1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Grado Fan Club!

Discussion in 'Headphones (full-size)' started by vikingatheart, Dec 29, 2010.
  1. Monolaf
    I prefer the GH2.
    He has in my opinion the best conditions to become the best Grado ever, even with the best value for money.
     
    peskypesky, alegar and TooFrank like this.
  2. Douger333
    I have the PS2000e's, GH2's, and GH4's. Played through my Kenzie amp from Ampsandsound, the GH4 is most like the PS2ke's, bass not quite as weighty but not far off, and upper midrange a bit congested but only noticeable in direct comparison. The GH2's are beautiful and sound great though!
     
    peskypesky, audiobomber and alegar like this.
  3. ESL-1
    I agree that the HP1000 and PS500 have very good bass as I own the first (HP2) and did own the PS500. They both do better in my opinion than the GS3000e in that regard although the 3000e is still a great phone regardless. My vote for best bass in all aspects would be the PS2000e.
     
    alegar likes this.
  4. aravaioli
    I believe moving from SR-60 up to SR-325 is not much of an improvement, more of a lateral move. I'd recommend you a GH2 (which you can still find on Ebay and at least on some UK stores) which has remarkably better bass without losing the Grado carachter at all, or a PS500, the non-"e" version having a bit more bass. I ended up preferring the GH2 to the GS1000e which should say enough. They are very close but the GH2 does not have those very forward mids of the GS1000e which I found bothersome. Also slightly better bass but overall very close. I think the GH2 and the PS500 are the sweet spots of the Grado lineup although my favorite is the PS1000, especially through my Graham Slee Solo Linear. Regrettably it is too hard to find a PS2000e in the used market, so it does not look like I will try one any soon.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  5. aravaioli
    Is there a noticeable difference between GH2 and GH4?

    I was under the impression that they use the same drivers and just different type of wood which alone, according to someone I know in the industry, cannot make much of a difference if volume and shape are kept the same.

    Curious to read your take.
     
  6. Douger333
    Thank you for your questioning. I must admit that I have been using g-pads on my GH2's, and keeping the original L-pads on the GH4's... I put L-pads back on my
    GH2's and sure enough they have the same characteristics that I love in the GH4's! Learn something every day...
    BTW, don't give up on used PS2Ke's, a couple of pairs have sold on Head-fi.

    Doug
     
    audiobomber likes this.
  7. Cruelhand Luke
    EXACTLY!
     
  8. aravaioli
    Thanks for replying.

    I use original G pads on all my Grados. They are better even for the SR80, in my opinion, followed by the S pads with the L pads being my least favourites.
    I experimented like everybody with non-original Grado pads. While for L pads good replacements exist, for the G pads I never came across to anything coming close to the (rip off) original ones.

    I do not think I have any more open sounding headphones in my collection that the GH2 with G pads... And the GS1000e which were supposed to best them also in this aspect, did not.

    If I had to take a 1-year cruise I guess I'd take with my the GH2 and the B&W P9 to get a closed one too.
     
    TooFrank and peskypesky like this.
  9. clundbe1
    In my ears, the GH1 overcomes the GH2. Have people here forgot these phones?
     
