gaijin
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2004
- Posts
- 494
- Likes
- 10
I "'bit the bullet" : got an RKV, and had the K1000 recabled by Larry at Headphile. I must say I am quite happy with this setup now.
Finally realized K1000 is what I really want and need
- Thread starter Ferbose
- Start date
Well, Neilpert took one for the team and wore a "portable" K1000 setup on public streets.
-Ed
-Ed
chamix
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Posts
- 80
- Likes
- 0
I know that my recommandation is exceeding but from what i've heard and know, this http://www.audiocubes2.com/brand/CEC...Amplifier.html
C.E.C. Amp 3300 should be one of the cheapest options to drive the K1000 accurate in speed, clearity and power at present.
C.E.C. Amp 3300 should be one of the cheapest options to drive the K1000 accurate in speed, clearity and power at present.
RonD2
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2004
- Posts
- 63
- Likes
- 0
Not to sound too dogmatic here, but FWIW these are my findings:
The stock SI driving the K1000's is acceptable but bright and perhaps somewhat thin. This maybe due to cabling as well as the stock unit's limitations (cheap pot, wiring, power supply, etc.).
The use of 4 ohm resistors across the outputs tames the brightness somewhat.
The use of a modified SI (I highly recommend Vinnie Rossi's Clari-T), better interconnects and the resistors takes the combo to another level. It directly competes with excellent sounding 300B SETs.
BTW, I have owned the K1000's for over 3 years and have used it with the stock SI, the Clari-T, an AudioNote 300B and the Teac Tripath extensively.
On another hotly contested note, my hearing is still intact and the phones still work fine. YMMV and all IMHO.
The stock SI driving the K1000's is acceptable but bright and perhaps somewhat thin. This maybe due to cabling as well as the stock unit's limitations (cheap pot, wiring, power supply, etc.).
The use of 4 ohm resistors across the outputs tames the brightness somewhat.
The use of a modified SI (I highly recommend Vinnie Rossi's Clari-T), better interconnects and the resistors takes the combo to another level. It directly competes with excellent sounding 300B SETs.
BTW, I have owned the K1000's for over 3 years and have used it with the stock SI, the Clari-T, an AudioNote 300B and the Teac Tripath extensively.
On another hotly contested note, my hearing is still intact and the phones still work fine. YMMV and all IMHO.
lan
Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Posts
- 8,606
- Likes
- 19
Quote:
It's time to change.............. your DAC1
Really though, if you're talking about treble fatuiging, it could be source, interconnects, or amp. You have power conditioning covered. Tough to say. If you're living in the world of extreme highs (K1000, Qualia, etc.) dealing with the highend is a top priority IMO. I don't recommend these headphones for anybody who's lazy and doesn't want to spend time finding the right solution.
As for midrange romanticism, it's probably the source. HD650 has rather unique midrange compared to other headphones. If you use this source with other headphones, it probably may not have the midrange you like.
| Originally Posted by NeilPeart Here are my issues with the K1000/T-amp combo: The treble is fatiguing on poor recordings The midrange is simply not as warm or romantic as the HD650. I don’t know where to move next. |
It's time to change.............. your DAC1
Really though, if you're talking about treble fatuiging, it could be source, interconnects, or amp. You have power conditioning covered. Tough to say. If you're living in the world of extreme highs (K1000, Qualia, etc.) dealing with the highend is a top priority IMO. I don't recommend these headphones for anybody who's lazy and doesn't want to spend time finding the right solution.
As for midrange romanticism, it's probably the source. HD650 has rather unique midrange compared to other headphones. If you use this source with other headphones, it probably may not have the midrange you like.
Ferbose
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2004
- Posts
- 1,823
- Likes
- 25
Quote:
I am not surprised that you came to this conclusion.
After 100+ hours of break in, including 30 hours of listening, I now feel comfortable discussing the sonic properties of K1000 and the effect of amplification.
