ProGuard P2+1 custom in-ear monitors

ProGuard P2+1 custom in-ear monitor review

COMPARISONS

ProGuard P2+1 & In Earz IE-P250
ProGuard P2+1 & In Earz IE-P250

Alclair Reference: The Reference has a more laid-back overall presentation that is brighter while the P2+1’s forward midrange/upper-midrange give a different feel to music.  Spatially, the Reference is larger, in large part due to the more laid-back presentation, but the P2+1 has far better imaging for a more 3D and coherent soundstage.  Clarity is similar but different, with the superior imaging and more prominent upper midrange giving the P2+1 clarity while a thinner average note and brighter presentation give the Reference the slight advantage overall.  Transparency and coherence are superior with the P2+1, as is the level of detail while dynamics are similar.  The P2+1 is more forgiving due to the more relaxed treble presentation.

With cleaner bass and the ability to sustain deep bass notes longer, the more prominent lower bass region of the P2+1 is superior with electronic bass notes but not too far off with acoustic instruments.  The Reference has a similar amount of warmth, but the P2+1’s thicker average notes can sometimes present a veil that the Reference doesn’t have.  Midranges are presented differently, with the P2+1 pushing things forward in with superior depth of presentation in comparison with the Reference. The upper midrange of the P2+1 is more prominent, which is part of the more mid-forward presentation and is integrated better with the midrange and treble, making the Reference seem a bit recessed in this area of the frequency spectrum.  Treble quality is similar, but the Reference treble is more prominent and extends further.

Designed for different purposes, the stage use sound signature of the P2+1 provides a more up-front and involving sound that is also more forgiving sound for the audiophile listener, with better bass and imaging.  The studio monitor sound signature of the Reference is more neutral overall and reveals issues the P2+1 doesn’t, which is desirable for studio use, but can be mixed for audiophile listening.

[divider]

Dream Earz aud-5X: The more bass heavy 5X offers a similar sound signature to the more mid-forward P2+1.  Spatially, the 5X has a larger presentation, but the P2+1 has better focus within the soundstage to go with superior imaging for a much cleaner sound within the soundstage.  Clarity is superior with the P2+1 as the 5X warm and thicker notes and less focused sound negatively affect the overall clarity.  Detail levels, dynamics, and transparency are superior with the 5X while coherence is superior with the P2+1, and resolution is similar between the two.  The P2+1 is more forgiving of poor masters and low bitrate tracks due to the additional detail and more prominent treble.

Bass quantity of the 5X is higher and extends further with power, while the presentation is more forward and is capable of sustaining bass notes longer.  Quality isn’t too far off in the bass region, but the higher levels of detail and resolution of the 5X offer a more precise presentation with better texturing of bass notes.  The 5X is warmer, mainly due to the thicker note presentation, and the thickness extends up through the midrange.  The presentation is similar as both are forward and place you in with the music, but the P2+1has more of a inverse-U shaped sound signature, pulling the midrange more forward, further away from the bass and treble in comparison with the 5X.  The upper midranges are similar in presentation, but treble is more prominent from the 5X, with a sharper note that diverges from the more relaxed and smoother P2+1.

While the differences between these two may seem small, all of the little differences add up to a very different feel.  The P2+1’s inverse U-shaped sound signature puts the midrange a bit in front of the rest of the spectrum, and the overall level of clarity within the sound signature is more consistent and superior.  Although the 5X can be used for stage use, the P2+1 is more ideal for this use due to the more relaxed treble, but those with NIHL in the high frequencies may prefer the 5X.  Overall, the 5X is more exciting and offers more detail, punch, and a good deal more bass capability but the P2+1 will satisfy those that like a more casual sound.

[divider]

EarSonics SM64 universal IEM: The P2+1 is more reminiscent of the SM3 from a presentation standpoint as the entire presentation is more up-close and personal, placing you with the performers while the SM64 puts some space between the you and the presentation.  Soundstage size is similar as is imaging despite the difference in presentation.  The P2+1 is smoother and conveys more detail across the spectrum, and the detail is easier to hear in large part due to the sound signature.  The P2+1 is more coherent across the frequency spectrum while the SM64 is a bit more transparent.  Dynamics are slightly better with the P2+1, but note capability in the midrange and bass is slightly better with the SM64.  The P2+1 is more forgiving due primarily to note thickness and projection of the presentation.

