New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Removed - Page 3

post #31 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katun View Post

Wow, I'm impressed! Glad to see it getting attention it clearly deserves.

 

http://www.headfonia.com/akgs-new-reference-the-k550/

Another great review and a fun read cheers Katun.

As to Mikes review.... he's always a bit toooo subjective for me.

post #32 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crzycuyler View Post

How do these headphones perform for gaming when considering the bass factor? I don't want bass boom that may draw too much attention to itself (which I know is not the case of the K550), but I do want enough bass. 

 

Thanks.

 

I thought they performed quite well. No complaints for bass, but that's for me. Unfortunately, I didn't do anything competitive with them.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post

Yep.

Not me personally (probably buy another pair for that... just don't have the time right now and I'm a 'dumass' with projects like that! :-p) So I'm going to be testing them stock, and cringe while doing it (since it seems it's really nasty without any mods!) but then I'll eventually send them when I get more funds and have them modded. Should be fun... :-p

 

I really don't think there is even one person who will call them downright "nasty" stock. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

Another great review and a fun read cheers Katun.

As to Mikes review.... he's always a bit toooo subjective for me.

 

Thanks. And as to Mike's review, I almost found it a bit too generous. Shocked at the comparisons he made to the HE-500.

post #33 of 74

Thanks for the effort! I came here to research on the K550 and didn't really expect this type of review. But...i guess it's helpful, just weird - but thats ok too..

post #34 of 74

So how do the K550s hold up with gaming and movies?

post #35 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crzycuyler View Post

So how do the K550s hold up with gaming and movies?

 

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to movie headphones. Comfort is my TOP priority, since after all, 2 hours of continuous wear.

 

I only use my speakers for gaming, but tested a bit of the K550 and found they did pretty good. Didn't do too much competitive gaming though.

post #36 of 74

I found the K550s very comfy, and could wear them for a whole movie easy, they just dont sound well with movies at all i thought.

post #37 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katun View Post

 

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to movie headphones. Comfort is my TOP priority, since after all, 2 hours of continuous wear.

 

I only use my speakers for gaming, but tested a bit of the K550 and found they did pretty good. Didn't do too much competitive gaming though.

They seem to be comfort animals. Game immersion is more important to me than meeting competitive needs. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundfreak33 View Post

I found the K550s very comfy, and could wear them for a whole movie easy, they just dont sound well with movies at all i thought.

Thanks. Couldn't I assume that this would make them poor gaming headphones as well (from an immersive standpoint)? They seem like they have more of an analytical sound. I need an all-purpose set.

post #38 of 74

Nice review.  I'd love to get a pair of 550s someday.

 

Regarding the D2000, I've personally found the 2012 revision to be a substantial improvement over the older ones.  The build is much sturdier, and the earpads are firmer, keeping the phones further from your ears, and are a great foil to the previously bloated bass.  If you ever have a chance it might be worth it to give the newer model a listen and comparison, and I'd be interested in what you thought.
 

post #39 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbles37 View Post

 

Regarding the D2000, I've personally found the 2012 revision to be a substantial improvement over the older ones.

 

2012 Revision?  I thought they were discontinued...

post #40 of 74

just got an a900x, love the sound, but gotta agree with the headband and pad comments. I have a regular a900 (with corrino pads from an a900ti) and it has been my fave for years. 

I love the sound of the a900x, but the wings are looser compare to the a900, and the earpads are stiff. I will try the corrino pads on them and maybe a pony tail holder between the wings and report back

post #41 of 74
I just want to say I have a few issues with this review. Other than the fact that the "review" seems heavily biased against the A900X from the start, it honestly sounds like the A900X "review" was done on either a fresh out of the box set or an in store demo. Why? 
 
Well, let's look at the impression of the "wings". As someone who owns both an 8 year old set of A500s and a week old set of the A900X, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the A900X wings are better and more well constructed than the A500. 
 
The A500 wings are stiff and don't confrom to your head as well as the A900X wings. The A900X wings can pivot in more directions to fit the shape of your head better. I can't even feel them on my head the way I can feel the A500 wings pushing down on my head. 
 
The weight and clamping force comments also indicate a fresh out of box review or in store demo review. After a week, the A900X is lighter on my head and more comfortable than my A500s ever were. I don't even feel them there now. At first it felt like they were clamping on my ears a bit. Never once did they feel like they would slide off, but they did have a little bit of force. Now they fit near perfect. I can, and have, worn them for hours with no discomfort of any kind. And I wear glasses and live in the desert. 
 
After a week, the A900X just sort of rests on your head very lightly. No clamping, no loose sliding. None of that. 
 