DAC1 is on the bright side of neutral, so are T-amp and K1000. Put these three together, you get very detailed and fast sound. But the tonal quality is a tad too bright. Looks like a tube might be valuable addition here, doesn't it?
Fortunately, I also have a 30W Jolida hybrid integrated amp sitting around (replaced by T-amp in my speaker system). It uses 12AX7 and LM1875 OP-AMP (also in 47 Labs Gaincard). Trying TNT-selected Chinese tubes and Yugo, I prefer Yugo's its warmer but less detailed sound. Yugo 12AX7 takes away a little bit of detail and blur it out. The resultant blur to my ears appear similar to the natural decay of sounds in a spacious hall. It gives a sense of distance and adds more space/air to instruments. Since K1000 is detail king, sacrificing a bit of detail for a pleasant decay brings overall improvement.
Having several adapters at hand, I could use DAC1's XLR (pin 3 floated), RCA and headphone jack to drive the downstream amps. After some un rigorous testing, connecting to Jolida with RCA out and using variable output with volume pot at 3 o'clock sounds best to my ears. I also think using headphone jack to drive T-amp gives a warmer sound. In this case, maxing T-amp's volume and using DAC1 as preamp sounds better. Again, YMMV.
Is DAC1 really too bright a source? I don't feel that. Not having another hi-end source at home, I have t resort to my SACD/DVD player as a reference (original MSRP $1000). I tend to believe a decent SACD palyer playing SACD can match any CD player in terms of hi-freq smoothness. Telarc's 1812 hybrid SACD is a great demonstration of the smoothness of DSD recording compared to CD. I am intimately familiar with the difference between the two layers after listening a hundred times. SACD via Sony sounds smoother than CD via DAC1, but through Jolida and K1000 the difference almost seems to disappear--I am getting some very smooth CD sound here [Edit: Smooth for CD standards. Still not as smooth as I would like it to be, as in live music.] But through Jolida and speakers the difference is still quite big. I guess Jolida and K1000 has great synergy. T-amp clearly drives my speakers better than Jolida. Incidentally, LM1875 suffers less THD with higher impedance loads (8 vs 4 ohms), and I wonder if a 120 ohm load would cuase even less distortion?
As for bass, K1000 has a -3dB point at 40 Hz. Clearly it does not have ideal bass extension and it does not rock you hard. K1000 does not try to compensate by increasing midbass input, which is good IMO. In calssical music and jazz, clean and tuneful bass is more important than body-shaking bass, so I don't complain. Tried using subwoofers but it did not work too well. My subs aren't very fast, tunable cutoff filters aren't steep enough, and my small room creates midbass standing wave modes. Listening to K1000 with subs gives me deeper but muddier bass, and the blend is not seamless (worse than K501 + sub). I am fine with K1000's own bass, so no plan of adding better subs in the near future.
| Originally Posted by NeilPeart As much as I enjoy the K1000/T-amp combo I fear the AKG headphone has dragged me into a quest which I did not wish to embark upon – I feel the K1000 almost NEEDS tubes. |
I am not surprised that you came to this conclusion.
After 100+ hours of break in, including 30 hours of listening, I now feel comfortable discussing the sonic properties of K1000 and the effect of amplification.
DAC1 is on the bright side of neutral, so are T-amp and K1000. Put these three together, you get very detailed and fast sound. But the tonal quality is a tad too bright. Looks like a tube might be valuable addition here, doesn't it?
Fortunately, I also have a 30W Jolida hybrid integrated amp sitting around (replaced by T-amp in my speaker system). It uses 12AX7 and LM1875 OP-AMP (also in 47 Labs Gaincard). Trying TNT-selected Chinese tubes and Yugo, I prefer Yugo's its warmer but less detailed sound. Yugo 12AX7 takes away a little bit of detail and blur it out. The resultant blur to my ears appear similar to the natural decay of sounds in a spacious hall. It gives a sense of distance and adds more space/air to instruments. Since K1000 is detail king, sacrificing a bit of detail for a pleasant decay brings overall improvement.
