We haven't come as far in 30 years as we should have: my experience with a NOS pair of AKG K340's

[Graphicism]

Quote:

I don't think we have. For one thing, headphones from that era were much better built. Metal, screws, tough headbands...solid.

Over 30 years ago we saw Sony Bulk Mould Compound used as a diaphragm in the Z6, a little later organically grown natural fiber bio-cellulose diaphragms in the CD3000... Today if there's so much as a piece of metal on the diaphragm it's sold as a statement, top-of-the-line headphone. When people continue to buy crap (Bose, Beats) manufacturers will continue to produce them and charge $1,000 for your standard yesteryear headphone and likewise people continue to buy them; HD800, T1 and so on.

 

[rhythmdevils]

thank god for the LCD-2.  Has the potential to be the only modern headphone that technically improves on older designs from the 70's. 

 

[haloxt]

Graphicism, the MDR-R10 was their first headphone to use that diaphragm technology, and it cost a lot. Using Sony again as an example, they make all sorts of technological advances every few years in headphones. Just look at the 3hz lower FR limit of the XB700, it must hold the title for lowest FR spec. And the Sony qualia 010 holds the title of highest FR spec, 120khz. The problem with such high frequency response is probably it's "too-precise", like the English of those Indian customer service representatives . I do think higher fidelity/neutral headphones can be very unforgiving (even to components in itself), but other than that, I very much disagree with people who say headphones today are bad compared to decades ago.
 
But something I do think has changed in the past few decades is that recording quality has become utterly crap for many albums, and our power grid is much degraded from overworking, switching mode power supplies, and fluorescent lights.

 

[rhythmdevils]

your example of technological improvements is a headphone extending beyond what the human ear can hear?  so what you're saying is that you can't hear the difference between the tech of today and the tech of the 70's. 

 
Even if this is true, I would argue that it is more important how the phone sounds in the audible range.  and niether the XB700, or the Qualia sounds any better than my Fostex T10 or K240 Sextett.  IMO of course. 
 
I also don't think that unforgiving/neutral = harsh.  Neutral means rich, euphonic, extended, and linear. 
 
ok, i'm done

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

Graphicism, the MDR-R10 was their first headphone to use that diaphragm technology, and it cost a lot. Using Sony again as an example, they make all sorts of technological advances every few years in headphones. Just look at the 3hz lower FR limit of the XB700, it must hold the title for lowest FR spec. And the Sony qualia 010 holds the title of highest FR spec, 120khz. The problem with such high frequency response is probably it's "too-precise", like the English of those Indian customer service representatives . I do think higher fidelity/neutral headphones can be very unforgiving (even to components in itself), but other than that, I very much disagree with people who say headphones today are bad compared to decades ago.

I believe there is a fine line between headphone improvements and marketing which 3Hz most surely is. The XB700 for instance doesn't extend as a low as the Ultrasone HFI-780 which is rated at 10Hz, the XB range simply plays the bass at a louder volume so that it is more prominent, perhaps this could fool the Hz test, then again it could be all marketing BS. This theory if you will almost applies with the Sony SA5000 which uses the same driver (I think) as the 010, it doesn't extend further, the highs are simply played at a slightly louder volume.
 
Ask yourself how much the R10 sold for back in the day, how much is sells for today and then look at how many people believe this is the best headphone ever made. My point being headphones of 30 years ago were built with audio in mind, while headphones of today are built for the masses. Denon D2000 reference, D5000 ultra reference, there is nothing reference about them! CD's are getting lounder, R&B/hiphop dominates the charts, it's no longer about the music just the beat.

 

[ford2]

 
 
 
 
 
Not much use in the headphone industry going on the upward path,when the recording industry is going on the downward path.

 

[anadin]

Congratulations on a beautiful pair of headphones.

 

[tdogzthmn]

Where can I get a K340?

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

your example of technological improvements is a headphone extending beyond what the human ear can hear?  so what you're saying is that you can't hear the difference between the tech of today and the tech of the 70's. 

 
Even if this is true, I would argue that it is more important how the phone sounds in the audible range.  and niether the XB700, or the Qualia sounds any better than my Fostex T10 or K240 Sextett.  IMO of course. 
 
I also don't think that unforgiving/neutral = harsh.  Neutral means rich, euphonic, extended, and linear. 
 
ok, i'm done

Someone before me said that the frequency response today is similar to the past, so I brought that up. Lazy as I am, I just directed the comment to Graphicism. I would say that more unforgiving headphones, mainly studio ones, will take the garbage from a bad source and amplify it perfectly for your ears. Less true-to-source headphones/speakers will cover that up, and defacto sound better. Studio headphones are designed to bring out flaws, while many audiophile headphones are designed to sound euphonic. If you get a studio headphone and try to use it for musical enjoyment you are bound to be seriously disappointed. And I think this is a very common mistake.
 
