or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AKG K812 Pro - Page 164

post #2446 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idsynchrono_24 View Post

I agree, just got mine in today and spent about 3 hours listening to it from just the GEEK OUT 450. No fatigue nor harshness whatsoever. Hell, it sounds great out of just a simple Sony F886. I'm thinking of selling off some stuff to acquire a better source

Hell, I'm thinking of selling off some stuff to afford the phones themselves, and I JUST bought a new pair of headphones :/
post #2447 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noobmachine View Post

Hell, I'm thinking of selling off some stuff to afford the phones themselves, and I JUST bought a new pair of headphones :/

Ah it's too bad you're in SG. If you went thru Razordog you could get them for less. I got very lucky on eBay and scored em for a cool grand. Threw down an offer of $950 and got into a counter offer war til the seller settled at $1000 shipped. I'm probably gonna sell one of the DITAs and either go for the DX90 or save for a HUGO.
post #2448 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idsynchrono_24 View Post

Ah it's too bad you're in SG. If you went thru Razordog you could get them for less. I got very lucky on eBay and scored em for a cool grand. Threw down an offer of $950 and got into a counter offer war til the seller settled at $1000 shipped. I'm probably gonna sell one of the DITAs and either go for the DX90 or save for a HUGO.

Yeah, I'll probably have to wait around for a good deal locally, shipping is a nightmare to SG, and the local price is about $1700 USD from what I've seen...

Time to feed the beast that is audiophilla...
post #2449 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by levap View Post

Are you really sure, that "analytical" = "natural", that "most detailed" really sounds like live performance? Did you ever seen pictures with extreme "sharpness" (for example)?
pictures have no relevance to this conversation. I think natural is just a way of saying more laid back and layered soundstage, which I highly doubt the original recording was set up that way. Its a difference of opinion about what a headphone should be. I say as true to the recording as humanely possible.
post #2450 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisCHORDDubstep View Post


pictures have no relevance to this conversation. I think natural is just a way of saying more laid back and layered soundstage, which I highly doubt the original recording was set up that way. Its a difference of opinion about what a headphone should be. I say as true to the recording as humanely possible.

I understand  “Natural” as “A subjective assessment of the degree to which the sound from an audio system approaches that of live music.”  («naturalness», «realism» here http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-r-s). And excessively "detailed" sound may be as unnatural as an over-sharpen picture

 

.

post #2451 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by levap View Post

I understand  “Natural” as “A subjective assessment of the degree to which the sound from an audio system approaches that of live music.”  («naturalness», «realism» here http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-r-s). And excessively "detailed" sound may be as unnatural as an over-sharpen picture

.
well, is that camera capable of taking 100% real photos? The sharpen and non-sharpened are both not what it really looks like irl, therefore neither is realistic or natural. I think its more plausible to say a more detailed headphone is more natural. You can't pull anything out of a recording that isn't there in the first place, nor can it adapt to certain frequencies and make flaws stick out. Its a set response, where as the sharpen recognizes lines. Its completely different. Its just more detail is more natural in audio. Natural= real in my eyes. I want to know what is really there in audio. You may be able to make detail in pictures stick out, but that's not preset. Get what I'm saying?
post #2452 of 4053

After several hours of listening last night, some initial impression of the k812, compared to the hd700, driven by the dx90. One caveat is that none of these are burned-in, for those who believe in burn-in. Burn-in seems to have pretty widespread credibility in the dx90 thread, so I wanted to specify that. Even with these conditions there are a couple of observations i've made, and a conclusion i've drawn.

 

The k812 was spacious, airy and clearly detailed. The was no soundstage for me, though, just a headstage. I'm not sure if this is one of the things that is supposed to change with burn-in.

 

I was especially aware of the trebles when listening to the second movement of schubert's quartet, “death and the maiden,” in which there are passages climaxed with sustained very high violin notes. Those notes were unutterably sweet, rich and textured. Of course much of the sweetness is owed to schubert, but also to the headphones and the dx90 driving them. The bass was highlighted when I listened to charlie hayden and pat metheny playing “first song (for ruth),” which contains a long solo on stringed bass, in which hayden really digs deep into the instrument and deep down the scale. Again those notes were full, rich and resonant, and I could feel the sub-bass a bit in my chest.