I take issue with the comments on build quality as well. These feel better than my A500s in every way. My A500s were used and abused heavily over the course of the last decade and still are as close to new as an 8 year old heavily used pair of headphones can be. Theres not a single aspect of the A900X that leads me to believe they won't be able to at least match that level of performance, use, etc. 
 
No problems "getting a seal" either. The headphones go on, stay on, and don't slide. 
 
All of the so-called "issues" with comfort, fit, etc. disappear with a few hours of use. All of those complains definitely indicate an in-store demo review or fresh out of box review. 
 
Theres other technical issues with this review as well. I think everyone who has read Head-Fi for more than an hour knows that different equipment drives different headphones with varying results. I mean, I have the current iPod nano. That iPod nano and my original Grado SR60s with the "quarter mod" and vinyl/cloth driver covers removed make a pretty good combination. But if I use it with my A500 or A900X its just.. no. Same thing with my original iPad. The Grados just don't sound good at all out of the headphone jack on it. But the ATs sound great. 
 
So the lack of any technical information in this review other than a basic "I heard both and liked the K550 better!" is a big problem. What equipment was used to drive the headphones? What music? What kind of music quality in terms of compression/source? The A900X and AKG K550 are quite different in terms of resistance, sensitivity, and power handling. So the equipment used to drive the headphones is very important. 
 
The other most important issue is how much burn in time did the A900X have? My A900X came first thing Monday morning a week ago. I put them on within 5 minutes of UPS delivering the package. The way they sounded out of the box I almost thought something was wrong with them. I came back a few hours later and the sound had changed significantly. By the 40 hour mark the difference was night and day. Now, a week later with over 100 hours of burn in (yes, literally left on nearly 24/7 burning in), "night and day" isn't even an appropriate term to describe how different these sound compared to when they were first taken out of the box or even the first day of burn in. 
 
Back to the issue of equipment, it's definitely important to know what equipment drove these headphones. People say all the time that the A900X and original model don't need an amp. And thats true. However, the difference between going from the iPhone 4 to the iPad to a dedicated amp is staggering. All three sound completely different and the headphones react in a different way to all outputs. 
 
My overall point with this post is that there are too many details left out of the "review" for people to take it as an accurate comparison of the A900X versus AKG K550. It's more of a "drive by impression" of the A900X either in a store or fresh out of of a box written by someone who is clearly a dedicated fan of the AKG K550 before hearing the A900X. 
post #42 of 74
Thread Starter 

Ah, welcome to my thread. You ask a question, I answer. You comment, I respond. Guess it's my turn now...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post

I just want to say I have a few issues with this review. Other than the fact that the "review" seems heavily biased against the A900X from the start, it honestly sounds like the A900X "review" was done on either a fresh out of the box set or an in store demo. Why? 

 

Nope, I owned both models for a few weeks before writing this comparison. And I don't just randomly "have" a bias. It formed after I found they underperformed compared to the K550.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post
 
Well, let's look at the impression of the "wings". As someone who owns both an 8 year old set of A500s and a week old set of the A900X, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the A900X wings are better and more well constructed than the A500. 
 
The A500 wings are stiff and don't confrom to your head as well as the A900X wings. The A900X wings can pivot in more directions to fit the shape of your head better. I can't even feel them on my head the way I can feel the A500 wings pushing down on my head. 

 

I too, have owned my share of AT wing headphones. I have owned the AD700 for 3 years, and bought but sold/returned the A700, AD900 (twice on two separate occasions), and the A900X. I found all their wing designs FAR superior to the A900X's cheap and flimsy rendition. As far as "conformity", I found the older wings are indeed more stiff, but it helped significantly with preventing the weight of the headphone from dragging down on your head. No problems with the AD700 or AD900, and in fact, they utilize one of my favorite headband styles to date, while the A900X uses one of the worst. Go figure.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post
 
The weight and clamping force comments also indicate a fresh out of box review or in store demo review. After a week, the A900X is lighter on my head and more comfortable than my A500s ever were. I don't even feel them there now. At first it felt like they were clamping on my ears a bit. Never once did they feel like they would slide off, but they did have a little bit of force. Now they fit near perfect. I can, and have, worn them for hours with no discomfort of any kind. And I wear glasses and live in the desert. 
 
After a week, the A900X just sort of rests on your head very lightly. No clamping, no loose sliding. None of that.

 

Again, I had them for a few weeks, and know my way around fidgeting with and fitting AT wing headphones. I did plenty of experimentation with no success, yet had great success with the AD700 and AD900 in doing the exact same things.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post
 
I take issue with the comments on build quality as well. These feel better than my A500s in every way. My A500s were used and abused heavily over the course of the last decade and still are as close to new as an 8 year old heavily used pair of headphones can be. Theres not a single aspect of the A900X that leads me to believe they won't be able to at least match that level of performance, use, etc. 

