[Bilavideo]

 

 I have compared bowls vs the comfies quite a few times on a few different models.  The high frequencies are definitely muted with the comfies (which I personally prefer), but I couldn't really hear any difference in the lows between them.  But this might have to do with how well the bowls and comfies seal with your ears, which could be different because ears are different.
 

Comfies are the smallest pads Grado makes but they're midway between the flats and the bowls.  The flats ride lower and are stiffer, muting treble and providing the best bass.  With comfies, you lose some of that bass but still get plenty of it while getting a little more treble.  By the time you get to bowls, the soundstage is a little larger and the treble is a little more prominent.  It's not like the bass disappears but there's some loss of it.  This is why the FR charts at Headroom give better bass numbers to the SR60.  In those charts, which were largely generated before the "i" update, the SR60 was the only Grado using the comfies.  It's really an odd situation when you think of it - the lowest-priced Grado having the most pronounced bass, especially when even Grado admits (in writing) that the SR60 and SR80 have "use the same driver."
 
It's the pads.
 

 
See what's happening here?  The SR60 has the most bass but the least HF.  How does that happen on a driver that's identical to the one on the SR80?  There are only two variables: the pads and the grill cloth.  

 

[Braheem24]

You wouldnt be in central FL would you?

 

[buffalowings]

Quote:

 

 I have compared bowls vs the comfies quite a few times on a few different models.  The high frequencies are definitely muted with the comfies (which I personally prefer), but I couldn't really hear any difference in the lows between them.  But this might have to do with how well the bowls and comfies seal with your ears, which could be different because ears are different.
 

Comfies are the smallest pads Grado makes but they're midway between the flats and the bowls.  The flats ride lower and are stiffer, muting treble and providing the best bass.  With comfies, you lose some of that bass but still get plenty of it while getting a little more treble.  By the time you get to bowls, the soundstage is a little larger and the treble is a little more prominent.  It's not like the bass disappears but there's some loss of it.  This is why the FR charts at Headroom give better bass numbers to the SR60.  In those charts, which were largely generated before the "i" update, the SR60 was the only Grado using the comfies.  It's really an odd situation when you think of it - the lowest-priced Grado having the most pronounced bass, especially when even Grado admits (in writing) that the SR60 and SR80 have "use the same driver."
 
It's the pads.
 

 
See what's happening here?  The SR60 has the most bass but the least HF.  How does that happen on a driver that's identical to the one on the SR80?  There are only two variables: the pads and the grill cloth.  

I thought this graph literally dissected a while back, general consensus being graphs don't mean anything except for the general sound and in this case, not an accurate representation

 

[Bilavideo]

 

You wouldnt be in central FL would you?

Yeah!

 

[Bilavideo]

Quote:

Quote:

 

 I have compared bowls vs the comfies quite a few times on a few different models.  The high frequencies are definitely muted with the comfies (which I personally prefer), but I couldn't really hear any difference in the lows between them.  But this might have to do with how well the bowls and comfies seal with your ears, which could be different because ears are different.
 

Comfies are the smallest pads Grado makes but they're midway between the flats and the bowls.  The flats ride lower and are stiffer, muting treble and providing the best bass.  With comfies, you lose some of that bass but still get plenty of it while getting a little more treble.  By the time you get to bowls, the soundstage is a little larger and the treble is a little more prominent.  It's not like the bass disappears but there's some loss of it.  This is why the FR charts at Headroom give better bass numbers to the SR60.  In those charts, which were largely generated before the "i" update, the SR60 was the only Grado using the comfies.  It's really an odd situation when you think of it - the lowest-priced Grado having the most pronounced bass, especially when even Grado admits (in writing) that the SR60 and SR80 have "use the same driver."
 
It's the pads.
 

 
See what's happening here?  The SR60 has the most bass but the least HF.  How does that happen on a driver that's identical to the one on the SR80?  There are only two variables: the pads and the grill cloth.  

I thought this graph literally dissected a while back, general consensus being graphs don't mean anything except for the general sound and in this case, not an accurate representation

With all due respect to the general consensus, that "graphs are meaningless" talk is just lazyheaded dismissal.  That the map is not the territory goes without saying, but to write graphs off completely as "not an accurate representation" is just too easy.
 
A graph, by itself, won't tell you what a headphone "sounds" like, let alone which headphones sounds "best," but graphs do say something.  While the "general consensus" you refer to - which, for all I know is you and three other buddies - dismisses the graphs as inaccurate, there is simply no evidence behind such a statement.  It's not skepticism.  It's cynicism.  It's not an argument or a rebuttal.  It's a refusal to look.
 
I went to a certain amount of trouble to make my case.  If you're going to reply to it, the least you could do is reply to it, not throw up your hands and say, "Dude, we just don't know."  Skepticism, as a demand for more information, is a worthy stance, but dismissal of data for the sake of dismissing it is just intellectual bankruptcy disguised as a stance.
 
