[ADUHF]

The design of the K553/K550 is excellent. Built quality is really premium-like and ergonomics, on my head and in my hands at least, are just fine. The earpads are a bit too shallow, that's my only critique.

Probably the wrong place to discuss it, but I have to disagree Mink. The headband is waaaaaayyyy too large on the K553 for ordinary human beings. And as a consequence the earpads hang too low and don't seal reliably, even on my big noggin. And the hinge/swivel design is stiff and equally inept, and doesn't readily conform to your ears. There are a number of other bone-headed things about them as well. But you can read more about some of them here, if you want...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/impressions-of-akg-k553.776393/

Imo, AKG's design team is one of the worst. It is one of the reasons why I'm very hesitant to invest my hard-earned dollars in another one of their products... Because I know I'll find all sorts of stupid little issues in their design and construction (like some others here already have), in addition to the ones which are readily obvious, like the miserable (imho) hinging and extender mechanism on the K371.

If you think the ergonomics and design is good on the K553, then you haven't really put that headphone through its paces like I have.

 

[Mink]

If you think the ergonomics and design is good on the K553, then you haven't really put that headphone through its paces like I have.

There you have a point. My pair is one of many pairs of headphones I own and I don't use them daily or intensively. I am aware of the poor quality pads, that's why I am very gentle with them, I treat them like I would treat a 3k USD pair of headphones, they are just so gorgeous

 

[menuki]

@ADUHF , I can more than totally understand your frustration, and the AKG K371 are my first AKG headphones, but I have to say, I'm glad that they at least now have oval pads instead of round ones which should be more ergonomic / comfy too, and the mechanism is kinda cool, but prone to issues. :/ Let's say I think it's good that they took a design risk, as this may then perhaps allow them to create a better headphone in the future with a design which relies on the AKG K371 design, but maybe built just more sturdy or something. I'd easily pay 200-300€ for that then if the sound is also a touch more neutral..

 

[plakat]

I think AKG has a long history of designs that deviate from the norm at their time (think Sextett, K1000, the headband suspension up to the 700 series etc.). Yes, some of those were not that perfect, but I think sometimes its worth taking risks -- as long as they learn from the feedback.

I never use any headphone much, simply because I have too many. So many aspects related to durability never occur to me. Yet after reading the steps to tighten the screws on the K371 I'd consider that mechanism less problematic, even if I don't have any problems with it. Having any folding mechanism on a headphone sold at ca 100€ is always a risk I think... yet I'm happy to have it, because folding them up makes them much more portable. The oval cups help as well of course.

Yes, it would be nice to see them take this design (acoustic and mechanic) to the next level and offer a model in the price range 300-500,-, refining some aspects while keeping the really well done tuning. And make those cups a bit deeper of course...

 

[metal571]

Posting FR graphs without mentioning the system used to generate them is not too helpful. oratory1990 uses an IEC 711 standard rig from GRAS and Rtings also uses a system to that standard, but from Head Acoustics (of Tyll fame). Never trust measurements produced from non standard rigs such as the EARS, flatplates, and even the KU100. If the system does not have the correct acoustic impedance, it will not measure the headphone close to how you would hear it.

I'll try to find out from Dr. Olive on Twitter whether both are titanium coated diaphragms or not. For some reason the AKG US site appears to be missing the K361 and K371 pages altogether at the moment. I seem to remember being confused at the difference in coating between the two models too, but noticing later that the site says they are both coated. It's worth double checking though.

 

[ADUHF]

In some ways, I think y'all are helping to make my points for me. If you only plan on using these once in a blue moon, and are getting them mainly to add another pair of HPs to your massive headphone collections, then they're probably just fine for that. What I'm lookin for though are some high quality beaters, which can take alot of wear and tear, and abuse. And still function properly and sound good.

IAC, thank you for letting me vent a little on this subject. Imo, people in this hobby are too forgiving of poor engineering and design flaws. If you want to mod your headphones, and enjoy doing that sort of thing, that's fine. But you shouldn't have to do it on every damn product you buy!

 

[ADUHF]

Never trust measurements produced from non standard rigs.... If the system does not have the correct acoustic impedance, it will not measure the headphone close to how you would hear it.

Agree.

I'll try to find out from Dr. Olive on Twitter whether both are titanium coated diaphragms or not. For some reason the AKG US site appears to be missing the K361 and K371 pages altogether at the moment. I seem to remember being confused at the difference in coating between the two models too, but noticing later that the site says they are both coated. It's worth double checking though.

