[Claritas]

One could argue that scaling well, because that it started off being pretty terrible without the "right" system. It is very simple to hear the improvements if the gaps are huge but the end result might well be nearly the same as the other one that didn't scale that well, because it started off sounding pretty nice from a less compatible system.

If it sounds good from a lesser system, normally just means you are closer to the ideal end result before you started building for it.

It can mean a lot of things. Maybe it was also closer to its limits at the beginning. Regardless, something else might be a good deal better if one knows what one's doing and isn't shiftless.

 

[Asr]

The bottom end of the K812 is very satisfying, don't get me wrong. Unless you're looking for something specifically for bass performance, I think the K812 will not disappoint in that regard.

 
I noticed that you listen to quite a bit of electronica & metal—in that context, you find the bass satisfying for specifically electronica? I personally tend to find that most headphones, especially the flagships, do just fine with acoustic bass but rarely synthesized or electric bass (i.e., metal), so I just wanted to ask your opinion on that. Also do you find that the K812 has more mid-range quantity than the HD800? I know you mentioned less treble, but I didn't see anything specifically about the mid-range relative to the HD800.
 
And on a side but related note, I remember Tyll refused to write a review of the K812 because he thought it was terrible (basically in terms of its measurements)—what's your take on Tyll's reaction? As in, how do you reconcile your own positive impressions with Tyll's negative impressions? I would've thought that if Tyll flat out refused to review them there must be something negative that would audibly bear out in user impressions.
 
Your impressions combined with Maxvla's are making the K812 sound sufficiently promising to me, definitely looking forward to hearing them sometime.

 

[Maxvla]

They do share similarities, especially in tonal balance. The performance I heard led me to believe they were worthy of being a summit-fi type headphone but not something I would use myself. With a longer audition I might have heard some cues to these measurement problems, but I had no problems with what I heard, really. In a world where every new headphone is overly warm, extra bassy, rolled off treble playing to the lowest common denominator, a headphone that took a great shot at neutrality while being very easy to drive, extremely comfortable, and great looking is something I can respect. I honestly didn't think AKG had it in them. If the K812 had angled drivers, my HD800 might have had something to worry about.

The only rig I heard them with was a Benchmark DAC2-HGC, so that is my frame of reference. Typically headphones that play well from portable devices do not scale well, so I would expect the HD800 to overtake on high end gear, but HD800 also sounds like crap straight out of laptops and cell phones, so it's more of a pick the right tool for the right job. If you are a traveling business person who sleeps in a hotel more than his/her own bed, a simple setup is usually more preferable than getting those last few percentage points of quality. A Macbook and K812 is usable by anyone, not just audiophiles who would typically insist on a portable DAC and amp and fancy interconnects and so on and on. It's more accessible. Want high end sound from a simple rig? Add a K812 to whatever device (phone/iPad) you use for music. Period.

 

[DefQon]

Can somebody try the K812 on a M-Stage? I have a gut feeling it would sound pretty good.

 

[Ra97oR]

  Can somebody try the K812 on a M-Stage? I have a gut feeling it would sound pretty good.

Only tried it with a Lehmann Black cube linear, it sounded pretty nice out of it compared to a smartphone. Improvement was solid.

 

[DefQon]

 
Only tried it with a Lehmann Black cube linear, it sounded pretty nice out of it compared to a smartphone. Improvement was solid.

Lovely since the M-Stage has it's circuit design derived from the BCL. I think I may give headphones another whirl if the K812 continues to sound this promising but I usually hold out my breathe during early impressions made by other people, wait for psycho-acoustics, bias and placebo factors to wear off than come back to read reviews. Like when the LCD2's were first released, everybody praised them as being the end of the world, then people started selling them off and becoming more honest with themselves that they aren't that great. 

 

[ChardonnayLogic]

What they really scream is, "Hi audio professional, plug me right into your board. I am 36Ω; you don't need an amp!" 

