Search Results

Keeps its feet on the ground in the truest sense of the word frequency range: 20 - 20000 Hz | sound pressure level: 96 dB | impedance: 16 Ohm | dynamic The PRESONUS ERIS HD10BT sets itself a very high claim, which it cannot necessarily confirm. Sound 7.2 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 7 7 7.5 7.5 7 Handling 8.5 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 8 8 8 341 Gramm Total 7.6 Price 99 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - good comfort - tonality - workmanship - BT sound - Handling - ANC - battery - resolution Intro The ERIS HD10BT impresses more with its design and robustness than with the sound. Even though I appreciate both, the latter is clearly more important to me. Unfortunately, the ERIS offers too little in this discipline, at least if you have to and want to measure it against the self-imposed claim of a "studio headphone". Handling Bluetooth: 5.0 Audio codecs: SBC, AAC Operating range: up to 10 m Driver unit size: 40 mm Speaker impedance: 16 Ohm ± 15% Frequency response: 20Hz-20KHz Play time: ≤ 16 hours The ERIS HDBT makes a very high-quality and especially robust impression. It is quite heavy for a Bluetooth headphone, but that rather underlines the durable character, which one would definitely want in the studio or on the road. Here, the ERIS delivers what it promises: a "studio headphone for on the go". In addition, it can be operated intuitively and unerringly in Bluetooth mode thanks to the haptic buttons (+/- and On/Off) with double assignment. The built-in microphone is also quite suitable for conversations. It can be worn comfortably and the pads (not changeable) rest pleasantly above or rather next to the ear. Thus, the PRESONUS ERIS HD10BT doesn't leave much to be desired in terms of workmanship and can make its mark here. The Bluetooth connection works without problems and the range is in the average range. However, it is a different story in terms of sound. Sound I would have preferred to review the ERIS wired, but that contradicts the basic principle of a Bluetooth headphone review and so I will briefly go into the topic below. This much can be said: the ERIS HD10BT sounds better via cable than wirelessly and thus also somewhat contradicts the general rule, which rather represents the opposite in the BT area. Bass Dry with emphasis on the mid and upper bass describes the low range quite well. However, this is not a successful tuning in this case, because it lacks punch, firmness and details. The bass besieges the mids and colors them a lot, since they also lack presence in the upper range. The bass can also be strongly influenced by the ANC, but it becomes much more undefined and bloated when the function is activated. Mids Tonally, I have some problems with the mids. At times, they sound a bit dull and not really authentic. In the lower and mid-range they have more presence than in the upper range, which fits well with the term "boxy". They still lack substance, though, as the bass (without ANC) can't give them the body they need. A bit confusing the whole thing, but there are bright spots as well and on balance you get used to this "earthy" presentation and start to concentrate on the music again. For me they are too tiring in the long run (garish/shrill/dull) and not musical enough. Highs Unlike the mids, or the bass, the highs can't be accused of inconsistency to the same degree. Still, they lack resolution and also brilliance, but they seem the most authentic and play solidly without suppressing too much information. Unfortunately, they can't save much and so the mids dominate with their slightly slanted dominance and warmth from the upper bass. Stage The stage has a decent extension in the panorama, but just height and depth are not necessarily the hobbyhorse of the ERIS. Still, it's good for a closed headphone, but not worthy of major praise. Imaging Here I can't attest to any special features of the ERIS. The 3D image is okay, although voices are a bit too prominent (male) and the image still seems rather two-dimensional. Good average. The separation suffers somewhat due to the prominence of the voices, and the lack of resolution also means that the picture lacks a bit of clarity. ANC Hands off the ANC, at least with music. This adds considerably more bass to the ERIS, but makes for a dull sound and makes things worse than they help. You get used to it, but it still lacks clarity without ANC and especially resolution and tonality. On a positive note, ANC can be used in both Bluetooth and with a cable. Likewise, the ERIS does not have to be on to activate ANC if you want to enjoy silence without music at all. Silence is quite a big word here, though, because ANC doesn't suppress much and so the function is "nice to have", but not really useful. Cable In cable mode, the ERIS sounds unexpectedly better than via BT. Usually this is the other way around, since a lot of tuning is also realized via the digital converter in BT and can be fine-tuned, whereas in cable the signal is looped through 1 to 1. Here, however, exactly this is the better solution for my taste and so you get more clarity and also a bit more dynamics with a cable. The ERIS HD10BT also has a fresher and livelier sound. Although the basic tonality remains approximately the same, but technically more is to get out of it. Outro The PRESONUS ERIS HD10BT sets itself a very high claim, which it cannot necessarily confirm. "Studio sound for on the go" is what the advertising text says, and even though one cannot deny the ERIS a reasonably settled basic attitude, it lacks an authentic tonality that seems rather dull, as well as lacks dynamics and can cause irritation. That should not be the basis for a "studio" headphone. You get used to the sound and the ERIS is quite usable in total, but a switch to Bluetooth headphones like the Valco VMK20, quickly reveal the tonal weaknesses again. I don't even want to start with real studio headphones. Some may even celebrate the ERIS for its "warm" signature with earthy sound, but I would also like to see more musicality and above all resolution and precision in the studio. In addition, the ERIS is better used wired, as the sound quality benefits. Here, the ERIS would also have earned a slightly higher rating. PRESONUS

