TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- AKG K240's - are these really studio phones?

AKG K240's - are these really studio phones?

So I got the AKG K240 studio headphones gifted to me a few days ago and immediately i took them for a spin. Before this, I've been using the Sennheizer HD280's for approx. 5 years, and the very first thing I noticed was the incredibly deep and booming bass response on the K240's. I thought it was just my poorly mastered tracks, but I played a lot of different stuff on them - from professional trance, to industry-name hip-hop, to the Killers. Everything seemed to have a bit *too much* bass. This got me questioning - are these truly professional studio headphones, or are the K240's just fancy recreational phones? These headphones basically made every track sound like i was playing it with winamp's "Trance" Equalizer setting loaded (aka. the 'smile' frequency spectrum).

I'm a bit confused here because I always see the K240's being praised around the production forum and people swear by them. Is it just a matter of getting used to? I'm willing to invest the time to learn their sound and get adjusted to them, but i want to be sure that i'm adjusting to the correct thing.

edit:

hmm doesn't looke like i'm dreaming
http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=423&graphID[]=213

Since most club systems follow this curve the 240s probably make it easier to make stuff sound good on a club system.

Also, if the mids are overhyped, the song will sound better on cheaper systems which can only reproduce mids and not bass.

I'm just guessing here, but it makes sense to me.

I find they complement monitors perfectly because they allow you to hear more of this low end. At least that's how it is for me.

You need a bit of time to adjust to them, I know I did.

I took me at least 2-3 days to properly adjust to mine. Afterwards, you will swear by them.

Re: AKG K240's - are these really studio phones?

quote:

Originally posted by StanVoid These headphones basically made every track sound like i was playing it with winamp's "Trance" Equalizer setting loaded (aka. the 'smile' frequency spectrum).

Funny, I thought the same about the HD-280 headphones. They have very exaggerated mids and too "punchy" bass compared to the AKGs and my monitors. The AKGs IMO have a more natural sound.
It takes some time to get used to. Also keep in mind that they have a burn-in period, and after that they will improve.

I just gt mine and The sound is so natural but as B_man said it will take some time to get used to

I noticed the same thing. Sony MDR headphones are a lot more natural sounding.

how big a difference one day can make! You guys were absolutely right - last night was my second night using the AKG's and I already noticed how much more natural sounding they are. As someone already mentioned, I find them to be the perfect complement to my monitors (dynaudio bm5a's), because they really expose everything (down to 15Hz!!!) going on in the low end. I put on my old Sennheizer HD280's afterwards just to remember what my old headphones sounded like, and it felt like my hands got tied behind my back. I couldn't hear much of the lows, the highs were through the roof, and the mids were actually boosted too high as well.

So there you have it, I also testify now - the AKG's are def. the way to go.

quote:

Originally posted by StanVoid So there you have it, I also testify now - the AKG's are def. the way to go.

Maybe I needs to get myself a pair, then...

Having multiple monitoring sources is always a good thing, though. So don't throw out the HD280s. Keep them as a third reference.

quote:

Originally posted by alanzo Maybe I needs to get myself a pair, then... Having multiple monitoring sources is always a good thing, though. So don't throw out the HD280s. Keep them as a third reference.

the hd280's have served me for way too long to just throw them away - they're sticking around that's for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by StanVoid how big a difference one day can make! You guys were absolutely right - last night was my second night using the AKG's and I already noticed how much more natural sounding they are. As someone already mentioned, I find them to be the perfect complement to my monitors (dynaudio bm5a's), because they really expose everything (down to 15Hz!!!) going on in the low end. I put on my old Sennheizer HD280's afterwards just to remember what my old headphones sounded like, and it felt like my hands got tied behind my back. I couldn't hear much of the lows, the highs were through the roof, and the mids were actually boosted too high as well. So there you have it, I also testify now - the AKG's are def. the way to go.

Funny you say that because I mentioned they complement my monitors perfectly and yet I have the Dynaudio BM5a's as well

after 4 days I must commit that they are F***ing great

Damn, now you got me to want to change out my 280's for a pair of AKG's aswell.

Re: AKG K240's - are these really studio phones?

quote:

Originally posted by StanVoid So I got the AKG K240 studio headphones gifted to me a few days ago and immediately i took them for a spin. Before this, I've been using the Sennheizer HD280's for approx. 5 years, and the very first thing I noticed was the incredibly deep and booming bass response on the K240's. I thought it was just my poorly mastered tracks, but I played a lot of different stuff on them - from professional trance, to industry-name hip-hop, to the Killers. Everything seemed to have a bit *too much* bass. This got me questioning - are these truly professional studio headphones, or are the K240's just fancy recreational phones? These headphones basically made every track sound like i was playing it with winamp's "Trance" Equalizer setting loaded (aka. the 'smile' frequency spectrum). I'm a bit confused here because I always see the K240's being praised around the production forum and people swear by them. Is it just a matter of getting used to? I'm willing to invest the time to learn their sound and get adjusted to them, but i want to be sure that i'm adjusting to the correct thing. edit: hmm doesn't looke like i'm dreaming http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=423&graphID[]=213

K240's are studio headphones, so they should have a completely flat sound. The Frequency Range is listed as 15 Hz to 25,000 Hz. That's flat as flat can be. They shouldn't be exaggerating any frequencies, bass, midrange, ect, you wouldn't want that. They probably sound "bassy" because you've never heard truly flat studio heaphones.

I'd like to give K240's a try sometime. Guess I'll have to get down to a brick and mortar music store again, been a while.

quote:

Originally posted by StanVoid

That was fun. I was trying to post, and it was just hanging there for 5 minutes, so I clicked post 20 times. Guess one shouldn't do that.

Re: Re: AKG K240's - are these really studio phones?

quote:

Originally posted by zodiac9 K240's are studio headphones, so they should have a completely flat sound. The Frequency Range is listed as 15 Hz to 25,000 Hz. That's flat as flat can be. They shouldn't be exaggerating any frequencies, bass, midrange, ect, you wouldn't want that. They probably sound "bassy" because you've never heard truly flat studio heaphones. I'd like to give K240's a try sometime. Guess I'll have to get down to a brick and mortar music store again, been a while.

The frequency range doesn't neccesarily mean that the phones are "flat", it just means they extend down that far. There could still be bumps in the frequency response.
But I suspect that you're right in what you say this time, most people aren't used to hearing so large a range and most cheaper phones reproduce mostly mid frequencies since they are "easier" to reproduce.

I think you just got the record for the most number of posts saying the same thing too

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.