After an exchange through PM with another board member who was asking questions about my APureSound v3 re-cabled Grado RS-2, I went back and listened to the RS-2 and HF-1 side by side for a a while. I spent all day doing this. My Grado HF-1 and RS-2 both have bowl pads and both have the APS v3 cables, while my HP-1000 came with flats. I used my Macbook with Apple Lossless files, and a 725 hour RSA Predator with USB DAC.
The main difference that I hear between them is that the HF-1 are more distant (like descriptions I have read regarding the GS-1000), while the RS-2 are a little more full bodied, warmer and up front. Thus, the HF-1 have a bigger sound-stage and are less in your face than the RS-2. The RS-2 treble is maybe a little smoother or less grainy in the details. I felt the HF-1 have a little more shimmery treble, maybe accentuated by the more distant mids, rather than by actually having more treble. Bass seems equal. So, I went on to try a variety of music genres.
CLASSICAL: I played some music off of the "This is K2 HD Sound" CD. Wow! The HF-1 reproduced the classical music on this sampler tremendously well. It puts you right there in the auditorium with all the ambience and huge space of the venue. With this particular High Def CD, the RS-2 did quite well too on symphonic orchestra classical, but it doesn't have that same sense of depth, stage and large concert hall that the HF-1 projected. So, I have to say that the HF-1 beat the RS-2 on most symphonic orchestra music. There were a few exceptions, like Handel's The Messiah by Academy of Ancient Music where they tied, in large because of how well the RS-2 present the vocals. With intimate Quartets, like YoYo Ma cello music, the RS-2 kept up well too.
After hearing this revelation with classical, before moving on to other music, I pulled out my vintage Grado HP-1000 (HP-2) with flats and Joe Grado Signature UWB Cable. I put on the same classical that I had just tried (Richmaninoff Symphonic Dance No. 1, Excerpt), and the RS-2/HP-2 sounded very similar with more flat stage and upfront than the HF-1, with the HF-1 sounding better!
The RS-2 were less "on-stage" sounding than HP-2, and therefore less crowded and more pleasing, but the HF-1 provided the correct position out in the audience when listening to classical, which just feels more right to me. Again, with my particular recording of Handel's Messiah, the HP-2 do quite well vs the HF-1, just like the RS-2 did.
JAZZ: The overall experience with the RS-2 was somewhat more rewarding with both instrumental jazz and vocals than HF-1. BUT the HF-1 are still quite good, especially with "Herbie Hancock does Gershwin" or "Jazz at the Pawnshop" and similar live venues, where the HF-1 still does a good job bringing out the ambience and space of being there. However, the HF-1 mids and soundstage seem to be a little too far away for some types of jazz music like Diana Krall or Nora Jones (or Patricia Barber). There were all very quick and uncolored, with strong bass and clean highs, with soundstage being the main difference. The HP-2 were similar to the RS-2, with more bass and the same forward mids, but they are a little more "full" than even the RS-2. I still enjoyed all 3 of them with most Jazz.
ROCK: Listening to rock with the HP-2, since they were still plugged in, I note that they have more bass than either the HF-1 or RS-2 (which seem about equal to each other), and as expected the RS-2/HP-2 are more forward and up front than the HF-1. That makes the HF-1 good with close miked male vocals, but the RS-2/HP-2 are better with EVERYTHING else, with the nod going to the HP-2 for more authority over the music. The HF-1 just sound too thin when you turn up the volume with rock music - but they make a great low volume rock headphone. But the RS-2/HP-2 are just more full sounding. Even the Proline 2500 sound better with rock than the HF-1 when played loud.
Electronic and New Age instrumental music. They all did equally as well with this genre.
So, in summary:
I felt that the HF-1 with APS v3 cable are more enjoyable to my ears for Classical music, especially symphonic classical, than RS-2 with the same cable or the HP-2. Switching the HP-2 to bowls did very slightly open the soundstage, but hurt the bass too much and they were too uncomfortable (big weight and clamping pressure with bowls is no fun). I'd be okay with any of the three for Classical, but having a choice of the three I would reach for the HF-1 for Classical.
