BGVP Astrum - A Dynamic and Colorful Constellation

 4⭐️

+ Fun and exciting V-shaped tuning 

+ Bold and boisterous bass response

+ Warm, detailed, and natural midrange presentation 

+ Treble stays crisp and energetic without harshness or sibilance

+ Solid technical performance including outstanding dynamics

+ Colorful and eye-catching shell and cable designs

- Not a particularly great all-rounder; more of a specialist for me

- Bass can a little overbearing on the rest of the frequency response 

- Thin upper mids/lower treble dependent on source pairing

- Could use better extension on both ends of the spectrum 

- Would lile to see a better color matching cable

- Price may be a little hard to justify with so many other great midfi IEMs on the market 

thaslaya's star rating system:

☆☆☆☆☆ - Fantastic!

☆☆☆☆ - Recommended

☆☆☆ - There are buyers but not for me

☆☆ - Can't see the appeal

☆ - Product is a failure

Disclaimer: 

This product was provided to me by a friend for a demo period. I receive no compensation, and all thoughts and opinions are my own. A big thanks to @theintention for the loaner!

Non-affiliate link for those interested:

https://shop.musicteck.com/products/bgvp-astrum-iem

Gear used: 

●Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra

●Various DAC/amps

Source:

●Listening was done using Amazon Music HD/Ultra HD and local FLAC files. 

Introduction: 

BGVP is a Chinese IEM manufacturer founded in 2013. The acronym stands for "Be Good Voice Power," which I actually never knew until I looked it up for this review. The company produces many IEMs across various price tiers, ranging from the low-budget $110 Feather to the multi-kilobuck $4300 Wukong. I have a little previous experience with BGVP products, owning the DM8 model many years back and also having reviewed the Phantom last year. This review focuses on the Astrum, one of the company's newest models that I had a chance to hear at CanJam SoCal 2025. It utilizes a tribrid driver configuration featuring two dynamic, two balanced armature, and two electrostatic drivers and is positioned in the mid-fi tier with a $699 price tag. Astrum is also Latin for a star, constellation, or heavenly body, so let's break down this mid-fi release from BGVP and see if it shines brightly or is more of a dull glow.

Build, fit, ergonomics:

As this was a personal tour unit from a friend and only included the IEMs and stock cable, I can't speak much to the unboxing and overall accessory package. But the good news is that the Astrum is well known for its premium packaging, and there is no shortage of unboxing videos available for anyone who's interested. The shells are made of a very nice quality resin with a metal nozzle. The design is very colorful and eye-catching with a mix of dark red/maroon, shades of blue, and a touch of purple. Both shells feature the model name on the faceplate and the company name on the back, along with left and right side indicators. The shells are about average in size or just slightly larger, yet still fairly lightweight, and they feel sturdy and well-built. The nozzle measures 6.1mm at the lip, which is a bit on the big side and could cause some fit issues for those with smaller ears. There are three small vent holes located just behind the flat 2-pin connection. Despite the vented design, I did experience a little pressure buildup, which caused some mild discomfort over long sessions. The stock cable is made of high-purity, 8-strand graphene ACOOL copper with a 4.4mm termination. Like the shells, the cable has a very colorful design. It also has a nice, tight weave, yet is still soft and pliable. The hardware features the twelve signs of the zodiac, which are a cool design motif that ties back into its namesake. These little touches go a long way for me and really add to the premium feel. My only real complaint with the cable is the purple color. The shells have way more maroon and blue, and the purple cable doesn't quite match. Obviously, I didn't get to try any of the stock tips, but I used many of my own and finally settled on the Divinus Velvets as fhe best option. Overall, the Astrum has a very cool, eye-catching design and a sturdy, quality shell. I'd love to talk more about the accessories as a whole, but I didn't get a chance to have them on hand for this review. I can at least attest that the cable is great, and the uniquely designed hardware is a fantastic addition. 

