Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › KRK KNS-6400 Review - Impressive $99 Giant Killer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

KRK KNS-6400 Review - Impressive $99 Giant Killer - Page 10

post #136 of 225
Thread Starter 

Strangely enough I felt the 6400 had more bass impact than the 8400. This was even before the I attached the 8400's pads. I compared them side by side once for days and it's actually a close one for me. The difference was very minor. I do remember quite well always thinking that the 8400 didn't have enough bass for me, but the 6400 did. I should point out that the 8400 has more sub-bass.

 

Katun can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he also said the 8400 had more bass impact than the 6400 until he tried the 8400 pads on the 6400. Again, very very minor differences.

 

IMO I don't think either of them have much bass impact at all. A tiny bit. Enough for me to be happy with their bass.

 

Comparing these side by side is kind of a pain. The only thing that REALLY stands out is how more relaxed the mids are on the 8400. At first I felt the 8400 was a little more clear sounding, but it took specific songs and it was very difficult to tell the difference.

 

Best thing to do is demo them in a store side by side if you can regular_smile%20.gif

post #137 of 225
Originally Posted by Marximus View Post

Definitely improved from the 6400s.  The 6400s reminded me of the bass of my K601s (pre-equalization); that is, it went fairly deep, but there was little impact.  The 8400s improve on both aspects.  Excellent impact and depth.  When I hear monitor, I tend to think of headphones being thin or perhaps a bit lifeless.  These are far from it:  very rich and full.  I would say they're excellent for all genres.  I suppose I'd describe them as crisp, but in a very non-fatiguing way.  They're very clean. I will say that they're *very* well extended at both ends, and you won't miss any part of the musical spectrum.  In the approximately 3 hours I've listened to them, I've been *very* impressed with the whole package.  I don't think you can go wrong, especially for $130.

 

All this is exactly what I wanted to understand about the 8400.  Especially your comment about a "monitor" sound.. that was one of my primary reasons for apprehension.  I'm excited about the clarity & details these phones are said to reveal but was worried a byproduct of that would be a thin, bland, sound.  I don't produce or engineer music, so these are going to be used only for listening to music.

 

I've been searching for a sub $200 phone that can be highly detailed, crisp, balanced, musical, and dap friendly.. but not thin sounding.. these look like they'll fit the bill.  I think they'll provide a nice compliment to the 003.. a phone that seems to be voiced similarly, but with a smoother overall tone.

 

Thanks for your & tdockweiler's (ongoing & in depth) impressions.. I've ordered the 8400's from Amazon.. they should be at my doorstep tomorrow (Prime rocks).  My impressions to follow.


Edited by FlySweep - 9/6/11 at 4:27pm
post #138 of 225

I'm looking forward to your impressions.  I think you'll really like them.  I put a full review up.  You're welcome to put your impressions there.

post #139 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

Yeah with both of these headphones it all comes down to preferences. For me I'm not even remotely fatigued at all by the mids on the 6400 or by it's treble. Strangely enough the treble is a bit bothersome on the 8400 for me, but nothing too bad. Maybe there's a specific frequency that I'm really sensitive to. Of course it's nothing like a K702 when it comes to it's treble. For my music I prefer the slightly more forward mids on the 6400. Between the 6400 and 8400, the 8400 might be better on the ears for listening 8+ hours. This is due to the pads and how the mids are a little less forward. Honestly I can't imagine the mids on the 6400 bothering too many people. Maybe some people are more sensitive to forward mids than treble.

 

The 8400 pads on the 6400 do help, but I honestly can't say it's a huge difference. It does improve the bass slightly I think. I would only suggest them for extra comfort. I only did one quick side by side comparison though. It's actually a bit tricky to get the 8400 pads on.


I agree and disagree.

 

When I first compared the 8400 to the 6400, I'm like, "These (8400) are it! I'm keeping these ones hands down. An overall improvement to the others (6400)". I definitely found the 8400's better, but only at first. I gave them a few days and my opinion changed drastically. The 8400's were too bright for me (lower treble it might have been) and it had a strange tonality. 6400's are definitely more flat. Then when I changed the pads, the bass on the 6400 came out and overthrew the bass on the 8400. When comparing them side by side stock, I can 100% confirm that the 8400 had more bass impact. Once I switched pads, I can also confirm the 6400 now had more bass impact. Not only did the 6400's improve comfort wise with 8400 pads, but the sound took a very noticeable improvement as well -- putting it much further ahead of the 8400 in my opinion.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

Strangely enough I felt the 6400 had more bass impact than the 8400. This was even before the I attached the 8400's pads. I compared them side by side once for days and it's actually a close one for me. The difference was very minor. I do remember quite well always thinking that the 8400 didn't have enough bass for me, but the 6400 did. I should point out that the 8400 has more sub-bass.

