Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Grado PS1000: The Legendary Flagship (Review)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Grado PS1000: The Legendary Flagship (Review) - Page 11

post #151 of 191

sarcasm?  those two cans are almost polar opposites

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

biggrin.gif

 

if you love the hd 650s, you will love the rs1i

post #152 of 191

exactly, ALMOST opposites.

 

he wanted "syrupy goodness and warmth". 

 

the RS1i are opposites in signature, but similar also due to their warm, thick sound.  they complement each other quite well imo


Edited by Dubstep Girl - 7/16/12 at 1:58am
post #153 of 191

Had an opportunity on Friday to try the PS500 vs PS1000 and agree with some observations made earlier in this post ref the PS1000's have a much larger "open" sound stage whilst sounding brighter than their sibling.

 

Was also very interesting to read that changing the location of the PS1000 on the head in relation to the pinna can drastically change the presentation of the cans. Will have a play around with that.


Edited by San Raal - 7/16/12 at 5:30am
post #154 of 191

This was pointless for me, because they arent sitting that great on your head, but you will hear the changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by San Raal View Post

 

Was also very interesting to read that changing the location of the PS1000 on the head in relation to the pinna can drastically change the presentation of the cans. Will have a play around with that.

post #155 of 191

I'm just amazed at the clarity and detail of the PS1000's - they're staging, imaging and positioning are spectacular.  

 

But... their incredible resolution will no doubt "unmask" a lot of recordings, which go "masked" in phones with lesser resolution.  Some will no doubt attribute the "course sound" of some (perhaps many) recordings to the PS1000's, when it really is their incredible resolution, clarity, staging, imaging and positioning, which does not permit recordings to sound as cohesive, and smooth as lesser phones do.   

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/520884/ps1000-appreciation-thread/332

post #156 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradofan2 View Post

I'm just amazed at the clarity and detail of the PS1000's - they're staging, imaging and positioning are spectacular.  

 

But... their incredible resolution will no doubt "unmask" a lot of recordings, which go "masked" in phones with lesser resolution.  Some will no doubt attribute the "course sound" of some (perhaps many) recordings to the PS1000's, when it really is their incredible resolution, clarity, staging, imaging and positioning, which does not permit recordings to sound as cohesive, and smooth as lesser phones do.   

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/520884/ps1000-appreciation-thread/332

 

The open, airy clarity was the very first thing I noticed when I put the 80s on my head for the first time. The details were there in spades and they were just floating in the air...completely unlike the other phones I was comparing them to at the time. I was pretty much captivated. 

post #157 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmore View Post

This was pointless for me, because they arent sitting that great on your head, but you will hear the changes.

 

GS1000 warning note on GradoLabs.com

 

"By creating this "room" for the ears to sit, positioning of the cushions with regards to the ears (i.e., forward or back) is somewhat critical in finding the absolute sweet spot." (http://www.gradolabs.com/page_headphones.php?item=fa25fd0be6abcd040b8093b9915a2126)

 

Sony Q010-MDR1 (Qualia 010) measurements on Headroom:

700

 

 

700

 

700

I repeat, these are US$2400 Qualia 010 measurements!

 

Crappy isn't it? It doesn't make sense at all don't it? What are you going to do about it? Those are in no way indicative of the (very) highly regarded listening experience the user/owner at the end is going to get (unanimously positive on Head-Fi). Why? No idea, but here's a simple hypothesis: Qualia 010 design philosophy, pads, headband(s), driver angling, and the principles behind just about every other components and materials have all have been pushed further and beyond limit, in order to maximize the performance of the headphone, which ultimately leads sound quality. The Qualia line of Sony products is a statement and a boutique to showcase their best and what they were truly capable off. They took their best TVs, camcorder, minidisc player, video processor, projector, and even the bacterial yogurt MDR-R10 drivers and improved upon them! That is research and development and material, acoustic, electronic, physical (and more) sciences coupled with some great engineering and technological know-how Japan is well reputed for, all on the same table, and yes, you have no idea how much everything about them has been measured and re-measured, both the parts independently and when put together, in laboratories far more sophisticated than ours.