Agree also. Per some of my comments here, the K361 didn't really sound that much like the K371 or K553 in my listening tests. And I'd be somewhat surprised if they are all using the exact same titanium drivers, with just some differences in damping. Stranger things have happened though.

 

[Ashimaru]

I feel my AKG K371 is too metallic. At what frequency and how many decibels do I have to reduce it on EQ?

 

[plakat]

In some ways, I think y'all are helping to make my points for me. If you only plan on using these once in a blue moon, and are getting them mainly to add another pair of HPs to your massive headphone collections, then they're probably just fine for that. What I'm lookin for though are some high quality beaters, which can take alot of wear and tear, and abuse. And still function properly and sound good.

IAC, thank you for letting me vent a little on this subject. Imo, people in this hobby are too forgiving of poor engineering and design flaws. If you want to mod your headphones, and enjoy doing that sort of thing, that's fine. But you shouldn't have to do it on every damn product you buy!

That's a valid requirement... The ATH-M50x come to my mind when I read this, of which I recently acquired the BT variant (so much for too many headphones...). I do like robust, repairable headphones that have a reasonable price. The ATH-M50x has proven its long term value.
Beyerdynamic offers many models that fit these requirements, as does V-Moda and AIAIAI. AKG... maybe not that many. New models with something unique (folding mechanism in the case of the K371) are more prone to problems I think... yet I have used my pair quite a bit the last few months (got them in November '19 I think) and had no problems so far.

 

[ADUHF]

I feel my AKG K371 is too metallic. At what frequency and how many decibels do I have to reduce it on EQ?

Difference between AKG K371 and the average of 19 neutral-ish headphone measurements...



This is my best guess, Ashimaru, based on the Rtings plots. I would try attenuating the bump between about 7-8 kHz and 10 kHz by a few dBs. There are also some slight depressions around the peak at 3 kHz, which could be making that area stand out a little. So you might possibly try bringing the area between 2.5 and 3 kHz down by a dB or so as well. Or lifting the areas around it up a hair. That's probably more a judgement call though on your part. Fluctuations of a dB or so in a sound signature aren't usually that audible.

Smoothing out the response in the bass by adding a little more emphasis to that depressed area between roughly 40 and 100 Hz might also help to give them a little more warmth on the low-end. Which might also help to better balance out some of the brightness in the treble. You'll have to experiment a little to see how much more warmth in that area sounds good to you. A change of only +1 or +2 dBs at around 60 Hz in the center of that bass depression might, for example, be sufficient.

There may also be a little bit of air missing in the upper frequencies, around 12 and 16 kHz. I am less confident about that area on the plot though. And would not generally recommend making dramatic changes there, esp on the up-side. You could possibly try boosting those areas by a couple dBs. I wouldn't do much more than that though. There is a good chance that you'll start to hear some more air on these if you just lower the bump in the 7.5-10 kHz range a bit.

Same plot as above, but with frequencies labeled at various points...

 

[menuki]

I feel my AKG K371 is too metallic. At what frequency and how many decibels do I have to reduce it on EQ?

Also, their brightness / bright spot depend a LOT on the DAC / Amp used as well - connected to my Laptop with a kind of good soundcard, or the iPhone via a Dongle, and both sound very good, but a bit bright. Take the iFi Hip-Dac, or any of their line pretty much and they tilt more to the warmer side. They don't sound too warm though, it just adds a bit more body to everything like the lower mids and tames the bright spot - this way I don't have to use any EQ and they just sound spectacular.. Really again hard to believe I got them for 100€. I can listen to this combo forever, especially since you can turn them down quiete, and they still sound clear.

What setup are you using currently?

 

[bcaulf17]

I don’t have any brightness issues with mine. The only aggression I hear is in the upper mids, but I only find it slight and dependent on the recording. I’ve pretty much gotten used to it now. I know we all hear different though, and again, seal seems to be quite important with these.

I think the treble actually sounds surprisingly nice and smooth, and not too forward at all.

 

[ADUHF]

I don’t have any brightness issues with mine. The only aggression I hear is in the upper mids, but I only find it slight and dependent on the recording. I’ve pretty much gotten used to it now. I know we all hear different though, and again, seal seems to be quite important with these.

