[unclejr]

When I first read that flats are these wonder pads for Grados, my curiosity was certainly piqued. They surprised me at the difference exhibited from the stock bowls. On the other hand, there weren't many impressions regarding the jumbowls, which look comically oversized on the RS-1s but nonetheless fit just fine. So I decided to grab a pair of each and compare them to the stock bowls, to see if I could pin down the changes.

For comparison, I used the following tracks:

Corelli's La Folia, Andrew Manze & Richard Egarr, Corelli Violin Sonatas, Op. 5 (Harmonia/Mundi HMU 907298.99)
One Love, Bob Marley, Legend (Tuff Gong/422-846)
Thieves in the Night, Blackstar, Blackstar (Rawkus/RWS 1158)
Samba Na Sola, Céu, Céu (Six Degrees/657036 1129)
Since I've Laid My Burden Down, Mississippi John Hurt, Complete Studio Rec. (Vanguard/181/83-2)
Hey Sweet Man, Madeleine Peyroux, Dreamland (Atlantic/82946-2)
So Danço Samba, Joao Gilberto/Stan Getz, Getz/Gilberto (Verve, Polygram/521414)
Bruch's Violin Concerto No. 1. G minor Op. 26 Allegro Moderato, Yehudi Menuhin, Bruch & Mendelssohn Violin Concertos - Legend (EMI/57766)
You Can't Hide, Maktub, Khronos (Velour/VEL-0303)
A Little Max (Parfait) - alt take, Duke Ellington, Money Jungle (Blue Note/38227)
Teo, Thelonious Monk, Monk. (Columbia/CK 86564)
Chega De Saudade, Rosa Passos and Yo-Yo Ma, Obrigado Brasil (Sony Classical/SK 899935)
Prayer For Passive Resistance, Charles Mingus, Pre Bird (Mercury/538636)

My reference tracks were abnormally slanted to vocal stuff, which was just the way the playlist shuffled for some reason. I didn't get through all of the stuff I wanted to, but once it started to get redundant, I didn't feel terrible about it.

All were ripped from my original CD to ALAC in iTunes from iMod via ALO Female Dock to Cardas HP-1 6" cable to Ray Samuels Audio Tomahawk and RS-1s with approx. 300 hours on them.

There's nothing terribly ground breaking about these impressions, by the way. I am just happy to have heard them all side by side (by side). Sorry for the awful pictures. More are available on Flickr.

All pads:


Flats:


Bowls:


Jumbowls profile:


Jumbowls chamber side:


Jumbowls driver side:



Bass. As expected, flats had the most bass impact, but it was muddy, especially in tracks such as "So Danço Samba," when it isn't entirely clean to begin with. But as I have said earlier, the bass was not acceptable to me when you needed to hear the strong reverberation in a Charles Mingus pizzicato, for instance.

On the other hand, the jumbowls ended up being a little light on the low end. Turns out, I can now believe that the GS1000s for which the jumbowls were made are tuned for these pads, as the bass must be compensated for considering the amount of air between the driver and the ear. In fact, aside from being intolerably weak for hip hop, the bass was downright sloppy in "Thieves in the Night," a great Blackstar track (if you're into that kind of thing!).

And, right in the middle of the two (this turns out to be a strangely obvious and yet common theme), the stock bowls had an appropriate combination of detailed bass and impact. The bowls were absolutely slammin' on Maktub's "You Can't Hide," leaving nothing more to be desired.

Highs. These differences certainly are more subtle than the differences in bass presentation. I found that the jumbowls allowed me to hear more decay, for instance with Richard Egarr's harpsichord on the Corelli. The transition from jumbowls to flats revealed a less airy quality/detail around Andrew Manze's violin, as well.

With jumbowls, I found myself discovering instruments for the first time in complex harmonies with Céu's "Samba Na Sola," a track that has been constantly in rotation on my iMod for several months. There is a guitar being played front and center that normally gets lost for me amid the cow bells and other guitars with more prominent staging.

Interestingly, after listening for that same guitar on the flats, I found that it was more audible than with the stock bowls, as it seemed slightly recessed. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that, though the stock bowls did a nice job with the richness of the instruments. Again it seemed that the stock bowls were a balance between the extreme detail (jumbowls) versus the relatively muddy (flats).

