AAC is Chinese to me, I'm old school, my sources are mainly CD/SACD, turntable, and reel to reel, same destination, same conclusion, just a different route.
Yesterday I fired up the HPA-2, (battery circuit),, and my Technics SL-1200 MK2 wich has an Ortofon 2M Black, and listen to Eric Clapton's very well recorded vinyl, Unplugged.
I listen to one side with my HP1000, and switched to the PS1000 for the flip side. The difference was anything but subtle, The PS1000 have better bass, and treble extension, and a bigger soundstage. I have the TTVJ flats on the HP1000, wich I find, gives them deeper bass, a the expense of treble extension and a slight loss in soundstage width.
From what I have read in the PS1000 thread, you and I seem to have the same opinion of the PS1000 and HP1000.
At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I"d even go so far as to say that the HP1000 are a bit overrated.
stacker45, thanks for identifying a specific comparison test... I had a great time comparing my HP1000 and PS1000.
I used just one song from Eric Clapton's
Unplugged , which was "Before You Accuse Me," which I also understand is used by Grado as one of three songs they test their headphones with. My recording is a lossless CD, as I don't have the record in vinyl or reel-to-reel tape (though I do have both types of players). It was played at 44,100 16-bit samples/sec (standard CD, but sold by HDTracks as part of their catalog which includes a lot of high resolution recordings, up to 192,000 24-bit samples/sec! This, however, was the best they had of this song).
By the way, AAC is "Advanced Audio Coding," which uses a variable bit rate of 256,000 bits/sec. It is what standard iTunes uses. Hence, we can compare the coding method bit rates as:
- Apple iTunes AAC - 256kb/sec - requires removal of bits of information from an original CD copy to get to this low bit rate
- Lossless CD - 1,411 kb/sec, or 5.5 times higher bit rate than AAC
- High Definition - 9,216 kb/sec, or 36 times higher bit rate than AAC
- Analog (what you have) - true analog has an infinite number of levels and would really require an infinite number of kb/sec to describe
Somewhere along the line, human perception becomes unable to distinguish among various bit rates, so going higher makes no difference.
So I have listened back and forth between both headphones, both driven by my Joseph Grado HPA-1 amp which is driven by my FiiO X3 running that song from
Eric Clapton Unplugged at full CD resolution, for the past hour or so.
What I found:
- There is clearly a difference between the HP1000 HP1 and the PS1000;
- In the bass, the HP1000 HP1 is clear and precise, as it is through all frequencies. The PS1000 is boomier in the bass, which to me makes it a bit harder to determine the pitch of a bass line (sort of like an echo in a barrel... I by no means intend this as a negative, but it does seem to make adjacent low notes sound more similar in pitch). As a result, the PS1000 sounds more bassy;
- In the treble, the HP1000 is very slightly muted or veiled, as if playing through speakers with the cloth in front of them. The PS1000 is more transparent, as if the speaker cloth was removed. Hence, the PS1000 gives you more of the feeling that you are in the room with the musicians;
- In the mids, for example for the singing, the two to me sound the same;
- As regard to sound stage, the PS1000s sound as if they have just a bit more... music comes from a wider angle around you.
I, like you, have the TTVJ flats on my HP1000, and I have the standard Grado G-CUSH over-ear bowls on my PS1000, just as they are sold.
I think we are finding the same thing, if what you mean as "treble extension" is the same as what I call "transparency" or "lack of a cloth veil." It's my own ignorance that I do not really know what "treble extension" means nor what to listen for to determine it. I did NOT really read your comparison of the two before making my own comparison... once I saw that we both had essentially the same amp and source material, I immediately started to compare. To now find that we are hearing the same differences is encouraging!
I would add that the comfort factor of the over-ear pads of the PS1000 is significantly greater than the on-ear HP1000. I am not one to change pads from what was designed by Grado, so I would no more put G-CUSH pad on the HP1000, even to gain comfort, as I would put the TTVJ flats on the PS1000s.
While I enjoy listening with the PS1000 more than with the HP1000, I don't really think the HP1000 is overrated. In its day (1990), it was a $595 headphone (that is for the HP1 that I have, with the polarity switches... the HP2 was $495). With inflation from 1990, that makes it about a $990 headphone today, less than today's $1,695 price on the PS1000 (of course, because of the age, classic nature, and status as the start of the Grado line, you will pay 2 to 4 times that $1,000 now to get one!!! That's OK!)
I think that the HP1000 is the brutally honest friend that tells me I am too fat (so I believe when that friend says I am intelligent). The PS1000 is the much more pleasant friend that dotes on everything I do and praises my manly physique!! Again, I prefer the PS1000 (dessert), but I appreciate and need the HP1000 (vegetables!).
Or, graphically....