 

Okay great. I'm glad they feel better than your A500. But what makes your point more valid than mine, honestly? You compare your A500 to the A900X, and like the A900X better in every way. I did the same but with the A900X and K550, and like the K550 better in every way. So? I'm struggling to see your point. I've owned many, many full sized headphones, and the A900X is definitely one of the cheapest I've ever had. But like you said, even if it is cheap, it's not going to effect the performance, unless they break.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post
 
No problems "getting a seal" either. The headphones go on, stay on, and don't slide. 

 

I'm glad they fit "your" head.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post
 
All of the so-called "issues" with comfort, fit, etc. disappear with a few hours of use. All of those complains definitely indicate an in-store demo review or fresh out of box review. 

 

Used mine for weeks. Did everything I could do improve it. Nothing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post
 
Theres other technical issues with this review as well. I think everyone who has read Head-Fi for more than an hour knows that different equipment drives different headphones with varying results. I mean, I have the current iPod nano. That iPod nano and my original Grado SR60s with the "quarter mod" and vinyl/cloth driver covers removed make a pretty good combination. But if I use it with my A500 or A900X its just.. no. Same thing with my original iPad. The Grados just don't sound good at all out of the headphone jack on it. But the ATs sound great. 
 
So the lack of any technical information in this review other than a basic "I heard both and liked the K550 better!" is a big problem. What equipment was used to drive the headphones? What music? What kind of music quality in terms of compression/source? The A900X and AKG K550 are quite different in terms of resistance, sensitivity, and power handling. So the equipment used to drive the headphones is very important. 

 

Thanks for telling me the sky is blue. I think being here for over 3 years and writing a good handful of reviews, I'd know how to formulate decent testing procedures.

 

But if you really want the details, I used 96kbps MP3 ran out of my toaster. I only tested white noise and frequency sweeps, with some nature sounds.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post
 
The other most important issue is how much burn in time did the A900X have? My A900X came first thing Monday morning a week ago. I put them on within 5 minutes of UPS delivering the package. The way they sounded out of the box I almost thought something was wrong with them. I came back a few hours later and the sound had changed significantly. By the 40 hour mark the difference was night and day. Now, a week later with over 100 hours of burn in (yes, literally left on nearly 24/7 burning in), "night and day" isn't even an appropriate term to describe how different these sound compared to when they were first taken out of the box or even the first day of burn in.

 

NOT even going to comment on this one...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post
 
My overall point with this post is that there are too many details left out of the "review" for people to take it as an accurate comparison of the A900X versus AKG K550. It's more of a "drive by impression" of the A900X either in a store or fresh out of of a box written by someone who is clearly a dedicated fan of the AKG K550 before hearing the A900X. 

 

Dedicated fan of the K550 eh? I actually got them both the same day. And now, I own neither. Have a great day!

post #43 of 74

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoSXS View Post
 
The other most important issue is how much burn in time did the A900X have? My A900X came first thing Monday morning a week ago. I put them on within 5 minutes of UPS delivering the package. The way they sounded out of the box I almost thought something was wrong with them. I came back a few hours later and the sound had changed significantly. By the 40 hour mark the difference was night and day. Now, a week later with over 100 hours of burn in (yes, literally left on nearly 24/7 burning in), "night and day" isn't even an appropriate term to describe how different these sound compared to when they were first taken out of the box or even the first day of burn in.

 

Originally Posted by Katun View Post

NOT even going to comment on this one...

 


LOL!!!!

Why didn't you tell him/her that you burned your A900x for at least 500 hours before using them?!?!

 

Anyway, A900x great sound, poor fit (for some), POOR EARPADS (suck out loud!), should cost less than $170 by now...

post #44 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post

LOL!!!!

Why didn't you tell him/her that you burned your A900x for at least 500 hours before using them?!?!

 

Anyway, A900x great sound, poor fit (for some), POOR EARPADS (suck out loud!), should cost less than $170 by now...

 

Well, I used my toaster, remember? It burnt them in at a much quicker rate than standard playback.

Isn't $170 a bit generous? evil_smiley.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ourfpshero View Post

just got an a900x, love the sound, but gotta agree with the headband and pad comments. I have a regular a900 (with corrino pads from an a900ti) and it has been my fave for years. 

I love the sound of the a900x, but the wings are looser compare to the a900, and the earpads are stiff. I will try the corrino pads on them and maybe a pony tail holder between the wings and report back

 

Oh, thanks for the feedback. Good to see an actual owner of both the A900 and A900X. And, I bet you'll agree the older style wings are superior to the newer ones.

post #45 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katun View Post

 

Well, I used my toaster, remember? It burnt them in at a much quicker rate than standard playback.

 

 

 

I leave all my headphones in a George Foreman Grill overnight to accelerate the burn-in process.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)