Having several adapters at hand, I could use DAC1's XLR (pin 3 floated), RCA and headphone jack to drive the downstream amps. After some un rigorous testing, connecting to Jolida with RCA out and using variable output with volume pot at 3 o'clock sounds best to my ears. I also think using headphone jack to drive T-amp gives a warmer sound. In this case, maxing T-amp's volume and using DAC1 as preamp sounds better. Again, YMMV.
Is DAC1 really too bright a source? I don't feel that. Not having another hi-end source at home, I have t resort to my SACD/DVD player as a reference (original MSRP $1000). I tend to believe a decent SACD palyer playing SACD can match any CD player in terms of hi-freq smoothness. Telarc's 1812 hybrid SACD is a great demonstration of the smoothness of DSD recording compared to CD. I am intimately familiar with the difference between the two layers after listening a hundred times. SACD via Sony sounds smoother than CD via DAC1, but through Jolida and K1000 the difference almost seems to disappear--I am getting some very smooth CD sound here [Edit: Smooth for CD standards. Still not as smooth as I would like it to be, as in live music.] But through Jolida and speakers the difference is still quite big. I guess Jolida and K1000 has great synergy. T-amp clearly drives my speakers better than Jolida. Incidentally, LM1875 suffers less THD with higher impedance loads (8 vs 4 ohms), and I wonder if a 120 ohm load would cuase even less distortion?
As for bass, K1000 has a -3dB point at 40 Hz. Clearly it does not have ideal bass extension and it does not rock you hard. K1000 does not try to compensate by increasing midbass input, which is good IMO. In calssical music and jazz, clean and tuneful bass is more important than body-shaking bass, so I don't complain. Tried using subwoofers but it did not work too well. My subs aren't very fast, tunable cutoff filters aren't steep enough, and my small room creates midbass standing wave modes. Listening to K1000 with subs gives me deeper but muddier bass, and the blend is not seamless (worse than K501 + sub). I am fine with K1000's own bass, so no plan of adding better subs in the near future.
Ferbose
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2004
- Posts
- 1,823
- Likes
- 25
After giving K1000 a lot of priase, let me discuss what K1000 is not:
K1000 is not rock-your-buttoms headphone
The fact that K1000 is an earspeker does not change the fact that it can't deliver visceral impact. The compensation for lack of visceral impact is bass hump. K1000 does not have bass bump and has rolloff below 40 Hz.
K1000 is not speaker-soundstage headphone
Some people report good headphones having soundstage up to 5-6 feet wide. And then K1000 is supposed to have the widest soundstage of all. Soundstage is a psychoacoustic effect and I probably hear differently. To me the soundstage is more like 5-6 inches in in front of and around my head. However instuments don't sound congested. For example, playing organ recordings, I can clearly hear the sound decay patterns reminding me of a church. This conveys a sense of space about the recording environment, but the sound source still appears very close to my head. My analogy is this: listening to orchestral recordings on headphone makes me feel like a stereo microphone on stage, on K1000 I feel like the conductor, and on speakers I feel like a front-row audience. Looking for speaker soundstage? K1000 will not deliver that. But I really like the fact that driver toe-in on K1000 can be adjusted on-the-fly, because different recordings have different stereo effects. Nothing else I know allows for such instant adjustments.
K1000 is not an electrostatic detail monster
I have only briefly heard entry-level Stax from time to time. Electrostatic cans have exquisite amounts of detail that is hard to describe. My guess is that electrostatic transducers have different distortions than dynamic transducers and allow details to be brought into foreground. Anyway, K1000 still sounds like a dynamic headphone. In fact, except for its total openess and soundstage (a big except here), its basic sonic quality is not too different from K501 (AKG house sound?).