Sound impressions:

The Astrum has an exciting and energetic V-shaped tuning with a large bass shelf, accentuated upper midrange, and rolled-off treble. It also has more of a warm, colored tonality, but I think that really adds to its appeal, at least for me. This one can be used with just a simple dongle, but since it utilizes ESTs, I found it scaled very well, and a little power goes a long way to bringing out the best in performance. The note weight is on the thick and syrupy side, but it's actually one of the aspects I enjoy the most, and I'd much rather have a thicker note weight over a thinner one. The detail retrieval is decent, but the Astrum has more of a musicality-first style presentation, so it's not the last word in drawing out the minutiae and nuance of the music. Still, there's plenty on display for me and my preferences. The soundstage is also good but not particularly wide. It has nice height and depth, but feels a little front-heavy, like it doesn't utilize the entire spatial field to its fullest potential. I have no issues with the timbre, and it's natural enough, but there's a bit more of an analog flavor to it, so timbre purists might take some issue with it. The imaging is quite impressive, and spatial cues work as intended, though the distance detection could be just a tiny bit better. The dynamics are really fantastic, and the Astrum presents one of the most fun and engaging presentations I can recall under $1000. Unfortunately, the separation could be further improved as the Astrum is not the best at handling complex tracks and tends to get a little bogged down at times. The layering, though, is well done, and there's a certain cohesiveness and flow that's easy to enjoy. Overall, I think the technicalities perform decently well for the price. The dynamics and imaging really impress, and the timbre and layering are right in my wheelhouse, but the soundstage width, separation, and detail retrieval might not be enough to satisfy those looking for a more analytical style.

Moving on to source pairing, the Astrum turned out to be quite sensitive, and finding the right synergy was well worth the effort. First, I tried the NiceHCK Octave, which brings out the midrange a bit more, but the bass loses a little bit of extension and reach, which kind of neuters some of its character and charm. The iFi hipdac 3 adds some nice body to the bass and a slightly cleaner texture but also accentuates the lower treble a bit too much. The Questyle M18i is kind of a mix of the Octave and hipdac 3 in that it aids in bass texture and resolution, as well as bringing the midrange a touch further forward. Unfortunately, the thinness in the lower treble persists and is hard to overlook. My favorite pairing is actually the MuseHiFi M6 Double's tube mode. I really didn't think it would work as well as it did, because pairing a warm source with a warm tuning isn't always the best. However, the added weight and somewhat analog quality of the tubes really play up the Astrum's bass thickness and the inherent musicality of the midrange while weighing down the upper treble just enough to keep it grounded and pleasant.

●Lows - I think it's safe to say that the bass is the star that forms the Astrum's constellationary basis. That's not to say the rest of the stars aren't also important, but none shape the soundscape and tuning more than the bass itself. The Astrum's low end is definitely well-accentuated and a little more sub-bass focused, though there is plenty of mid-bass here as well. The extension reaches fairly low and the rumble is sustained with a nice reverberation. It has a full and robust flavor but is also slightly pillowy with a wetter texture. The edges of notes are a little dull and not as crisp or defined as I expect. The speed and attack are fairly quick, and the decay is slightly slow yet still natural to my ear. The impact is adequate, but could be ramped up a little for kick drums. Unfortunately, there is some pervasive bleed into the midrange to contend with, and in my opinion, the Astrum's bass is a textbook example of how sometimes less is more. If you dim the light of the bass down just a little, it allows the rest of the stars in the constellation a chance to shine. Overall, the bass is what will inevitably make or break the Astrum's tuning for many. As a self-proclaimed bass enthusiast, there are many characteristics here that I enjoy, like the fullness, weight, and natural decay. Ultimately, though, I think there's just a little more quantity than I need, and too much of a good thing can be fatiguing. Combine that with a slightly messier texture and a duller note edge, and the bass can become a touch more detracting than it is additive for certain genres of music. Though I will say listening at lower volumes definitely helps alleviate some of that feeling.

●Mids - The midrange adds a lot to the Astrum's enjoyment for me, but there are a few caveats. Male artists are just a hair recessed compared to their female counterparts, but not by much. The vocals have a nice, organic, and slightly warm-leaning analog quality that I really enjoy. They are generally forward enough to cut through the bass shelf, yet still decently well-balanced with the rest of the frequency response. This particular presentation doesn't make for the cleanest or clearest-sounding vocals, and I do feel like they lack a bit of polish and refinement, but it's exactly the type that helps me find an emotional connection to my favorite tracks. Unfortunately, they are positioned more towards the front of the stage and not well-spaced or distributed throughout the soundscape. I'll also say that while they aren't inherently shouty at higher volumes, they can be just a hair intense. I think the upper mids and lower treble are a bit over-tuned for my taste, and I'd prefer if the 4kHz - 6kHz range were pulled back slightly. I found myself enjoying the Astrum more after dialing back the volume to avoid fatigue from both the midrange and the bass. As far as instrumentation goes, the tonality and timbre are quite excellent, especially for jazz. The lower mids are just a little underrepresented, but that might have more to do with the bass emphasis than anything. Overall, the Astrum's midrange makes for a great addition to the tuning. Vocals are warm and engaging, and instruments have great timbre and an innate musicality. I do think the highest part of the upper mids can be a bit intense at times, and lowering the bass shelf via some simple EQ can really allow the midrange the room it deserves to show off more of its character, but even in its stock form, there's plenty here to enjoy.

