A3H-Pro

 

Comparisons


ASG-2.0

Reviewers note: I would like to put it on the table that yes, I am aware of Aurisonics and their rather fickle history with the ASG series. Yes, I know that they have rectified the mid-bass issue with their 2.5 revision at the cost of some midrange richness. This was the only IEMs I had on me at the time of review so as to make for a more accurate A/B comparison for an IEM I feel would be a good match for the A3H due to their hybrid technologies and numerous similarities in sound signature.

The ASG-2.0 is a triple-driver hybrid just like the A3H at the then retail price of $700, almost double that of the A3H, though with some minor differences. Barring the ASG’s BA system which still remains a mystery to me till today, they use a larger 15mm dynamic driver with a tunable bass port. This allows much flexibility in the user’s bass experience, and goes from slightly emphasised to, well, just a mess at full blast.

It’s hard to quantify where the A3H sits by the ASG’s bass ports, considering as to how both of them presents bass differently. Where the A3H excels in dynamics and sub-bass, the ASG is a mid-bass and impact monster, even with the bass ports fully closed. You would hit A3H’s sub-bass level at about 2.5 notches above closed on the ASG, but the mid-bass impact and emphasis exceeds that of the A3H even with the bass ports completely shut. The first time I borrowed the ASG, I was blown away by the speed and punchiness and impact of the bass, followed by me taking it out just half an hour due to the headache it gave me. I’m rather bass sensitive in that regard; I’m all up for rumble but mid-bass impact just reminds me too much of a throbbing headache that won’t go away.

Sure, I did get used to it after a month or two, having some of that magical brain burn-in setting itself in, but it was the moment that I put on my A3H did the memories of my initial impressions come flooding back. Switching back and forth between the ASG and the A3H made it very apparent that the ASG’s sub and mid-bass balance was way off, and the A3H was by far the more enjoyable one to listen to. If you were one of the many who complained of the ASG’s bass balance, wanting more sub-bass in favour of mid-bass, the A3H would appeal to you perfectly.

Into the midrange, it's more obvious that the ASG has the cleaner sound of the two. Both of them exudes the same kind of richness and dynamics from their hybrid system, with some slight differences. Due to the nature of the lower midrange, the mids of the A3H are thicker and much more narrow. On the flipside, the mids on the ASG are more forward, more expansive and a smidgen clearer and more detailed. However, detail and clarity are slightly pushed back as the bass ports are opened, equalling the A3H at the second notch and getting worse at the third notch, though not to the point of being muddy. Full blast is a completely different story, though.

One thing that does annoy me about the ASG is a weird peak in the upper midrange that I can’t seem to pinpoint. It could be a coherency issue, perhaps a tuning side-effect, but at any case creates a sibilance effect that I have not experienced with other headphones. It steers clear of the vocals, thank god, but the main instruments that trigger it are saxophones and trumpets. Which is quite the disappointment, considering my love for Sinatra and jazz. The A3H remains linear throughout the midrange all the way into the treble, keeping the mids nice and smooth.

Make no mistake, the Aurisonics are the more technically capable IEMs overall, having greater clarity, detail and treble extension. On the other side, the A3H betters in sub-bass quality, bass balance and coherency in the upper midrange. However, where the ASG fell short for me was in enjoyment; it took me months to like it. The A3H hooked me straight off the demo set.



FLC Technologies FLC8S

Reviewer's note: Comparisons are made with the Grey-Black-Gold (A3H-lite) and Grey-Clear-Gold (Bass-mid neutral) configurations. Filter changes do not affect performance as far as I can tell.

The closest the FLC8 can get to sounding like the A3H is in the Grey-Black-Gold configuration, though there are still some things that the FLC8 can't emulate. For one, despite its amazing bass response per se, it cannot touch the A3H’s sub-bass resolution and power. The Red-Black ULF-LF configuration does well in emulating the A3H’s sub-bass rumble though at the cost of bass balance that the A3H naturally excels at.

The dynamic driver in the FLC8 is noticeably faster on the FLC8 while A3H commands a more authoritative presence even when setting the FLC8 to match the A3H’s bass emphasis (5dB above neutral), probably due to the extra reverb that the A3H’s dynamic driver produces.This has its obvious advantages in rock and electronic that are the A3H's natural weaknesses.

The A3H’s midrange is distinctly smoother and weightier, providing a more intimate and enjoyable vocal experience in stark contrast to the FLC8’s cleaner but relatively more sterile mids. Just as an example, Frank Sinatra’s “Strangers In The Night” showcases the A3H’s strengths with the abundance of strings, trumpets and Sinatra’s deep voice, a timbre that the FLC8 can't reproduce despite its chameleon characteristics. On the other hand, rock sounds much more natural and energetic on the FLC8, producing a clean, quick sound that matches well with the genre.

