[plakat]

One can't measure weighted by personal preference... so those graphs can only tell something about the technical side of things. And unfortunately the K812 does show some distortion that is not quite in line with its Top Of The Line status. I would prefer better measurements, if just for peace of mind. Nevertheless I use it often and enjoy it very much. But I can understand that its sound signature is not for everyone...
 
Once again: I'm really puzzled by that fact. AKG engineers are definitely not new to that business, I can't imagine this is simply an oversight. But for what reason its the way it is... I don't know. They are intended for studio work, so not a piece of subjectivist 'but it sounds so nice' argumentation I guess.

 

[up late]

Do you think you can tell which of two headphones is better overall simply by looking at the charts on innerfidelity?

nope but i think that sites like innerfidelity, golden ears and others that measure the performance of headphones show which ones are technically more capable than others, and they can also help us to identify/confirm what we're hearing as problematic - like distortion for example.

 

[sonictransducer]

I think the dichotomy between what shows up on these graphs and what is "mere subjective preference" is a false one. There are important good-making features of headphones (such as imaging) that don't show up in these graphs. Thus, the reason these graphs are imperfect guides to overall merit is that they leave out some of these features (not because they leave out subjective preference)

 

[up late]

I think the dichotomy between what shows up on these graphs and what is "mere subjective preference" is a false one. There are important good-making features of headphones (such as imaging) that don't show up in these graphs. Thus, the reason these graphs are imperfect guides to overall merit is that they leave out some of these features (not because they leave out subjective preference)

that's just how you're framing it but i don't see it that way. objective measurements and subjective impressions don't have to be mutually exclusive. i see them as complementary.

 

[sonictransducer]

Earlier you said:

sure. but the point is that it's based entirely on your personal preference regardless of what the objective evidence indicates.

My point is that if the measurements leave out important factors, then it should come as no surprise if someone's overall evaluation based on listening differs from the evaluation you'd make just by looking at the measuregents. as a hypothetical example, suppose our measuring technology were more primitive, and all we could measure was maximum volume. in this case, if someone cared about things besides maximum volume, then they might say headphone A was better than headphone B, even if, just looking at the volume chart, you'd think headphone B was superior

 

[up late]

you keep referring to what the measurements don't cover and ignoring what they do. just coz they don't measure every single aspect of a can's performance doesn't render them useless. you also appear to assume that we are either assessing the performance of these cans on the measurements or by listening. it's not an either/or thing for me as i've tried to explain.

 

[sonictransducer]

I never said these measurements are useless. all I'm claiming is that a first headphone could be better than a second headphone even if, according to the measurements, the second headphone looks better. If you agree with that, then there's no disagreement between us.

 

[up late]

you never said it and i didn't say that you did, but you've been selective by omission.

if you think a can sounds better than another can regardless of the objective measurements indicating that the can you prefer is technically inferior, that's cool. but don't go claiming that it's "better" when the objective evidence clearly indicates that it's not. "better" to say that you like it "better".

 

[Fegefeuer]

Better in What?

As in better to your liking due its signature? Yes. Everything else no and there's nobody able to refute that. Only AKG themselves by releasing another product..

Lower distortion and better driver control result in more detail and separation. Driver control especially prevents bass bleed and bloat if done right.

Nothing wrong in preferences but this is denial. Embrace the Spongebob for what it is.

The big joke here is the price though. Should be slightly above the T1 which can be gotten for 650€ from time to time.

 

[up late]

brutally honest but "better" that it came from you

 

[sonictransducer]

There is very little bass bleed or bloat in the K812, at least if they are properly driven.

I'm afraid I don't catch the spongebob reference

 

[preproman]

What is properly driven when talking about the 812s?  I'm guessing any quality amp will do here. 

 

[up late]

yep. they're very efficient and that's a good thing imo.

 

[jk47]

i don't how you guys can talk about how much you like different 'phones without mentioning what kind of music you listen to.
 
i was aware of tyll's criticism, and measurements, of the k812 before i bought them.
 
HOWEVER, i only listen to acoustic music - mostly classical, some jazz.  the "treble harshness" just isn't there listening to my music.  perhaps if i were into electronica or some other styles it would matter.  but for my music, those treble problems are simply irrelevant.
 
 
[i recently got an hd800, but i have been burning them in and haven't had a chance to a-b them with the k812s.  i'm looking forward to that.  but, of course, that a-b listening will be done with the music i listen to, and that matters.]

 

[shultzee]

Sonic...  No matter what you say here there is a group that will insist the HD800 sounds better than the K812 because of the "measurements".   Its a personal sound preference thing to me.    I was actually the most disappointed in the HD800 because of the hype it received and I didn't care for it.   Personally I would take K812 and the LCD-X I once owned over the 800 hands down.