    HungryPanda likes this.
  10. mortcola
    Good question - the role of the different woods has always interested me. I can't answer as an engineer - and I've put similar question to Rich Grado a couple of times. But as a musician, I can say for certain that the particular wood utilized HAS TO have a meaningful input, even if not the largest factor. Each material resonates differently, both in its frequency characteristics and its amplitude....which material damps vibration more? at what range, micro and macro? How does the designer tune the other other elements of the device such that the synergy is more or less effective....and yielding what flavor, what holism of physics that is experienced in an aesthetic quality by the listener. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in material engineering or electronics to know that cocobolo makes a different clarinet than ebonite, blackwood or its cousin, rosewood. Resonance and how it is figured into the design is a major factor. Of course, selling high-end goods, whether to status-seekers or artists or connoisseurs often involves using status material, but if the material and its place in the design had no functional value, the legitimacy of the brand and designer would diminish severely. To apply an absurd positivist notion like "if volume and shape are kept the same", the material doesn't make a difference is to invoke a very slippery slope. If molasses is a ridiculous material to build an instrument out of, in gross ways, then how does one sustain the argument that less ridiculous materials are all the same? Why don't we make "the best" gold jewelry out of pure 24 carat gold and charge more for it? Because of its physical characteristics, based in its atomic chemistry. It would moosh and lose one of its most salient qualities - its ability to hold a shape and reflect light just so....not to mention last for a long while without becoming a bunch of fragments, or a lump. Aahh, but you might say, as in an ELECTRIC or ELECTRONIC device, all that matters is the electric signal - the wood is inert in that case. However, anything affecting the vibrations - and the human interaction with those vibrations - has a large effect on the physical vibrations which are transduced into an electric signal. An instrument, or a pair of headphones, or a turntable plinth, platter, and tonearm - or the cartridge, which Grado has had more historical input into than, arguably, any other company or designer in history (look it up) - interacts with its environment, whether the latter is your skull, the walls of the room, the guitarists fingers and the preferences and reactions of the bearer of those fingers. From the Fender website, on this very topic:

    "The strings might not directly touch the wood, but the energy from a strummed string is transferred from the bridge and nut into the body and neck, creating frequencies that move through that wood. Then how could the wood not play a role in your guitar’s tone? The answer is that it does. Generally, heavier woods like mahogany resonate differently than a medium-bodied wood like alder and a lighter wood like basswood. And don’t forget feel. A big part of your tone comes down to how you play — how you fret chords and how you strum or pick."

    Were Linn and Naim invoking snake-oil tactics when they required that their dealers only demo components with one pair of speakers in the room at a time? When drivers are made to vibrate to make sound, doesn't it make sense to keep materials and devices which make the environment conduct sound differently separated?

    The wood matters. And a company made of people who do only that thing they do, as part of a legacy, and with a reputation for avoiding market trends and fads as well as for making devices which reflect a consistent way of listening, of particular musical values, are likely to make very dedicated use of the qualities of each of its components....and not be gullible or appeal to magical thinking. The physics and the ergonomics....and their contribution to the human involvement with the devices (really, the near-definition of ergonomics) ...should be obvious to anyone who comprehends, on any level, what "dynamics" mean. Some people use (or invent - thanks, Leibniz and Newton) things like calculus to codify these factors, especially when the effects of variables are small but complex, and propagate into unique systems....like a GH4 and its difference compared to a GS3000 or A Sennheiser HD650, or a Stratocaster vs a Les Paul. This is not rocket science...not exactly.
     
    HungryPanda, Monolaf and trellus like this.
  11. peskypesky
    I"m at my brother's house and he has the Grado PS1000's. I'm afraid to plug them in and find out how great they might sound...because then I won't want to use any of MY headphones.

    But then again, I'm curious how much better they sound than my SR80s.
     
  12. peskypesky
    is there a difference between G pads and G cushions?

    I'm going to take the pads off my brother's PS1000 and see how they work on my SR80s.

    [edit]
    ok, I wasn't expecting a huge difference, but there was. The sound when using the G cushions is VERY different than using the flat foam cushions.
    [​IMG]


    I won't go into describing the differnce...but I will say that I much prefer the sound with the flat foam cushions. It's much stronger and more present. Feels like the music is happening in my head. With the G cushions it seemed like the music was distant.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  13. audiobomber
    I suspect different materials affect the damping of the driver housing. This would change which frequencies are damped, and which resonate, affecting the sound signature.
     
  14. aravaioli
    What you mention, I was told, applies to device that "produce" sound, like music instruments. Indeed changing wood type in a violin would likely affect the produced sound.

    Not so much for device that "reproduce" sound, such as headphones, where the objective of the housing is to prevent unwanted sound in the journey between driver and your tympan. There the difference between wood types will be very minimal if any but marketing personnel will use it as a differentiator beyond the aesthetic aspects of it. So I was told by someone very competent in the audio recording industry.
     
  15. HungryPanda
    Still very happy with my GH1's, haven't had the extreme urge to try the later GH models
     

Share This Page