Criteria: BT-Headphone (On-Ear & Over-Ear) Price range: no limit Explanation: A collection of BT headphones without real added value, summarized in one article. Only BT headphones with a sound rating below 6 will be found here. For me, it makes no sense to check the battery life or other technical features for correctness, since this doesn't matter anymore with the limited sound. I also omit the description of the handling and reflect this only in the rating. I limit myself to 2 "notes" for sound and handling, which is included in the weighting of 2:1 in the overall rating. However, the exact subdivision can still be found in "SHOOTOUT-HEADPHONE". Things could always be worse and maybe I'm too hard, but these BT headphones are not really worth it for me, unless it's just to get something out of a headphone at all and this wirelessly. Sound Handling Total Price LANGSDOM BT18 3.4 4 3.6 19 € OEM H1 PRO 4.3 3.5 4 13 € OEM LY-903 5.2 5.5 5.3 21 € ... will be continued LANGSDOM BT18 Bluetooth 5.0, 40 mm driver, frequency response: 20 - 20000 Hz The superlatives thrown around in product descriptions are nothing new, but I sometimes wonder if the "advertising experts" have ever heard the product themselves. "Great Sound, Deep Bass" - Nope, never at all. It's listed as over-ear, but is an on-ear, except maybe for three-year-olds. Sound - short and painless The bass is overdriven and booming, in addition it has no depth and a clean kick is wishful thinking. It has quantity, but zero definition. How to make the mids sound so muffled and the voices still shrill is a "masterpiece". Even with "simple" music I can't get anything out of the mids, even if the bass destroys a lot. Trebles? It feels like the end of the day after the mids, even if that is overstated. Details are in short supply and everything seems compressed. Even if they don't really have anything to offer, they are still the most acceptable feature of the BT18 The stage is constricted and there is no separation. A big mush that is pressed into your head. You have to be very undemanding if you want to consume music with the BT18. It clears up a bit in clink mode, but that doesn't make it any better. https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_dWn4CV3 OEM H1 PRO Bluetooth 5.0, 40 mm driver, frequency response: 20 - 20000 Hz Not everything goes wrong with the H1 PRO's sound and it is surprisingly restrained in its bass. In this case, however, it's probably more of a problem. The H1 PRO is also an OEM product, which has several distributors. SOUND - short and painless The bass is nothing half and nothing whole. With its modest amount, you could maybe hope for some quality, but here we have a bass performance of a phone from the 60s. He seems kind of out of place. The mids sound hollow and distant. Voices have zero emotions and there is little that sounds the way it should. They also have an unpleasant boost in the upper range that makes them more glaring. The highs allow details to shine out here and there, but are not defined, or especially spatial. Everything sounds very centered and rather monologue. Still the best H1 PRO and most natural, even if that doesn't mean much. The H1 PRO sounds a bit like underwater, where the trebles pierce here and there. The stage is not realistic and a bit claustrophobic. Here I would have preferred an overloaded bass rather than being so undifferentiated in sound. Tonally a catastrophe. https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_dYup6SH OEM LY-903 Bluetooth 4.2, 40 mm driver, frequency response: 20 - 20000 Hz, ANC The LY-903 is one of the better of the bad. It is listed among many companies and is a classic OEM product. It is advertised with BT 5.0, but according to the packaging, it has only 4.2 and no AptX, which is also listed in the specifications of the dealers. SOUND - short and painless The bass is not the cleanest and is booming, especially with bass-heavy music. It has a fun punch, but is not stable enough. The mids come out reasonably well against the bass, but are still musty. Without bass impact they are even sometimes a bit demanding, especially with voices and naturalness is rather a foreign word to them. At high frequencies the LY-903 sounds artificial and tends to distort. There is not much stability, but the highs keep the signature alive to some extent, yet the patient is already hanging on the drip. The stage is below average, if at all. You feel crushed and separation and imaging are sloppy. The LY-903 may even be enough for the uncritical listener. But those who care about sound would rather look elsewhere. The ANC actually works and very low frequencies are filtered. But you can't consume music while doing so, because the ANC also filters the bass out of the music, which is counterproductive. Tip: The speaker cover on the earcups are not screwed on and can be easily lifted. If you take the foam from inside the LY-903, it sounds more open, clearer and more natural, but the evaluation is based on Out-Of-The-Box. https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_dVzyyLB