K1000 is not a romantic songbird
K1000 can sing--no doubt about that. But its voice is not romantic. I used to think K501 has an open sound. Compared to K1000 I can totally hear the effect of sound reflections due to circumaural ear cup. To exaggerate a little, K501 now feels like listening to music with my head in a bottle. The distortion of K501 actually adds some warm colorations to the music. K1000 sounds very clear even when very loud, and I suspect it is because of lack of reflections. Although K1000 sounds trasparent, it also has a metallic sound to it. Now there are many metallic speaker tweeters, but people think they have a metallic sound compared to silk tweeters. This is an analogy I can think of. Not to say that metal tweeters or K1000 sound bad, but there are more mellow transducers out there. K1000 sings loud and clear, which is no small feat.
K1000 is not the last word on anything
K1000 is designed to provide accurate, biaural hearing on your head. It functions sort of like ultra-mini studio monitors on your head: detailed, clean and not all that bassy. It is a unique solution for people who need or want it. It is a hybrid product that carries distinct advantages but also has to make lots of compromises. I don't think think it is best at anything but delivers a combination of goodies not available anywhere else.
K1000 is not the user-friendly headphone
K1000 is only usable when you are alone in a sonically isolated enviroment. I am surprised at how comfortable its clamping mechanism is for me, but there may be personal variations here.
K1000 is not like any other headphone
Despite reading a lot about how it works and sounds, I was still surprised by how it sounds when I finally got it. It is hard to imagine how it would sound because the physics behind it is so different from other types of transducers.
In the end, I think K1000 is a legend. It tries to go where no other headphone has been in terms of biaural hearing and voices it really well.
K1000 is not rock-your-buttoms headphone
The fact that K1000 is an earspeker does not change the fact that it can't deliver visceral impact. The compensation for lack of visceral impact is bass hump. K1000 does not have bass bump and has rolloff below 40 Hz.
K1000 is not speaker-soundstage headphone
Some people report good headphones having soundstage up to 5-6 feet wide. And then K1000 is supposed to have the widest soundstage of all. Soundstage is a psychoacoustic effect and I probably hear differently. To me the soundstage is more like 5-6 inches in in front of and around my head. However instuments don't sound congested. For example, playing organ recordings, I can clearly hear the sound decay patterns reminding me of a church. This conveys a sense of space about the recording environment, but the sound source still appears very close to my head. My analogy is this: listening to orchestral recordings on headphone makes me feel like a stereo microphone on stage, on K1000 I feel like the conductor, and on speakers I feel like a front-row audience. Looking for speaker soundstage? K1000 will not deliver that. But I really like the fact that driver toe-in on K1000 can be adjusted on-the-fly, because different recordings have different stereo effects. Nothing else I know allows for such instant adjustments.
K1000 is not an electrostatic detail monster
I have only briefly heard entry-level Stax from time to time. Electrostatic cans have exquisite amounts of detail that is hard to describe. My guess is that electrostatic transducers have different distortions than dynamic transducers and allow details to be brought into foreground. Anyway, K1000 still sounds like a dynamic headphone. In fact, except for its total openess and soundstage (a big except here), its basic sonic quality is not too different from K501 (AKG house sound?).
K1000 is not a romantic songbird
K1000 can sing--no doubt about that. But its voice is not romantic. I used to think K501 has an open sound. Compared to K1000 I can totally hear the effect of sound reflections due to circumaural ear cup. To exaggerate a little, K501 now feels like listening to music with my head in a bottle. The distortion of K501 actually adds some warm colorations to the music. K1000 sounds very clear even when very loud, and I suspect it is because of lack of reflections. Although K1000 sounds trasparent, it also has a metallic sound to it. Now there are many metallic speaker tweeters, but people think they have a metallic sound compared to silk tweeters. This is an analogy I can think of. Not to say that metal tweeters or K1000 sound bad, but there are more mellow transducers out there. K1000 sings loud and clear, which is no small feat.
