sgrossklass
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Posts
- 2,803
- Likes
- 22
So I scored a used pair of these inexpensive cans recently for, I guess, curiosity's sake mostly. While I wouldn't agree with the "like new" assessment, I'm not out an arm and a leg. I promptly connected the HQ-1300 to my bedside-fi setup (Kenwood KT-80 tuner, modified BTech BT928 amp with: 220µ output coupling caps, gain reduced by ~6 dB, output used as input with loopthrough resistors replaced by 10k --> another 6 dB less so channel imbalance finally is mostly a non-issue; output impedance 47 ohms) and had a listen.
The HQ-1300s are mid-sized and somewhere in between supraaural and circumaural, the earpieces are a bit larger than with the Beyer DT231. The Beyers are a good bit lighter though. Look and feel is a little cheap because, well, these cans are. The cable is fairly thin and the integrated volume control doesn't seem like the most robust job out there, but that was to be expected. Comfort seems to be decent, not on the level of the Beyers with well broken-in pads but OK.
Acoustically I'd call them semi-open, soundstaging reminds me of the DT231 yet you're well advised to keep the hands off the rear grilles.
How's the sound, you ask? Pretty good. I don't feel they have too little bass (though the output impedance might well play a role here, they're only 32 ohm cans after all) but in fact are just about right there - it's just too much contrast with many other inexpensive cans that have overblown bass I guess. They're still a little bright and a bit on the airy side, but still quite well balanced overall - quite a bit more so than the Beyers which I pulled out for a quick comparison. Soundstaging is reminiscent of closed cans presumably due to the cardboard back behind the grilles, so they're not as open sounding as cans like my HD420SLs, but still quite OK. Sensitivity is noticeably better than with the DT231s.
To sum it up, lini has been recommending the HQ-1300s for good reason. They are no match for "grown-up" cans like, say, my good ol' HD590s (I'll have a look for mods though), but for their 20...25 EUR or thereabouts they give pretty good, balanced sound. (Philips' SHP805 needs some EQ to tame its treble, it's got too much of a V-shaped EQ.)
The HQ-1300s are mid-sized and somewhere in between supraaural and circumaural, the earpieces are a bit larger than with the Beyer DT231. The Beyers are a good bit lighter though. Look and feel is a little cheap because, well, these cans are. The cable is fairly thin and the integrated volume control doesn't seem like the most robust job out there, but that was to be expected. Comfort seems to be decent, not on the level of the Beyers with well broken-in pads but OK.
Acoustically I'd call them semi-open, soundstaging reminds me of the DT231 yet you're well advised to keep the hands off the rear grilles.
How's the sound, you ask? Pretty good. I don't feel they have too little bass (though the output impedance might well play a role here, they're only 32 ohm cans after all) but in fact are just about right there - it's just too much contrast with many other inexpensive cans that have overblown bass I guess. They're still a little bright and a bit on the airy side, but still quite well balanced overall - quite a bit more so than the Beyers which I pulled out for a quick comparison. Soundstaging is reminiscent of closed cans presumably due to the cardboard back behind the grilles, so they're not as open sounding as cans like my HD420SLs, but still quite OK. Sensitivity is noticeably better than with the DT231s.
To sum it up, lini has been recommending the HQ-1300s for good reason. They are no match for "grown-up" cans like, say, my good ol' HD590s (I'll have a look for mods though), but for their 20...25 EUR or thereabouts they give pretty good, balanced sound. (Philips' SHP805 needs some EQ to tame its treble, it's got too much of a V-shaped EQ.)