 

Katun can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he also said the 8400 had more bass impact than the 6400 until he tried the 8400 pads on the 6400. Again, very very minor differences.

 

IMO I don't think either of them have much bass impact at all. A tiny bit. Enough for me to be happy with their bass.

 

Comparing these side by side is kind of a pain. The only thing that REALLY stands out is how more relaxed the mids are on the 8400. At first I felt the 8400 was a little more clear sounding, but it took specific songs and it was very difficult to tell the difference.

 

Best thing to do is demo them in a store side by side if you can regular_smile%20.gif


Side by side comparing was a bit of a pain, and required multiple days before I started discerning differences. My planned 6400 vs 8400 comparison was cancelled due to this. But you are correct, 6400 definitely had more bass with the 8400 pads. I swear it improved it in other ways as well, because it just sounded loads better.

 

1) 6400 with 8400 pads

2) 8400 with 8400 pads

3) 8400 with 6400 pads

4) 6400 with 6400 pads

 

First two are set in stone. Last two is what I was pretty sure about.

post #140 of 225

For the sake of brevity, I'll refer to the "6400 w/ 8400 pads" as the "6400m"..

 

I remember reading that tdockweiler (and maybe even Katun) said the stock 6400's treble was rolled off & it had a more mid-forward sound in comparison to the 8400 (which is more flat across the FQ scale and extends more).

 

How did the 6400m alter these impressions?

 

It also seem the big thing the 6400m has going for it is better bass quantity & impact than the 8400 & stock 6400.  Does the 6400m sound like:

 

1.  It has the detail, and clarity of the 8400.. but with more bass quantity & impact?

2.  It mitigates the stock 6400 "mid-forward sound" in favor of a more flat sound (i.e. like the 8400)?

3.  It can match the 8400's treble detail & extension?

 

Hope that wasn't too convoluted.  The thing I want to know is how the 6400m improves over the 8400 and what, if anything, is sacrificed.  Sorry if it's rehashing some things that were covered but I think this will help those trying to decide between the 6400m & the 8400.


Edited by FlySweep - 9/6/11 at 11:41pm
post #141 of 225
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlySweep View Post


1.  It has the detail, and clarity of the 8400.. but with more bass quantity & impact?

2.  It mitigates the stock 6400 "mid-forward sound" in favor of a more flat sound (i.e. like the 8400)?

3.  It can match the 8400's treble detail & extension?

 

Hope that wasn't too convoluted.  The thing I want to know is how the 6400m improves over the 8400 and what, if anything, is sacrificed.  Sorry if it's rehashing some things that were covered but I think this will help those trying to decide between the 6400m & the 8400.


1. I felt like the 6400 actually had MORE detail. The reason kind of doesn't make sense really. There were several occasions where I would hear a very subtle background detail on the 6400 and it was NOT there on the 8400. At all. Now, this could be a problem with my ears, but I don't think so. To hear that same detail on the 8400 I had to boost the mids by like 3db I believe it was. Ok, but this was just wind rustling in a cave. Does anyone care? normal_smile%20.gif I do! Maybe this sound is just not meant to be heard at all. Hard to say. Now there may be some things that the 8400 will pick up and the 6400 will not. I haven't found any yet.

 

The clarity of the 6400 and 8400 is about the same. At first I felt the 8400 was slightly more clear, but when comparing them side by side I could rarely tell the difference on most tracks. I think the only time I felt the 8400 was more clear was when I was listening to a simple song with a larger soundstage with say acoustic guitars playing. We're talking like a 2-3% difference here, if that. It's basically as bad as trying to tell the difference in sound with interconnect cables.

 

6400m felt like it had better bass quantity and impact, but the 8400 still extends further down perhaps and has more sub-bass. I remember taking notes about this and felt like the 8400 had more sub-bass. Again, the differences are very, very minor.