 

[johangrb]

Now in stock: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1014352-REG/akg_k812_3458z00010_k812_reference_headphones.html

 

[R Giskard]

This is highly interesting! What I expected to read was something a lot different. I thought the AKG would have an edhe in ultimate dynamics attack, not the other way around.  Since AKG uses a pretty effocoent and powerful motor system as well as traditional dome-type diaphragm, I would have expected it to eclipse the Sennheiser in attack. Perhaps ypur amplifiers cannot provide the necessary current. I am not familiar with any of the amplifiers you have so I this is but a mere guess. I own the HD800 and am considering the K812 if they prove to sound less analytic which would certainly be nice for some recordings but I still do not want to lose much of the detail.
 
Would you say that K812 puts more of it's imprint on the sound than the HD800 or would you say it makes you analyse less and lets you do more casual listening? I fear that somehow the price of the K812 is too high but I can't be certain till I have listened to them.
 
Cheers!
Antun

 

[Beagle]

  Oh, the K812 is definitely still doing the whole "airy and big soundstage" thing that the K701 does. AKG seems to be committed to this as a defining characteristic of their sound, and even their flagship in-ears, the K3003, have a very airy and open presentation (for a pair of in-ears, at least). I know a lot of folks who love that kind of presentation. The problem is, I feel like too much is sometimes compromised in order to achieve it. Namely there's too much top-end emphasis and not enough bottom-end to counter balance it in order to achieve an airier kind of sound, and instruments can sound a little distant and not engaging when trying to open up space between the listener and everything else.

 
I note that you indicated that the top end was not of the silky/smooth, electrostatic-type variety. It is more grainy? How is it with classical instruments? Do violins sound like they are being played with hacksaw blades rather than rosin bows?

 

[Claritas]

  I note that you indicated that the top end was not of the silky/smooth, electrostatic-type variety. It is more grainy? How is it with classical instruments? Do violins sound like they are being played with hacksaw blades rather than rosin bows?

 
Good questions. How does solo piano sound, and organ?

 

[MuppetFace]

   
I note that you indicated that the top end was not of the silky/smooth, electrostatic-type variety. It is more grainy? How is it with classical instruments? Do violins sound like they are being played with hacksaw blades rather than rosin bows?

 
 
The treble isn't as refined, no. But then I'm one of those snobs who thinks dynamics rarely sound as good as e-stats in that regard. Even the treble on my beloved, overpriced Abyss which I consider my primary reference falls short of a good electrostatic treble much as it pains me to admit. However e-stats tend to have their own shortcomings in my opinion. Going back to the bolded part for instance, I find some airy headphones have too much treble emphasis for my liking, including some e-stats. Even though their treble is more refined, the emphasis still bothers me.
 
I don't find the K812's treble bothersome at all so far; I like the way it's balanced with the rest of the spectrum and don't detect any problem areas or nasty peaks. Strings sound quite nice to my ears, certainly not painful. In fact the K812 is proving to be very easy for me to listen to even with less than stellar recordings (another point of accessibility which is bound to turn off hardcore audiophiles, I'm sure).
 
My reference for pianos is still Stax. I'll need to do some more direct A/B---as much as I loathe to---before saying more on that.

 

[Beagle]

   
 
The treble isn't as refined, no. But then I'm one of those snobs who thinks dynamics rarely sound as good as e-stats in that regard. Even the treble on my beloved, overpriced Abyss which I consider my primary reference falls short of a good electrostatic treble much as it pains me to admit. However e-stats tend to have their own shortcomings in my opinion. Going back to the bolded part for instance, I find some airy headphones have too much treble emphasis for my liking, including some e-stats. Even though their treble is more refined, the emphasis still bothers me.
 
I don't find the K812's treble bothersome at all so far; I like the way it's balanced with the rest of the spectrum and don't detect any problem areas or nasty peaks. Strings sound quite nice to my ears, certainly not painful. In fact the K812 is proving to be very easy for me to listen to even with less than stellar recordings (another point of accessibility which is bound to turn off hardcore audiophiles, I'm sure).
 
My reference for pianos is still Stax. I'll need to do some more direct A/B---as much as I loathe to---before saying more on that.

 
Thanks for the feedback. I have only owned entry-level Stax (Basik 2020, SR40) and did find that although they were open and airy, there was an artificial shimmer to the top end.

 

[SP Wild]

BHSE FTW!

 

[DefQon]