Bass is presented differently, with the P2+1 being more up-front, but quantity and quality are similar.  While the P2+1 is a slightly advantage in control and punch, the warmer SM64 still performs well. Moving up the spectrum, the SM64 is thicker which leads to less clarity than the P2+1.  The midrange of the two is presented quite differently as the P2+1 puts you on stage, recreating more intimate instrument details while the SM64’s more laid-back presentation provides a bit better overall presentation experience.  The upper midrange is divergent as the P2+1 is brighter, which adds to the clarity advantage and accentuates the up-close presentation vs. the laid-back SM64.  Treble of the P2+1 is well integrated and quite balanced within the sound signature while the SM64 treble sounds a bit boosted relative to the upper mids in contrast.  The P2+1 is overall more refined and smoother, especially in the treble.

While similarly priced, the sound signatures are quite different, with the P2+1 presenting more for stage use and excellent integration of the overall sound while the SM64’s comparatively laid-back presentation gives an organic, natural presentation from an audience standpoint.

[divider]

In Earz IE-P250: The P250 has a V-shaped sound in comparison with the more spacious and open sounding P2+1.  Spatially, the P2+1 is wider, although depth is close in size with the P250 pulling slightly ahead while imaging is similar.  There is more and better articulated instrument detail on the P250 while the P2+1 paints a better picture of the overall performance with higher instrument separation and overall resolution.  The P2+1 is more transparent and coherent, but the P250 is more dynamic.  The P2+1 is more forgiving of poor masters and low bitrates in large part due to the more relaxed treble.

Bass of the P250 is enhanced, forward, and immediate in comparison with the P2+1 and has more rumble in the deepest registers, but the warmer and thicker P2+1 has better bass quality.  The midrange is presented with similar projection, but the different proportions, including a smaller width and larger depth of the P250 can give a more immediate feel.  The P2+1 is a bit more forward in the upper midrange which makes female vocals more prominent, while the P250 has a brighter treble region, but the notes aren’t as smooth as the P2+1.

The P250 is more bass heavy, brighter, and clearer than the more spacious and smoother P2+1, which is tuned for stage use.  The P250 doesn’t disappear quite like the P2+1, but detail levels are slightly better with superior articulation vs. the better overall presentation from the P2+1.  The P2+1 is ideal for the stage, but can be used for those that want a more laid-back sound with good spatial qualities.

[divider]

Minerva Mi-Performer Pro: Similar in the bass region but divergent in the midrange on up, the more spacious P2+1 provides a comparatively relaxed presentation vs. the slightly clearer Performer Pro.  Spatially, the P2+1 has a wider presentation while depth is similar, making for different proportions, although imaging is similar.  Dynamics are similar, as is coherence, but the PP is a bit more transparent and has better clarity.  Details are better articulated with the PP and a bit more detail is recreated to go along with better clarity.

Bass between the two is surprisingly similar in quantity, with the PP having a bit more in the deepest registers combined with a slightly higher quality presentation.  Warmth is quite similar.  The P2+1 sounds more open while the PP is more encompassing in comparison.  The upper midrange of the PP is more prominent, as is the treble in relation to the midrange, both of which help with the clarity.  Quality of the treble is similar, and sometimes the more laid-back P2+1 sounded superior while the converse was also true depending on the track.

With somewhat similar sound signatures and target audiences, the Mi-Performer Pro offers a coherent, clearer sound in a slightly smaller presentation space while the more laid-back P2+1 provides a great stage feel that allows for the volume to be turned up.  Both offer different usability perks such as the silicone shell for the PP and the detachable cable for the P2+1.

[divider]

Minerva Mi-Artist Pro: The Artist Pro has a smaller, more immediate, and dynamic presentation compared with the more mid-centric and spacious P2+1.  The larger presentation size and better imaging of the P2+1 gives a better sense of the overall presentation that reduces the “in-the-head” sensation the AP can have.  Detail levels are higher with the P2+1, and more articulated.  Transparency and coherence are better on the P2+1, while the AP is more dynamic and punchy, with a feel that puts you more in the band.  Even though the P2+1 is smoother, it has better clarity due in large part to the better instrument separation and higher resolution within the soundstage. The P2+1 is slightly more forgiving of poorly mastered or low bitrate tracks.

