Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG are trash
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AKG are trash

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 

That should read: AKG is trash

 

I've just opened my email to find a comment on one of my Youtube clips.

 

 

Quote:

snapper842002 has made a comment on Skullcandy ... for those who don't know better:

AKG is trash, my $50 AKG sound like a tin toy, while $29 skullcandy have very deep and crisp bass

This comment requires your approval. You can approve or reject it by visiting the comments page.

 

Should I dignify this comment by publishing it?

 


Edited by captian73 - 9/14/12 at 10:50am
post #2 of 34

Oh boy.

popcorn.gif

post #3 of 34

I'm sure there are more head-fiers who would like to set him straight than he has friends

post #4 of 34
Thats because probably that akg model has thin sound signature.
But anyway that crisp bass is funny joke.
post #5 of 34
Thread Starter 

of the AKG's i've tried  that level, i would'nt describe any of them as "Thin"

 

AKG K414??

AKG K127i

JBL 410?? - 127i's indrag

AKG K518 ... for whi replaced Nula's (girl in the video) Skullcandy. I felt so sorry for her, I 'gave them to her'.

 

I've owned pairs of K518's in my time.

 

1) First pair went to my friend who had bought fake Snnheiser PX200's

2&3) Went to Skullcndy owners

4) I gave away a friends son.

 

I did entitle the video: Skullcandy ... or those who don't know better. Maybe i should reiterate the title!

post #6 of 34

New Bass flavoured crisps!

 

By Skullcandy

post #7 of 34

personally I've tried a skullcandy (not so sure if it's genuine) and it was frankly quite below standard. 

it's just a regular headphone without any specific intention (music, gaming, etc)

then again, not sure if trolling or just stupid.

post #8 of 34
Thread Starter 

For me it wasn't just the sound that was below par, but the overall build quality was garbage on the ones I tested/owned. But its a name people know, and not much more. I used to buy £20 Technics and Panasonic headphones back in the day (1989-90),. Big full-size headphones. I thought they were the dogs bits until one day i spent £14 on a pair of Sennheiser PX30/PX40 headphones. Then i tried my friends Sennheiser HD455 i think ... about £40's worth.

 

Its about education and making the right choice. AKG at first are an acquired choice because they don't have the obvious clarity that some headphones seem to have on initial impression, however, give them a day or two and AKG's are quite impressive. They impressive anyway ... you've have to fight me for my K450's, but unfortunately like other brands some AKG's have fallen to the counterfeit market.
 

post #9 of 34

AKG probably just sounded thin to him because it doesn't have uncontrolled bloated bass and a veil.

post #10 of 34

By most people's standards the K70x series is definitely "thin".

post #11 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertoaster View Post

AKG probably just sounded thin to him because it doesn't have uncontrolled bloated bass and a veil.

Honestly I think they are very different signature and it's hard to compare them. Liking Skullcandy does not necessarily mean it's on par with most AKG headphones but it does mean there is something about the sound signature that is more appealing with Skullcandy than AKGs... AKGs do have their own flaws after all. AKGs tend to sound thin compared to most other "hi-fi" headphones as well and usually are seriously lacking in bass compared to my neutral speaker setups. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leng jai View Post

By most people's standards the K70x series is definitely "thin".

Agreed. 

post #12 of 34
Thin is a wrong word, imo. People should not forget that AKG K701 and 702 are studio reference headphones and not for fun. If you are looking for fun headphones there are plenty of them, also AKG lower end models, you name it. Give AKG K701 or 702 some muscle solid state A/AB class headphone amp and you will hear something that you never did before. The front of your system must be good, as well as the record quality, cos they are not forgiving, which is also not their purpose to begin with. For those who may interested, read this article, try to do the same and come back with your new impressions pls http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/akg2/702.html THX
post #13 of 34
AKG has such nice headbands though :0
post #14 of 34

Yeah they always do get some stick the poor AKG K70X's.. But my experience with them was very good. Also, they are such a hifi bargain at the moment. Give them a good source and lots and lots of current and they are still one of the best sub $1000 headphones going. I never really thought of them as being too thin sounding, I think it is the large soundstage that gives this impression, but there is depth too. My problem with them was because of my preference for smoother treble and the upper mid peaks used to annoy me over time with some recordings. What I really liked about them was the bass (no I havent been drinking), it extends just nice and is soooo tight. It never creeps into the other frequencies and is very realistic for classical music for e.g.

post #15 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertoaster View Post

AKG has such nice headbands though :0

 

K518 begs to differ, almost made my head bleed. 

Though they sounded good for the price. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG are trash