[SubtleArt]

Alright, I've narrowed my headphone options to thse 2: AKG k240 Mk2 and Shure SRH840. Yes, I used the search bar but for some reason was not able to find any adequate comparison for these two. If anybody could help me compare these it would be very appreciated.
 
As stated above, these are the 2 headphones I narrowed my search from, AKG k240 Mk2 and Shure SRH840. Which one would you guys recommend? Their price is quite similar. I listen to Rock and Metal (bands like floyd, the who, led zep, rush, megadeth, deep purple...you get the gist). I'm mainly concerned with how these sound over an ipod, and I will not be using an amp, so please make these comparisons as if I'm listening to a song rom my ipod (around 256 kps or w/e a CD is) without an amp.
What I'm looking for (in order of importance)
Sound quality: 
Looking for good overall sound, nothing that stresses treble or bass too much.
I heard that the 840s lacked a little in bass and drums (especially hi hat). By comparison the AKG does better in these 2 areas. Can anybody confirm this?
Comfort:
How comfortable are these to wear on my head for long periods of time? My friend has the AKGs and he says he doesn't take them out of the house much because you can't transport them easily (they don't fold) and they don't fit around your neck very well. With the SRH840s, however, I keep reading about how dam heavy it is (1.75 pounds?). Is this really noticable? And if so, will it make it really annoying to have them in your head for long periods of time? Have any 840 users had problems with the weight of these headhpones?
Leaking:
I'm not too concerned about how well these block out sound because from what I've read they do an acceptable job. How much sound do they both leak tho?
 
Help is very much appreciated, thanks guys.

 

[WyldRage]

If leakage is a concern, then get the SRH-840. The AKG k 240 is open.

 

[priest]

Welcome to Head-Fi. I have both of these headphones and would say the following:
 
Sound quality: I am surprised you heard that the SRH840 lacks in bass, because almost everything I have read is that they overemphasize the bass, if anything. That has certainly been my experience. The K 240 are slightly more neutral in my estimation, with silkier, more forward, mids, but they are not light on the bass either. The SRH840 has sharper highs. My iPod nano can drive both of them fine, but the SRH840 plays louder. However, I don't feel like the iPod gets the SRH840 to play at its full potential, as far as imaging and detail, but that might be my imagination and is more of a feeling than a scientific analysis. These sound quality observations are based on CD listening with a dedicated amp, and Apple Lossless on the iPod without a portable amp.
 
Comfort: Your friend is right that the K 240 are not easily portable, for the reasons mentioned. But what you have read about the SRH840 is also true: they are kind of heavy and bulky, and some people find them downright uncomfortable (although I don't). But they do fold up and are easier to carry. I think you would have to make a trade-off on this factor.
 
Leaking: The AKG can be expected to leak more, in that they are semi-open. I mostly listen at home with full-size headphones so that is not much of an issue for me. However, taking them off my head just now, I'm not seeing a drastic difference in leakage when covering the cups on each of them.
 
Overall, I pretty clearly prefer the K 240 to the SRH840, but the SRH840 was a massive Head-Fi favorite a few months ago, and the K 240 never gets too much attention here for some reason, so you might not get alot of balanced feedback on this. Hope that helps somewhat. Good luck to you, and I wouldn't sweat it too much. They are both very nice headphones and good value for the money.

 

[Acix]

 
Quote:

Welcome to Head-Fi. I have both of these headphones and would say the following:
 
Sound quality: I am surprised you heard that the SRH840 lacks in bass, because almost everything I have read is that they overemphasize the bass, if anything. That has certainly been my experience. The K 240 are slightly more neutral in my estimation, with silkier, more forward, mids, but they are not light on the bass either. The SRH840 has sharper highs. My iPod nano can drive both of them fine, but the SRH840 plays louder. However, I don't feel like the iPod gets the SRH840 to play at its full potential, as far as imaging and detail, but that might be my imagination and is more of a feeling than a scientific analysis. These sound quality observations are based on CD listening with a dedicated amp, and Apple Lossless on the iPod without a portable amp.
 
