This and That:
Black cardboard box that is not model-specific, three pairs of ear tips, cable, in-ears, carrying/storage pouch.
Would've preferred to see a hardcase storage case, but whatever. After all, it's better than nothing, isn't it?
Quite large but ergonomically shaped shells. The two BA drivers, crossover and two sound tubes are visible.
Build quality is good and flawless but doesn't appear like that of an expensive in-ear, which the MR2 isn't anyway after all. The shells appear sturdy.
The cable seems durable but isn't very flexible or supple and lacks strain relief as well as a chin-slider.
Sound:
I'm only using my low impedance sources as well as the largest included silicone tips that came with the MR2.
Tonality:
After the really great experience with my MR3 from Pai Audio, I was especially curious to know how their lower-tier dual-BA model sounds. Generally, its sound heads into the smoother, more bass-emphasised direction, but is overall still fairly balanced, wherefore it ultimately describes a v-shape with its moderate upper treble emphasis, but overall it's probably more on the fuller, bassier side of v-shaped.
In my ears, the bass is emphasised by about 8 dB (compared to my Etymotic ER-4S) and mainly focuses on the mid-bass, upper bass as well as fundamental range, although the sub-bass fortunately doesn’t roll of either. The overall emphasis is very even.
The following lower midrange is, to my ears, a bit elevated (and therefore no typically recessed or distanced sounding v-shaped midrange) and deep voices are somewhat more on the warmer side (due to the lows’ emphasis that starts extending at about 500 Hz), but still what I’d consider as tonally mostly correct, and definitely natural instead of coloured (it's not much unlike my Campfire Audio Andromeda's midrange, with the exception that the Andro's upper mids are darker rand more even recessed). The following presence area and middle highs are more in the background, wherefore the sound gets smoother and guarantees for really good, non-fatiguing long-term listening, although the MR2 isn't as relaxed-distanced as my Campfire Audio Andromeda in this area. At 9 kHz, there is a moderate peak.
Above 10 kHz, the extension is still good up to 14 kHz, wherefore subtle sparkle in this area can still be heard (when it's on the recording), what is quite nice.
The triple-BA MR3 follows a tuning philosophy that pretty much resembles my UERMs’ tonality with a tad more bass quantity.
The MR2 is bassier and sounds darker as well as more relaxed than the MR3 – especially the central treble that is less present on the dual-driver is what makes the sound appear more forgiving and better for long-term listening. In contrast to the MR3, the treble is not bright, but also not really dark – “relaxed” would be a fitting term.
In the super-treble above 10 kHz, the MR3 has probably got the slightly better extension by 1 kHz, but it doesn't really make a difference in real-world listening.
Resolution:
In terms of detail retrieval, the MR2 is really good for he price.
Not much surprising, the lows are, typically for a BA woofer implementation, quite fast, responsive and tight, but also gain some body and fullness from the large Knowles woofer, giving them what many would describe as "natural" (decay and attack are softer compared to woofer implementations with two smaller bass drivers but still clearly ahead of "typical" dynamic driver/hybrid in-ears that are usually softer in the lows).
The mids are quite precise and unveil singers’ variations very well, although the lower mids and fundamental range suffers a little from masking effects, lacking just a bit of details compared to the treble (my Apple dual-BA in-ears showcase a somewhat comparable behaviour).
There is nothing bad to say about the treble that separates notes precisely and appears detailed.
Regarding resolution, my triple-BA MR3 is superior to the MR2 (and also beats my Shure SE425). Typically for the MR3’s smaller dual-woofer design, the bass is somewhat tighter compared to that of the MR2’s large woofer, but the dual-driver MR2 has got the better tactile bass body, which is nice on its own, and is at least comparably fast and controlled (and not really that soft at all, though softer than the MR3’s smaller, more responsive BA-woofers).
Although the MR3 has got the higher treble resolution, I kind of prefer the MR2 in the upper department, as it lacks the slightly metallic 5 kHz range of the MR3, wherefore the MR2’s treble sounds more natural and realistic in comparison.
Compared to my Shure SE425, the American in-ear slightly wins – the Shure has got the quicker bass and the somewhat higher detail retrieval in the mids and lower highs. Though, with music that contains many instruments, I find the Pai to be better controlled (most likely due to its larger soundstage). Not much surprising, the Chinese MR2 has got the better extension above 10 kHz, but that's not really difficult to achieve since treble extension is clearly not the Shure's strength.
Soundstage:
Just like the MR3, the MR2 is spatially very convincing, although its soundstage is slightly narrower and also a little less deep, but still quite remarkable (and in contrast to some multi-driver in-ears like my UE900 or Westone W4R, the Pai has got a good presentation of spatial depth wherefore it sounds three-dimensional and authentic, which not that many (multi-) BA-only in-ears manage to achieve in the lower to middle three-digit price range)
And also just like the MR3, the MR2’s instrument placement and separation as well as layering are really good and appear very plausible (the MR2 is just as precise as the MR3 in this regard) and above that of my Shure.
Once again, the whole spatial presentation is done very well and appears highly authentic.
Conclusion:
While the Pai Audio MR2 may lack the glitter and glamour of some of the big manufacturers' models and comes with a cable that is quite meh, its well-done, full sounding v-shape with natural mids that are just slightly on the warmer side but realistically sounding, just like those of the Brainwavz B200 (the original one with black injection-moulded shells, not the differently tuned and inferior sounding v2), and especially its very convincing and authentic, three-dimensional soundstage that not many in-ears in the low to medium price range manage to achieve, are its clear strengths.
From my point of view and sound preference, it's a nice in-ear for on-the-go, commuting or casual listening.