●Highs - The Astrum's treble is quite nicely tuned for me and my preferences, and I find very little to complain about here. There's enough energy to keep things interesting, yet not so much that it becomes detracting to the warm tonality. It has a certain sparkly quality and a clean and articulate nature. The detail is perhaps a bit underserved, but it's not super noticeable. The texture is crisp, and the treble as a whole is fatigue-free, which is always a good thing. The extension is adequate, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything of importance in the upper areas of the treble, though I wouldn't say the Astrum has an affinity for airiness. Cymbals sound crisp and correct—never splashy, and snares are articulate and pleasant without being piercing. As I said in the mids section above, the lower treble can feel just a little overtuned at higher volume levels. Some vocal notes like "s," "sh," and "t" can be just a little irritating, but honestly, they don't bother me all that much, and there are no real sibilance issues to address. Overall, the treble is a great addition to the Astrum's tuning. The sparkle and energy are enough to stand out in the mix, and the extension and air are plenty good enough for my preferences. I will admit that the treble lacks just a bit of the polish and refinement that I've come to expect from ESTs, and even though I find it agreeable, I do question BGVP's choice of driver configuration. I'm not sure the Astrum's particularly rolled-off tuning target really calls for ESTs. I would have rather seen the company achieve a similarly rolled-off and agreeable treble response with a cheaper driver type like BAs or microplanars, saving themselves a fair bit of money in the process and passing those savings on to the consumer.

Comparisons: Credit to Tone Deaf Monk and Hu-Fi for the graphs.

● Artpical Lucifer ($500) - We'll kick off this section with a matchup between the 2DD, 2BA, 2EST tribrid configuration of the Astrum versus the single DD of the Lucifer. Both sets seem to have a pretty great unboxing experience, but as stated earlier, I did not receive all the accessories with the Astrum. I can at least attest to the quality of the stock cables, which are quite nice. The build qualities of the shells are actually pretty similar, but the shape, fit, and designs are much different. Both sets utilize a resin shell with a metal nozzle, but the Lucifer is smaller in size and more bean-like in shape, while the Astrum has a more traditional and better-contoured shell. Fit-wise, both fit well enough, but the Lucifer is a little more comfortable for long-term listening. I like that both sets feature a very colorful aesthetic, but I'm a little more partial to Lucifer's design. Regarding the sound, both have generally V-shaped tunings, but the Lucifer's is more extreme with a larger midrange dip in comparison to its bass and treble. Both sets have emphasized bass, but they manage to sound quite different. The Lucifer has a bit more quantity overall and a better balance between mid and sub-bass, while the Astrum is a little more linear and sub-bass-oriented. I'd say the Astrum's extension reaches a bit deeper, but the Lucifer has slightly more rumble and impact, along with a cleaner texture, better resolution, and quicker speed. The Astrum's slightly slower decay and longer-lasting reverberation make the bass a little more natural for me, though. In the midrange, there are also some key differences. The Lucifer's more prominent dip in the lower half, along with a more accentuated upper-midrange, makes for a fun, if less balanced, presentation. Vocals are generally more forward and prominent in the mix, with instruments in the lower half being a bit lacking. As someone who generally prefers a flatter midrange response, I find myself more drawn to the Astrum, though the Lucifer still holds appeal for specific tracks and genres. The Astrum also has a more organic vocal timbre and a warmer tonality that makes for an emotionally charged presentation, whereas the Lucifer has a certain cleanliness and energy. The differences continue into the treble where the Lucifer is brighter and more sparkly, while the Astrum is less fatiguing and better balanced with the rest of the frequency response. The extension and air may be a bit better on the Lucifer, but it could be deceptive due to the extra treble energy. The Astrum has a slightly thicker treble note weight, and snares and cymbals are less intense, which makes for a fatigue-free nature. The Lucifer isn't overly bright or sibilant, but there is a greater incidence of harshness at high volumes. In the technical performance department, these two trade blows pretty well, but the Astrum has better separation and timbre, while the Lucifer has improved layering, detail retrieval, and dynamics. This matchup is a hard one because despite their similarities, both bring something unique to the table that makes it difficult to choose between them. The Astrum's thicker note weight and warmer tonality really speak to me, but the Lucifer's added bass rumble, fullness, and heavily V-shaped tuning offer an intangible fun factor. As someone who enjoys variety, I can easily say that I like what both of these sets do well. Ultimately, this matchup may hinge on the genre of music and my mood and preferences at any given moment. Both represent a good value proposition, but as of the time of this review, I would likely pick the Astrum by a very slim margin. However, that could change daily, and the Lucifer's deep V-shaped tuning and superb layering could win out tomorrow, so I'm inclined to call this a draw.