Comfort: Your friend is right that the K 240 are not easily portable, for the reasons mentioned. But what you have read about the SRH840 is also true: they are kind of heavy and bulky, and some people find them downright uncomfortable (although I don't). But they do fold up and are easier to carry. I think you would have to make a trade-off on this factor.
 
Leaking: The AKG can be expected to leak more, in that they are semi-open. I mostly listen at home with full-size headphones so that is not much of an issue for me. However, taking them off my head just now, I'm not seeing a drastic difference in leakage when covering the cups on each of them.
 
Overall, I pretty clearly prefer the K 240 to the SRH840, but the SRH840 was a massive Head-Fi favorite a few months ago, and the K 240 never gets too much attention here for some reason, so you might not get alot of balanced feedback on this. Hope that helps somewhat. Good luck to you, and I wouldn't sweat it too much. They are both very nice headphones and good value for the money.

Great impression Priest, I don't know the SRH840, but I was very impress with the K-240MKll.

 

[Kevin Brown]

I don't have the 240's yet, but I have the 840's here now.
 
Quote:

I am surprised you heard that the SRH840 lacks in bass, because almost everything I have read is that they overemphasize the bass, if anything. That has certainly been my experience. The K 240 are slightly more neutral in my estimation, with silkier, more forward, mids, but they are not light on the bass either. The SRH840 has sharper highs.

 
My experience with the 840's is that they are a little bass shy.  And that is comparing them to Grado SR80i's and SR125i's, and obviously, neither of those two are recommended for bassheads.    I do feel the 840 has sharp highs.  But in effect, I think the 840's have a fair amount of tilt from not enough bass (for me, and I'm *not* a basshead) to a hair too much treble.  They aren't shrill or piercing, just that if they had a little more bass-weight, that would counteract the highs, but they don't.  Also, I have a fairly large head, not humongous, but on the larger side, and I have to adjust the 840's to the maximum size they go, and they just barely fit me.  fwiw.

 

[SubtleArt]

Thanks for the replies everyone. How well do these headphones stack without an amp though? Browsing previous threads about AKG k240 Mk2s, it seems that a lot of people have said that the k240s lose a lot of quality without an amp, more so than other headphones. Is this true?
 
I realize they're both awesome headphones and im nit picking but I figure if im spending $160, I may as well make the best purchase I can.

 

[SubtleArt]

Shameles bump??

 

[TheMiddleSky]

Both if them can sound good unamp, and sure will better with decent amping.
 
MkII has better comfort on my head.
 
Sound wise, I still prefer the 840, some people may said that it can produce sibilant, but when I test it with Denon CDP, I've found that sibilance only happen when the singer do it, so actually when you have them, just make sure you have high quality song (320kbps at least, better if can afford flac or wav)
 

 

[priest]

 
Quote:

I don't have the 240's yet, but I have the 840's here now.
 
My experience with the 840's is that they are a little bass shy.  And that is comparing them to Grado SR80i's and SR125i's, and obviously, neither of those two are recommended for bassheads.    I do feel the 840 has sharp highs.  But in effect, I think the 840's have a fair amount of tilt from not enough bass (for me, and I'm *not* a basshead) to a hair too much treble.  They aren't shrill or piercing, just that if they had a little more bass-weight, that would counteract the highs, but they don't.  Also, I have a fairly large head, not humongous, but on the larger side, and I have to adjust the 840's to the maximum size they go, and they just barely fit me.  fwiw.

OP, I guess this is where you heard that the SRH840 are light on the bass?

