AKG K612 Pro -VS- Audio Technica ATH m40x

[fluffy_little_something]

I just had a listen to the HD650 vs K702 headphones comparison out of curiosity, since I use HD650 and K701 every day (the K701s are not that different from K702s) and one thing is clear to me: these tests do not show the reality. In the test above, the HD650 come out as brighter sounding than the K702s, whereas the HD650s have a darker top end. The bass is similarly reversed. The HD650 has a stronger bass response than the AKGs and it's not there in the example files. It's almost as if the files are incorrectly placed and what is the HD650 file is actually the K702. I wonder....

I agree, I listened to the HD280 file, and it sounds terrible on that site. No idea what they did there. Mine don't sound anything like that. If they did I would have returned them

I assume their test system is somehow flawed.

[Hermetech Mastering]

I have HD600s and ATH-M50s. The M50s are definitely "grot boxes" and I most certainly wouldn't want to rely on their hyped smiley curve response for critical mix or mastering decisions. Love the 600s though, translate very well to my ATC monitors which cost about twenty times as much!

[fluffy_little_something]

The HD600 are open, which tends to result in a better sound. And for that price anything but exceptional sound would be ridiculous

[Hermetech Mastering]

I consider the 600s to be an absolute bargain for the quality of sound that they give for the price (see my ATC comparison above).

[fluffy_little_something]

I consider the 600s to be an absolute bargain for the quality of sound that they give for the price (see my ATC comparison above).

Well, but the ATC are speakers, right? That's like saying a 20k Honda motorbike is a bargain because it goes as fast as a Ferrari In reality 20k is a whole lot of money for a motorbike. Likewise 400 bucks for headphones is expensive in my view, and I would expect the best of sound from them. Maybe your speakers are also too expensive


Anyway, was just comparing the HD280 to the M50 and noticed that many songs sound like there is too much reverb on them. The frequencies between, say, 500 and 2000 Hz seem too strong. Then again, it is not with all songs, Kajagoogoo's Hang on now (in my view very good for testing, very deep bass in there) sounds ok to me. I listen mostly to 80s stuff, did they use too much reverb back then? I do not hear it that much on the M50, they sound drier, but who knows if that is how it should sound? I have no reference...
Either way, when reducing the mentioned frequency range by about 4db and lifting them a bit above 12kHz, the sound is very nice, better than on the M50 in my view (I know, I know, basically I added the smiley face curve ). Especially the bass sounds very well defined, details in general are very good.

Since it can sound so good, it would be strange if Sennheiser tuned them so oddly on purpose, right? I will ask them tomorrow

[dakkra]

love my ATH-m40x's

[Touch The Universe]

love my ATH-m40x's

mine sound good too, no problems, i have an amp to go with it too.

[Hermetech Mastering]

I consider the 600s to be an absolute bargain for the quality of sound that they give for the price (see my ATC comparison above).

Maybe your speakers are also too expensive

My ears and clients disagree!

I still maintain the M50's are not really suitable for audio production. I know loads of people disagree, but I've never been one to hang with the crowd. I love them for sound on the move (FLACs on Cowon J3). They give a very hyped presentation that is similar to how many hi-fi systems and PAs might be set up, so I can see how some people might like the way that translates, and be able to get used to their idiosyncrasies, but I personally would never want to base critical mix or mastering decisions on them. But each to their own!

[fluffy_little_something]

The problem is that there is no absolute reference. Even in the studio where they record a song they use certain speakers, all of which have their own characteristics. And even every person's ears have their own characteristics.

I mean, at the end of the day I need to make my stuff sound good on what most people use for playback. I.e. I don't care what my stuff sounds like on great speakers because most people don't have great speakers.

If I make classical music, I don't have to pay that much attention to very high frequencies anymore because most people listening to classical music are older, thus their hearing has deteriorated.

[chroma]

the m40s i used to have sounded about like my event 20/20bas do... a little hyped, but reasonably flat.

the m50 is a little more hyped IMHO but even so they also sound at little clearer, possibly because they are a little hyped... i have them, because my usage is balanced between music & listening... the m40s aren't as much fun to just listen to music on, which is a common criticism of reference speakers of all kinds, so maybe not a bad thing. the m50s sound closer to my paradigm monitor 7s (great hi-fi speakers) i used to have (which have the same specs as the old Mackie monitors, but don't sound exactly like them... they sounded great though).

[Hermetech Mastering]

I don't care what my stuff sounds like on great speakers

And that's fine, as long as you realise that some of us still do.

[fluffy_little_something]

I don't care what my stuff sounds like on great speakers

And that's fine, as long as you realise that some of us still do.

I suppose it depends on whether one is professional or not. Someone asking for $100 headphone recommendations probably doesn't do professional work. To me $100 headphones are like Quincy Jones using a cheap stereo in the studio to check the sound and make sure it sounds decent on cheap hardware as well. $100 is entry level in my view.

[3ee]

Of course we care.. one of the reasons is this thread in the 1st place!

Herm, the m50x is suppose to have more "cleaner" highs with a slightly improved sound over the m50 version but both of them are suppose to be different/more hyped than the m40x as everybody on the internet keeps pointing out.

AKG K-612 Pro is probably the maximum I can afford... but unfortunately I don't have the possibility to test them... (I tend to feel safe to order the m40x even without hearing them, while not so for the K-612 Pro )

the K-612 Pros are currently 133 euros @ thomann.de

[3ee]

Someone asking for $100 headphone recommendations probably doesn't do professional work. To me $100 headphones are like Quincy Jones using a cheap stereo in the studio to check the sound and make sure it sounds decent on cheap hardware as well. $100 is entry level in my view.

Now Fluffy, that's not fair... even if something costs 100 bucks, I think there are real situations where it can outperform (or at least be as good as) upper class equipment.
I'm just trying to find out if that's the case with m40x.

[fluffy_little_something]

Someone asking for $100 headphone recommendations probably doesn't do professional work. To me $100 headphones are like Quincy Jones using a cheap stereo in the studio to check the sound and make sure it sounds decent on cheap hardware as well. $100 is entry level in my view.

Now Fluffy, that's not fair... even if something costs 100 bucks, I think there are real situations where it can outperform (or at least be as good as) upper class equipment.
I'm just trying to find out if that's the case with m40x.

Well, with hardware you usually get what you pay for... (With software it is different of course, just think of freeware.)