The AP has more bass in general, with more emphasis from the deepest bass through the mid-bass, but the P2+1 sustains notes better, which is noticeable for certain bass lines.  The midrange of the two is different, as the P2+1 pushes the midrange a bit forward in comparison with the rest of the presentation, and the AP sounds a bit recessed in comparison.  The better imaging and presentation depth of the P2+1 results in better conveyance of nuances in the music as well as a sense of space.  The AP upper midrange is a bit more forward, but in context of the rest of the presentation, it isn’t too far off.  Treble decay is different, as the AP treble is more direct and present while the more laid-back P2+1 treble has a more natural decay and overall sound.

Both products are aimed at stage musicians, but the P2+1 has a more traditional stage sound, with a forward midrange, good bass capability, and a relaxed but natural treble.  The Mi-Artist Pro on the other hand is more immediate and punchy for a more dynamic performance.

[divider]

Lime Ears LE3B: The P2+1 is smoother and a bit more laid-back in comparison with the forward, in-your-face, brighter, and more bass enhanced LE3B.  Spatially, the LE3B presents with a larger overall space and has more depth for the comparable width of the presentation.  The LE3B is a good deal more dynamic sounding in large part due to the additional, punchy bass and closer presentation.  Clarity is better with the LE3B as is transparency, but coherence is similar.  The LE3B reveals more detail both in instruments and within the space between instruments, and accentuates it more.  The P2+1 is more forgiving with a smoother, more laid-back treble.

Bass of the LE3B is significantly more prominent as well as having greater note sustainment capability, especially in the deep bass region.  The bass of the LE3B has more punch and kick while retaining a higher quality of reproduction compared with the warmer P2+1.  The midrange of the LE3B is much more prominent and up-close in comparison with the still forward, but more relaxed P2+1.  Upper midrange of the LE3B is more aggressive and the treble is brighter.  With a smoother and less detailed treble presentation, the P2+1 has a much lower chance for listening fatigue.

These two are quite different, as the LE3b is best for those that want a close and personal experience with good dynamics that is more fun and plays very well at lower volumes while the P2+1 offers a more of a relaxed sound that gets a bit better as the sound is turned up.  While the P2+1 is great for stage use, I wouldn’t recommend the LE3b for the same, but the LE3b offers a more entertaining flavor to the sound, and the additional detail levels will please the audiophile.

[divider]

Custom Art Music One: Lacking the punch and low end of the P2+1, the Music One provides a warmer, more laid-back and cohesive presentation.  Spatially, the Music One has more depth than width while the P2+1 is the opposite.  Both image well, but the P2+1 is superior overall, and with more detail, the it also has more resolution within the soundstage.  Technically, the P2+1 outperforms the Music One almost across the board, but the Music One does have a naturalness to it that somehow makes up for the technical differences in many ways.  It does outperform the P2+1 in coherence and is about the same in clarity, but the P2+1 has far better dynamics.  The Music One is more forgiving of poorly mastered and low bitrate tracks.

The bass region can sound similar or very different depending on the type of bass note, with reverberant bass notes sounding much more powerful from the P2+1 while acoustic notes are similar for the most part.  The more bass-heavy the music is, the more apparent the differences are.  The Music One is a bit warmer than the P2+1, and the midrange of the Music One is more forward with excellent coherence from top to bottom  This emphasizes the midrange of the Music One, highlighting vocals and many instruments for a different feel than the P2+1, which almost sounds slightly V-shaped in comparison.  Treble of the P2+1 is more present, but the Music One treble doesn’t give the appearance of being lacking and offers a smoother performance.

The Music One is made to be musical, which it succeeds at in spades while the P2+1 is made for gigging musicians, and it too succeeds at what it was designed to do.  The P2+1 provides a higher level of capability with more punch and rumble while the Music One has the ability grab your attention and let you just enjoy the music even though the technical performance isn’t the best.

[divider]

ACS T1 Live!: The brighter T1 Live! is a bit more mid-forward and articulates detail better than the more bass-focused P2+1, which is half the price.  Spatially, the T1 is larger in all directions with better imaging and focus as well as more resolution within the soundstage, providing better spatial qualities and revealing more detail.  Dynamics are better with the T1, as is clarity, coherence, and transparency.   Both have very smooth treble that is quite forgiving, and overall the T1 compensates better to tracks that have poor spatial qualities while the P2+1 adjusts better to vocal differences, especially with male vocals.