Into the treble, both companies have gone into different tuning directions on their TWFKs. The FLC8 has a noticeable rolloff from 2K and then peaking again at 8K, but provides a much brighter and energetic edge to its sound due to the contrast, similar to that of the Fidue A83 and Shure SE846. The A3H on the other hand is dead smooth all the way to its peak at 7K, which can give the illusion of darkness to some. When swapping from the A3H to the FLC8, the FLC8 sounds somewhat harsh and almost sibilant, while when swapping in the opposite way the A3H sounds dulled and overly smooth. However, the FLC8 isn’t sibilant, neither is the A3H dull when in a vacuum. Different strokes for different folks.

Detail retrieval is more or less on par with one another in the midrange and treble, with sub-bass resolution going to the A3H and mid-bass resolution going to the FLC8S.

All in all, they are more-or-less on equal footing with one another. The A3H does some things better, the FLC8 does others better. With both of them at the same cost and at the same performance level, the questions end at whether or not you'd rather have your money go toward the custom building process or toward a universal modular system. Both the A3H and the FLC8 are extremely bang-for-buck in their respective markets and both are top choices if bass and mids are your priority.

 

.

 

Long review. Please consider the following points are usually helpful in a review in this sub forum and SBAF in general:

MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL GO TO THE NEW MEMBER INTRODUCTION THREAD AND MAKE YOURSELF KNOWN

- Timbre? One of the most important reason to adopt a hybrid design is that dynamic driver for bass reproduction brings better timbre. While DD usually do not excel (or in other words, is hard to be implemented well) in a higher end scenario in mids and highs, the BA makes it up, and it's generally considered that the BA haziness/timbre incorrectness are less evident in mids and highs, or also in other words, it's easier to work with BAs in these cases.

- Most people on SBAF do not need a long explanation of audiophool terms and do not need to be educated on IEM history. Meanwhile you can get yourself more familiar with terms commonly used here and more importantly, the no-frills and on-point culture on SBAF.

- Following the last point, how is the macro-dynamics performance? Micro-dynamics performance (aka planktons)?

- It would be great if you could find a common ground gear to connect with the IEM members here. A short list of common "reference point" gear can be:

• HD6X0, HD800, HE560, Elear;
• Campfire Jupiter, Andromeda, UERM, Noble Savanna, K10;
• STAX

These gear are all considered commonly to provide excellent proximity to lots of members' preference of "neutral" (depending on the upstream gear, music tastes, and personal bias/prejudice). Or please refer to the pinned post of Shotgunshane's IEM recommendations. Calling SRH940 neutral reference is not going to make your review make sense to lots of people. Also DU2000 and ASG2.0 are probably not going to cut the mustard.

- Again, tell us more about yourself. Do you have any speaker experience? If yes, more details? What's the composition of your music library? Do you have any knowledge of music production chain?

- Have you tried to loosely match the volume when making comparisons against other IEMs?

- What's your other gear? What did you use to drive the AAW? Did you try the AAW with different levels of gear, if yes, did you find the AAW to be scaling? How does it respond to the output impedance variations?

- A $400 CIEM is not going to have any resell value. Does the performance of the A3H promise a strong halt to upgrade desires? Or it becomes the usual midpoint of the routine unicorn chasing, but with a full 400+shipping+ear mould hole in your wallet?

- Apple to apple, how does it compare vs other similarly priced contenders? Like, UE4? The new Ety4s? Or Sony EX1000?

Driver count in IEMs and driver size in cans are mostly not considered to have any necessary correlation to sound qualities.

 

Alright, will do an introductory post once I'm home. Before that I'll just clarify that I'm just someone who likes audio fidelity, though not at the point of going any higher than mid-fi.

Think I represented the overall timbre of the sound as well as I could. It's also hard to pinpoint the concept of timbre properly, so I do apologise or the overuse of descriptors in my review.

Noted and removed.

Do elaborate; I'm a little clueless.

Oh, wow... unfortunately I own none of those except for extensive audition experience with the HD600. All those are way too high end for me, if my gear is too low end for this forum I'll just take my leave now.

I drive it off my iPhone 6+ but have also tried it with a friend's O2/ODAC. These are efficients CIEMs that scale little, if at all.

Again, I do not own any TOTL gear. I personally wanted a custom and wasn't willing to shell out typical TOTL price for it, so I went searching around for some lower priced alternatives. The A3H was what I went with and, personally, I am very happy with it.

If you're one who is fickle and think you'd upgrade in the future, it'll probably be better for you to save up and go straight to summit-fi. If you're unsure about CIEMs and want to get something as a starting point, the A3H would be a good consideration if your sonic preferences line up with mine.

At any case, despite the English and pictures, I'm no professional. Don't expect full scientific measurements or massive comparison lists or whatever from me.