My pick: Tie

● NiceHCK NX8 Ti ($400) - Here we have a competition between two tribrids: the 2DD, 2BA, 2EST of the Astrum, against the 1DD, 6BA, 1PZT of the NX8 Ti. I can really only directly compare the cables, and I will say the Astrum's is much better, though both sets seem to have great overall accessories based on pictures and impressions I've seen. The build qualities, though, are a little different. The Astrum features a more solid resin body with a better contoured shape, while the NX8 Ti has a combination of a resin body and a titanium faceplate. My eye is definitely more drawn to the Astrum's colorful design, but the NX8 has a nice, understated aesthetic and offers a slightly more comfortable fit. When it comes to sound signature, these two follow a similar target, but the Astrum is a little more V-shaped, while the NX8 is more U-shaped. Starting at the lower end of the frequency response, the Astrum is definitely the bassier of the two. But not only does it have more quantity, it's also more energetic, impactful, and boisterous. Unfortunately, it can be a bit intrusive and overly dominant at times, whereas the NX8's bass is still elevated but better balanced with the rest of the tuning. It's also a little cleaner with improved texture and resolution, but there's definitely something special about the Astrum's thicker and more voluptuous bass that is sure to appeal to many. In the mids, the Astrum is a bit more vocal-forward and engaging. It also has a better sense of warmth and emotional weight, but there's some thinness in the upper midrange, especially with female artists. The NX8 sounds a little cleaner and better separated, with an improved sense of width and immersion. It's also better balanced across the entire midrange, which helps lower instruments come through more clearly. Though the Astrum's sense of depth and dynamics definitely adds to its appeal. The treble is probably where the biggest difference lies. The Astrum's emphasis on the presence region is a little overexaggerated for my taste. In the upper mids, there's a little thinness and edginess here that doesn't quite agree with my ear. The NX8 sounds less bright in comparison, but it also has better extension and air and manages to sound more natural and better balanced with the rest of the frequency response. The Astrum also has some irritability on "s" and "sh" notes at high volumes, and the texture leans a touch brittle, whereas the NX8 is crisp and clean, yet never harsh or fatiguing. When it comes to technicalities, these two compete well in note weight and detail retrieval, but the Astrum has better dynamics, imaging, and soundstage depth, while the NX8 has improved width, along with better separation and timbre. For me, this one ultimately comes down to the overall balance. That's a word I used a lot in this matchup, and honestly, the NX8 addresses just about every single complaint I have with the Astrum. The slight decrease in bass presence and better separation, more balanced midrange, less accentuated lower treble, and extra air and extension up top all add up to the NX8 having a much better tuning for my preferences. While it doesn't have the Astrum's warmth, engagement, dynamism, or overall uniqueness, the NX8 Ti's immersive soundstage, natural timbre, and general amiability make up for it. It also doesn't hurt that it's about half the price.

