1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

New AKG K92, K72 and K52 Closed-Back Headphones

Discussion in 'Headphones (full-size)' started by fastandclean, Feb 15, 2016.
First
 
Back
1
3 4
Next
 
Last
  1. quantumhavi
    I tried this cans, and I must say that the Audio Technica ATH-M30X sounds better in my ears. The sound of AKG K92 lacks clarity and depth, at least for my ears, and in my opinion, the M30X delivers that clarity and depth that I am looking for :))
     
    Is it fun to listen to AKG K92? Certainly yes! But I would highly recommend the M30X over the K92. But design-wise, the AKG K92 looks DOPE! :)
     
    The AKG K92 will definitely sound better than your bundled headphones from your phone. However, you may find the sound of AKG K92 "unexciting" as it is tuned for studio monitoring (same with M30X), which has a flat response. If you are looking for more "exciting" sound, try the AKG Y50 :)
     
  2. tdockweiler
    I bought a pair of K52's yesterday at guitar center for $30. First headphone purchase in years I think.
    Out of the box I just connected them to my Sansa Fuze. Wasn't impressed and felt like I wasted my money.
     
    They sounded clear, but a bit tinny/thin and lacking bass. Nothing too offensive overall.
    I then tried from my PC headphone jack (which supposedly has some headphone amp in it) and it was a little better.
     
    About 5 hours later I amped it to my O2 and was pretty shocked by how much better it sounded! I was pretty amazed!
    I used my Fuze as a source still.
     
    All my music sounds pretty close to the way it should. It doesn't have much low bass, but there is some there, but it's very low in volume.
    These actually sound like a decent ultra budget studio monitor headphone. Pretty balanced sounding overall.
     
    On good tracks the crystal clear sound clarity almost gave me goosebumps. Not sure how such a cheap headphone could sound so clear!
     
    Well worth the $30! Even worth the full retail.
     
    My O2 is using some OPA2227 op-amps.
     
    The headphone well amped isn't thin sounding now really at all. It could sound even better with a warmer sounding amp.
    Maybe the E9 or a tube amp.
     
    BTW they have less bass than the K240 Studio..
     
    Has anyone compared the K92 or K72 to the K52? I'm thinking of trying the K92 since it has better pads.
     
    trellus likes this.
  3. donunus
    I am looking at the k72 myself. Better pads than the k52 and it doesn't have that offensive gold headband of the k92 [​IMG]
     
  4. donunus
    just got the k72. Crap out of the box. Not for Audiophiles. Nice bass, no distortion, but recessed mids and highs hav a little peak but not an annoying one. If the mids go up a little it would be fine. No contest against the k240s except these are so easy to drive. Burning it in now out of the Geek Out 1000. I'll check later whether they improve with some burn in.
     
  5. tdockweiler
    Haha, I got my K92 in today too. "Crap out of the box" sounds like my experience too so far.
    This is one headphone where i'm having a hard time describing it's sound! Luckily I only paid $60USD for it. I got my K52 for $30!
     
    First impression was that some things sounded way too distant when they shouldn't be. The bass on this one is so bloated that it ruins even something from the Buena Vista Social Club (chan chan) and the bass seems to make the whole song sound so unclear/muffled.
     
    Then at the same time they are very harsh and some vocals sound very shouty. I'm thinking it's the low mids.
     
    The bass on these is not good on these at all. Not very well controlled or accurate.
     
    At the moment i'm hoping they will get better after some use or switching some sources/amps around. Maybe i'll leave them playing overnight.
     
    The K52 is pretty impressive, but the K92 right now is awful. Maybe it's the pads? I should try swapping them out. The K52 is actually pretty neutral, but the K92 is not even close.
     
    The K52 has much cheaper pads. The K92 seems to have a lot more clamp, but it could be due to thicker pads.
     
    Hard to believe the K92 is worse than the cheapest model!
     
    trellus likes this.
  6. tdockweiler
    I checked the inside of the K52 and K92. The drivers are definitely different.
     
    The K92 driver has a small hole in the front and a vent hole in the back. The K52 doesn't.
     
    While listening to the K92 for a half hour or so I was so disgusted with it's terrible sound that I put the K92 pads on my K52.
    K52 sounds a little better with the pad upgrade.
     
    I taped off the K92 back vent hole (near the middle of the magnet?) and there's now a night and day difference to be honest.
    The bass is better than the K52 now, but it's still not better sounding overall. Those shouty mids are gone, but now there is not enough treble.
    The sound is not crystal clear like the K52.
     
