kyr
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Posts
- 39
- Likes
- 10
Nope, no pictures. I don't have a cam handy, and I can't be bothered to borrow one. Besides, it's not interesting visually.
I got my ksc-35s a few weeks ago, and thought it was good, but was unsatisfied about the sound. In short, the bass was a bit too strong for me. Although it was good bass, unlike, say, v-**** cans, it was so powerful at times that it overwhelmed and obscured the midrange. So I decided to try the "mod that's been done before" - replacing the koss stock pads with radio shack pads. So, I got some. Bought one that seemed a good size, for a pack of four (they only had four-packs).
I took the koss stock pads off, and compared them to the radio shack pads. The radio shack pads are thicker, but the koss pads are more dense. I saw this by holding it up to the light. The radio shack pads let through more light. So far so good, that's what I want...
In doing the comparison, I found some interesting facts. First of all, one of the clips had a sticker saying "95." So my ksc-35s were made in '95? Pretty old, considering I only got them a few weeks ago. Interesting...
Or not. A more interesting thing I found was that the koss pads doesn't have uniform thickness. A small, curved area on the side of the pad is actually thinner than the rest of the pad. Interesting. That probably corresponds to the place where the cord attaches, that ridge-type thing...to bad I didn't realize it before I took them off.
Well, to work. The radio shack pads were too big on the back which would cover the back of the ksc-35 if I put them on directly. So I cut them down to the appropriate size, and put them on. Played music through it though a portable (slimx).
Results? Mmm.
Bass: Toned down, just as I wanted. It is also clearly tighter, and well balanced with the midrange now. Excellent.
Midrange: Not much difference here. Actually seems to be placed more towards the back, although it's more direct sounding.
Treble: Ouch. The treble is freed, alright. Too much so. If the treble was a canary singing in a cage before, now it's a whole flock of them flying through your room. Brighter, sure, more sibilant, but also harsher and, more importantly, less controlled. The cymbals sound more like static, and overall, it seems less detailed!
I didn't like the result, so I quickly took the radio shack pads off and put the stock pads back on again. Yup, bass is back there, in all it's overweight glory. But the treble is much more controlled, and relaxing to the ears.
Conclusion? I'd go with the stock pads. I only use the ksc-35 for active use only anyway, and on the street, added bass is actually a bonus.
I got my ksc-35s a few weeks ago, and thought it was good, but was unsatisfied about the sound. In short, the bass was a bit too strong for me. Although it was good bass, unlike, say, v-**** cans, it was so powerful at times that it overwhelmed and obscured the midrange. So I decided to try the "mod that's been done before" - replacing the koss stock pads with radio shack pads. So, I got some. Bought one that seemed a good size, for a pack of four (they only had four-packs).
I took the koss stock pads off, and compared them to the radio shack pads. The radio shack pads are thicker, but the koss pads are more dense. I saw this by holding it up to the light. The radio shack pads let through more light. So far so good, that's what I want...
In doing the comparison, I found some interesting facts. First of all, one of the clips had a sticker saying "95." So my ksc-35s were made in '95? Pretty old, considering I only got them a few weeks ago. Interesting...
Or not. A more interesting thing I found was that the koss pads doesn't have uniform thickness. A small, curved area on the side of the pad is actually thinner than the rest of the pad. Interesting. That probably corresponds to the place where the cord attaches, that ridge-type thing...to bad I didn't realize it before I took them off.
Well, to work. The radio shack pads were too big on the back which would cover the back of the ksc-35 if I put them on directly. So I cut them down to the appropriate size, and put them on. Played music through it though a portable (slimx).
Results? Mmm.
Bass: Toned down, just as I wanted. It is also clearly tighter, and well balanced with the midrange now. Excellent.
Midrange: Not much difference here. Actually seems to be placed more towards the back, although it's more direct sounding.
Treble: Ouch. The treble is freed, alright. Too much so. If the treble was a canary singing in a cage before, now it's a whole flock of them flying through your room. Brighter, sure, more sibilant, but also harsher and, more importantly, less controlled. The cymbals sound more like static, and overall, it seems less detailed!
I didn't like the result, so I quickly took the radio shack pads off and put the stock pads back on again. Yup, bass is back there, in all it's overweight glory. But the treble is much more controlled, and relaxing to the ears.
Conclusion? I'd go with the stock pads. I only use the ksc-35 for active use only anyway, and on the street, added bass is actually a bonus.