My pick: NX8 Ti

● Punch Audio Martilo ($330) - Here we have another matchup of two tribrids: the 2DD, 2BA, 2EST of the Astrum versus the 2DD, 2BA, and 1 microplanar of the Martilo. Starting with the accessories, the Astrum's cable is better built and more pliable with a nicer aesthetic, but the Martilo's is modular, for what that's worth. The build quality and shape are very similar. Both have resin shells with metal nozzles and a semi-custom shape that's well-contoured, but the Astrum is a little bigger in size, and I did find the Martilo fits me a little more comfortably. Design-wise, my eye is more drawn to the Astrum's more colorful design, but the Martilo looks nice too. When it comes to the sound, these two share a common tuning target but still have some differences throughout the frequency response. Both are V-shaped in nature, but the Martilo is more so, with a bigger bass shelf and a little more upper midrange emphasis. The biggest difference in the bass is definitely the sub-bass quantity and extension. The Martilo reaches deeper but also has a bigger mid-bass dip and is better separated from the midrange. The Astrum is fuller and better balanced across the low end, and the extra mid-bass presence adds a nice warmth throughout the entire frequency response. However, the Martilo manages to sound a little cleaner and more resolving, with added impact and rumble and a slightly quicker decay. In the midrange, the Astrum pushes vocals a bit more forward in the mix, and the combination of an earlier pinna gain and less upper midrange emphasis leads to a better balance across the mids. The Martilo, though, has a slightly cleaner and wider vocal presentation with a little more emphasis on female artists. It also has a flatter lower midrange, which lends more weight to instruments, and the bass is less intrusive here as well. Essentially, the Astrum sounds more colored with more warmth and emotional weight, while the Martilo is a little cleaner and less accentuated, especially compared to the larger sub-bass boost. The treble is actually where these two sound quite similar. Both have a very close frequency response starting at 4kHz, but the Martilo manages to sound just a touch more energetic and crisp, while the Astrum is a bit more detailed. Neither is particularly harsh or fatiguing, but the Astrum's propensity for lower treble leads to a little bit more thinness and irritability on certain tracks. When it comes to technical performance, the Astrum has better layering, imaging, detail retrieval, and note weight, while the Martilo has improved soundstage and separation. For me, this one really comes down to the bass. If you're looking for a bassy all-rounder, the Martilo would be my recommendation. The Astrum's low end is just a little overly dominant, and there's a bit of bleed to contend with, whereas the Martilo's sub-bass focus and tuning balance hit my ear so well. It's true the Astrum is the warmer, more musical, and more emotionally charged of the two, which I'm usually drawn to, but there's just something about the Martilo's balance and cleanliness that makes it the better all-rounder to my ear. Don't get me wrong; for certain genres, I would absolutely choose the Astrum, but for general listening enjoyment, the Martilo hits the bassy nail on the head, and it's about half the price to boot.

My pick: Martilo

● Softears Volume S ($320) - This contest pits the 2DD (1 passive) and 2BA hybrid of the Volume S against the 2DD, 2BA, and 2EST tribrid configuration of the Astrum. I can't say much about the accessories, but I can attest that the Astrum has a much nicer cable, though the Volume S features a modular option and a very nice case. These two are quite similar in shape and size, but the Astrum has a more robust build quality and a metal nozzle. The Volume S offers a more comfortable fit for me and a nice simplistic design, but I prefer the Astrum's more eye-catching color palette. The Volume S also features two tuning options, and for this comparison, I will be using the lower impedance setting. When it comes to the sound signature, both have similar targets outside of the bass, with the Astrum being more V-shaped and the Volume S more U-shaped. As I said, the bass is where the biggest difference lies, as evidenced in the graph, but in-ear they sound pretty similar other than the quantity. The Astrum is more resolving with an increased sub-bass focus, better extension, and slightly improved impact, but the texture and decay are quite alike, which gives them a similar vibe. In the midrange, the Volume S puts a bit more focus on vocals as a whole, but this could have as much to do with the reduced bass as the slightly increased emphasis on the graph. The difference between the lower dip and the upper peak is actually similar between the two sets. The Astrum has an earlier pinna gain rise, which is showcased in male vocals being more prominent in the mix. The Volume S better represents lower midrange instruments, and it has a more open and better-separated midrange. The Astrum adds a nice warmth, but the large bass shelf can encumber and overshadow the mids in some tracks. The treble is where these two are most similar to my ear. The Astrum has a bit more sparkle, crispness, energy, and air, but they share a similar texture and extension. Cymbals and snares in particular are a bit more impactful and exciting on the Astrum, while the Volume S offers a slightly smoother presentation. When it comes to the technical side of things, the Astrum's performance outclasses the Volume S in most categories, notably dynamics, but the gap isn't huge. For me, this matchup really comes down to bass and overall tuning preference. The Astrum's bigger and fuller bass response is one of my favorite aspects of its tuning, but it has a tendency to sort of get in its own way. There are times I wish it were tempered slightly to allow the midrange more of a chance to show off, and that's what the Volume S does so well. The Astrum takes a similar tuning and adds more warmth, engagement, and dynamism, but for me, it loses a little something in the transition. Personally, I prefer the less bassy and easier-listening set, even if it has slightly worse technical performance. The Volume S still has plenty of bass for my needs, and it's less intrusive too, which allows the midrange room to shine. The Astrum is still very good, and I do consider it a general upgrade over the Volume S, especially for those who found this particular Softears model to be a little boring. However, tuning preference will always play the biggest role in this hobby, and the Volume S simply hits my ear better.