 
 
Quote:

I believe there is a fine line between headphone improvements and marketing which 3Hz most surely is. The XB700 for instance doesn't extend as a low as the Ultrasone HFI-780 which is rated at 10Hz, the XB range simply plays the bass at a louder volume so that it is more prominent, perhaps this could fool the Hz test, then again it could be all marketing BS. This theory if you will almost applies with the Sony SA5000 which uses the same driver (I think) as the 010, it doesn't extend further, the highs are simply played at a slightly louder volume.
 
Ask yourself how much the R10 sold for back in the day, how much is sells for today and then look at how many people believe this is the best headphone ever made. My point being headphones of 30 years ago were built with audio in mind, while headphones of today are built for the masses. Denon D2000 reference, D5000 ultra reference, there is nothing reference about them! CD's are getting lounder, R&B/hiphop dominates the charts, it's no longer about the music just the beat.

You don't hear 3hz, you feel it. I have read the literature Sony puts out for the XB700 and they don't glorify the 3hz lower limit, they give more importance to the "King sized ear cushions". Anyway I think if they tried explaining the auditory benefits of subsonic frequencies (despite <20hz being cut out in most recording and reproduction equipment) people would eventually find out its more viable as a torture device.
 
The SA5000 and Qualia 010 have different drivers but uses the same technology. They don't really advertise the auditory benefits of ultrasonic frequencies, except one part where they said it can do the full spectrum of SACD. And I know most high frequencies we are conscious of go away after 15khz so practically speaking you could say the Sa5000 doesn't "extend further", but it won't be true if you were playing music to bats (assuming you use expensive equipment to capture all those supersonic frequencies). But still, you can't say Sony hasn't made progress in the last few decades. And not all headphones are made for the "masses", some cater solely to the studio, but people have the bad habit of buying them and wondering why it is revealing the flaws in their recordings and/or audio system. It's because they were designed to.

 

[paaj]

Just got a K340 that my grandfather used to watch TV. Sadly the headbandadjuster is broken so it is kept together by tape, but it does sound good indeed. Very enjoyable sound, certainly one of the better headphones around, but have not really taken the time to listen critically. For digital piano use it is not as good as the ESW10 and first tries suggest it is not up to the Staxes for normal listening. My housemate is now using them and they're blowing him away, so I'll have to give them another try later.
 
I did read about using the K340 with a speaker amp to power them 'properly', is this using the speaker outputs?  I've tried them out of the PM7001ki headphone output, which is pretty good, but I'm open to experiments

 

[Skylab]

I've never tried K340 with a speaker amp, and since the pair I have now is so pristine I am not hacking it's cable apart

 
But I am sure others can comment on that.
 
@tdogzthmn - you have to look for a used pair.

 

[BushGuy]

I bought my stock k340 off of eBay Deutschland for $112 IN 2007,  IIRC.
 
The day they arrived I plugged them into my speaker amp (solely because it was the handiest amp with real power).  I was supposed to have left the house.......but couldn't pull myself away and continued to listen.   
They are still here.

 

[tdogzthmn]

I saw some for sale on ebay.de but I speak no German!  I sent out messages asking if they can ship to the US.  I have been really interested in this headphone for a few months.  I think its great how AKG used to be so innovative in their designs, sadly it does not look like they are quite as daring as they used to be.  Its also possible that modern dynamic headphones have gotten better with advancements in material and manufacturing capabilities. 
 
If anyone speaks German let me know if they can help find me a K340!

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

You don't hear 3hz, you feel it. I have read the literature Sony puts out for the XB700 and they don't glorify the 3hz lower limit, they give more importance to the "King sized ear cushions". Anyway I think if they tried explaining the auditory benefits of subsonic frequencies (despite <20hz being cut out in most recording and reproduction equipment) people would eventually find out its more viable as a torture device.
 
The SA5000 and Qualia 010 have different drivers but uses the same technology. They don't really advertise the auditory benefits of ultrasonic frequencies, except one part where they said it can do the full spectrum of SACD. And I know most high frequencies we are conscious of go away after 15khz so practically speaking you could say the Sa5000 doesn't "extend further", but it won't be true if you were playing music to bats (assuming you use expensive equipment to capture all those supersonic frequencies). But still, you can't say Sony hasn't made progress in the last few decades. And not all headphones are made for the "masses", some cater solely to the studio, but people have the bad habit of buying them and wondering why it is revealing the flaws in their recordings and/or audio system. It's because they were designed to.

Yes I know, I'm saying it's nothing but marketing using the Ultrasone HFI-780 (10Hz) as a comparative example. To reiterate I don't believe the XB700 produce 3Hz, I don't think they even produce 20Hz simply because I've heard headphones that produce deeper bass. As far as marketing there are 2 types of people, the casual listener looking for "King sized ear cushions" and the tech savvy listener looking at the specs.
 
Similarly the same goes for the SA5000 (I haven't heard the Q010) they extend to 100kHz but aren't as detailed as my 30 year old Z6 which are rated at 25kHz, the SA5K simply have a louder high end, not a more detailed one. That said the SA5k are my favorite production headphone to date, I'm just using them as an example. I do think we have made some progress in 30 years, I'm sure the HD800 and T1 are special but look at the price they demand.

 

[rds]

Assuming a 2% inflation rate it would cost $498 in today's dollars