 

At this level of performance, I already want to thank those members who've espoused the virtues of both the dx90 and the k812. From what i've read about their sound signatures, they are natural complements – one strong in in just those ranges where the other is weak. But theory aside, it doesn't have to get any better for me to be pleased. If this improves with burn-in, it will be the icing on the cake.

 

In comparison, the hd700 driven by the dx90 felt dull and numb. It also produced just a headstage, but the music was a bit recessed compared to the k812, and both the highs and lows were MUCH thinner than those produced by the k812.

 

But the hd700 produces a broad soundstage and much better sound quality when driven by the headphone out of my nad c375bee integrated amp. Even so, the k812 driven by the dx90 was more soulful and immersive, more musical and engaging than the hd700 even when the latter is driven by a full amp.

 

One conclusion I have is that those people who say they are driving an e.g. hd800 with their dx90 are kidding themselves. They say they get full volume. So what? I got full volume on my hd700, and I played with various gain settings as well and it didn't make much difference. The music could get loud, what it couldn't get was good - detailed, rich and textured. And the hd700 has an input impedance of only 150ohms, and is reputed to be much easier to drive than the hd800.

 

I also have a question for any of you tech experts- is there any risk to my k812 to try it out of my nad amp. The headphone out is 68ohm, almost double the input impedance of the k812. I know this would make the setup more subject to distortion, but could I damage the k812? The nad headphone out, as I said, is 68ohms, I have not been able to find any more information about it, e.g. what power or current does it create? I read in some thread here, maybe even this one, that the k812 has a maximum recommended of input of [iirc] 300mW. So any advice or information on this would be appreciated.


Edited by jk47 - 6/3/14 at 11:52am
post #2453 of 4053
I'm enyoying a tremendous cd by Booker T. Named Potato Hole. Classic Memphis instrumental sounds via Hammond B3 organ and Stax sound. Deep R&B groove. Sounds tremendous on the K812. The organ permeates the electric mix of groves and funk. This cd just drips with classic soul. All instrumental, with Booker T in top form. The 812 really delivers the goods here. I've played this disc on a variety of high quality systems, but hearing it like this is pure audio bliss.mNot to be missed for the musically open out there. Solid tasty grooves.
Earlier I spun the new remaster of Led Zeppin's first cd, newly remastered and rereleased today. The music and the K812 took me back to 1969 when I first heard this mind blowing record for the first time. Sounded mighty fine with the AKG K812!
post #2454 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisCHORDDubstep View Post


well, is that camera capable of taking 100% real photos? The sharpen and non-sharpened are both not what it really looks like irl, therefore neither is realistic or natural. I think its more plausible to say a more detailed headphone is more natural. You can't pull anything out of a recording that isn't there in the first place, nor can it adapt to certain frequencies and make flaws stick out. Its a set response, where as the sharpen recognizes lines. Its completely different. Its just more detail is more natural in audio. Natural= real in my eyes. I want to know what is really there in audio. You may be able to make detail in pictures stick out, but that's not preset. Get what I'm saying?

Yes, I do understand what you’re saying. But the thing I find wrong is the statement “more detail is more natural”. If you apply it without limits, you’ll get “over-sharpen” sound. There should be a balance and only precisely balanced detail level is real. (In my example with pictures, “Original” has too much blur and “Sharpen” looks overly processed, the true original image is somewhere in the middle.)

post #2455 of 4053
Quote:jk47
 I also have a question for any of you tech experts- is there any risk to my k812 to try it out of my nad amp. The headphone out is 68ohm, almost double the input impedance of the k812.

There is no problem here. Having the output impedance at the headphone jack at twice the headphone impedance will certainly affect the sound.

 

The reason for the output impedance is just to save your phones (and ears) if the amp decides to blow. They usually just put a resistor in each channel from the speaker outputs in the older amps.

Most newer amps have an opamp or amp chip driving the headphone output.

 

Best thing to do is take the power from the speaker terminals.

