AKG K240... Muddy? To much bass? Crap? Me?

[Silence]

I AM STUPID! or im a genious....any way

I got the AKG K240 yesterday and i went from the Genelec 8020s to the AKG´s and at first i found them muddy. And i know that the 8020s only go to about 66 hz (balls, i know its just balls...) and the AKGs are said to go to 15hz and crap....

What i felt were that the genelecs were clear and crisp but i didnt get that feeling with the AKG. So what im wondering is, do i have to adjust or are the AKG 240s muddy?... I´d never mix using only the cans or the monitors but id like to be able to work at night and not having to re-do everything the day after....

ohh, i should add that when i tried them in the store, they sounded flat and ok... the tracks i listened to werent anything i was used to but it was a mix of oldies and psy trance and so on, genres im familiar with. But here they sound wierd...


domo for the anwsers


BTW, are the AKG K271 better?

[bosonHavoc]

arrrg lol

i'm waiting on the ups van to drop off my new cans.
i ordered some akg k271's
i hate and love the waitng for the ups van days.


maybe your hearing more of whats going on in the low end so it sounds muddy.

but thats just a guess.

(if you want i'll let you know what i think of the 271's when they come in)

[Silence]

id love it

i tried them in the store, but i mean, i thought the k240s sounded different there to so i cant trust my ears....

i know what your saying but i´ve heard alot of tracks know i still find it a bit muddy...so im not sure

[Sales Dude McBoob]

The 240s sound uniquely different than any other headphone to me. I used to own a pair, they were the first serious headphones I bought.

I don't like them at all.

Some people swear by them. The people who swear by them are 100% right. The people who hate them are also 100% right.

If you can, I would suggest returning them. Trust your instincts.

I don't love the 271 either. Oddly enough, I totally and wildly love the K 171.

[Silence]

Mr. Sales Dude McBoob sir, what do use suggest then in the same price range?...around 100 Euros? whats that, like $150?...

the reason i love the Genelecs are that their crisp, clear and the stereo width is....incredible...the 8020´s are the best i´ve heard in that size but the 240s...i dont know...

[orgul]

I AM STUPID! or im a genious....any way

I got the AKG K240 yesterday and i went from the Genelec 8020s to the AKG´s and at first i found them muddy. And i know that the 8020s only go to about 66 hz (balls, i know its just balls...) and the AKGs are said to go to 15hz and crap....

What i felt were that the genelecs were clear and crisp but i didnt get that feeling with the AKG. So what im wondering is, do i have to adjust or are the AKG 240s muddy?... I´d never mix using only the cans or the monitors but id like to be able to work at night and not having to re-do everything the day after....

ohh, i should add that when i tried them in the store, they sounded flat and ok... the tracks i listened to werent anything i was used to but it was a mix of oldies and psy trance and so on, genres im familiar with. But here they sound wierd...


domo for the anwsers


BTW, are the AKG K271 better?

funny how different people hear. I do like the 240's for the clear high and mid's but in the bottom range find them not vey usefull.
what i can say about the 271 is that they are more consumer style. ultra enhanced bass, more mudd = good for the ipod...

[Silence]

i agree, thats why i always recommend that ppl listen to the monitors they buy, we react to different frequencies...well...differently. What sounds good to me sound like crap to the next person. But when it comes to cans, i have no idea... no prior experience to fall back on

I got recommended to get a pair of Sennheiser HD25 SP... apparently they´re a cheaper version of the HD25´s, any one used them?...


ohh i just read that they only go up to 16khz...seriously?

[hoffman2k]

I moved into a building where my neighbors are composers, engineers and mixers.

From that I've learned that my akg k271 sounds very close to their Dynaudio monitors setup. Also learned that any other AKG headphones either sound muddy or too sharp.
The only other set of headphones I got my eye on now is the K271 mark II.
Don't need them at the moment, but I'm wondering how they match up to the Mark I and a calibrated monitoring system.

K271 rocks

[blaugruen7]

i have the k240 and bought the audio technica m50 jut days ago.
the m50 is a closed headphone and to me has more detail and much much deeper bass than the k240.

[icedsushi]

funny how different people hear. I do like the 240's for the clear high and mid's but in the bottom range find them not vey usefull.
what i can say about the 271 is that they are more consumer style. ultra enhanced bass, more mudd = good for the ipod...

Yes, is funny how different people hear. On headphone.com they're saying the opposite about the k271, that it's shy in the bass:

http://www.headphone.com/guide/by-headp ... -271-s.php

Never tried the k271 myself. But I used to have the k171, and I thought it was well balanced. The bass was deep and extended, but it was still balanced and didn't seem too exaggerated to me. Eventually I sold them because I didn't like how far they stuck out the side of my head and how the smaller pads pressed against my ears. And I got used to the sound of my Ultrasones.

Check into one of the Ultrasone models. I have the DJ1. It was reasonably priced, closed design for tracking, and they fold up really nice for laptop producing on the go. That has be the #1 unexpected best feature for me. Because they're more portable and take a beating of me throwing them around, I end up using them everywhere I go. And instead of something like in ear monitors, which I think are uncomfortable and dangerous to listen to for extended periods. After I got rid of my in ear monitors, etc, I found it best for me to use one set of headphones for everything, that way I really got used to the sound of that pair.

They kinda hype the "surround sound" thing with a bunch of vague marketing jargon, but after using them for a long time now, I believe there is something about the way the Ultrasone drivers are angled inside that makes them less fatiguing. I can listen to them for a couple hours without having the urge to turn the volume up or them pressing against my ears.

Yeah yeah, I know "DJ" headphones in general are not notorious for being flat, but I really think they got it right with these for the most versatility. They're not too sizzly or boomy like typical DJ headphones. I've never tried the other Ultrasone models, so maybe one of those would be a good choice too.

[blaugruen7]

i once compared the 271 to the 240, the 240 had more bass.

[Sales Dude McBoob]

funny how different people hear. I do like the 240's for the clear high and mid's but in the bottom range find them not vey usefull.
what i can say about the 271 is that they are more consumer style. ultra enhanced bass, more mudd = good for the ipod...

Yes, is funny how different people hear. On headphone.com they're saying the opposite about the k271, that it's shy in the bass:

http://www.headphone.com/guide/by-headp ... -271-s.php

Never tried the k271 myself. But I used to have the k171, and I thought it was well balanced. The bass was deep and extended, but it was still balanced and didn't seem too exaggerated to me. Eventually I sold them because I didn't like how far they stuck out the side of my head and how the smaller pads pressed against my ears. And I got used to the sound of my Ultrasones.

Check into one of the Ultrasone models. I have the DJ1. It was reasonably priced, closed design for tracking, and they fold up really nice for laptop producing on the go. That has be the #1 unexpected best feature for me. Because they're more portable and take a beating of me throwing them around, I end up using them everywhere I go. And instead of something like in ear monitors, which I think are uncomfortable and dangerous to listen to for extended periods.

They kinda hype the "surround sound" thing with a bunch of vague marketing jargon, but after using them for a long time now, I believe there is something about the way the Ultrasone drivers are angled inside that makes them less fatiguing. I can listen to them for a couple hours without having the urge to turn the volume up or them pressing against my ears.

Yeah yeah, I know "DJ" headphones in general are not notorious for being flat, but I really think they got it right with these for the most versatility. They're not too sizzly or boomy like typical DJ headphones. I've never tried the other Ultrasone models, so maybe one of those would be a good choice too.

Soosh is ahead of the curve here.

I just got a pair of 8030a's, so hopefully in the future I'll be able to accurately say what cans match them best - from my perspective anyhow. But I have a strong hunch that Ultrasone's are the best option. What makes them different from every other headphone is that the drivers in Ultrasones don't fire directly into your ears. The drivers fire to the side, and then hit a reflective cup thing - so the sound bounces into your ears. The idea behind this was to make a headphone that behaves like a studio monitor in a physical room. The marketing drivel for this is called "S-Logic." All Ultrasones have this unique feature - that's also why Ultrasone doesn't make earbuds.

I think the Pro-Line 550 is the intro model for the true studio cans, but they're in the $240 USD range. Icedsushi knows what he's talking about, so the DJ1's are a good way to get into the party at $160 USD.

I'm going to go this route sometime soon. My trusty old AT M40fs's are getting trashed. They kind of look like diseased black goldfish at this point. But still by far they're the best headphones for $75 USD.

[Silence]

thanx for the grate anwsers!

Have any of you tried the Sennheiser HD25 SP1??

[Silence]

No one ever used the Sennheiser hd25 SP ?

[Khazul]

Which version of the K240 are people referring to - there are (as far as I know) 3 different versions:

K240 Studio,
K240 Monitor
K240 DF

The DF (Diffuse Field) are very good.
The monitor version I dont know
The studio versions I have and to me the bass just sounds 'odd', not muddy especially, and not tight either, just plain odd - I guess its just a wierd freq response. My monitors reference is Event TR8XL and a KRK V6+V12 sub - compared to either they are wierd.

If Im mixing on the K240S, then actually I prefer to just low cut the bass and ignore it until I have the sub back on.

The DF version doesnt suffer from this at all.

Im suprised at the difference btw the 171 and 271 - Ive used the 271 just as vocal monitoring cans so am ok with them - wasnt being particularly critical at the time.