However something happened regarding detail in the highs that was immediately off-putting. During "A Little Max (Parfait)" from Money Jungle, Duke Ellington's complex piano chords all of a sudden sounded awful with the jumbowls. It sounded almost like some sort of clipping effect, but it was present at lower volumes, and when using stock bowls or flats, the chords sounded much cleaner, even at higher volumes, which I'm not convinced I can explain.

Using the flats, I detected a slightly warm tinge to Ellington's piano, which was certainly not to my preference. However, I noted that Thelonious Monk's playing on "Teo" sounded very nice and not obviously warm.

Midrange/Voices. So here's where the music really happens for many of us, myself included. And here's where also the strangest things occurred in the music, including the deal breaker for me switching to the jumbowls for long periods of time.

All three sets of pads maintained the magical middle of the Grado signature. The flats had this really rich quality in the tenor saxophones that I absolutely loved to hear. I found that, for the first time, I could acknowledge my willingness to sacrifice detail for warmth. Stan Getz never sounded so beautiful in reproduced music!

Joao Gilberto's voice also sounded warm but very nice, and the flats took an edge off of the sibilance that is definitely present in the recording, at least from all systems I've ever heard that track on.

Additionally, Céu's voice on "Samba Na Sola" was so beautiful. I have written here, "yum." There's this section where she says, "do panso do pandeiro" (you will have to excuse my Brazilian Portuguese spelling), and it's just so damn gorgeous.

The richness in Reggie Watt's Dove smooth voice is also accentuated by the flats, though I found it to be a bit much for Mississippi John Hurt's voice, where just he and his guitar are competing for air.

Turning to the bowls, I found that the unwelcome warmth present in MJH and Madeleine Peyroux's voice (on "Hey Sweet Man") were replaced by some noticeably present sibilance but certainly not annoyingly so. Except for the guitar technique in that last track, it sounded the best with bowls.

Rosa Passos' voice on "Chega de Saudade" was also something to behold, which was detailed enough to be impressive.

Regarding the saxophone, especially in "So Danço Samba," the bowls performed admirably, with all of the "nice" warmth of the flats and none of the veil.

The jumbowls also were able to capture the saxophone very well. I wasn't disappointed with its warmth at all. It's important to remember that even with the jumbowls, we're still talking about Grado drivers.

MJH sounded the best on the jumbowls, despite the actual number of instruments (2). There just wasn't much for the headstage-amplifying jumbowls to separate, but the detail heard here was quite welcome, in both voice and guitar.

However.

However.

The sibilance that I've admitted is probably recording limited was supremely present in Gilberto's voice with the jumbowls -- annoyingly so, for me. While I forgave them for this recording due to the presence of sibilance even in my speaker rig (however modest), even Céu's sexy voice was all but destroyed by the presence of harshness on words such as "exclusividade," "mais," and "nacional."

Madeleine's voice was also all jumbowl-ed, for example in the word "sweet." It was not pleasant to listen to, considering that these voices were the primary melodic instrument of each respective piece.

While the jumbowls also thinned out Watts' normally full voice, to its credit (or perhaps the recording engineer's), Rosa Passos sounded just fine without a hint of sibilance on this rig.

The jumbowls brought out the sibilance that I was not focused on with the bowls or flats at any time previously. It opened my ears unfavorably, and now even with the bowls, I'm hearing it everywhere. While it could be a problem with synergy (a new amp?), that's hard for me to fully buy because Rosa's voice was fine.

I thought that it might be a problem with recording, so I switch to the Etymotic ER-4ps with the same source + amp, and all was right once again in the world, at all tolerable volumes.

This certainly doesn't rule out the synergy possibility, and in fact it's the only evidence I've seen in my admittedly short time of critical listening to make me believe that such a thing exists.

Other people have reported zero sibilance with the RS-1s in the past, according to a quick search. However it's impossible for me to deny my own experience in this, and it bothers me to hear it prominently in the bowls, let alone the humongobowls.

Soundstage. As expected but a little bit more dramatic than I thought, the jumbowls did a very nice job on widening the headstage on nearly all tracks with more than two instruments. Accompanying the additional detail and air around notes, it was quite an interesting experience to hear from the RS-1s. Aside from the sheer quantity of bass afforded by the GS-1000s, the two sounded much more like brothers than distant cousins.