 

2. Mids between the 6400m and 6400 are the same. I don't even think the 6400's mids are even all that forward to begin with. Not so much that it's comparable to say the DJ100 or HD-598 etc. They're more like slightly forward and makes music a little more fun to listen to. For me, the 8400 was a little less musical and fun, but it will be different for everyone.

 

3. The 6400m didn't have any extra treble (or the impression of it) over the 8400 at all. I felt the 6400 had smoother treble than the 8400 for sure. The treble on the 8400 can be bothersome for some people (not like the K702). A lot of the time it's the recordings fault, but it's hard to say. Not sure which one has the most treble detail, but i'd probably say the 8400. Due to the treble on the 8400, it's less forgiving of VERY bright, harsh and poorly recorded albums. The 6400 is a little more forgiving of them, but not by much.

 

The differences between the two again, are very, very minor. If you compared them side by side for 10 minutes, I bet the only thing you will notice is that the 8400 has less forward mids and a tiny bit less of bass impact. To determine the difference in sub-bass and treble, you'd have to do an A/B comparison for a long time.

 

Here's my ideas about them:

 

KRK KNS-6400m:

 

This is the more musical headphone, with some slightly forward mids and a little more bass impact. Better for those that just want to enjoy their music and not just analyze it 100% of the time. It's a studio monitor that doesn't bore me to death (not that the 8400 does!).

 

KNS-8400:

 

This one is meant to have better extension at both ends. I think maybe the mids were meant to be a little more relaxed and less forward. Maybe not, but it seems like this would be a good thing for a studio. The mids on this are not even remotely fatiguing.

 

The differences are not like going from an HD-600 to an HD-650.

 

For those that don't plan on using these in a studio, you just need to figure out which one would best match your musical preferences. For mine, I felt the 6400 was best. I listen to a lot of female vocals and the 6400 really excels in this area over the 8400 for ME. The 8400 is probably better for classical music. I think for studio use I'd probably take the 8400 despite the less engaging mids.

 

Both of them are just so good. With the KRKs you don't simply downgrade with the 6400 IMO. At first I thought the sound clarity and detail would drop, but it really doesn't. Just less bass/treble extension and more forward (sounding) mids. 6400 just felt a little more natural sounding to me (like the K601 over the K702), but this can vary between everyone.

 

 

 

 


Edited by tdockweiler - 9/7/11 at 12:53am
post #142 of 225

Have bought the 6400's on your review alone. Was a tough decision between the 6400 and the Koss. Hope to get the 8400's pads in the future. Also with the FiiO E5 amp would it be a noticeable difference, is it a must with these headphones ?

post #143 of 225
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stolid View Post

Have bought the 6400's on your review alone. Was a tough decision between the 6400 and the Koss. Hope to get the 8400's pads in the future. Also with the FiiO E5 amp would it be a noticeable difference, is it a must with these headphones ?



Which Koss? DJ100? normal_smile%20.gif If so, the DJ100 has many similarities to the 6400. OK, not a ton, but somewhat. Both are very musical and have forward (and engaging) mids. The DJ100's mids are even MORE forward. It does have a ton more bass impact, but less treble. The 6400 I'm quite fond of because it's one of the first headphones (under $200) that has come close to dethroning my precious DJ100! Both are pretty impressive for vocals, but DJ100 has the edge. DJ100 definitely isn't neutral!

 

Sorry...got me talking about the DJ100, which is my favorite. Probably not even the one you were considering!

 

The E5 might benefit the KRKs. The one strange thing I noticed is that on my Ipod Touch I need to max the volume to nearly 90%!! They don't require an amp, but I always use one with them anyway. Not always though.

 

BTW I really bet fans of the K501 would love the 6400! Some K501 fan just has to try it and tell me I'm not crazy!

post #144 of 225

Sorry for not being specific but yes i was talking about Pro DJ 100! would you still recommend the DJ100 over 6400 with the 8400's pads ? and what about DJ100 does that need the amp to be fully appreciated ?

post #145 of 225
Thread Starter 

Sorry to keep bumping this thread, but I just realized the 6400 is now $80 and the 8400 is now $130 (Amazon). I wonder why the sudden price drop? I believe Marximus said they were this price at Guitar Center too.

$80 for the 6400 is just ridiculous..not sure if they're just on sale or what. I'm willing to bet money there is not a headphone (un-modded) that's more clear or detailed for under $100. Certainly isn't the V6 or SRH-440. I've tried those and they're quite good of course.