 

In this case the problem is probably the fit on the standardized head and microphone-ears. This headphones as always been said to be one of the most fit-dependent, which is to be expected when you're dealing with a technological marvel designed by following very strictly and applying very rigidly only the best proven principles.

 

It's only an hypothesis. It seems like the tester didn't struggle that much with placement of the headphones according to the repeated and staying similar raw frequency response curves.

 

What if the qualities of the Qualia 010 transcends everything our limited eyes can understand from looking at a narrowed down sample of it under the microscope? Headphone measurement is, by definition, a radical departure from the usual holistic approach that is to simply listen to it, to a top-down analysis of its function into parameters readable by a computer with the use of test tones, frequency swipes, noise and square waves in order to make a very limited assertion about how an isolated pure tone is reproduced in relation to the rest of the band, how much the harmonics of the fundamental frequency are being excited, and how fast it then decays. It's not much, but we've found a way of representing it all with curves on a sheet. We managed to disassemble the sound, but the other way around is still impossible, no one knows of how to put back the exploded pieces together find the initial sound. We think we can tell the good headphones from the bad ones, yet headphone measurements doesn't tell us a single darn thing about how it's going to function in nature --when playing back music--, and in an ecological context --when our head and in relation to our hearing sense and psychological representation of the stimuli (and NO I'm not talking about subjectivity and personal bias! I'm talking about the way our brain transforms alternating density air fronts and excitation of cochlea's ciliated cells into a note, how harmonics are taken into account etc.).

 

PS-1000 measures better than the Sony Qualia 010, therefore, PS-1000 is a great headphone, yay!

 

I could end my post this way, but I won't.

 

How absurd, meaningless, and blinded is that? Yet we see and make such statements every day on Head-Fi... only a very few of us really takes measurements found on Innerfidelity with the HUGE deserved grain of salt Tyll is warning us about everywhere.

 

People shouldn't even be allowed to make assertion about a headphone's sound when they never heard it...

 

What is the ideal frequency response curve? what does non-linear harmonic distortion sounds like? how come the Fostex TH900 sounds less bassy than a LCD-3 (have you seen their measurements?!) how come even the most hardened objectivists also enjoy and sometimes prefer poorly measuring headphones and feels sympathy toward others who like to have a bit of sparkly sounding resonance in the highs, while despising and fighting to eradicate all resonance from the face of the earth at the same time?

 

When you look to threads in the 2005, people called Grado's bass accurate and natural, soundstage realistic, as opposed to fake and artificially tridimensional, detail extraction unprecedented and superior to every other headphones and its instrument rendering and sheer musicality/emotion was like a dream come true, a music performance brought to life. The RS-1 (Grado's flagship at the time) was popular and regularly thought of by Grado's experienced, dedicated and persevering fan-/userbase as the best dynamic phone ever (yes, above the MDR-R10, can you believe me? I will give you threads to read straight away and you will have no choice but to). Now that measurements are all over the place, though the headphones themselves remained virtually unchanged, people's idea of their sound changed... Grados are now being called names: "U-shaped", "rolled-off", "peaky", "distorted", "noisy/resonant"... and yet we have no idea of how these concepts impacts the sound of real music, as played back by a headphone. We use these words on a regular basis to describe the sound of a headphone, yet we don't know to which extent it is a substance that is represented in the sound of our headphones or if it is something our brain can even perceive. Personally, I believe that it's not, both questions, and that we're all making that up. There's no way, not even a chance a 2005 Grado owner could have imagined such fantasies...

 

Headphone measuring is a science in its infancy, and we know so little about it, as a science. The more we progress in the field of measuring our own headphones, the more those who are ahead of the movement realize how the barrier between measurements and actual sound reproduction is vague in size and imprecisely shaped and placed --but surely enough, it's there--, and how its definite presence, extension and impact should not be "reducted" (by reductionism) or mitigated during the interpretation of any measurements. Testing a headphone in a lab and listening to music are two radically different activities, and the results they produce still doesn't correlate together at all; let's not crush our own dreams implying that they do!


Edited by devouringone3 - 7/25/12 at 12:30am
post #158 of 191

Don't get me wrong I love measurements; I just think that there are way too many factors involved into the appreciation of a headphone, and that measurements' importance is being overstated and gets in the way of real pleasure most of the time.