My pick: Volume S

● DUNU DaVinci ($300) - This matchup is between the 2DD, 2BA, 2EST tribrid configuration of the Astrum and the DaVinci's 2DD, 4BA hybrid design. I can't compare all the accessories since I didn't receive the Astrum's, but the DaVinci has a modular cable while the Astrum's is softer, more pliable, and a better aesthetic match to the shells. When it comes to build quality, both are similar in size and have a combination of resin shells with metal nozzles, but the DaVinci is a little more bulbous with a wider nozzle, while the Astrum is better contoured. The DaVinci fits me a little better, but the Astrum isn't uncomfortable. I will say that I prefer the Astrum's more colorful design to the simpler, more neutral faceplate of the DaVinci. Moving on to the sound signature, the DaVinci has a more U-shaped tuning with a flatter lower midrange, while the Astrum is more V-shaped with a typical lower midrange recession and an early pinna gain rise. Starting with the bass, the difference here isn't so much the quantity as the quality. The DaVinci has a fuller low end with more weight and a slower, more natural decay, but it does sound a little bloomy and wet. The Astrum has a cleaner texture and better resolution, and the impact and attack are more concise in their delivery. It also has a bit more rumble and reverberation and is better separated from the midrange, but the DaVinci's deeper extension is a point in its favor. In the midrange, the Astrum emphasizes the upper mids, leaving the lower half a little underrepresented. The DaVinci's flatter lower midrange and less emphasized upper portion make for a more balanced presentation. The vocals are more forward and energetic on the Astrum, and the entire midrange has more detail and nuance, but the DaVinci's relaxed and warmer style is preferable for longer listening sessions. The treble of the Astrum is definitely a little brighter and crisper with a nice, clean texture and higher resolution, but the DaVinci rolls off a little steeper and has a fatigue-free nature that I'm really drawn to. The Astrum also has better extension and a bit more air, which helps to round out the entire frequency response, but the accentuated lower treble manages to take a little away from the midrange. The DaVinci's treble tends to be better at getting out of the way and allowing the midrange more of a chance to shine. As for technical performance, the Astrum is the better performer in most categories, including detail retrieval, separation, and dynamics, but the DaVinci has more note weight and soundstage depth. For me, this one really comes down to the overall tuning balance and, for lack of a better word, vibes. Sure, the DaVinci is "worse" in many technical metrics, but it has certain intangibles for me, the biggest of which is the sheer musicality of its sound, which cannot be understated. The Astrum performs better on paper, but there are more than a few changes I'd make to the tuning, whereas the DaVinci really seems to match my HRTF so well. Now, I think that the Astrum could be seen as an evolution of sorts of the DaVinci's tuning, but its cleaner presentation and extra midrange and treble emphasis go a little too far for me. The DaVinci has remained one of my absolute favorite IEMs, and it has held its own against competitors in all price ranges. There's just something about the way it helps me connect to the music that continues to impress.