However those who have read my ramblings previously might remember that I much prefer jazz at the Village Vanguard than at Lincoln Center, so this was not a welcome feature on the small ensembles of Monk's, Ellington's, or Mingus's. Since small-combo jazz comprises a large majority of my listening preferences, the jumbowls just might not suit my fancy. Plus I've got to hear Mingus all but breaking strings and that kind of bass impact just is not present with the way the RS-1 drivers are tuned.

The flats were decidedly narrow, especially in conjunction with their ability to smear the lower end, which resulted in more of a blanket of sound than a barrage of individual instruments. Multi-instrument pieces such as the orchestra behind Yehudi Menuhin were not favorably presented with the flats, though the phenomenal detail in the presentation of these background instruments was quite ear-opening on the jumbowls.

And right between the two extremes, a welcome stock bowls presentation was forward and relatively narrow, suiting my interests, acceptable for large orchestra, and sufficiently detailed to pick out instruments with ease.

Comfort. The jumbowls were supra-aural and very light due to the distribution of surface area over a wide space. I found them to be the most comfortable. The flats were fine as well, and moreso than the bowls, probably since they share a similar diameter but the pressure due to the stock bowls' smaller contact area. I should note that I find all three to be fine regarding comfort and not off-putting.

Conclusion. Overall, the bowls did a fantastic job on instruments, in detail and balance. This was especially audible on small combo jazz, bringing out the often recessed and difficult to hear standing bass very nicely.

The flats were warm, accentuating a quality to voices that was welcome with most but not all of the male voices sampled. They were noticeably less detailed than the stock bowls and jumbowls, which was either acceptable (Blackstar) or just not good enough for my taste. Additionally, there was a boomy quality that was introduced, which, combined with the lack of detail, made for some ruined experiences ("So Danço Samba").

Finally, the jumbowls were very interesting to hear on the RS-1s because they accented the quality of bass tuning that is one major way to separate the GS1000s from the RS-1s. Yet this lack of tuning of the RS-1s for the jumbowls was painfully apparent in the sibilance introduced by their presence, as well as certain instruments (primarily vocal) being recessed when they should be pushed forward. However there was certainly additional air and detail surrounding notes, coupled with a larger soundstage, that made the jumbowls quite an interesting listen throughout several genres. It made the RS-1s much more suited toward my European classical recordings of Menuhin's and much less suited to my taste for small combo jazz.

 

[BrookR1]

Nice write up. I already have the flats and I knew the first 5 minutes I tried them that they weren't for me. I've always been curious how the bagels sounded on other Grados. Now, I'm not curious. I tried the GS1000s today for the first time, and I couldn't get over how much bass these cans had. Too much for my taste.

 

[buddha911]

Here is your high five that I promised, it's waiting right here for you: *high five*

Thank your for taking the time to right this comparison. I guess I'llbe sticking with my bowls - just the right amount of detail and richness- according to your comparo.

Thanks for saving me $45.

 

[Superpredator]

Nice writeup!! After borrowing a mid-vintage RS-1 and realizing that I liked the sound of bowls I switched back to bowls on my HF-1. Comfort was my initial motivator for flats but I'm discovering bowls aren't nearly as bad as I thought they were.

 

[CooLBieRe]

Love bowls!
^ ^

 

[riceboy]

Great informative review unclejr. I always wondered how the different pads/bowls would make the RS1 sound. I still have yet to try the jumbowls with my RS1s.

I'm sure your review has answered many people's questions and curiosity on trying different pads/bowls.

 

[carlosgp]

Nice review. But I see there is no rock music in the selected track list, and this is the genre in which flats shine.

 

[Mindless]

Great review. I did some testing myself yesterday (on my GS1000) with flats, bowls and bagels. The differences are indeed great between the different pads, each with their strong point. Flats are enjoyable for me because of my haircut (need to get one today by the way...) and the bass impact sure is impressive.

The bowls seem to be something inbetween the flats and bagels. It's something good of two worlds, however I find that their lack in comfort makes me reach for the other two. And I think there was something that bothered me with the bowls. Think it was the midrange. Way too upfront.

In the end, I found myself reaching for the bagels with GS1000. Why? As unclejr said, they are tuned for these headphones. They simply bring out the most of the cans.

Oh, expect a review from my part too sometime this fall on the GS1000 and how they change with different pads.

 

[Bootleg]

awesome review...this is just what a lot of us have been looking for...thanks!