K1000 is not the last word on anything
K1000 is designed to provide accurate, biaural hearing on your head. It functions sort of like ultra-mini studio monitors on your head: detailed, clean and not all that bassy. It is a unique solution for people who need or want it. It is a hybrid product that carries distinct advantages but also has to make lots of compromises. I don't think think it is best at anything but delivers a combination of goodies not available anywhere else.
K1000 is not the user-friendly headphone
K1000 is only usable when you are alone in a sonically isolated enviroment. I am surprised at how comfortable its clamping mechanism is for me, but there may be personal variations here.
K1000 is not like any other headphone
Despite reading a lot about how it works and sounds, I was still surprised by how it sounds when I finally got it. It is hard to imagine how it would sound because the physics behind it is so different from other types of transducers.
In the end, I think K1000 is a legend. It tries to go where no other headphone has been in terms of biaural hearing and voices it really well.
the terabyte
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Posts
- 358
- Likes
- 10
Ferbose, I'd have to say that you hit the nail on the head with many of your observations in your last post, though I would disagree with two points (and I feel our different perceptions has mostly to do due with our different systems). The metallic character, while likely a very real part of the K1000s' sound, can be controled with proper amp matching, as I have found that with the tube amps I've tried (Fisher 400 and my current Chazz), the sound is much smoother than the solid state amps I've used them with (Grace 901 and my vintage Technics receiver).
Second, I would say that, as before, viceral impact with these is hugely source dependant. With some sources (such as the Bel Canto DAC1 and various computer sound cards), there is no impact and poor dynamics, but with the right sources (my vinyl setup or my RME ADI-2), the bass is so punchy that even at moderate volumes the impact can be easily felt on the outter ear/sides of my face.
Second, I would say that, as before, viceral impact with these is hugely source dependant. With some sources (such as the Bel Canto DAC1 and various computer sound cards), there is no impact and poor dynamics, but with the right sources (my vinyl setup or my RME ADI-2), the bass is so punchy that even at moderate volumes the impact can be easily felt on the outter ear/sides of my face.
Ferbose
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2004
- Posts
- 1,823
- Likes
- 25
Quote:
By visceral impact I mean bodily feeling of bass impact, unrelated to hearing. I don't think any headphone can deliver this, unless they come with a couch shaker or something.
I don't know about the source dependence of K1000 bass. I only use DAC1 and Sony SACD/DVD player as sources. I don't particularly feel any difference in bass. I would be surprised another digital source would greatly enhance the bass of K1000, but again anything is possible.
Anyway, tonight is the first time I get back home from a classical concert and don't feel my audio system is basically wrong in terms of tonality. Bob Katz, the famous recording engineer, thinks tonal correctness is the most important thing in audio and I agree. With all the equipment and procedures in the audio chain, it would be nearly impossible to have 100% tonal accuracy. But different halls also have very different tonality. I would say that even though different halls have different acoustic properties, they all sound natural. I think this is called "invariance" in hearing. You hear the same person in different rooms, you can recognize the person's natural voice despite the sound you hear being different. Even if audio equipment is not 100% tonally accurate, as long as the distortions appear to be natural, we might still think it sounds natural. I guess this is where tube excels. It either distorts the signal in a way that appears tonally natural or mask out some unatural cues. Looking at Sweetwater catalog, I realize many of the best microphone and mike preamps today still have tubes. Clearly, having tubes somewhere in the audio chain is still very much alive in audio today. This is just my theory though, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Anyway, back to the tonality of my K1000 system, I have to say it's not perfect but actually sounds somewhat natural for all instruments in the orchestra. The tonality of violins is always the hardest to capture and replay. Even for simulating instruments electronically, violins present the greatest challenge. So where does my K1000 system stand on solo violin? Let me compare masterpiece violins played by acclaimed violinists in A+ recordings through my system and a decent factory violin played by a skilled amateur I heard tonight. In the highest register my system is a tiny bit thin but in the lower register my system sounds significantly richer (due to much better violins). Actually, when the soloist tonight did not bow so well in the higher register, his violin sounds even thinner and sort of sounds like my system. So overall it is a tie. Nothing to be too proud of, because famous Cremonese violins now sound banal on my sytem. But the fact that they still sound like violins is quite remarkable.