Bass quantity is greater with the P2+1, but the T1 bass is more capable, especially in the lowest registers, creating a better sense of power and emotion to go with superior quality.  Both are warm, but the thinner average note of the T1 results in the P2+1 sounding warmer overall.  The midrange of the P2+1 sounds a bit dull in comparison with the T1, as the larger space, thinner note, additional detail, better imaging, and greater clarity recreate a clearer window into the music.  Both can become a bit cloudier on complex, warmer tracks, but the T1 is always clearer.  The upper midrange of the T1 is more up-front, pronounced, and detailed while the P2+1 treble is a bit more pronounced but not of the same quality.

Both are designed for stage use, and the higher performing T1 is double the price of the P2+1.  Twice your money gets a more detailed, up-front presentation that has better spatial qualities and resolution to go along with a brighter sound with an overall more realistic sound.  If you don’t want to or can’t spend that much, the P2+1 still gets the job done, but with less of the realism due to some compromises.

[divider]

Fit Ear PS-5: With a price tag of approximately $1K more, this comparison is primarily for sound signature purposes.  The PS-5 is more forward than the P2+1, giving a more on-stage feel, but with superior transparency and spatial qualities, it also is more engaging with a better immediacy and ‘live’ feeling.  The presentation space of the PS-5 is larger with a better depth/width ratio, and the relation of the midrange to the bass is similar while the high quality, non-offensive treble of the PS-5 is a bit more prominent.  Bass capability and punch are significantly different as the extension on both ends favors the PS-5 by a good margin.  Technically, the PS-5 walks all over the P2+1, offering a much more dynamic and detailed presentation with more clarity, space, and depth within that space.

 

SOURCE MATCHING

ProGuard P2+1 custom in-ear monitors with Fiio X3 digital audio player
ProGuard P2+1 with Fiio X3

Portable Sources, DAPs

Sandisk Sansa Clip+: The Clip+ does OK with the P2+1, but is not a great pairing and the iPhone 5 is more dynamic with better clarity, spaciousness (if just by a bit) and bass impact.  The sound is fairly uninspiring. 2/10

Apple iPhone 5: Better than the Clip+, the iPhone 5 has decent clarity and dynamics with acceptable spaciousness and imaging.  For those that want a minimalist travel rig, this will suffice if you are OK with the sacrifice.  4/10

Hisoundaudio Nova 3: There isn’t much difference between the Nova 3 and the iPhone 5 when paired with the P2+1.  The Nova 3 has a slight advantage in presentation size and space, with track dependent imaging and congestion advantages.  If your music collection consists of high quality tracks the Nova 3 will offer a discernable difference, otherwise the iPhone 5 would suffice. 5/10

Fiio X3:The X3 is a bit warmer than the Nova 3 and iPhone, but with better clarity and a presentation that has better instrument separation, which results in conveying more detail.  Bass is also more powerful and the overall presentation is smoother and more refined. 7/10

iBasso DX50: The DX50 has a bit darker tone than the X3 but still offers similar clarity.  The X3 sounds more natural as the midrange/upper midrange of the P2+1 don’t sound quite as cohesive from the DX50, but it is relatively close. 6.5/10

Astel & Kern AK120: The AK120 has a more spacious, laid-back, smoother, and refined sound compared with the DX50 and X3.  Bass is strong and well controlled, but not overdone, clarity is good, imaging is a step up from the lower-end sources, but dynamics are on the lower side of the spectrum resulting in a less than inspiring sound with upbeat or fast tracks.  Coherence, especially with vocals are closer to the DX50 than the X3, leaving some room for improvement.  Even with the small issues, the AK120 is a good match with the P2+1. 8/10

iBasso DX100: The DX100 really gets the bass drivers of the P2+1 moving when necessary, spatially it creates the largest soundstage of the DAPs tested, imaging is impressive, and dynamics are excellent, but the clarity is bested by the AK120 and the bass isn’t quite as controlled.  Overall, the spatial characterizes and dynamics have the ability to convey more power and space for a great listening experience. 10/10

 

Portable Sources, DAPs with Amps

Fiio X3 ->

Neco V2: The Neco V2 is a bit less dynamic and isn’t quite as smooth as the X3 headphone output. 5/10

Just Audio uHA-120: The uHA-120 is a bit more open sounding than the X3 headphone output, but not by much.  The differences are minimal.  7/10

JDS O2:

Shonuyn 306a: The 306a has an overall good sound with the P2+1, but the bass isn’t all that strong and there is a slight hiss.  The midrange is pushed a bit forward, and the overall sound signature isn’t as dynamic as the X3 headphone out. 5/10

