Topic: AKG K812 Measurements (Read 27439 times)

Thujone · « **Reply #70 on:** March 12, 2014, 11:11:43 AM »

This is the same set Marv measured?

ultrabike · « **Reply #71 on:** March 12, 2014, 02:52:33 PM »

Yes. But a little different rig. My current rig is more alike to Marv's previous rig. Mine tends to show a little more upper treble energy.

funkmeister · « **Reply #72 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:48:10 AM »

Quote from: marvey on March 11, 2014, 07:23:59 PM

Quote from: funkmeister on March 11, 2014, 06:17:52 PM
The OW curve is basically JBL's synthesis demo room with a touch higher bass and a tad lower treble.

I thought the O-W curve was a reference curve according to their particular measurement rig (head, canal, mic at eardrum, et. al) which represented a perceptual 10db downward tilt (roughly) from 20 to 20k.

I didn't know that in 2013, O-W invented an ideal FR curve that people in audio engineering have known about since the 1920s. I mean, sh1t, you can go into the various recording or studio forums and find this stuff out on how to EQ speakers with an RTA for perceptual flat. Even the car audio guys with the RTAs, back in the heyday of car audio, knew about this.

Heck even B&K provided their own reference curve. I like this one a lot. Flat to 100Hz. 4.5db rolloff by 10kHz. 5.5 by 20kHz.

I thought that particular curve (C-weighting filter) was for moving small venue speakers into a larger venue.

Anyway, they drew up the curve with their particular gear tuned to JBL's room (as measured at their gear's eardrum) and then let users fiddle with tone control knobs. They then drew their own tweaks based on the assumptions drawn from what they saw the users preferring and found that they scored higher user preference percentages on a curve-tuned set of HD518's than an uncompensated set of HD800's or LCD-2v2's.

I guess the real take-away here is that good tone is more preferred than detail retrieval. Sounds right to me.

Marvey · « **Reply #73 on:** March 13, 2014, 04:18:06 AM »

To certain extent. An almost ideal FR coupled with high distortion, extremely weird timbre, or lacking in other technicalities isn't a good thing either. Then again it's priorities. At a recent micro-meet of mine, someone brought a prototype ortho. It had very good tonal response (probably more bit laid back than I would have preferred). But it was closed sounding as heck and all muffled. I even remarked that it sounded "closed-in" even for a "closed" headphone, even though it really was an open headphone. People thought that was pretty funny.

But the person who brought it thought it was the bee-knees and should be priced at Audeze levels because the tonal response was more accurate than the Audezes, which do tend to be shelved in the treble. Most of us there, including myself, pretty much did the

thing.

Anaxilus · « **Reply #74 on:** March 13, 2014, 05:52:18 AM »

If FR is the biggest thing in the world to someone, then why not just buy the cheapest phone you can get your hands on and just EQ? This hobby and discussion is completely pointless for such people. The reason people don't is because in the end FR isn't, and people are just deluded to think that it is. It's just the easiest thing for people to listen for when ABing gear/music but it's not what keeps them involved and immersed in the music. Who goes to a concert and has an eargasm because they think to themselves, 'oh gawd, the FR is so perfectly balanced!' Nobody I know. It is important, but it's just one of many parts.

funkmeister · « **Reply #75 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:59:01 PM »

For sure. I think those points are why AKG was bold enough to price the K812 where they did... because it has those other qualities that make going back to an HD600 seem so dull, even if the tonality is considered superior on the HD600.

Anyway, I do wonder what the K812's waterfall looks like as well. Something tells me it'll have some claws. Or did I totally miss that chart?

Marvey · « **Reply #76 on:** March 13, 2014, 11:40:54 PM »

Just moderate claws: http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1482.msg39081.html#msg39081

I'll get Ultra to loan me his HD600. I am curious how the K812 compares to it in aspects other than FR.

Marvey · « **Reply #77 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:10:46 AM »

Quote from: funkmeister on March 13, 2014, 10:59:01 PM

For sure. I think those points are why AKG was bold enough to price the K812 where they did... because it has those other qualities that make going back to an HD600 seem so dull, even if the tonality is considered superior on the HD600.

OK following up on that comparing the "technicalities" of the K812 and the HD600. I had Ultrabike bring his HD600 over tonight. Will be succinct:

HD600 bass is more muddy than K812. HD600 bass sounds slower.
K812 has lower bass extension.
K812 does sound soft and compressed. HD600 hits harder and with more impact. Better attacks and less compression with the HD600.
HD600 resolves plankton way way better than K812. This isn't even funny. The K812 simply drops off huge amounts of low level information in tracks such as the Eagles Live Hotel CA, Pixies Brick is Red. Pretty much on every track, little details such as string decay, ambient cues, tape noise, etc. All gone on the K812.

So in summary, the K812 (at least this one) has worse frequency response than the HD600, does not resolve microdetail as well as the HD600, sounds more compressed than the HD600, but has faster sounding and more extended bass than the HD600. Sounds like a mid-fi headphone to me worth no more than $350.

Let's keep in mind that most people still do not recognize what a good headphone the HD600 truly is.

P.S. K812 stage is wider than HD600 with a sometimes hole in the middle effect. The HD600 stage is more compact with without any gaps and good center imaging. Depth is rather poor on both headphones.

N · « **Reply #78 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:29:06 AM »

Quote from: marvey on March 14, 2014, 04:10:46 AM

Let's keep in mind that most people still do not recognize what a good headphone the HD600 truly is.

Do not recognize, or have forgotten? It was one of the most popular and well-respected headphones about a decade ago, unfortunately overshadowed by its bigger and tonally-daft brother (650).

I'm surprised that the resolution of the K812 was subpar, but not really surprised. The one I listened to didn't immediately strike me as particularly resolving. I thought the K3003 was pretty resolving though (maybe due to the lower treble spike).

Maxvla · « **Reply #79 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:31:01 AM »

Gave my HD600 the night on the job last night. Listened to some music, watched some TV, looked at some youtube, etc. It certainly sounds good, but I still have problems with the soundstage feeling claustrophobic. It's a little slower and smoother than I'd like and not terribly detailed, IMO. I'd rate the K812 a tier or two higher than the HD600 for sure.

By the end of the night the sides of my head were pretty sore, so there's my main beef with the HD600s. For short stints they are fairly comfy, but longer than an hour and I am consciously aware of them being on my head every second. Conversely my HD800s I can wear for hours and forget I have them on. I only tried the K812 for about 20-30 minutes, but I would guess they would be inbetween, but closer to HD800s in comfort.

Author Topic: AKG K812 Measurements (Read 27439 times)

Thujone

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

ultrabike

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

funkmeister

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

Marvey

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

Anaxilus

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

funkmeister

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

Marvey

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

Marvey

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

N

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

Maxvla

Re: AKG K812 Measurements

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Author Topic: AKG K812 Measurements (Read 27439 times)