The RS-2/HP-2 tie for Jazz, especially with female vocals like Diana Krall. The RS-2 have a little more ambience than HP-2 but less bass. In a close second place are the HF-1, which may actually hold a slight edge with live Jazz music and large venues. I could enjoy any of these with most of my jazz music, but playing Diana Krall with the HF-1 I kept wanting to add some 250-500Hz mids, like I must do with my Darth Beyers. (see addendum)
I preferred the HP-2 with MOST Rock music, and the RS-2 next. HF-1 are a good low volume rock headphone, but they just sounded too "thin" when playing rock loud. (see addendum) The RS-2 are better than HF-1 for rock at more moderate volumes, BUT the HP-2 bass and mids can make even the RS-2 sound "thin".
I should note that I have never heared the HF-1 with stock cable, as they already had the re-cable when I bought them, so i don't know if they might rock out better with stock cable. I did hear the RS-2 with stock cable, and they do rock out better with the APS v3 cable.
[ADDENDUM] I am not going to re-type this whole thing, but this whole review changed simply by trying the flat pads on the HF-1 for the first time. Previously I tried a variety of pads and I did not like the HP-2 better with bowls (lose bass), nor the RS-2 better with flats (more congested), so it NEVER occurred to me to try swapping the pads on the HF-1, which came to me with bowls. THEN I REMEMBERED having heard rumor that the HF-1 had a new driver, and some people wondered it it was closer to the HP-1000 driver, which use flats as the standard pad. So I just tried it.
I must say that with the flats I think the HF-1 do female vocals as well as the RS-2/HP-2, and they can Rock almost as well as the HP-2! They do lose some of their spaciousness or set-back soundstage with flats, but they don't sound as congested as RS-2 do when you put flats on them. So, while flats on the RS-2 just didn't do it for me, the HF-1 really like them. However, for Classical with HF-1, going back to the bowls is clearly better than leaving the flats on. So, I am going to order an extra set of flats from ttvj.com to use with my HF-1 when listening to Rock music.
The next step is to come back and re-visit this with the Headphile C-pads. I have used the older un-ported paduak C-pads with the MS-1 and it added bass, but had trouble fitting them to my SR-60, and they are the wrong size for wood or metal grados. I have the ported v7 C-pads that came with the HP-2 and when I used them they didn't have much affect on the sound (and don't fit in the flight case, so I keep them in a zip-lock baggie). They should fit the RS-2 and HF-1, so I will try them later and report back.
Also, for those who are going to ask I will pre-emptively strike and say that my Grado SR-60 and MS-1 are very nice but in a different category than these. You can tell they are in the same family for sure, but they are not equals to these.
The main difference that I hear between them is that the HF-1 are more distant (like descriptions I have read regarding the GS-1000), while the RS-2 are a little more full bodied, warmer and up front. Thus, the HF-1 have a bigger sound-stage and are less in your face than the RS-2. The RS-2 treble is maybe a little smoother or less grainy in the details. I felt the HF-1 have a little more shimmery treble, maybe accentuated by the more distant mids, rather than by actually having more treble. Bass seems equal. So, I went on to try a variety of music genres.
CLASSICAL: I played some music off of the "This is K2 HD Sound" CD. Wow! The HF-1 reproduced the classical music on this sampler tremendously well. It puts you right there in the auditorium with all the ambience and huge space of the venue. With this particular High Def CD, the RS-2 did quite well too on symphonic orchestra classical, but it doesn't have that same sense of depth, stage and large concert hall that the HF-1 projected. So, I have to say that the HF-1 beat the RS-2 on most symphonic orchestra music. There were a few exceptions, like Handel's The Messiah by Academy of Ancient Music where they tied, in large because of how well the RS-2 present the vocals. With intimate Quartets, like YoYo Ma cello music, the RS-2 kept up well too.
After hearing this revelation with classical, before moving on to other music, I pulled out my vintage Grado HP-1000 (HP-2) with flats and Joe Grado Signature UWB Cable. I put on the same classical that I had just tried (Richmaninoff Symphonic Dance No. 1, Excerpt), and the RS-2/HP-2 sounded very similar with more flat stage and upfront than the HF-1, with the HF-1 sounding better!