 

I have a 80 watts per channel class A balanced amp running the output power straight to the headphone outputs for all my dynamic headphones.

 

The trick with Hi-Fi headphones is to watch the volume when you are listening to music.

The tendency is to keep turning up the volume to hear more detail until you realise that you are listening way above the volume you should be.

 

When you first start your listening session, turn the volume up to a comfortable sound level. Check the level by snapping your fingers.

With open headphones, you should be able to hear the sound while the music is playing.

With closed headphones, lift one earcup off the ear and snap the fingers. You should be able to judge the music level compared to the finger snap.

 

Next, no matter how tempting, DO NOT turn up the volume unless you know new music level is lower than the previous level as in the difference between 2 different recordings having different sonic levels.

If the new program material (disk or track) is louder than the last one, adjust the volume to achieve the same sound level as before.

If you have done this properly, you should find that after about half to an hour you will probably find yourself turning the volume down  as the listening session time progresses.

 

Your ears will thank you.

post #2456 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by levap View Post

Yes, I do understand what you’re saying. But the thing I find wrong is the statement “more detail is more natural”. If you apply it without limits, you’ll get “over-sharpen” sound. There should be a balance and only precisely balanced detail level is real. (In my example with pictures, “Original” has too much blur and “Sharpen” looks overly processed, the true original image is somewhere in the middle.)
Your headphones are only as accurate as your ears are. You can't pull more detail out of something than you'd hear in real life. By that logic, your headphones are more detailed than if the musician played for you.
post #2457 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisCHORDDubstep View Post


Your headphones are only as accurate as your ears are. You can't pull more detail out of something than you'd hear in real life. By that logic, your headphones are more detailed than if the musician played for you.

Please look at the pictures I posted before. The same is happening with the reproduced sound. Stereophile's brief glossary on this issue:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-reverse-glossary-part-2

Detail 
Good: accurate, crisp, delicate, focus, resolution, snap 
Not Good: 
    Excess: accurate (misused), analytical, clinical, etched 
    Deficiency: closed-in, congestion, diffuse, hangover, haze, opaque, smearing, veiling, velvet fog

post #2458 of 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by wink View Post

There is no problem here. Having the output impedance at the headphone jack at twice the headphone impedance will certainly affect the sound.

The reason for the output impedance is just to save your phones (and ears) if the amp decides to blow. They usually just put a resistor in each channel from the speaker outputs in the older amps.
Most newer amps have an opamp or amp chip driving the headphone output.

Best thing to do is take the power from the speaker terminals.

I have a 80 watts per channel class A balanced amp running the output power straight to the headphone outputs for all my dynamic headphones.

The trick with Hi-Fi headphones is to watch the volume when you are listening to music.
The tendency is to keep turning up the volume to hear more detail until you realise that you are listening way above the volume you should be.

When you first start your listening session, turn the volume up to a comfortable sound level. Check the level by snapping your fingers.
With open headphones, you should be able to hear the sound while the music is playing.
With closed headphones, lift one earcup off the ear and snap the fingers. You should be able to judge the music level compared to the finger snap.

Next, no matter how tempting, DO NOT turn up the volume unless you know new music level is lower than the previous level as in the difference between 2 different recordings having different sonic levels.
If the new program material (disk or track) is louder than the last one, adjust the volume to achieve the same sound level as before.
If you have done this properly, you should find that after about half to an hour you will probably find yourself turning the volume down  as the listening session time progresses.

Your ears will thank you.
It's completely unnessary to use the speaker terminals to drive your 812. I used the NAD 375 integrated headphone amp output and they sounded spectacular. You have nothing to fear, the NAD philosophy of music first will certainly shine through without going thru needless, complicated exercises.
post #2459 of 4053

thanks for the responses.  i've learned i don't have to worry about the headphones, i just need to worry about my ears.

post #2460 of 4053
Quote:macbob713
 It's completely unnessary to use the speaker terminals to drive your 812. I used the NAD 375 integrated headphone amp output and they sounded spectacular. You have nothing to fear, the NAD philosophy of music first will certainly shine through without going thru needless, complicated exercises.

The resistors in the headphone output jack circuit do change the sound of the headphones.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum