Audio IEMs Thoughts Universal-Fit

Aurisonics Rockets: Up, Up, and Away!


Rockets vs. Etymotic MK5 Isolator (by Mr. T)

Source: iPhone 6
Tips: Stock SureSeal tips on the Rockets, stock small triple-flange tips on the MK5
Sensitivity: Rockets need about three clicks of extra volume to match the MK5

  • The Rockets’ midrange is warmer and smoother, with better weight and body.
  • The MK5’s thinner midrange, due to a less forward lower midrange to accompany a slightly honky upper midrange, makes the Rockets sound more natural and true to tone.
  • Detailing on the MK5 is more overt.
  • However, cymbals and chimes carry though with better quality of timbre on the MK5.
  • Both possess a small clarity spike in the lower treble; neither spike is strong nor obvious, but is nonetheless present.
  • The Rockets possess far longer bass and sub-bass decay than do the MK5, which possess at times unnaturally short decay times. However, the MK5 manages to extend lower.
  • The Rockets are also able to present soundstage depth in a superior manner, while layering on the MK5 is more obvious.
The Aurisonics Rockets are smaller than the already small Etymotic MK5, and do not possess the thin, long, deep-insertion stems of the Etymotic.

Rockets vs. FitEar F111 (by shotgunshane)

Source: iPhone 5S
Tips: Sennheiser bi-flange on both Rockets and F111
Sensitivity: Rockets need about 3 or 4 more ticks of volume to match the F111

  • Rockets are less fatiguing over longer listening sessions.
  • More impact and rumble in the Rockets.
  • A bit more treble sparkle in the F111.
  • Rockets have a thicker, more weighty overall note; F111 sounds thinner but airier and
    slightly clearer in comparison.
  • A little better height and much better depth with the Rockets; F111 is more upfront
    and in your face with slightly more width.
  • F111 frequency response comes across as a little more flat and linear. Rockets frequency response comes across as a very slight downward sloping arc with more overall emphasis on the midrange.
  • Resolution seems about equal with better layering and timbre in the Rockets, although I like cymbals just a bit more on the F111 due to the extra sparkle.

Rockets vs. Zero Audio Carbo Tenore (by shotgunshane)

Source: iPhone 5S
Tips: Sennheiser bi-flange Rockets and stock tips on Tenore
Sensitivity: Rockets need about 2 volume clicks more to reach similar volume

  • The Rockets are superior in every aspect of staging: taller, deeper and wider, with significantly better layering. The Tenore was surprisingly smaller and less dimensional, less spacious sounding.
  • The Rockets have better treble sparkle and better treble timbre. They just sound more realistic in treble.
  • While note thickness and overall bass levels are not too far off, the Tenore sounds considerably slower: kicks have less impact with a bit too much rumble, and double bass sounds more diffused and less defined due to the Tenore’s extended decay.
  • Besides perhaps tonality, for me, the Rockets do everything noticeably better. I wish I still had the KC06 because I want to say the Rockets sounds like a cross between it and the Tenore but improving upon both in most aspects.

Rockets vs. Ultimate Ears Reference Monitor (by shotgunshane)

I find the UERM to more spacious/open sounding with even better layering than the Rockets. The UERM has better dynamics and more precise instrument placement. Overall, the UERM comes across as sounding clearer and more resolving of micro-detail. These same details are present in the Rockets, but they’re just not as easily discernible.

The UERM sounds grander and much more open than the Rockets. The UERM does have more treble emphasis, mainly around 10 kHz, and is thus more articulate. However, the Rockets’ treble has better timbre and weight.

The Rockets lift vocals more front and center, whereas the UERM vocals are slightly more laid back in comparison. Rockets notes are noticeably thicker with slightly more overall bass quantity, so Rockets sound richer/thicker. The Rockets have a little more sub bass presence and rumble. The Rockets raw note edge is also noticeable against the cleaner/sharper note edge of the UERM.

The silicone tri-tabs of the Aurisonics Rockets create the illusion of a rocketship-like exterior.

Brief on the ASG-2.5 (by Mr. T)

The ASG-2.5 are an entirely different beast from the Rockets. It has more of the typical custom-derived concha-hugging shape many high-end universal IEMs have these days, allowing for removable cables.

Aurisonics ASG-2.5 in brushed nickel finish.
Aurisonics ASG-2.5 in brushed nickel finish.

Instantly, one will hear that even at the lowest bass knob setting, the ASG-2.5 possesses quite a bit more bass presence than the Rockets. Its spatial presentation is also quite different, owing to its hybrid transducer design.

The ASG-2.5 is an evolution of the original ASG-2.
The ASG-2.5 is an evolution of the original ASG-2.

Detail is more overt with the ASG-2.5 than with the Rockets; vocal cues are obvious. However, it’s clear from the sound signature that the ASG-2.5, like its predecessor, is not designed to be that of an universal people-pleaser. There will be some people who will not jive with the ASG-2.5’s sound signature, while others will love it.

For more information on Aurisonics and the Rockets, please visit:

About shotgunshane
(Full Author Bio)
About Mr. T
Mr. T is an in-ear fanatic by day, and writes SOAP notes by night. He pities the fool who actually has the patience to read through his stuff.
(Full Author Bio)


Leave a Reply to CYMBACAVUM Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: