Re: Please recommend "in ear monitors"

<jackdawindustries@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:80be5963-01e8-4011-8b80-b0a91b5fa9f6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 24, 6:46 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgee...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"LAB" <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47992b3d$0$16027$5fc30a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Similar to standard AKG sound.
That's hardly a recommendation!

Hmmm... You don't like AKG sound...? (K240)

Nope. I've never heard an AKG headphone that I thought had good sound
-- at any price. The K240 is an especially bad pair of headphones --
colored
and distorted. My review of the K1000 apparently caused AKG to withdraw
them in the US.

Too bad, Mr. Sommerwerck, it sounds like you're proud of this. It's
the second time I've seen you mention this in the last few weeks.

I'm extremely proud of this. This is one of the things a reviewer should
do -- tell the truth about a product. And if causes the product to stop
selling, good.

I reviewed them more than 15 years ago. They were horrible. They honked like
a flight of geese. And I had the waterfall display to prove it. (John
Atkinson dismissed the severe decay resonances as "wall reflections". "Are
you sure you you're doing it correctly?" He said this to me in the presence
of other people.)

Let's put it this way... If the K1000 had cost $25, they would have been a
bad pair of headphones. They were completely unacceptable.


I think the AKG K 1000s, while pigs to drive and deficient in the low
bass, are very good indeed through most of the range and, of course,
unique in the acoustic adjustability they allow. Credit should be
given for the courage to innovate, too.

Yeah, and one could say the same thing about Bose. Innovation is no
guarantee of doing something correctly.

The K1000 was not the first headphone of its type. There was a similar
electrostatic headphone, in which the drivers hung next to the ears. I can't
think of the manufacturer -- Swedish, I believe.

I haven't heard the _current_ version of the K1000. AKG might very well have
fixed the K1000's severe problems. I hope so. But I doubt it, because (in my
experience) AKG has a track record of ZERO in producing acceptable, let
alone "good" headphones. It's hard to believe the K1000 got to market with
such a severe problem.


As to the AKG K240DF, I think you are utterly wrong, and in precisely
those aspects of performance you chose to highlight -- tonality and
distortion! To me, they are notable particularly for their low
coloration (read accurate tonality) and low distortion. Their main
failing, and possibly the major factor in their demise as an AKG
product is their high impedance and consequent fussiness regarding
amplifier. I wonder what amplifier you used in your evaluation.

It's possible I have the K240 confused with another AKG headphone. The one I
reviewed had an oddball driver with multiple pyramidal sub-cones, and was
commonly used as a studio monitor. Julian Hirsch liked it.

It was driven by a Hafler XL-280 through a pad comprising a 10 ohm and a 1
ohm resistor (both wirewound), with the headphones across the 1 ohm
resistor. The pad was used to reduce the sensitivity to a reasonable level
and avoid accidentally damaging the 'phones. It also provided a net source
impedance of about 0.9 ohms which is more consistent with the way headphones
are driven at home.

I don't see why a high-impedance headphone would be unduly sensitive to the
amplifier -- unless the amplifier doesn't "like" hi-Z loads. I don't know of
any that are. And in this case the amplifier "saw" an 11-ohm load.

I also auditioned most headphones using a Discman, to judge how the output
resistor (which was usually 10 ohms or higher) affected the sound of lower-Z
headphones. Most portable audio of that era had this resistor to protect the
output against shorts.


I don't know how you came to your conclusions, but if you have
the influence to claim to have in these matters, you are doing a
disservice "to the masses" (!) in slamming AKG at every trivial
opportunity.

Why shouldn't I slam something that's no good? I wrote for a magazine that,
at one time, was more interested in telling the truth than in not offending
advertisers. (That compliment includes Larry Archibald as well as JGH.)

I'm not exactly an audio ignoramus. I used to do live recording -- of full
orchestra and chamber groups -- not multi-miked studio musicians. I have
_some_ knowledge of what live sound (the only valid reference) is like, how
recording alters it, etc. I don't claim my judgements are always 100%
correct, but I find they're in general agreement with most other
knoweldgeable and experienced listeners.

The AKGs were not only noticeably colored (I don't remember the exact
colorations), but weren't particularly clean. Of all the headphones I
reviewed over several years, they were they _only_ pair that had obvious
distortion. Perhaps I had a bad sample.

Consider this... Have you ever seen a bad review of Sennheiser headphones?
They're few and far between. There is overwhelming agreement that Sennheiser
'phones are basically accurate, generally neutral transducers. If I and most
listeners agree about Sennheiser, doesn't that lend some credence to my
opinions about AKG products?

It's interesting that many not-very-good headphones are championed by
recording engineers, most of whom have no interest in accurate sound
reproduction. The Sony MDR 7605 (I think that's the right model number) is
notorious for its excessive bass. Sony told me, in so many words, that the
bass boost was intentional, because people -- particularly engineers --
liked it. If a recording engineer likes product X, it's pretty certain I
won't.


I like Etymotic ER4Ss, too (very much), and think the AKG 240DF
(now discontinued) is the conventional headphone that comes closest
to matching the qualities that make the ER4S so useful as a tonal
reference and monitoring tool when on location, and such a pleasure
to listen to.

I've never heard Etymotic 'phones, so I can't intelligently comment.
However, I prefer headphones to earphones. Earphones exaggerate the "in your
head" effect, and that's my only significant criticism of the STAX
earphones.


I'd be curious to know what speakers and amplifiers you respect,
William.

I own Apogee Divas and Duetta Signatures. I used to own Krell amplification.
The Krells have been replaced with Parasound, which, with these speakers, I
prefer.

I tend to like "true" planar speakers (Maggies aren't) and electrostatics.
The only cone speakers I've ever really liked, and that I would be happy
owning if I couldn't have planars, were B&Ws.

My all-time favorite speaker is the Hill Plasmatronics, the only speaker
I've ever heard that sounded "real". It's a shame someone doesn't revive it,
with better drivers below 700Hz.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: weird sound problem fc5
    ... headphones plugged in at the same time as 8 Ohm speakers. ... separate, and independent, headphones and speaker amplifiers. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Best studio headphones, $300 or less?
    ... Well no one mixes on headphones for trust anyway. ... My AKGs are a lot thicker down there than the M50. ... bought four pair of M50 for the studio and location work at the end of last ... They will replace my Sony MDR7506 and different AKG 240s. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Headphones reviewed in latest issue of Consumers Digest
    ... using a pair of Sennheiser HD600's when I use headphones -- not very ... And I own a pair based on one of your favorable reviews. ... One of my early headphones a AKG K240 still performs ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Best studio headphones, $300 or less?
    ... kludge@xxxxxxxxx (Scott Dorsey) wrote: ... The problem is that AKG makes several headphones in the 240 ... version of the M that comes with a big price tag. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Headphones for practicing Bass?
    ... I've thought about buying some headphones to use with my Amp so I can practice late at night. ... A pair of AKG K 240's is easily the most bang for the buck in a set of high quality semi-open studio cans. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)