If those graphs are so inaccurate, it's funny that they they aren't completely random.  If I threw darts behind my back or handed paint brushes to monkeys on crack, I'd expect something free of any pattern, at least free of any pattern relating to the sound itself.  Isn't it funny how this "inaccurate" FR graph shows the general weakness of 40mm mylar Grado drivers (no low bass), with Grado's best shot at it coming around 100 Hz?  Notice how these "inaccurate" patterns tend to show all of the Grados emphasizing the 100 Hz region and then coalescing to the same spot - flat mids from 500 Hz to just past 1 kHz.  Does any of this look random to you?
 
Yes, the recording of output involving mics fit in dummy heads may well have its own set of biases.  Even so, with all of these headphones having the same design, they should all be subject to the same bias.  When you have a common bias, you can compensate for it.  You don't have to throw your hands up and admit that the universe is just vast and dark and oh so mysterious.  We've come a long way since the age of candles and sandles.  Maybe we should cut ourselves some slack and at least look at the patterns before we flush the data.
 
In this FR graph, notwithstanding whatever inaccuracies or incomplete data there may be, it's pretty clear that the SR60 shows a visibly higher bass output, not just when compared to the SR80 (which is supposed to use the same driver) but against the rest of the Prestige line.  That's somewhat surprising, isn't it?  Who would design a headphone so that the cheapest one of the bunch has better bass than its $300 counterpart?  With aluminum over plastic, and better wiring in the voice coils and connecting cable, not to mention a much a larger air chamber to boot, shouldn't the 325 run circles around the SR60?  How is it that the $79 bottom-runger is kicking sand in its face and making off with its lunch money?
 
But wait a minute.  You can't say the SR60 has a "darker" presentation.  Its mids are the same mids as the rest of the Grados.  Where it comes up "darker" is at the right end of the chart, where we get to the HF side of the spectrum.  Is it really a surprise that a headphone that would have better bass would also have diminished highs?  Should it come as any surprise that the 325, which was trailing the 60 down at the bottom, has the highest spikes at 2 kHz, 5 kHz and 10 kHz?
 
You can dismiss this chart, which shows predictably similar patterns across a family of headphones, but if it's all just modern art, how do you account for how different the chart looks when examining headphones from Bose, Sennheiser, byerdynamic and Ultrasone?  If it were just random chance, the results would be random, but they're not.  Instead, there are easily discernible patterns, patterns which merit at least a first look, if not a second one as well.
 
The magnets are the same.  The diaphragm is the same.  The driver sizes are identical as well.  The plastic inners are identical, even if the lengths and materials are different.  At the time these patterns were recorded, the only real differences were (1) pads, (2) grill cloths and (3) wiring.  Which of these should produce better bass, at least for the SR60 over all others?  I think the answer is obvious.  The SR60 has no better wiring, nor would Grado intentionally design a grill cloth to give it an advantage over its more expensive siblings.  Its sole advantage, at the time, was the size of the pad.  A smaller pad decreased ear/driver distance.  It also muted HF dispersion.  All of this favors bass over treble.  It's that simple.  
 
The point I was making was very simple.  I didn't mean to come here and beat you over the head with it.  It's just frustrating to make the point and then to have somebody come back and refuse to look at it because "the general consensus" told him not to read an FR graph.

 

[eugenius]

LOL, THREE pages and no flat pads suggestion ... get the TTVJ Flat Pads, they will solve your bass problem, your brightness problem at the loss of some soundstage and transparency.
 
For 325i's without tubes or EQ, it's the only solution.

 

[Kevin Brown]

I specifically asked Headphone.com which models these were, and they said they were the "i" versions.
 

 
If that's true, then what I heard and what's on these graphs don't jive at all.  To me, all of these models have a similar amount of bass except for the SR60i, which was very lacking.  So the fact that the SR60i on this graph has more, and deeper low extension is simply wrong.
 
So I personally don't put a lot of credibility into headphone.com's graphs.  I do consult them and I use them in addition to other info I have about models, but I certainly wouldn't base a purchase decision on them.
 
Plus, like I mentioned before, I have swapped bowls and comfies on the SR225i, the SR325is, the MS2i, and now the HF2, and I didn't hear much of a difference in the low end on any of them.

 

[BobSaysHi]

Quote:

Plus, like I mentioned before, I have swapped bowls and comfies on the SR225i, the SR325is, the MS2i, and now the HF2, and I didn't hear much of a difference in the low end on any of them.

You must've gotten faulty pads.

 

[Kevin Brown]

Quote:

Quote:

Plus, like I mentioned before, I have swapped bowls and comfies on the SR225i, the SR325is, the MS2i, and now the HF2, and I didn't hear much of a difference in the low end on any of them.

You must've gotten faulty pads.

No ...  4 headphones.  4 different sets of comfies and bowls !!
 
I still have the SR225i, MS2i, and HF2 ... all with comfies now.  And those all originally came with bowls.  Different bowls.
 