My pick: DaVinci 

● Canpur Silver Flash ($130) - This is an interesting matchup between the Astrum's tribrid configuration and the single DD of the Silver Flash. Obviously, I can't speak to all the accessories of the Astrum, but after seeing pictures and unboxing videos, I can safely say the inclusions are much better. The Flash only comes with very basic accessories, while the Astrum has a proper case, more tip options, and a vastly better cable, though the Flash does include a simple USB-C dongle for ease of use. The build qualities and designs are about as different as they can be. The Flash features an all-metal shell and a very minimalistic aesthetic versus the Astrum's colorful resin build. The Flash is also smaller with a more contoured semi-custom shape, but the nozzle angle doesn't fit me quite as well as the Astrum's. Despite the vast difference in driver configurations and designs, these two definitely share some common tuning DNA. Both have similar V-shaped sound signatures with a larger bass shelf, plenty of upper midrange emphasis, and rolled-off treble. In the bass, the Flash has a bit more sub-bass quantity and extension, while the Astrum has a more linear-style bass. The Astrum also has more impact, a slightly slower, more natural decay, and a bit of a sustained rumble, while the Flash is bouncier and a bit quicker on the attack. The biggest difference is in the texture, resolution, and weight. The Flash definitely sounds good for a budget-friendly set, and it has a clean and thumpy bass response, but the Astrum performs noticeably better and simply sounds more natural and organic. Moving along to the midrange, the Flash pushes vocals a bit more to the forefront, especially female vocals, and they have a thinner, colder, and more energetic presentation. The Astrum has a level of warmth and musicality that I connect with much more. Vocals are still elevated and accentuated, just better balanced with the rest of the frequency response, and they're more natural-sounding. The Flash also has a wider-sounding midrange, but the timbre of both instruments and vocals is slightly off. The Astrum has a more intimate and cozy presentation with added depth but less excitement. The treble is not all that dissimilar, but there are some key differences, mostly in the texture and note weight. I think both have adequate extension and air, the Astrum a bit more so, but neither is exceptionally great. The Astrum sounds more complete in the top end, and the added note weight helps to keep notes grounded and realistic. The Flash is a little brighter overall and has more emphasis on the lower half of the treble, which makes "s" and "sh" sounds quite prominent. They aren't quite harsh or wince-inducing, but can be fatiguing over time. It also has a snappier and crisper texture that some will prefer, but cymbals and snares sound a little artificial. Personally, I prefer the Astrum's toned-down energy level and more natural presentation. Regarding technical performance, it's no surprise that the Astrum is better in most categories, notably note weight, detail retrieval, and timbre, but the Flash performs admirably, and the layering and dynamics in particular hold up well. For me, this one mostly comes down to the treble and the overall tuning execution. The Astrum does have an added level of musicality and a warmer tonality that I prefer, but the Silver Flash is more energetic, which is likely to sway certain tastes. My main issue is that the treble is just too prominent, thin, and artificial. It's definitely still within my tolerances, but the Astrum is much easier to enjoy for longer periods, and it also has a more natural presentation. The Silver Flash represents a fantastic value in the sub-$150 category, but the Astrum simply executes at a higher level in technicalities, tuning balance, and musical enjoyment.

My pick: Astrum

In conclusion:

Well, the Astrum wasn't love at first listen for me, but its charm did manage to sway me over time; the more I listened, the more my affection grew. If I were to draw some comparisons to its namesake of Latin roots, it took me a while to decipher the stars and make out the Astrum's musical constellation. But after spending some time getting to know and understand the tuning, I can say I found a lot to enjoy here. It has a very dynamic, fun, and engaging V-shaped tuning with a unique flair that helps to set it apart in an increasingly crowded market. The bass is elevated, boisterous, and full, with a certain voluptuous and enveloping character. The vocals are warm yet natural, and the treble is crisp, detailed, and sibilance-free. Unfortunately, I think the bass does have a tendency to get in its own way at times and trip up the overall balance of the tuning. It can overshadow and encumber the midrange at higher volumes, which means the Astrum might be better suited for low- to medium-volume listeners. It's also not quite the bassy all-rounder I was hoping for, and I found my enjoyment waxed or waned a bit depending on the genre at hand. Bassier tracks like EDM, upbeat pop, and dance? Yes, please! However, more relaxing and mellow music, like folk, singer-songwriter, and orchestral arrangements, has a little too much bass emphasis and energy. Also, rock music is split for me, with faster stuff like hard rock and metal working better than slower alternative and ballad-type tracks. I actually found that some simple EQ went a long way to helping me enjoy the Astrum more. A reduction of just a few decibels in the bass shelf allows the midrange more room to shine. Ultimately, I do think the Astrum represents a really solid value proposition in the mid-fi tier. The build quality and design are great, the accessories are very nice, and the tuning isn't something you find around every corner. If you're on the hunt for a dynamic and fun tuning with a thick and meaty bass, a warm and emotive midrange, and a present yet non-fatiguing treble, then the Astrum might just be the one for you. I haven't heard many offerings from BGVP, but this one is easily my favorite so far, and it should definitely be on every bass enthusiast's radar.