I would like to know how good an K240 M (600) can sound with proper amping and source. Let me know what amp you are using.
AKG K240 Monitor: Capable?
- Thread starter tdogzthmn
- Start date
I am guessing not many people own a pair.
Deep Funk
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Posts
- 3,273
- Likes
- 38
I have a DF, does that count?
The Other Allen
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Posts
- 341
- Likes
- 12
I have a Yamaha R-90 receiver that I bought in '84. If I could only have one phone (240M/600) and this receiver, I would be content. I'm a believer in synergy now, but it was accidental. There have been several posts on the boards recommending the headphone jack on 80s receivers as being a good pairing for these phones.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Posts
- 2,602
- Likes
- 28
God the DF is capable. So so capable. No experience with the M, but the DF is the definition of ruler flat.
Quote:
The DF and M share the same driver so that should count.
| Originally Posted by Deep Funk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a DF, does that count? |
The DF and M share the same driver so that should count.
lejaz
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Posts
- 1,957
- Likes
- 49
The DF sounds really flat, detailed and transparent but is lacking a little in the low end. FWIR the 240M is less detailed but has better bass. One forum member claims the 240M is midway between the DF and the Sextett in sound sig. The LD mkV drives the DF really well, but they're not that hard to drive... even the much less powerful emu 0404 amp does a pretty decent job of it.
geof777
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2009
- Posts
- 11
- Likes
- 0
I used to own the K240 Monitor Golds
They were very nice to listen to - but I couldn't use as a monitor
for recording as they were slightly lifted at top and bottom - so all my recordings came
out with the opposite
My Mum still owns the orig K240's and I prefer those.
Nice comfy headphones, enjoyable to listen to
They were very nice to listen to - but I couldn't use as a monitor
for recording as they were slightly lifted at top and bottom - so all my recordings came
out with the opposite
My Mum still owns the orig K240's and I prefer those.
Nice comfy headphones, enjoyable to listen to
wavoman
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
- Posts
- 1,873
- Likes
- 45
I agree with previous posters re the K240DF. I have two of 'em, both have been re-cabled and balanced (moon-audio silver dragon on one, zu mobius on the other, both with Neutrik XLRs).
I drive them with a QESLabs HPBA-2, designed specifically for 600-ohm phones, and ruler-flat response (as are the DF's). I use them to study music, not for "enjoyment" listening. But the fre resp is amazing.
I drive them with a QESLabs HPBA-2, designed specifically for 600-ohm phones, and ruler-flat response (as are the DF's). I use them to study music, not for "enjoyment" listening. But the fre resp is amazing.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Posts
- 2,431
- Likes
- 1,447
I don't have the 240M, but have a sextett and with the right amp it sounds just as good as HD600 if not better. I actually like the sextett better not because it out performs technically but I like it's sound signature and tone. The only amp thats been able to drive them well that I have is the MAD Ear+ HD. The 600ohms seem to be more voltage hungry than it needs current.
I can't understand how people can say the 240DF is "more detailed" than the 240M, when as mentioned, they are essentially the same driver just tweaked for diffuse equalization.
The DF indeed has a flatter response, which resulted me in not liking them initially. But then my ears got attuned to the DF tonal presentation, eventually, I liked them more than the M. But I can see some people liking the M more on a first or side-by-side listen. The DF is an "acquired taste". Head-fi listeners here are "connoisseurs" which explains the leanings (I think) to the DF. The merits of the DF flat response come to the fore over extended listening periods (hours at a time). For mixing DF makes sense. For day-to-day listening for an hour at a time, the M probably is more pleasurable.
Also confirming, the DF definitely kicks it up a notch with a good amp (I used to power them with a Wheatfield HA-2) ... They become more dynamic and alive. Being able to easily drive a 600 ohm load makes a big difference with the DF especially (more so than the M in my experience). Why, I don't know, but that was my experience. They are both 600 Ohm, so in theory, should behave the same.
I would say both are "old school" sounding relative to some of the newer headphones out there today. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. I cherish the old school sound of my preferred K340s. Just as long as you don't pay crazy money for them, they are decent value classic cans. However, I would not invest a lot of $ upgrading them, and instead put the money towards the better New Gen phones.
.
The DF indeed has a flatter response, which resulted me in not liking them initially. But then my ears got attuned to the DF tonal presentation, eventually, I liked them more than the M. But I can see some people liking the M more on a first or side-by-side listen. The DF is an "acquired taste". Head-fi listeners here are "connoisseurs" which explains the leanings (I think) to the DF. The merits of the DF flat response come to the fore over extended listening periods (hours at a time). For mixing DF makes sense. For day-to-day listening for an hour at a time, the M probably is more pleasurable.
Also confirming, the DF definitely kicks it up a notch with a good amp (I used to power them with a Wheatfield HA-2) ... They become more dynamic and alive. Being able to easily drive a 600 ohm load makes a big difference with the DF especially (more so than the M in my experience). Why, I don't know, but that was my experience. They are both 600 Ohm, so in theory, should behave the same.
I would say both are "old school" sounding relative to some of the newer headphones out there today. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. I cherish the old school sound of my preferred K340s. Just as long as you don't pay crazy money for them, they are decent value classic cans. However, I would not invest a lot of $ upgrading them, and instead put the money towards the better New Gen phones.
.
The difference between the DF and Monitor version is that the inner baffle of the DF has been modified using psychoacoustic feedback.
Quote:
From pictures I have seen, I think the drivers are similar looking, but slightly different. I opened them up too long ago for my memory to serve me well.
Not sure what you mean by psychoacoustic feedback?
| Originally Posted by tdogzthmn /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...the DF has been modified using psychoacoustic feedback. |
From pictures I have seen, I think the drivers are similar looking, but slightly different. I opened them up too long ago for my memory to serve me well.
Not sure what you mean by psychoacoustic feedback?
Deep Funk
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Posts
- 3,273
- Likes
- 38
For me the DF has only one real weakness, it sounds a tad polite. Other than that it is perfect. My Philips CD690 CD-player powers it with ease.
Packgrog
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 860
- Likes
- 34
Listening to my boss's AKG k240 Monitor right now on an iBasso D1 with HiFlight TopKit, and while I have to pretty much crank the volume all the way, it sounds pretty great! I'm more used to my Denon AH-D2000, but the K240 is doing a pretty admirable job. More forward and less bass than I'm used to, but not anemic like my previous AKG experiences. Punchy and clear. Would probably do very nicely with a strong desktop amp. Very nice!
Users who are viewing this thread