 

[hawkhead]

and thanks from me too - now what else can I spend the money on ?

 

[vcoheda]

great write up.

 

[unclejr]

Thanks, all. It's kind of fun lending a critical ear to this stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindless /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great review. I did some testing myself yesterday (on my GS1000) with flats, bowls and bagels. The differences are indeed great between the different pads, each with their strong point. Flats are enjoyable for me because of my haircut (need to get one today by the way...) and the bass impact sure is impressive. The bowls seem to be something inbetween the flats and bagels. It's something good of two worlds, however I find that their lack in comfort makes me reach for the other two. And I think there was something that bothered me with the bowls. Think it was the midrange. Way too upfront. In the end, I found myself reaching for the bagels with GS1000. Why? As unclejr said, they are tuned for these headphones. They simply bring out the most of the cans. Oh, expect a review from my part too sometime this fall on the GS1000 and how they change with different pads.

So during my listening I kept wondering this as well, so I'm very curious to hear (and read about!) the GS1000s. I imagine that the flats are intense for that bass. Might be quite nice for low level listening, however?

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlosgp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice review. But I see there is no rock music in the selected track list, and this is the genre in which flats shine.

Yeah, sorry about the rock thing. While I get the criticism all the time that my listening taste is too narrow, I always thought I was just listening to "good music." While I do have like two Beatles albums floating around (somewhere), even that's probably not what most are looking for! Oh, I think I might have some Ben Harper somewhere, would that be useful?

When I think "rock," my thoughts go straight to Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, and Weather Report from the 1970s.

Of the above, Reggie Watts/Maktub is the closest to rock, I guess (more like neo-soul if you gotta put a name to it). In my notes it says that the bass lines were missing detail, but they were groovin' nonetheless.

 

[kontai69]

Great writup. It should be stickied. It seems like every week someone starts a new thread asking about pads.

A suggestion would be to reshoot the pics for the bowls and jumbobowls installed on the RS-1. They are too dark and is hard to see clearly. The pic of the flats looks good though.

 

[lmilhan]

Thanks for the effort.

A large part of the appeal of owning Grado phones is the ability to pad roll.

I have also compared all the pads you have mentioned at length with the RS-1s, PS-1s and GS-1000s.

In the end, I discovered that (for the most part) John Grado actually knows what he is talking about - I decided that the stock pads for each of the mentioned phones were ultimately the best in most cases, with the following exceptions and caveats (all IMO of course):

Please keep in mind that my music collection primarily consists of Metal and Rock of all flavors, as well as other 'bombastic' styles of music (Punk, Electric Blues, Alternative, etc).

PS-1s: I prefer most with bowl pads and tube amplification. When used with solid state amplification, bowls were also acceptable. With flat pads, regardless of amplification type used, the bass is overwhelming and too muddy, the midrange and treble sparkle suffer as well. With Bagel pads comfort was greatly improved, and soundstage was widened, but the Bass SLAM was greatly compromised. Part of the reason I enjoy the PS-1s so much is because of their legendary Bass slam, and the bagel pads just plain ruined it for me.

GS-1000s: I prefer most with bowl pads and tube amplification for Rock/Metal/Pop. Bagel pads for acoustic, jazz and classical. As for flat pads, my PS-1/flat pad experiences are pretty much mirrored here.

RS-1: I prefer most with bowl pads and tube amplification. When using solid state amplification, I prefer flat pads. Outright hated the way they sounded with the Bagel pads.

To take things one step further, I would also like to comment on my findings with 'C-Pads'. Across the board, I systematically disliked what they did to the sound signature of each of the above mentioned Grado phones. On a more positive note, they were indeed very comfy.

IMO Grado phones absolutely NEED tube amplification to really strut their stuff (especially the top-tier models), and in most cases, the stock pads are preferred.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[unclejr]

I really would like to get my hands on a proper home amp to see what these RS-1s can do. Maybe the Mapletree Ear+ Purist, though I am also interested in the RSA XP-7. I like what Ray does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kontai69 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great writup. It should be stickied. It seems like every week someone starts a new thread asking about pads. A suggestion would be to reshoot the pics for the bowls and jumbobowls installed on the RS-1. They are too dark and is hard to see clearly. The pic of the flats looks good though.

Haha, I realized a major shortcoming of my late night lighting last night, while shooting these photos. I have to wait for natural sunlight in order to retake them, but I will do so.