I think the treble actually sounds surprisingly nice and smooth, and not too forward at all.

My plot could be wrong, bcaulf17. But I don't think so.

Some folks are also less sensitive to brightness in the 8-10k range. Or prefer some more brightness there, esp. for lower volume listening. The brightness was quite evident to me though when I began turning up the volume on the K371 at GC. It bordered on glaring. I am relying on my plot, and to some extent also the Rtings compensated graph though to identify where the issue is. And it may also be that I just prefer a somewhat darker-sounding HP in the treble, since I listen to so much brighter music. I was just using GC's in-store feed (with Daft Punk, Bruno Mars, etc.) for my comparisons though, which isn't necessarily ideal.

Imo Rtings target response curve is too bright in the treble. And in spite of that, their compensated FR graph also appears to show a bright spot in essentially the same area, at around 7.5-10 kHz...

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/3992

So there is that to consider. One of us could easily be wrong. But the fact that both graphs seem to be more or less in agreement makes that seem less likely to me. (Stranger things have happened though.) If you have a parametric EQ handy for your HPs, I would try attentuating that area just a small amount to see if it makes any difference to you. Maybe you'll be surprised. And maybe not.

When you say "upper mids", I assume you're referring to the peak or bump in the 2.5 to 3 kHz region, which could also be a slight issue. Rtings left and right raw frequency response plots are not as consistent in that area...

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/4011
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/4012

And since my K371 difference curve is an average of the two channels, I'm not as sure what to suggest there. If you feel they are a little harsh-sounding though in that area, then you could try my suggestion of lowering the 2.5-3 kHz region by a dB or so, and see if that helps at all.

Lowering the peak at 8-10 kHz could also make any harshness or uneveness in the upper mids a bit more evident as well, by comparison. Getting the balance perfect in those two areas can sometimes be a little challenging.

 

[Ashimaru]

Difference between AKG K371 and the average of 19 neutral-ish headphone measurements...



This is my best guess, Ashimaru, based on the Rtings plots. I would try attenuating the bump between about 7-8 kHz and 10 kHz by a few dBs. There are also some slight depressions around the peak at 3 kHz, which could be making that area stand out a little. So you might possibly try bringing the area between 2.5 and 3 kHz down by a dB or so as well. Or lifting the areas around it up a hair. That's probably more a judgement call though on your part. Fluctuations of a dB or so in a sound signature aren't usually that audible.

Smoothing out the response in the bass by adding a little more emphasis to that depressed area between roughly 40 and 100 Hz might also help to give them a little more warmth on the low-end. Which might also help to better balance out some of the brightness in the treble. You'll have to experiment a little to see how much more warmth in that area sounds good to you. A change of only +1 or +2 dBs at around 60 Hz in the center of that bass depression might, for example, be sufficient.

As indicated above, there may also be a little bit of air missing in the upper frequencies, around 12 and 16 kHz. I am less confident about that area on the plot though. And would not generally recommend making dramatic changes there, esp on the up-side. You could possibly try boosting those areas by a couple dBs though. I wouldn't do much more than that though. There is a good chance that you will start to hear some more air on these if you just lower the bump in the 7.5-10 kHz range a bit.

Thank you, I think the problem is indeed in the 7-8 kHz range so that it also causes the upper mid to be raised

Also, their brightness / bright spot depend a LOT on the DAC / Amp used as well - connected to my Laptop with a kind of good soundcard, or the iPhone via a Dongle, and both sound very good, but a bit bright. Take the iFi Hip-Dac, or any of their line pretty much and they tilt more to the warmer side. They don't sound too warm though, it just adds a bit more body to everything like the lower mids and tames the bright spot - this way I don't have to use any EQ and they just sound spectacular.. Really again hard to believe I got them for 100€. I can listen to this combo forever, especially since you can turn them down quiete, and they still sound clear.

What setup are you using currently?

I tried on several android phones, ThinkPad laptop, and PC with a Steinberg soundcard

 

[ADUHF]

Thank you, I think the problem is indeed in the 7-8 kHz range so that it also causes the upper mid to be raised

In case I didn't make it clear before, this plot is a rough approximation of how I believe the K371 deviates from a neutral response.

To hopefully make it a little easier to see what's goin on, I've labeled the frequencies (in Hz) at various points on the curve, including the places where there are some more noticeable peaks and valleys in the response.