The RS-2 were less "on-stage" sounding than HP-2, and therefore less crowded and more pleasing, but the HF-1 provided the correct position out in the audience when listening to classical, which just feels more right to me. Again, with my particular recording of Handel's Messiah, the HP-2 do quite well vs the HF-1, just like the RS-2 did.JAZZ: The overall experience with the RS-2 was somewhat more rewarding with both instrumental jazz and vocals than HF-1. BUT the HF-1 are still quite good, especially with "Herbie Hancock does Gershwin" or "Jazz at the Pawnshop" and similar live venues, where the HF-1 still does a good job bringing out the ambience and space of being there. However, the HF-1 mids and soundstage seem to be a little too far away for some types of jazz music like Diana Krall or Nora Jones (or Patricia Barber). There were all very quick and uncolored, with strong bass and clean highs, with soundstage being the main difference. The HP-2 were similar to the RS-2, with more bass and the same forward mids, but they are a little more "full" than even the RS-2. I still enjoyed all 3 of them with most Jazz.
ROCK: Listening to rock with the HP-2, since they were still plugged in, I note that they have more bass than either the HF-1 or RS-2 (which seem about equal to each other), and as expected the RS-2/HP-2 are more forward and up front than the HF-1. That makes the HF-1 good with close miked male vocals, but the RS-2/HP-2 are better with EVERYTHING else, with the nod going to the HP-2 for more authority over the music. The HF-1 just sound too thin when you turn up the volume with rock music - but they make a great low volume rock headphone. But the RS-2/HP-2 are just more full sounding. Even the Proline 2500 sound better with rock than the HF-1 when played loud.
Electronic and New Age instrumental music. They all did equally as well with this genre.
So, in summary:
I felt that the HF-1 with APS v3 cable are more enjoyable to my ears for Classical music, especially symphonic classical, than RS-2 with the same cable or the HP-2. Switching the HP-2 to bowls did very slightly open the soundstage, but hurt the bass too much and they were too uncomfortable (big weight and clamping pressure with bowls is no fun). I'd be okay with any of the three for Classical, but having a choice of the three I would reach for the HF-1 for Classical.
The RS-2/HP-2 tie for Jazz, especially with female vocals like Diana Krall. The RS-2 have a little more ambience than HP-2 but less bass. In a close second place are the HF-1, which may actually hold a slight edge with live Jazz music and large venues. I could enjoy any of these with most of my jazz music, but playing Diana Krall with the HF-1 I kept wanting to add some 250-500Hz mids, like I must do with my Darth Beyers. (see addendum)
I preferred the HP-2 with MOST Rock music, and the RS-2 next. HF-1 are a good low volume rock headphone, but they just sounded too "thin" when playing rock loud. (see addendum) The RS-2 are better than HF-1 for rock at more moderate volumes, BUT the HP-2 bass and mids can make even the RS-2 sound "thin".
I should note that I have never heared the HF-1 with stock cable, as they already had the re-cable when I bought them, so i don't know if they might rock out better with stock cable. I did hear the RS-2 with stock cable, and they do rock out better with the APS v3 cable.
[ADDENDUM] I am not going to re-type this whole thing, but this whole review changed simply by trying the flat pads on the HF-1 for the first time. Previously I tried a variety of pads and I did not like the HP-2 better with bowls (lose bass), nor the RS-2 better with flats (more congested), so it NEVER occurred to me to try swapping the pads on the HF-1, which came to me with bowls. THEN I REMEMBERED having heard rumor that the HF-1 had a new driver, and some people wondered it it was closer to the HP-1000 driver, which use flats as the standard pad. So I just tried it.
I must say that with the flats I think the HF-1 do female vocals as well as the RS-2/HP-2, and they can Rock almost as well as the HP-2! They do lose some of their spaciousness or set-back soundstage with flats, but they don't sound as congested as RS-2 do when you put flats on them. So, while flats on the RS-2 just didn't do it for me, the HF-1 really like them. However, for Classical with HF-1, going back to the bowls is clearly better than leaving the flats on. So, I am going to order an extra set of flats from ttvj.com to use with my HF-1 when listening to Rock music.
The next step is to come back and re-visit this with the Headphile C-pads. I have used the older un-ported paduak C-pads with the MS-1 and it added bass, but had trouble fitting them to my SR-60, and they are the wrong size for wood or metal grados. I have the ported v7 C-pads that came with the HP-2 and when I used them they didn't have much affect on the sound (and don't fit in the flight case, so I keep them in a zip-lock baggie). They should fit the RS-2 and HF-1, so I will try them later and report back.
Also, for those who are going to ask I will pre-emptively strike and say that my Grado SR-60 and MS-1 are very nice but in a different category than these. You can tell they are in the same family for sure, but they are not equals to these.
