/Double Post, Please Admin check next one.
post #136 of 1528
6/16/09 at 5:24pm
Same sentiments here....I no longer need to use flats as I normally do for most Grados; bowls give me the bass I want without the flab. HF-2s also seem to reach deeper frequencies and have better bass decay relative to the HF-1s.
Yes. My SR-325i had enough bass when they were fairly new, but the bass lessened with burn-in until it was less than I wanted after a couple hundred hours. The HF-2 with over 250 hours have not lost any bass, but it has noticeably tightened up and become more controlled yet more powerful than the 325i were. The PS-1 with bowls has the right amount of bass as well, while with flats it was too much for the rest of the frequency spectrum (to my ears). The HF-2 with bowls has more bass than RS-1 with bowls, and is similar to RS-1 or HF-1 or HP-1000 with flats, but it feels like it does go deeper. I have not tested that last part yet with test tones (will try it when I return to town in a couple of days).
At CanJam I thought the PS-1000 bass with donuts was about like the PS-1 with flats, and more than I wanted, while the HF-2 were closer to just right. I don't know how well the PS-1000 were burned-in, but I think they were pretty fresh like the HF-2 and HD800 there at CanJam.
I think the HF-2 are one of the best phones from John Grado, and I like them best with bowls. It seems to combine the rich vibrant mids and intimacy of the RS-2 with bowls, and the bass of the PS-1 with bowls, and the larger soundstage of RS-1 with bowls, with better detail and liveliness than the RS-2. But, the highs with bowls do not seem to be too bright either. They are the first hi-end Grado that I have not given a thought to re-cabling yet.