Reference sound for the "small" purse frequency range: 10 - 39800 Hz | sound pressure level: 105 dB | impedance: 62 Ohm | dynamic It requires either a full head of hair, or some other headgear if you want to use the K702 longer. Sound 8.2 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8 8 8 8.5 8.5 Handling 8 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 7 8 6 231 grams Total 8.1 Price 130 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - clear and detailed - slightly volume sensitive in the mids - wide stage - bass not very powerful - neutral/warm tuning - headband quickly becomes uncomfortable (old version) - removable cable - isolation Intro With the K702, AKG has a reference handset for studio and mixing that is not only affordable, but also lives up to its ambitions. It is neutral with a warm tone and sounds very authentic, especially in voices, but also a bit sober. Handling Plastic, metal, leather, velour - the AKG K702 is a harmonious mix of different materials. Despite its protruding ear cups, it appears quite filigree and also of high quality. It also makes a robust impression which is necessary for everyday use in (professional) music production. The K702 not only has "over-ear" written on it, the ear cups actually enclose the complete ear without it bumping against the case or the velour padding (can squeak when wearing glasses). Due to the open design this does not contribute anything to the isolation (almost non-existent), but it gives you a good wearing comfort, at least as far as the ears are concerned, although I would like the pads to be a bit more soft/yielding. What AKG had in mind for the headband, however, remains a mystery. It adapts to the shape of the head with the help of rubber trappers, but it has very rigid, wide "pimples", which can quickly lead to headaches. They are very hard and do not offer any kind of padding. If they had simply been omitted, the K702 would certainly have been more comfortable with a flat leather strap. It requires either a full head of hair or some other headgear if you want to use the K702 for a longer period of time. The cable is detachable and has a 3.5mm connector which can be adapted to 6.3mm (adapter included). The connection to the headphone (one-sided guide) is a mini-XLR connector. Update: The newer production series probably have a flat headband, so the headaches are history. Sound Bass The bass is not really fun in the sense of quantity. But it doesn't have to be and it wouldn't be very helpful if the bass was distorted for mastering or recording by a boost. It's quite sterile, but very accurate with a slight warmth that covers the signature. It is not at home in the absolute low frequency range, at least it is hard to locate. But you can feel that it exists if you hold your hand on the ear cups or press them closer to the ear. As a reference it is appealing, as a fun sounding source it is rather less so. However, it does not act anemic and has its musical side, only pressure is not built up. Mids Slightly shrill and slightly subdued. In direct comparison to the Q701, they lack a bit of assertiveness and you get the impression they're a bit washed-out, but basically they're clear and balanced, with a slight push in the upper mids that gives them energy, sometimes with too much commitment and aggressiveness (at increased volume). Tonally I can't blame them much, but I lack a little maturity and body. Voices and instruments sound mostly authentic, but not very exciting. Soberly describes the mids quite well, with pleasure in detail. Trebles The highs are rather sunny than shady children. However, they do not overdo it with brightness, but play very calmly and unagitatedly with a touch of warmth. They have a rather airy and transparent character, but I have to listen more closely every now and then to find details that are much easier to access, for example in the K812. Here, a little more attention has been paid to safety in order to remain as fatigue-free as possible. However, I don't have the feeling that information is being withheld from me, it just requires a little more concentration. The slight emphasis on sibilants should not be suppressed. Stage I don't want to generalize, but open headphones usually have an advantage in the stage extension from the design alone. The K702 is no exception and is indeed very spacious. However, I do hear slight weaknesses in the depth and also in the vertical. But in the width the K702 cuts a very good figure. But the price is high, because due to its non-existent isolation the headphone is more or less only usable in the studio or in your own 4 walls. Imaging Voices are placed a little more in the mix than in the foreground which gives you more of a feeling of being inside the music than in the audience. Wind instruments are more "In Your Face". Soundwise more is happening in the stereo image (width), without building up too many layers in height or depth, but you still get a well structured 3D image. The separation is a bit too strong on left/right and could be a bit more differentiated. Outro The AKG K702 scores with tonal accuracy, a wide stage and a neutral signature with a slight warmth. However, the mids can be a bit demanding, the highs might like to act a bit more lively and the bass certainly doesn't make any bass friends happy, but plays rather dry and neutral. The K702 is certainly not a fun headphone, but rather serves as a reference even if it has room for improvement in all disciplines. However, I see it as competitive in its price range and technically and tonally competent. The audibility can be a bit limited (depending on the genre) by the upper mids and the headband comfort. It is also hardly usable on the road if you like the people around you. Thanks to Sattler Electronic Showtronic AG for providing the test headphones.