EDIT: fluff and descriptors have been cut from the review as per SBAF preference.

 

The biggest problem of this review to me is that you were inspired to put forward an authoritative review for the AAW-A3H - yet do not have enough resources, experiences, and balls to back your claims up.

A subjective review is an articulation of one's systematic thoughts of a product's performance and its standing in the current market and make the articulations understood to its intended readers. So let's break it down.

- To articulate the performance one needs to know his own shit first:

• What's my preference? i.e. Kunlun prefers dynamic IEMs, Marv prefers slightly dark sound;
• What's my prejudice and bias? i.e. n3rdling worships estat, I'm the notorious K10 hater here, OJ is a die-hard for HD800;
• Have I covered as many audiophool aspects as possible? Do I have a clear understanding of audiophool terms?
• Do I have enough experience to back my claims up?
• How much new toy syndrome am I having? Am I praising for the sake of having spent so much money?
• For IEMs in particular, am I under the expectation to find the very gem to destroy all the TOTLs? This is a common theme for IEM boards on other audio communities. This and the above one are a common psychology to drive the hype train.

- To articulate the standing of one product in the current market:

• Do I have sufficient exposure to enough gear, down and up and parallel? It's not necessary to get TOTL for the sake of TOTL. For example, it is probably a good idea to pool RHA MA750 against Earpods (down), Fostex TE-02N (slightly down), RE400 (parallel), SE215 (parallel), Aurisonics Rocket (slightly high), Sony EX1000 (high);

- To make the articulations understood to the review's intended readers, it's necessary to:

• Tailor the language and vocabulary to the intended readers. Understand the expectations, cultures, and standards of the readers.

Macro-dynamics in my book refers to the general feel of an appropriate speed throughout the note attack-sustain-decay process across the FR.

For micro-dynamics or 'planktons', see the discussions here: http://www.superbestaudiofriends.or...ton-and-the-ability-to-resolve-properly.2801/

• Understand the common benchmark gear of the intended readers. SBAF's style is not going to cut the mustard for a lot of Japanese users for that their common budget benchmark are not usually Schiit gear, rather some Onkyo or TEAC stuff.

Testing the AAW out of a phone is a good idea, but an O2/ODAC box may not even be an improvement over the phone in SBAF's view. To get an idea of how some DAP compare against an iPhone, you can look at http://www.superbestaudiofriends.or...0ii-chord-mojo-shootout-w-andromeda-iem.2252/. Once you get a feel, it won't be hard to make your mind about where should any random thing sit (provided you've heard it), from a CmoyBB to the new gold Walkman brick.

• Make yourself's preferences, prejudices, bias, and gear known to the readers. Synergy matters. In the case of IEM, personal variation matters.

Then we have the measurements - most IEM veterans here do not take measurements. Measurements are not necessary - but if you have them, it would be great to correlate what you hear to what you measure and provide specific explanations to specific elements you're hearing with specific parts of a measurement. Measurements are not going to be the tool to end all arguments, rather they serve to back up some of your claims with solid evidence.

Given the above argument, new members on SBAF are highly encouraged to read and lurk to get a pulse of this forum and each sub-forums, instead of posting big reviews. Rushing to establish oneself as a senior member has never ended well. People like @PoochZag and @Merrick have worked their way up the food chain and their comments are highly trust-worthy. Read, and PM other members to get more knowledge, like I did with @JK47 . Or meet these people IRL, like I met with @Mikoss . Read, learn, and rock on.

@Marvey correct me if I'm wrong.

 

This should be stickied

 

My apologies for all the commotion. Taking my leave now.

 

At least you tried, and that's how you learn, right?

 

You'll be hearing from my lawyer regarding this slander.

 

OJ is all about the Utopias now. And speakers.

Side note: I'd like to have seen what the original review was. I missed out on it.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/products/aaw-a3h-pro-custom-in-ear-monitor/reviews/16940

I hope the OP doesn't mind me linking to it now, I think Griffons advice was constructive and construed the wrong way. I would love to have someone take the time and formulate the same depth of feedback for my own reviews rather than just saying "hey great job I liked it". Since I don't plan on any review I write being the last, there is always room for improvement.

 

SuperBreastFiendsAudio.COM:

 

The build quality section wasn't too bad. It had useful info like addressing the bass port (isolation is always a concern for IEMs), and guessing at why the seal was good.
And overall there was quite a bit of effort at stating preferences. So, points for that too.
The whole SQ section could probably have been collapsed into one paragraph the length of the soundstage para.

 

In other less polite forums, rando OP would likely have been greeted thusly:



Addendum: OP is a faggot

 

I have no love for those don't favor* our native Singlish:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/808773/uni...-2dd-2ba-universal-only-iem/180#post_12839336

*Think of it as someone criticizing you(an US citizen) for overuse of american slang words in SBAF.