An oldie: HP1 vs. HP2

[Hopstretch]

I know this was probably endlessly hashed out on HF back in the day, but I'm late to the HP1000 party and most of what I have been able to unearth over there is just the usual clueless blithering. So I ask you fine gents: Is there generally held to be a significant difference in sound quality between the HP1s and HP2s? I really, really dig the HP1s I got from Jim and I'm thinking thoughts. You know the ones.

[tom_hankins]

I owned the HP2 and did a brief comparison with HP1. I thought they sound the same. The only difference i could find in looks were the polarity switches on the HP1s. This was over a short listening period though so maybe longer sessions could bring out some small details in sound i missed.

[morphsci]

Yep, I have never noticed a consistent difference between HP-1 and HP-2, over and above the expected unit to unit differences.

[Hopstretch]

Yay!

As an aside, Jim, I think I marginally prefer bowls on them. Flats muddy things up just a touch too much, although they're not nearly as bad as on the HF2s.

[morphsci]

I used both bowls and flats depending upon the music but it does take a little while to acclimate to the different pads. I guess overall I used bowls a little more than flats, but then again I'm weird.

[Dusty Chalk]

I think the difference is largely psychological -- you know there's those switches in the signal path on the ones that aren't on the twos, so you want to hear a difference, but I don't know if it's actually there.

[Hopstretch]

I think it's personal preference more than anything. I use only flats on my HF1s, could go either way with the HP1s and absolutely hate them on the HF2s.

I find the HP1s still have enough bass with bowls and appreciate the slightly more expansive stage and better detail retrieval that I perceive with the driver slightly further from the ear.

Dusty, one reason I asked was digging up an old Hirsch post where he stated very categorically that the polarity switches caused the HP1s to roll off far more quickly than the HP2s at both ends of the frequency spectrum. Now, I don't hear anything particularly out of the ordinary with my pair, but then I don't rate either my accumulated headphone experience or my ears particularly highly.

[manaox2]

Screaming Oranges owns both, one to ask.

[Asr]

Yay!

As an aside, Jim, I think I marginally prefer bowls on them. Flats muddy things up just a touch too much, although they're not nearly as bad as on the HF2s.

Don't you have quarter-modded HD414 pads?

[guzziguy]

If you first listen to an HP2 and then listen to an HP1 with one switch up and one switch down, then you'll find that they don't sound the same.

[Torpedo]

once you get really used to the flats on the HP-2s i don't think you'll find them to be muddy.

x2. In fact I find the timbre more correct using flats. With bowls it's true, as Stretch said, that sound is airier and more expansive, sort of more detailed, but I personally find it a bit less "believable" with some instruments and voices. Anyway, with both they sound damn good.

Unfortunately I've never managed to listen to the HP1, so can't add anything worth to the original question. It's said that both use the same drivers, and these were selected into the same matching tolerances, so my take is that they'll sound very very similar. Pure speculation

[recstar24]

I haven't listened enough to the HP1 to provide an opinion unfortunately, but the random 10 minutes at various meets would lead me to say that they are about the same, or that the typical hp1000 to hp1000 variation is maintained. I have heard pretty noticeable differences though from one hp1000 to another based on age, usage, and at times have even caught some hp1000's being sold as perfectly functional, but actually had a bad driver (like my current set before I sent to Joe).

[penger]

i bet flipping each side rapidly up and down would be a magical experience.

Only if you get sparks.

[hirsch]

I think the difference is largely psychological -- you know there's those switches in the signal path on the ones that aren't on the twos, so you want to hear a difference, but I don't know if it's actually there.

The HP-1 was a less efficient headphone than the HP-2 when I had both. The switches are theoretically the only difference, which would have meant that they were acting as resistors in the HP-1. While a good switch may only produce psychological differences, a switch that affects gain in either position is producing physical differences. It's also possible that not all HP-1000 drivers were created equal, although I subsequently heard the same difference in efficiency on other HP-1/HP-2 comparisons. The high-bandwidth reference cable made a difference also, and had more extended highs than the older Laboratory Standard cable. My memory is that the HP-2 with high-bandwidth reference cable was the best of the HP-1000 series.

[Dusty Chalk]

Wouldn't that depend on the amp?

[recstar24]

The high-bandwidth reference cable made a difference also, and had more extended highs than the older Laboratory Standard cable. My memory is that the HP-2 with high-bandwidth reference cable was the best of the HP-1000 series.

x2. I have had enough high-bandwidth cabled hp1000's to compare to standard cabled ones where the extended highs is clearly noticeable.

[screaming oranges]

Screaming Oranges owns both, one to ask.

Sounds the same! Cosmetic differences, that's all.

[hirsch]

Wouldn't that depend on the amp?

No. Less efficiency means that any amp has to put out more power to drive it.

[Dusty Chalk]

And if it's underpowered, it's going to show a different frequency response -- extreme example would be the RSA Raptor trying to drive a low impedance headphone vs. a high impedance headphone -- it's not just the amplitude that falters, the whole frequency response goes down the crapper, no matter how much you turn it up. That's not just distortion. That's impedance mismatch between amp and headphones.

If they're acting like resistors, then they're going to increase the effective impedance. LRC circuit theory sez that that will change the frequency response based on the amp. Do you remember what amp you did this comparison on? Was it the MicroZOTL?

[hirsch]

And if it's underpowered, it's going to show a different frequency response -- extreme example would be the RSA Raptor trying to drive a low impedance headphone vs. a high impedance headphone -- it's not just the amplitude that falters, the whole frequency response goes down the crapper, no matter how much you turn it up. That's not just distortion. That's impedance mismatch between amp and headphones.

If they're acting like resistors, then they're going to increase the effective impedance. LRC circuit theory sez that that will change the frequency response based on the amp. Do you remember what amp you did this comparison on? Was it the MicroZOTL?

MicroZOTL, SHA-1, HP-4, Supra and whatever other amps came through. Every amp I ever used to compare HP-1 to HP-2 required significantly more gain on HP-1 to volume-match to HP-2.

[postjack]

hey man, you really can't listen to the HP-1/2 with bowls. you really cannot. flats only sir.

[Hopstretch]

Don't you have quarter-modded HD414 pads?

Yes.

[aardvark baguette]

you shouldn't pile your vinyl like that

[Hopstretch]

And yet I do.

[HeadphoneAddict]

You look a lot happier than your avatar.