Sunrise Dolphin: The Dolphin is more spacious and open sounding with more powerful bass than the Shonyun 306a, and a slight bass advantage over the X3 headphone out.  The X3 headphone out is a bit more forward, but also slightly cleaner overall.  6/10

Headstage Arrow 12HE 4G: The 4G is a bit more laid-back and spacious in comparison with the X3, but quality is similar.  Deep bass isn’t quite as prominent, and details aren’t quite as articulate.  6/10

Leckerton UHA-6S MKII: The 6S MKII is smoother and a bit more spacious than the X3 headphone output, but the differences aren’t large. 7.5/10

Ortofon MHd-Q7: The Q7 has a thinner sound with the P2+1 than the X3 headphone out and the other amps tested, giving more clarity but not necessarily better sound quality.  There is an audible hiss between tracks and in quite parts of tracks. 6.5/10

Tube Amp TA-1: The TA-1 kicks the bass of the P2+1 up a notch and the treble has a bit more extension and air, but the rest of the spectrum is quite similar in presentation and quality.  7/10

ADL Cruise: The Cruise presents with a clear and dynamic presentation that is slightly thinner than the average amp.  Overall quality is just a tick better than the X3 headphone output, and there is a slight hiss between tracks. 6.5/10

Lear FSM-02 V2: The FSM-02 V2 is more laid-back and spacious than the X3 headphone output.  Notes are slightly smoother, but don’t lack any detail in comparison.  The overall quality is only slightly better than that of the X3 headphone output. 7.5/10

ADL X1: The X1 presents with a larger space than the X3 headphone out, and about on par with the FSM-02 V2, however the bass is less prominent.  Overall the sound quality is similar to the X3 and the FSM. 7.5/10

Portaphile 627: The 627 presents with more space in all directions, and is the only amp tested to improve imaging noticeably with the P2+1.  The result is a better overall sound than the other amps, and similar in presentation to the DX100 headphone output. 9/10

 

Standalone DACs

Fiio X3: The X3 has a decent presentation, but is slightly bested by the ADL X1 and other higher-performing DACs.  The overall sound quality isn’t too far off the X1, though. 7/10

ADL X1: The X1 is slightly more detailed than the Fiio X3 used as a DAC, and has a bit better presentation depth and spaciousness.  The bass is a bit stronger, and detail levels are a bit more articulated. 8/10

Source Summary: The P2+1 isn’t too picky about sources once they get to a certain level, which most of the amps/DACs I have tested do.  There is room for improvement in clarity, spatial presentation, and retrieval of detail.  Amps primarily change the sound based on their sound signature, with different levels of bass, clarity, and spatial qualities while the Portaphile 627 is an exception with a margin of improvement in the spatial qualities.  DACs again impart sound signature and the biggest difference between them is in spatial qualities.  An iPhone may be sufficient for most but some of the higher quality DAPs will improve sound.  After that, spending a lot on a DAC and/or amp won’t result in too much improvement.

 

ProGuard P2+1 custom in-ear monitors

SUMMARY

The ProGuard P2+1 is a custom in-ear monitor build for musicians stage use, and it delivers.  The forward midrange, powerful bass, and relaxed treble combined with a smooth note presentation result in a very non-fatiguing sound for long sessions, even at high volumes (although we don’t recommend that).  While the technical performance doesn’t stand out from the crowd, the sound signature is what makes the P2+1 perfect for stage use and can also satisfy audio enthusiasts that are treble sensitive.  The sound signature doesn’t lend itself to a dynamic, engaging performance at lower volumes, and is more relaxed in general, but delivers beautifully for its purpose built design.

Pros
–       Ideal sound signature for stage use
–       Good imaging and presentation depth for an openness to the presentation

Cons
–       Deep bass isn’t as prominent as competing models.
–       Low volume playback is uninspiring

View the ProGuard P2+1 in the Custom In-Ear Monitors Review List

Page 1: Main review page

SHARE.

ABOUT AUTHOR

average_joe

average_joe

Having a life-long love of high-quality audio and gadgets, average_joe got back in touch with his audiophile side after a hiatus caused by life. His focus became headphones and related gear as the size and price fit his life better than home audio. He believes the entire audio chain is important, and likes to continue to think past the headphone and on into the head, as he believes understanding the details of how we hear will lead to a better audio experience.

RELATED POSTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent posts

Sponsors

Categories