Yeah true. Many people seem to swear by the d2000. IT uses a larger diaphram than the d1001, so it should more efficiently produce music, as well as extend lower. At least, that is what I read. I can only speak for what I have heard. I can say that I would probably trade up some day from the d1001s to the D2000s, as I don't see anything that would make them worse. The D1001s can work unamped, so it stands to reason so can the d2000, unless Denon's driver is just really ineffiecient on the D2000.
I have seen a lot of posts where people mod the enclosures of the d2000 to dampen any resonance, implying their low end could be a bit more taut. Without higher end sources, I doubt it would matter too much. I have a NON-OS DAC feeding my amp, ASIO out bit perfect optical s/pdif... Fat globules of bass fall out of the Shure 440s, but it is very controlled. I love it. Iwonder if the 440s are truly a big difference from the 840s, enough to change the sound signature so much as to make the 440s picky and the 840s work in an unamped ipod. *shrug*.
I have seen a lot of posts where people mod the enclosures of the d2000 to dampen any resonance, implying their low end could be a bit more taut. Without higher end sources, I doubt it would matter too much. I have a NON-OS DAC feeding my amp, ASIO out bit perfect optical s/pdif... Fat globules of bass fall out of the Shure 440s, but it is very controlled. I love it. Iwonder if the 440s are truly a big difference from the 840s, enough to change the sound signature so much as to make the 440s picky and the 840s work in an unamped ipod. *shrug*.