So for $110 you can get the 6400 with memory foam pads. Not sure why the memory foam pads are so expensive....

 

I also think these would be one of the best closed headphones there is under $200 for competitive gaming where it's best to not have tons of bass. Only reason I mentioned this is that there is finally another person on Amazon that has reviewed them for gaming (with Dead Space 2).

 

BTW there is a guy on Amazon that says the 6400 is not good as a studio monitor, but then goes on to say the SR-125i is  confused_face_2.gif I'm a little confused...

 


Edited by tdockweiler - 9/7/11 at 1:29am
post #146 of 225
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stolid View Post

Sorry for not being specific but yes i was talking about Pro DJ 100! would you still recommend the DJ100 over 6400 with the 8400's pads ? and what about DJ100 does that need the amp to be fully appreciated ?



No, the KNS-6400 is much easier to like. For the DJ100 it's a headphone that not everyone would like and it's a little more aggressive in it's signature. The 6400 is a little more polite than the DJ100 when it comes to it's signature.

The DJ100 makes vocals (especially female) sound like they're right next to your ear (varies based on how it was recorded obviously!). The effect of this is reduced with pad changes. DJ100 is one step under bass heavy, but has rolled off treble somewhat. People often call it too dark and I can't make any sense out of this. The treble is not fatiguing at all and it has less treble than the 6400 though.

 

The 6400 is also better for more genres. I honestly could use the KRKs for any genre, but with the DJ100 you're a bit more limited. For example, it's weakest genres are maybe classical and heavy metal. The DJ100 absolutely loves any kind of pop music and especially asian pop such as Jpop.

 

I always felt the DJ100 has a LOT of detail and I'm pretty sure very few things I could hear on the 6400 will be missing on the DJ100. The KRK might have the edge on overall sound clarity though.

 

Due to the bass and more forward upper mids, the DJ100 is kind of addicting. Still my favorite headphone under $200 that's closed for vocals. For open I love the K501/Hd598 for vocals. I hope to think that people who like the K501/HD-598 would like the DJ100 as well.

 

I imagine many would return them without burning them in first. I almost never burn-in headphones, the DJ100 made me a believer in it. I've compared a burned-in dj100 with one straight out of the box and it just makes me sick.

 

DJ100 also needs a good amp. It's not horrible without one and quite good, but it's at it's best with a good portable amp. I love mine with the Total Airhead. Even with the E5 isn't not as bad as I originally thought. I just have always had problems suggesting the DJ100 without an amp.

 

I think the problem with the DJ100 is that the stock pads are not that good for some people and need to be upgraded to M50 or V6 pads. Then some pairs sounded absolutely awful out of the box until 3-5 days of burn-in. I wish I was making this up!

 

Another problem with the DJ100 is that it's sound can vary a lot between amps and sources. I'm not sure why.

 

For $80 it's still my favorite headphone closed under $200, but it's a bit harder to suggest due to it's signature. Still sounds very well balanced to my ears. Nothing else quite like it.

post #147 of 225

Thanks everyone.. I'm sticking with the 8400.  These are intended to provide a bit of contrast to the smoother, slightly mid-forward FA-003 (which appear to have a signature closer to the 6400m).. so I'll audition the 8400 & if they aren't doing it for me, I'll return them and opt for the 6400m instead.


Edited by FlySweep - 9/7/11 at 2:29am
post #148 of 225

There was a special sale on them for Labor Day, I believe (instant rebate, or some such), and I managed to pay $119.99 for the 8400s.  There was some guy on eBay selling them for about $115, but that auction was removed for some reason.  I think the lowest price right now online is $129.  So I got a pretty sweet deal, especially for a brick-and-mortar store.

post #149 of 225

Might have a chance to have a listen to these later today (possibly next to the 8400). Let's hope the shop has them in stock! Will pitch them against the K272 and if they improve over them even a little, buy them and have a more careful listen at home.

post #150 of 225

8400 are very promising! ... The 6400 aren't that fantastic though not bad. Put some impressions in the 8400-thread. Feel welcome to comment! 

 

Was nice to get a chance to compare them side by side. From the measurements at Innerfidelity, the 6400 indeed seemed to be the better headphone and I almost ordered them. Thank goodness I didn't since this was not the case at all however based on today's experience. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › KRK KNS-6400 Review - Impressive $99 Giant Killer