Seidhepriest
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Posts
- 655
- Likes
- 21
First, a few words about the K-81.
The Head-Fi K-81 appreciation thread made them look as if they were the "headphones for anyone", with a few comments about how they remind scaled-down, less detailed K-240 Studio.
Trouble is, the K-81 are very unlike the K-240 Studio. The K-81DJ are just that, boomy exaggerated-bass DJ headphones. Boombox in headphone form. Bass exaggerated to such an extent, it's sickening. This's not an exaggeration: a drumless, bassless album ("3" by Final) was so bassy through K-81+Minibox-D, it caused dizziness.
The irony of the situation is, the RH-50 are somewhat like the "toy K-240 Studio" the K-81 thread suggested the K-81 are. Slightly elevated midrange, polite, unexaggerated, but powerful bass, clear spatial detail. They're cheaper than the K-81 (the "-50" index is the suggested price). So they fill the role the K-81 was supposed to get - "street", cheaper K-240-like headphones. Of course they don't have the detail and resolution of recabled K-240 Studio, but they're more efficient, and can work ampless with a portable player. Here're some photos...
They're slightly larger than the K-81, and weigh less. They look like they're circumaural, but they're not - same thing as the K-81, large-ish supra-aural. Semi-open. Impedance is standard 32-ohm, sensitivity ought to float around 96 dB/mW or so. Also more comfortable than the K-81, the RH-50 don't try to squeeze juice out of ears.
Sonically there's more emphasis on midrange than with most "consumer" headphones (these are monitor headphones, designed to highlight detail). As with all supra-aural headphones, soundstage is a bit toyish and smaller than with full-size headphones. Slightly veiled, slightly thick-sounding, a recable might fix that. A bit boomy unamplified, but quite powerful straight out of a player. Dynamics aren't anything stunning, but they're not slow or artificial. Tonally they're similar to the K-240 Studio, with even more emphasis on midrange. It's just that they're also more artificial than the K-240. More analytical perhaps, the presentation is more straightforward and it's all business - detail and notes before anything else. The K-240 are smoother and a lot more detailed, a lot airier, but hey, the RH-50 cost $50... For the money there's a lot worse. Also unfatiguing (sonically), also musical in the same way. RH-50 might even be a tad too midrange-oriented for some. The big plus is that they're the most detailed headphones for money.
Comfort isn't as with full-size circumaural headphones, but they press a lot less than most larger supra-aural headphones. An hour or two until pressure becomes painful. A lift off the ears for a few seconds, and readjustment, fixes discomfort.
Slightly more efficient than the K-81, probably by 2-4 dB. They can work fine with a portable player, but a cheap amp (E5 or CMoy) will help.
The Head-Fi K-81 appreciation thread made them look as if they were the "headphones for anyone", with a few comments about how they remind scaled-down, less detailed K-240 Studio.
Trouble is, the K-81 are very unlike the K-240 Studio. The K-81DJ are just that, boomy exaggerated-bass DJ headphones. Boombox in headphone form. Bass exaggerated to such an extent, it's sickening. This's not an exaggeration: a drumless, bassless album ("3" by Final) was so bassy through K-81+Minibox-D, it caused dizziness.
The irony of the situation is, the RH-50 are somewhat like the "toy K-240 Studio" the K-81 thread suggested the K-81 are. Slightly elevated midrange, polite, unexaggerated, but powerful bass, clear spatial detail. They're cheaper than the K-81 (the "-50" index is the suggested price). So they fill the role the K-81 was supposed to get - "street", cheaper K-240-like headphones. Of course they don't have the detail and resolution of recabled K-240 Studio, but they're more efficient, and can work ampless with a portable player. Here're some photos...
They're slightly larger than the K-81, and weigh less. They look like they're circumaural, but they're not - same thing as the K-81, large-ish supra-aural. Semi-open. Impedance is standard 32-ohm, sensitivity ought to float around 96 dB/mW or so. Also more comfortable than the K-81, the RH-50 don't try to squeeze juice out of ears.
Sonically there's more emphasis on midrange than with most "consumer" headphones (these are monitor headphones, designed to highlight detail). As with all supra-aural headphones, soundstage is a bit toyish and smaller than with full-size headphones. Slightly veiled, slightly thick-sounding, a recable might fix that. A bit boomy unamplified, but quite powerful straight out of a player. Dynamics aren't anything stunning, but they're not slow or artificial. Tonally they're similar to the K-240 Studio, with even more emphasis on midrange. It's just that they're also more artificial than the K-240. More analytical perhaps, the presentation is more straightforward and it's all business - detail and notes before anything else. The K-240 are smoother and a lot more detailed, a lot airier, but hey, the RH-50 cost $50... For the money there's a lot worse. Also unfatiguing (sonically), also musical in the same way. RH-50 might even be a tad too midrange-oriented for some. The big plus is that they're the most detailed headphones for money.
Comfort isn't as with full-size circumaural headphones, but they press a lot less than most larger supra-aural headphones. An hour or two until pressure becomes painful. A lift off the ears for a few seconds, and readjustment, fixes discomfort.
Slightly more efficient than the K-81, probably by 2-4 dB. They can work fine with a portable player, but a cheap amp (E5 or CMoy) will help.