So are K1000 really "concert hall" headphones? Not by any stretch of imagination. Plenty of things are still missing: the hall reflections, the kick in the gut from drums and the wholistic soundstage (fiils the room but with much less instrument separation than good stereo systems). But consider the cost your listening space plus audio equioment, and compare that to even a smalll concert hall. Bringing the concert hall home? I don't think it can happen anytime soon. That's why enjoying the music takes a little imagination. Back in the old days when radio was crappy mono, people were still mesmerized by the "serious" music (classical, jazz opera) they heard on radio. Obviously, people had very good imagination in those days. Nowadays, I like to imagine myself as the conductor--it kind of explains why sounds originate right around my head.
| Originally Posted by the terabyte Second, I would say that, as before, viceral impact with these is hugely source dependant. With some sources (such as the Bel Canto DAC1 and various computer sound cards), there is no impact and poor dynamics, but with the right sources (my vinyl setup or my RME ADI-2), the bass is so punchy that even at moderate volumes the impact can be easily felt on the outter ear/sides of my face. |
By visceral impact I mean bodily feeling of bass impact, unrelated to hearing. I don't think any headphone can deliver this, unless they come with a couch shaker or something.
I don't know about the source dependence of K1000 bass. I only use DAC1 and Sony SACD/DVD player as sources. I don't particularly feel any difference in bass. I would be surprised another digital source would greatly enhance the bass of K1000, but again anything is possible.
Anyway, tonight is the first time I get back home from a classical concert and don't feel my audio system is basically wrong in terms of tonality. Bob Katz, the famous recording engineer, thinks tonal correctness is the most important thing in audio and I agree. With all the equipment and procedures in the audio chain, it would be nearly impossible to have 100% tonal accuracy. But different halls also have very different tonality. I would say that even though different halls have different acoustic properties, they all sound natural. I think this is called "invariance" in hearing. You hear the same person in different rooms, you can recognize the person's natural voice despite the sound you hear being different. Even if audio equipment is not 100% tonally accurate, as long as the distortions appear to be natural, we might still think it sounds natural. I guess this is where tube excels. It either distorts the signal in a way that appears tonally natural or mask out some unatural cues. Looking at Sweetwater catalog, I realize many of the best microphone and mike preamps today still have tubes. Clearly, having tubes somewhere in the audio chain is still very much alive in audio today. This is just my theory though, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Anyway, back to the tonality of my K1000 system, I have to say it's not perfect but actually sounds somewhat natural for all instruments in the orchestra. The tonality of violins is always the hardest to capture and replay. Even for simulating instruments electronically, violins present the greatest challenge. So where does my K1000 system stand on solo violin? Let me compare masterpiece violins played by acclaimed violinists in A+ recordings through my system and a decent factory violin played by a skilled amateur I heard tonight. In the highest register my system is a tiny bit thin but in the lower register my system sounds significantly richer (due to much better violins). Actually, when the soloist tonight did not bow so well in the higher register, his violin sounds even thinner and sort of sounds like my system. So overall it is a tie. Nothing to be too proud of, because famous Cremonese violins now sound banal on my sytem. But the fact that they still sound like violins is quite remarkable.
So are K1000 really "concert hall" headphones? Not by any stretch of imagination. Plenty of things are still missing: the hall reflections, the kick in the gut from drums and the wholistic soundstage (fiils the room but with much less instrument separation than good stereo systems). But consider the cost your listening space plus audio equioment, and compare that to even a smalll concert hall. Bringing the concert hall home? I don't think it can happen anytime soon. That's why enjoying the music takes a little imagination. Back in the old days when radio was crappy mono, people were still mesmerized by the "serious" music (classical, jazz opera) they heard on radio. Obviously, people had very good imagination in those days. Nowadays, I like to imagine myself as the conductor--it kind of explains why sounds originate right around my head.
cosmopragma
Headphoneus Supremus
Ferbose, I'm really enjoying your balanced posts.