    K52 definitely is a steal at $30! Sounds closer to a $100 headphone like the KRK KNS-6400.
     
    I seriously cannot understand how anyone at AKG could put on the K92 and think it's an upgrade to the K52.
    Maybe they just went by it's rated specs and features.
     
    The K92 sounds like a really bad $30 headphone..
     
    I'll give it 24 hours+ of burn in, but I doubt it will change much at all.
     
    trellus likes this.
  7. donunus
    so the k52 sounded even better with the k92 pads? and the k92 sounded worse with the k52 pads?
     
  8. donunus
    oh when I said nice bass I meant punchy without distorting but definition is not there nor am I expecting it to be at this price range
     
  9. tdockweiler
    I gave the K92 12 hours total of burn in. The bass seems a tad better, but of course the same general sound signature.
    Bloated bass and not really smooth sounding. Just annoying to listen to.
     
    I really hate this headphone! The K52 is just so good for the price.
     
    The K92 doesn't seem to improve much with the K52 pads.
     
    So I wasted $60 on another crappy headphone, but at least I got some new pads for my K52!
     
    These were the first headphones i've bought in over 2 years I think. I ran out of money and settled on my perfect headphones (HD-650/Q701 bass modded and DJ100).
     
    Thinking I'll stop buying more and just get a grado SR-225. Been wanting another one of those for a long time.
     
    trellus likes this.
  10. FastAndClean
    AKG_K92_All_-_-_HDM-X_-_90_20-20k_-_fr_impedance.png
     
  11. FastAndClean
    AKG_K72_All_-_-_HDM-X_-_90_20-20k_-_fr_impedance.png
     
  12. tommo21
    Not much happening in this thread, but after the 5 star review in What Hifi of the K52's I had to try them out. Been using them for around 5 hours since this morning and my goodness. These are great little cheap cans...or..they are not that little. They sound a bit closed in on low volume I think, but when turning the volume up a notch or two they really sing. Maybe they need a 20-30 hours of burn-in, but I think they're really a steal for this price.
     
    trellus likes this.
  13. tdogzthmn
    I'm also looking at the K52 for a headphone to use straight out the phono jack on my MacBook Pro.  Right now I'm getting by with my 600ohm K240DF which has a great natural sound but clearly the laptop struggles to power this headphone.
     
    Additionally, I am looking at the ATH-M50x which is more portable and has swappable cables.
     
    Drop Stay updated on Drop at their sponsor page on Head-Fi.
     
    https://www.facebook.com/massdrop https://twitter.com/massdrop https://www.massdrop.com/?clickid=3QR3Ib27lyA-VkBRJwyGuQJeUkhUQvX5r0tLzQ0&utm_term=252901&utm_content=VigLink&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=impactradius&irgwc=1
  14. tdogzthmn
    Ended up ordering a pair of the K52 since they were so inexpensive.  I think they will look nice compared to my K240DF and K400 headphones which have been favorites of mine.  Previously I had the K550 but was never very fond of its sound signature.  Hopefully the K52 will work better for me.  Once I've gotten some listening time with them I'll post my impressions!
     
    Drop Stay updated on Drop at their sponsor page on Head-Fi.
     
    https://www.facebook.com/massdrop https://twitter.com/massdrop https://www.massdrop.com/?clickid=3QR3Ib27lyA-VkBRJwyGuQJeUkhUQvX5r0tLzQ0&utm_term=252901&utm_content=VigLink&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=impactradius&irgwc=1
  15. tdogzthmn
    Got my K52's in yesterday and started using them this morning.
     
    Initially I did a quick comparison with my K400 and K240DF just to get a starting reference point.  Currently the K52 have a more metallic and peaky treble but I'm hoping this will soften with more use but overall a promising first listen.  The sound stage is smaller than the K400 but seems close to the K240DF.  It is also a more neutral and flat sound also similar to the K240DF but come off as plasticky where the K240DF is very natural and even.  At 32 ohms they are much easier to drive and work great from my laptop which is primarily what I will use for listening.  Bass was also fairly impressive on the K52 and manages to portray the deeper notes without cluttering the mids.  Overall these headphones seem very promising and really set the bar high for being around $30.
     
    Drop Stay updated on Drop at their sponsor page on Head-Fi.
     
    https://www.facebook.com/massdrop https://twitter.com/massdrop https://www.massdrop.com/?clickid=3QR3Ib27lyA-VkBRJwyGuQJeUkhUQvX5r0tLzQ0&utm_term=252901&utm_content=VigLink&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=impactradius&irgwc=1
First
 
Back
1
3 4
Next
 
Last

Share This Page