Featured Sponsor Listings

The NEW KOSS PRO4AAA Titanium

May 25, 2006 at 9:32 PM Post #32 of 83
Hold up, guys . . . and ponder this:

I am the former owner of a pair of circa 1975 Koss Pro 4AAAs (the ancester of the 4AAT) . I gave my pair away to my daughter who liked them because they were closed cans.

What I find missing from this thread (and which all of you guys who are considering buying a pair should think about), is a discussion of these cans biggest drawback: their weight.

They are extremely heavy, industrial strength cans (especially if they still have the thingy on the side for the microphone attachment). I believe that they were designed to be used in the broadcasting/recording industry (hence the "Pro" in their title). They become extremely fatiguing after even a short time of wearing them.

I imagine the Titanium version may be somewhat lighter in weight than the metal they were using in 1975, but I'd still be leary about purchasing them.

I visited the Koss web site and found that they don't list the weight of either the Pro 4AA or the Pro 4AAT models.

Also, regarding the ear pads, the old pads were vinyl and filled with an oily substance. I know because my pads broke and split open on one or two occasions. You can ship them back to Koss and they'll fit them with new pads at no cost. It's nice to know in this crass and craven world that Koss really does honor their lifetime guarantee.

The Pro 4AAAs were an extremely hot can "back in the day," but that was before many of the European brands such as Sennheiser, Beyer, and AKG were widely available in the US. Also, before the advent of open cans. I would imagine that they've updated the drivers after all these years, so I won't offer an opinion on the sound quality. But I would worry about the weight, since the basic design seems to have changed little.
 
May 25, 2006 at 10:02 PM Post #33 of 83
May 26, 2006 at 12:21 AM Post #36 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by Naga
the koss 4AA-T had the same drivers as the old-old-school 4AA, but with titanium coated diaphrams

its my guess they are again updated for the 4AAA-T


True, but the Pro4AA T's don't sound like the old ones. The mids are sweet and they sound more transparent.

TheSloth---You better keep us updated on the MV1's.
wink.gif
 
May 26, 2006 at 12:24 AM Post #37 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by Meyvn
I just think anything with those pads feel awful. They just get greasy and disgusting really quickly, and in no way do I find them comfortable. I'd take the awful Grado bowl comfortability over these Koss ones anyday.


I have to agree...they look sweaty.

Peace,

Graz
 
May 26, 2006 at 1:22 AM Post #39 of 83
May 26, 2006 at 5:46 AM Post #40 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanE49
Hold up, guys . . . and ponder this:

I am the former owner of a pair of circa 1975 Koss Pro 4AAAs (the ancester of the 4AAT) . I gave my pair away to my daughter who liked them because they were closed cans.

What I find missing from this thread (and which all of you guys who are considering buying a pair should think about), is a discussion of these cans biggest drawback: their weight.

They are extremely heavy, industrial strength cans (especially if they still have the thingy on the side for the microphone attachment). I believe that they were designed to be used in the broadcasting/recording industry (hence the "Pro" in their title). They become extremely fatiguing after even a short time of wearing them.

I imagine the Titanium version may be somewhat lighter in weight than the metal they were using in 1975, but I'd still be leary about purchasing them.

I visited the Koss web site and found that they don't list the weight of either the Pro 4AA or the Pro 4AAT models.

Also, regarding the ear pads, the old pads were vinyl and filled with an oily substance. I know because my pads broke and split open on one or two occasions. You can ship them back to Koss and they'll fit them with new pads at no cost. It's nice to know in this crass and craven world that Koss really does honor their lifetime guarantee.

The Pro 4AAAs were an extremely hot can "back in the day," but that was before many of the European brands such as Sennheiser, Beyer, and AKG were widely available in the US. Also, before the advent of open cans. I would imagine that they've updated the drivers after all these years, so I won't offer an opinion on the sound quality. But I would worry about the weight, since the basic design seems to have changed little.


Lot of mistakes in this post. the old ones are the Pro4AA and are closed .These new ones are open and have a differenet driver grille for the desired sound.The titanium is only a 2mm vaporised coating over the mylar driver.Nothing to do with the enclosure.
And no i dont find them heavy at all. You wouldnt either if you had a strong neck and trap's. Excercise.