You are now officially nominated for the secret head-fi hall of fame.
You are now officially nominated for the secret head-fi hall of fame.
morphie
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2004
- Posts
- 1,175
- Likes
- 10
sounds to me like u need grados. fast.
lan
Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Posts
- 8,606
- Likes
- 19
Quote:
I think a better source would allow a smoother sound that's more layered. I think that's important for the K1000's bass because it allows more of it to come through. It's rather common for it to be overshadowed.
I agree with sounding natural. I have always beleived there are many different ways / characteristics of sounding natural and people choose different equipment to portray certain of those aspects "correctly". So it has always been tricky reading up on reviews. To me things like having more detail, tighter bass, more treble extension, a smooth presentation, nice soundstage, etc. is good to have but it can still be unnatural. I prefer a more balanced aproach. Since I've been trying many "budget" / portable amps lately, I find I'm not that satisfied with them because they are out of balance I prefer.
Funny thing though, I'm not a fan of DAC1 in all my encounters with it. Maybe I will buy one to try in my system and then mod it. If you have issues with the lowest of bass, impact, and highest of highs, I think it could be a source thing. Ever thought of getting your source modded.
| Originally Posted by Ferbose I don't know about the source dependence of K1000 bass. I would be surprised another digital source would greatly enhance the bass of K1000, but again anything is possible. I would say that even though different halls have different acoustic properties, they all sound natural. |
I think a better source would allow a smoother sound that's more layered. I think that's important for the K1000's bass because it allows more of it to come through. It's rather common for it to be overshadowed.
I agree with sounding natural. I have always beleived there are many different ways / characteristics of sounding natural and people choose different equipment to portray certain of those aspects "correctly". So it has always been tricky reading up on reviews. To me things like having more detail, tighter bass, more treble extension, a smooth presentation, nice soundstage, etc. is good to have but it can still be unnatural. I prefer a more balanced aproach. Since I've been trying many "budget" / portable amps lately, I find I'm not that satisfied with them because they are out of balance I prefer.
Funny thing though, I'm not a fan of DAC1 in all my encounters with it. Maybe I will buy one to try in my system and then mod it. If you have issues with the lowest of bass, impact, and highest of highs, I think it could be a source thing. Ever thought of getting your source modded.
boodi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Posts
- 7,489
- Likes
- 2,227
Ian , what are you using the k1000 with mainly (the rig) ?
lan
Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Posts
- 8,606
- Likes
- 19
I am using my non oversampling DAC and nOrh SE9 tube amp (with upgraded caps). This may change though. I'm still tweaking my system for SA5000 and HE60. I'm about to move so things will get shuffled around.
rontokyo
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Posts
- 114
- Likes
- 0
I don't recall now how long you allowed for break in, but my pair required *weeks.* I would certainly agree with omments here about using a tubed amp. I'm currently using them with a Cary SLI-80 [connected to the speaker jacks] and absolutely could not be happier. These are *not* bass-starved cans, BTW. I'm completely satisfied with the base response--I personally believe that I'm hearing what bass I'm *supposed* to be hearing. I listen mainly to vinyl, but I also use a DAC-1 with my CDP.
As an aside, I had been using RS-1s for eight years. Not to knock those cans, but IMO the K-1000s are far superior [in my system] in terms of tonality and detail. The veil has been lifted. I am so completely satisfied, in fact, that I bought a second pair as a spare--I wouldn't want to go even one day without them. Upgrade? Not in this lifetime.
As an aside, I had been using RS-1s for eight years. Not to knock those cans, but IMO the K-1000s are far superior [in my system] in terms of tonality and detail. The veil has been lifted. I am so completely satisfied, in fact, that I bought a second pair as a spare--I wouldn't want to go even one day without them. Upgrade? Not in this lifetime.
Users who are viewing this thread
