I am really enjoying my K67 more and more.
I had the chance to spend quality time comparing the K67 and the K167 side by side the other day.......................I wasn't able to do that before I made the K67 purchase but the coiled cable and huge dimensions of the K167 turned me away since I was after a portable solution.
Well, disclaimer: I own the K67 and so it may be natural that I have more love for it than the demo pair of K167. I haven't done ANY burn in to my K67, just casually listening to it for a bit more than a week, around 2 hours a day. I was told that the K167 was run-in briefly for around 50 hours.
I dun have time for a very detailed comparison now, but in summary:
1. K67 and K167 share the same sound signature - this isn't the least bit unexpected of course, but the point is, they just sound sooooooooo similar.
2. Both are comfy on the noggins. But I'm not one to whine about the K518's comfort level so go figure. Can't deny the circumaural K167 must be better in comfort in the long run.
3. Did I say the two sound really similar?? I mean it.
4. Of course I'd be condemned if I go on and say they sound the same. NO, the K167 betters the K67 in certain areas as follows:
(a) Spaciousness: This is THE single most notable difference. The K167 sound considerably more open than the rather compact sounding K67 to the point that the K167 doesn't really sound like a DJ headphone. Though it is not really unexpected with the much larger enclosures in the K167. BUT, a big but, it is kinda hard to explain but despite the more open sound of the K167, the imaging is more or less on the same level.
(b) Sub-bass: I've said somewhere that the K67 packs a serious sub-bass oomph, but not too much to bleed into other frequencies. Well, the punch in the K167 is even harder, a tiny bit tighter (sometimes to the point of overwhelming), but that's all. The difference is noticeable if you do a side by side AB test like I did, but it is nothing to write home about really. Bass extension is more or less the same - both REALLY impressive.
(c) High extension: well, the difference is really subtle, I only noticed it in the tiny twinkle of bells at some point, but yes if you examine that closely the K167 extends a tiny bit further. Both do quite spectacularly for closed cans in this area.
(d) Detail level: The K167 sounds a tiny bit more transparent in the mids, and is perceived to reveal a bit more detail than the K67. But on the other hand the K167 vocals are ever so slightly more recessed than the K67. The K67 vocals are a tiny tiny bit more prominent, and a tiny bit more lush sounding. Bass details are about the same, while the K167 is a bit more revealing in the highs. I like the K167 highs but the K67 follows closely behind.
I think that sums it up. So is the K167 worth the extra outlay, considering the K67 a real killer of a budget portable cans? Well I'd say while the K67 is a killer value, to the point of insanity, the K167 is worth every penny, not very good CP ratio, but worth it. Especially for those who can't stand on-ears, the K167 is one hell of a comfy pair of cans, and don't be fooled by its label as a DJ cans - it can do much more than the stereotyped DJ cans. So can the K67.
May I repeat the disclaimer that I own the K67 so I might be a bit biased without knowing it. I have tried to be as objective as possible - partly because I CAN upgrade to the K167 if I do wish. After the comparison exercise however, I've decided to stick to my K67, partly because of the sonic similarities vs price difference, and partly because of the suitability for a daily portable solution.