 Seriously, thanks for posting an alternative viewpoint, Kevin. Maybe I need to read more about the SRH840. Perhaps we can agree on HeadRoom's formulation: "The bass reponse is definitely large and sonically pleasing but not overly thick or wooly"? In any event, I would agree that the treble is a little sharp, and as far as the bass is concerned, the important thing I should maybe emphasize is that I don't personally think there is a very large difference in bass quantity or quality between these two models, so maybe that will help eliminate one factor in deciding between the two. I think the biggest difference is that the SRH840 are warmer overall, and the K 240 are more mid-centric. Again, the K 240 don't get much attention here, but they do seem to be held in affectionate regard by those who have them (thanks Acix!). As for using without an amp, I think I would tend to give the K 240 the edge on that factor, but I am biased toward them, and am not an amp guy really anyway, so you may have to find someone else to speak to that.
 

 

[mbritt]

Not to confuse the issue since you've already narrowed it down to two cans, which is no small feat on it's own, but I think from your requirements you should listen to the Phiaton PS 320's.  I wrote a first impression about these in a previous post:
 
Quote:

the sound pumping through these cans un-amped is really a surprise.  I only have about 20 hours of burn in while listening but I keep picking them up and putting them on because they are fun (audiophile term).  They are a lot more forward than the 701's and the bass is actually a step up.  I am by no means a bass head but I can appreciate the extra oomph (there I go again with more audiophile terms) that the 320's deliver.  
 

So far, they seem to be really good for melodic rock with heavy instrumentation.   "My Bird Performs" from XTC is a beautiful well crafted song that starts out with light guitar licks and then builds with what I can only describe as a rock orchestra.  That song really sings on the 320's.  There seems to be a lot of separation between instruments and very nice clear vocals.

My first impression is still holding up.  I'm really impressed by the Phiaton PS 320's and found myself again out on the deck yesterday afternoon lounging in a prone position under the shade sails listening to them un-amped from my iPod 5.5.  Actually, I was just relaxing and that was the set up I reached for which is very telling to me.

 

[Kevin Brown]

 
Quote:

 

OP, I guess this is where you heard that the SRH840 are light on the bass?

 Seriously, thanks for posting an alternative viewpoint, Kevin. Maybe I need to read more about the SRH840. Perhaps we can agree on HeadRoom's formulation: "The bass reponse is definitely large and sonically pleasing but not overly thick or wooly"? In any event, I would agree that the treble is a little sharp, and as far as the bass is concerned, the important thing I should maybe emphasize is that I don't personally think there is a very large difference in bass quantity or quality between these two models, so maybe that will help eliminate one factor in deciding between the two. I think the biggest difference is that the SRH840 are warmer overall, and the K 240 are more mid-centric. Again, the K 240 don't get much attention here, but they do seem to be held in affectionate regard by those who have them (thanks Acix!). As for using without an amp, I think I would tend to give the K 240 the edge on that factor, but I am biased toward them, and am not an amp guy really anyway, so you may have to find someone else to speak to that.
 

 
Actually, this is my 1st post on the 840's.  Got them this week. 
 
I would never call the 840's "warm" though.  I'd reserve that for the Sony 7505's ...  Which are tilted in the opposite direction IMO: a hair too much bass and muddiness, and not enough treble and detail.

 

[SubtleArt]

So I supposed the quality between the 2 is almost identical? If I'm going for comfort I guess I'll choose the AKG 240s then.
 
Btw what about Ultrasone HFI-580? how do these compare to the AKGs in quality? They seem really comfor

 

[TheMiddleSky]

Today I do compare again between MKII and DT770/80, and I like 770/80 more.
 
that Beyer has better depth and tall, smoother and thicker vocal, and really good bass (it's not kind of tight bass, but it never reach mid and high freq, it's just keep BOOM below of them.)
 
MKII has better wide, more natural vocal, and decent bass.
 
Yeah MKII still more natural, but 770/80 is really bring the "Fun things" to me 

 

 

[SubtleArt]

Lol what do you mean by "fun"? More distinctive sound signature? My friend told me about the DT780s but he said they're mainly for electronic music.

 

[TheMiddleSky]

"Fun" for me, which is I love how 770/80 blend a song, it's just more engaging.