Originally Posted by
Tyll Hertsens /img/forum/go_quote.gifQuote:
It seems I'm far more impressed by the AKG K812 so far than Tyll is. ...I haven't heard the "tizzy" sound Tyll mentioned. That said, the K812 is not a forgiving headphone. I won't comment about how resolving I feel it is vis-à-vis the HD 800, as I don't have that with me now (but will soon). That said, the K812 is, to my ears, capable of very high resolution.
Hi Jude. Just to clarify: I find them a "bit" tizzy. Sounds to me something like there's always a triangle (the instrument) in the treble. I find it modestly fatiguing. I will also say though the I find the overall balance of the K812 better than the HD800, which to me lacks a little warmth in the bass.
The three-pin cable connector indicates to me that AKG doesn't get, or isn't trying to impress this market yet.
I still think it's a good effort on their part, lots of things like the aluminum build and novel earpads to admire, and I think these are markedly better sounding than the T1. But I think in the rush to the top (read: building $1000+ headphones) sonic performance in the market is not yet on par with the build quality these companies are putting into the product. I'd lump the HD800 into that category as well; seems like everyone agrees that they're a problematic headphone. Seems to me that the Audeze LCD-X is probably the closest to delivering a high price/performance ratio, but even there I feel we're well onto the steep diminishing returns curve.
In my estimation we're still in the infancy of ultra-high-end ($1000+) headphones, and it will be another 5 years before we really start seeing the performance of these cans strongly better than sub-$1000 headphones.
In other words: Price
still doesn't reflect acoustic performance on the whole, and the K812, T1, HD800, LCD-X, and others have plenty of room for improvement.