 

 

[Bilavideo]

I agree with Kevin on this point: the graphs are out of date, at least with respect to the differences between the original versions and the "i"  versions.  While Headroom says these are the "i" versions, I think you either got an employee who guessed or you got a flat-out lie.  To its credit, Headroom has graphs, which means somebody went to some trouble to mic and record the data.  When a new headphone comes out, a further mic-and-record is done.  But when Grado chose not to discontinue its whole line but simply update it as "i" editions, it put Headroom into the position of either maintaining what they had or going to the trouble of mic-and-recording practically everything Grado has in production.  That's a lot of extra work.
 
I simply don't believe that the SR60 graph is the SR60i, so that's where my skepticism comes into play.  But while I'm not a "true believer," drinking down the Kool-Aid in one fell swig, I'm not a cynic, either.  I believe the graphs for all of the Grados - from the SR60 through the GS1000 - are the original graphs.  The only new ones on there are for the PS1000 and any other new Grados introduced in the last little while.  Traditionally, the only difference between the 60 and the 80 was the difference in pads.  This was why the 60 had significantly "better" bass, even though it was the same headphone - apart from the pads.
 
One clue that these charts are not updated (other than in name) is the fact that the SR60 not only bests the SR80 in bass.  It bests all other Prestige Grados.  What's more, the SR80i, which now comes in those same pads, has no better bass than it did before.  How do you switch to smaller pads and still not have better bass?  It's obvious: These are old graphs.  In this regard, Headroom mailed it in.
 
But there's a difference between doubting whether some graphs are up to date and having a complete crisis of confidence in the ability of a FR chart to accurate represent the one thing it was designed to do.  I still agree that no FR graph can tell you which headphone sounds "better."  There's a lot more to sound quality than frequency response.  But frequency response is not magic.  It's not subjective.  Provided the dummy head is properly fit and the sound technician was not stumbling through a hangover, getting the data is not, well, rocket science.  It's also not the stuff of a seance.
 
Believe what you want.  I believe that Headroom is, at worst, a little lazy in its updating of its FR graphs, at least for some headphones it had graphs for to begin with.  The SR60 and the SR60i are not the same headphone.  The same holds true of the SR80i, the SR125i, the SR225i and the SR325is.  Grado made some pad changes to the SR80 and it got serious about cabling, with various versions of the "garden hose" - from thee-connector cables to six- and eight-connector cabling.  All of the Grado product line seems to have been realigned to provide more of a certain PS1000-inspired "thump."  It's a shade darker but it has more knock than the previous line.  These Headroom Graphs don't show that update at all.
 
That said, my point was not about the latest line.  It was about the original difference between the SR60 and the SR80, which are clearly visible in the FR graph.  When two headphones share everything except the pads - and one has significantly more bass while the other has significantly more treble - it ought to be obvious what's happening.  When you then look at the rest of the traditional product line - and the cheapest offering is outperforming every higher sibling all the way up to the $300 SR325 - it ought to be equally obvious that there's an inverse relationship between pad size and bass retention.  Smaller pads put your ear closer to the driver.  This lets you feel more of that bass pressure; it also limits HF dispersion.  The result is a discernible tonal shift.  Larger pads not only push your ear further from the driver - reducing bass pressure and allowing more HF in; they also reduce the seal.  Why?  Because Grado's pads are foamy.  They're not leatherettes.  They're sponges with holes.

 

[pcf]

Product variation within the same model might play a part in the test results too. I have come across that in a few Grados. It is not uncommon.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Doctorhead.ru has graphs for the SR60i, SR80i, SR225i, SR325i (goldie), RS1i, and GS1000.  Here's a link that should take you to the Grado section of their catalog.
The site is in Russian.  I used Google Chrome to browse around.  The Google browser detects that the site is in Russian and offers to translate.  Makes browsing around and finding the graphs easier.
 
I assume they used the comfies with the SR60i and SR80i.  I assume they used the bowls with the SR225i and SR325i.  The graphs seem to support that.  There's a bit more bass measured relative to the treble with the SR60i and SR80i compared to the SR225i.  More bass level but not necessarily more extension like the HeadRoom graph shows for the SR60 with comfies.  The SR325i gets some bass lift (and treble lift) compared to the SR225i.
 
I don't know what measuring setup they are using.  They seem to be doing a good job with the measuring.  I also checked out their Denon graphs and their graphs for the D2000, D5000, and D7000 better match how I hear those headphones than what is shown by the HeadRoom graphs for those three.  Their Grado graphs seem reasonable as well.

 

[Kevin Brown]

If the current graphs at headphone.com were created with the older version of Grados, yes, then they would make a lot more sense.  Contradicts what they told me, but that wouldn't be the 1st time ...
 
The freq spectra at the Russian site is under the 1st of the 4 links at the bottom of the listing for each heaphone.  (looks like "Mopobhee" with Firefox on my machine)  They don't have them for them all, but most of them.  Interesting !!  Drats, no RS2i though.  That's the only one I could justify moving up to from the HF2's ... 

 

[Bilavideo]

This is why I keep coming back to HeadFi.  We have these arguments.  All kinds of cool input comes pouring in.  As the dust settles, we start realizing some interesting things.  I had no idea of that Russian site.  I think that's pretty cool.