10 Kg laptops ?? Bring them on !
 
May 26, 2006 at 1:31 PM Post #41 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanE49
Hold up, guys . . . and ponder this:

I am the former owner of a pair of circa 1975 Koss Pro 4AAAs (the ancester of the 4AAT) . I gave my pair away to my daughter who liked them because they were closed cans.

What I find missing from this thread (and which all of you guys who are considering buying a pair should think about), is a discussion of these cans biggest drawback: their weight.

They are extremely heavy, industrial strength cans (especially if they still have the thingy on the side for the microphone attachment). I believe that they were designed to be used in the broadcasting/recording industry (hence the "Pro" in their title). They become extremely fatiguing after even a short time of wearing them.

I imagine the Titanium version may be somewhat lighter in weight than the metal they were using in 1975, but I'd still be leary about purchasing them.

I visited the Koss web site and found that they don't list the weight of either the Pro 4AA or the Pro 4AAT models.

Also, regarding the ear pads, the old pads were vinyl and filled with an oily substance. I know because my pads broke and split open on one or two occasions. You can ship them back to Koss and they'll fit them with new pads at no cost. It's nice to know in this crass and craven world that Koss really does honor their lifetime guarantee.

The Pro 4AAAs were an extremely hot can "back in the day," but that was before many of the European brands such as Sennheiser, Beyer, and AKG were widely available in the US. Also, before the advent of open cans. I would imagine that they've updated the drivers after all these years, so I won't offer an opinion on the sound quality. But I would worry about the weight, since the basic design seems to have changed little.



I could be wrong, but I imagine that just time in itself has taken care of the weight issue. Most older cans were heavy, but modern materials and design has shed most of that weight from new headphones.
 
May 26, 2006 at 3:16 PM Post #42 of 83
Regarding the "errors" in my post, I wasn't claiming to have direct knowledge of the more recent/latest models. And I would expect that Koss has updated their materials in the past 30 or so years, and is using lighter weight components.

But the basic design of the cans is the same as it was for the Pro 4AA/4AAAs of the mid-70s. Also, it's curious that Koss no longer posts the weight of the cans on their web site; they used to do this.

Admittedly, those of you who have had experience with the newer models will be able to comment more "accurately" about this issue. I just raised it as a caution and something to think about before purchasing a pair. Judging from one of the previous posts about the pads on the recent models, that aspect of the design and materials appears to have changed little.
 
May 26, 2006 at 4:03 PM Post #43 of 83
I have both the original ones from the '70's and the new ones (AA's BTW) and the new ones are cosiderably lighter. They weigh 1.2 lbs including the box and packaging, the cans with the coiled cord, and a beautiful velveteen sack (heavy) to store them in.

But I repeat myself in saying, that the veiled sound quality sounds as if you are listening to them while they are still in the velveteen sack.
basshead.gif
 
May 26, 2006 at 5:02 PM Post #44 of 83
Agreed. The Pro4aat are well made but the sound is veiled. When playing those tightly recorded DG piano albums, the midrange is not clear at all. The driver, however, seems to be of high quality. (It's hard to explain, but sometimes, you just know that the driver is not cheap.) It's like having good V8 bad configured in a car. I returned my Pro4aat last week. From reading the spec, I think that Pro4aaat use the same driver as Pro4aat.

When I got my UR40 , the sound was also veiled, with boomy bass. However, after replacing the foam behind the driver with cotton balls (so that there is no air space for the bass to reflect/boom while the high frequency is not absorbed as much as before) and sealing the metal grills with duct tape (if you cover your open phones with your hands, you will find out that there will much less bass boom), my UR40 now sound like refined KSC75 -- better soundstage, minimum mid-bass boom, and no piercing highs. If Pro4aaat sound like Pro4aat, the same procedure can be applied to Pro4aaat too. And since the driver is bigger and better (IMO) than the driver in US40, the sound should be much better.
 
May 26, 2006 at 5:20 PM Post #45 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker
I have both the original ones from the '70's and the new ones (AA's BTW) and the new ones are cosiderably lighter. They weigh 1.2 lbs including the box and packaging, the cans with the coiled cord, and a beautiful velveteen sack (heavy) to store them in.

But I repeat myself in saying, that the veiled sound quality sounds as if you are listening to them while they are still in the velveteen sack.
basshead.gif



What you consider as veil is accuracy to others like me. Ever heard an all thx certified system in an audio-meant room ? Its sounds veiled like its supposed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top