 

A well written review by an experienced Head-Fier is still worth a lot more to my eyes. Yes I tend to be more on the subjectivist's side, of things, don't discredit me for it.

post #159 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by devouringone3 View Post

 

 

When you look to threads in the 2005, people called Grado's bass accurate and natural, soundstage realistic, as opposed to fake and artificially tridimensional, detail extraction unprecedented and superior to every other headphones and its instrument rendering and sheer musicality/emotion was like a dream come true, a music performance brought to life. The RS-1 (Grado's flagship at the time) was popular and regularly thought of by Grado's experienced, dedicated and persevering fan-/userbase as the best dynamic phone ever (yes, above the MDR-R10, can you believe me? I will give you threads to read straight away and you will have no choice but to). Now that measurements are all over the place, though the headphones themselves remained virtually unchanged, people's idea of their sound changed... Grados are now being called names: "U-shaped", "rolled-off", "peaky", "distorted", "noisy/resonant"... and yet we have no idea of how these concepts impacts the sound of real music, as played back by a headphone. We use these words on a regular basis to describe the sound of a headphone, yet we don't know to which extent it is a substance that is represented in the sound of our headphones or if it is something our brain can even perceive. Personally, I believe that it's not, both questions, and that we're all making that up. There's no way, not even a chance a 2005 Grado owner could have imagined such fantasies...

 

Headphone measuring is a science in its infancy, and we know so little about it, as a science. The more we progress in the field of measuring our own headphones, the more those who are ahead of the movement realize how the barrier between measurements and actual sound reproduction is vague in size and imprecisely shaped and placed --but surely enough, it's there--, and how its definite presence, extension and impact should not be "reducted" (by reductionism) or mitigated during the interpretation of any measurements. Testing a headphone in a lab and listening to music are two radically different activities, and the results they produce still doesn't correlate together at all; let's not crush our own dreams implying that they do!

 

That makes perfect sense...I've heard several long time head-fi'ers say that they don't understand why Grado went from being the "darling" of the site to a company that people seem to really put a lot of effort into bashing. I think you hit it right on the head....over the last several years, the art of critical listening and experiencing something for yourself has given way to measurements and objective data. Instead of discovering for themselves what they like and dislike about a headphone, they allow graphs and charts to TELL them what to think instead. I'm so glad I avoided that mistake...if I had never listened for myself, I may still not have discovered my love for these headphones. All these many hours of enjoyment would have never taken place. 

post #160 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post

 

That makes perfect sense...I've heard several long time head-fi'ers say that they don't understand why Grado went from being the "darling" of the site to a company that people seem to really put a lot of effort into bashing. I think you hit it right on the head....over the last several years, the art of critical listening and experiencing something for yourself has given way to measurements and objective data. Instead of discovering for themselves what they like and dislike about a headphone, they allow graphs and charts to TELL them what to think instead. I'm so glad I avoided that mistake...if I had never listened for myself, I may still not have discovered my love for these headphones. All these many hours of enjoyment would have never taken place. 

i don´t read the mesurements.

i listened the ps-1000 and i had one of the most unpleasant listening experience.

post #161 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by alota View Post

i don´t read the mesurements.

i listened the ps-1000 and i had one of the most unpleasant listening experience.

LOL

 

Well at least you came about it honestly...Grados aren't for everyone, so no shame in not liking them. 

post #162 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post

LOL

 

Well at least you came about it honestly...Grados aren't for everyone, so no shame in not liking them. 

i like grado sound but the ps-1000, in my opinion, is one of the biggest disappointments

post #163 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by alota View Post

i like grado sound but the ps-1000, in my opinion, is one of the biggest disappointments

 

Interesting. I havne't heard them yet so I'm looking forward to giving them a listen. Which grado(s) is/are your favorites? 

post #164 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post

 

Interesting. I havne't heard them yet so I'm looking forward to giving them a listen. Which grado(s) is/are your favorites? 

HP-2 but is another history

from john grado the hf-2

post #165 of 191

The PS1000 is up there with the HD800, T1, HE6, LCD-2.

 

The GS1000 sounds like cardboard in comparison.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Grado PS1000: The Legendary Flagship (Review)