Neutral sound for the studio and the couch frequency range: 10 - 39800 Hz | sound pressure level: 105 dB | impedance: 62 Ohm | dynamic I don't want to be heretical, but I suspect basically the same driver as in the K701/702 also in the Q701. The basic sound characteristics are too similar. Sound 8.5 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8 8.5 8.5 8.5 9 Handling 7.5 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 6 8 4 235 grams Total 8.2 Price 150 € - 400 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - Detail variety & naturalness - voices are sometimes a little demanding - neutral tuning - in the upper area maybe a bit too bright - great 3D image - headband quickly becomes uncomfortable - removable cable - isolation Intro Quincy Jones should be a term to some and that with "name" products can be marketed well has not passed by AKG. Whether this now directly justifies the entrance price of approximately 500€ is left to everyone. The price also went down quickly and had levelled off around 250€. Meanwhile the Q701 is officially no longer available and so there are currently only (partly overpriced) remaining stocks, or 2nd hand models to buy. I don't want to be heretical, but I suspect basically the same driver as on the K701/702 is also in the Q701. The basic sound characteristics are too similar. Handling Plastic, metal, leather, velour - the 7-Series is not only visually indistinguishable, the materials remain just as high quality and even the plastic used blends in well without acquiring a toy character. Okay, the Q701 was also sold in squeaky green, which of course is quite polarizing. The headphone encloses the whole ear and thus provides a good wearing comfort, but for me the velours pads are still a bit too firm. AKG has reacted to the headband criticism and now offers the K701 & K702 with a flat leather headband to minimize pain caused by the hard "nubs" of the original version. However, the Q701 is no longer in production and so you have to live with the original headband, if you can still get hold of a Q701 and are not a handicraft king The cable (2x - 3m & 6m) is removable and has a 3.5mm connector which can be adapted to 6.3mm (adapter included). The connection to the headphones (single-sided guide) is a mini-XLR plug. The included cable lengths make it clear that the Q701 is not intended to be taken on the road, but rather feels most comfortable in the studio or on the sofa. The non-existent isolation also speaks for this, which not only allows a lot of noise to enter, but also releases a lot of noise. This also makes the Q701 less suitable for recording, at least not together with other musicians at the same time. Sound Bass You won't expect much bass from the AKG 7 Series in general. They are studio or reference monitors that focus more on neutrality than on fat beats. The bass is quite dry, but has a good texture and above all quality, even if it avoids the very deep regions. I admit that sometimes I just wish I had a fat, punchy bass when it comes to just chilling out and rocking along with my head and/or feet, but such a bass presentation is counterproductive for reference monitors or mixing applications. Mids Chilling out is generally not a really familiar word for the Q701. It's always on its toes, drawing your attention more or less obtrusively to what's in the music. Compared to the K702, the mids are a bit brighter and more direct. I already criticized the slight aggressiveness of the K702 and now I have to do the same with the Q701, at least as far as my preferences are concerned. But what makes the Q701 better is the separation, clarity and also the richness of details, at least as far as their presentation is concerned. On the other hand, voices become a bit more obtrusive and the focus is more on analysis than on relaxation. Nevertheless, the Q701 retains a slight warmth, which saves it from sterility. I find instruments absolutely credible and you can hear even the finest nuances. Trebles The trebles are one of the most satisfying features of the Q701, even though the Q701 is basically convincing across the entire bandwidth, even if it cannot absolutely cover my preferences. I'm more into the big, soft, detailed, secure and harmonic sound, in which one can easily get lost. The trebles reflect this quite well, even if they can sometimes become a bit sharp and at the same time are not quite sibilant free, but they are wonderfully differentiated and transparent. Their liveliness is contagious, but as far as I'm concerned, not in the long run either. Stage In contrast to the K701/702, the Q701 is specified as half-open, which surprises me a bit, because on the one hand the sound emission to the outside is on the same level, but on the other hand the width of the stage is absolutely congruent, if not even more extended. In the depth it could be even more. Imaging The generated 3D image of the Q701 is already a small work of art and it offers plenty of space to give each instrument or detail its appropriate place. As with the K702, the separation is a bit too much left/right for me, but the Q701 opens up more in the vertical direction and so the sound also opens up. The K702 sounds a bit more pressed in comparison and also the Q701 shows up with a better transparency even with a lot of information available. Outro The Q701 is a special headphone and worth a recommendation, regardless of the exclusivity, if you are looking for a reference and are not willing to go into the 1000 € range. It certainly takes a short time to get used to the sound, but I really appreciate the analytical and at the same time musical character of the Q701, even if it does annoy me a bit here and there and thus limits the audibility (apart from the headband). If the Q701 is too brisk for you, you might find your luck with the K702, which sounds like a somewhat muted version of the Q701. For private use the Q701 is quite limited and you should have your own (quiet) room at your disposal, but it is a lot of fun to consume music and if necessary to dissect it. However, this is not my claim/headphone in everyday life. Whether the same driver is used in the Q701 compared to the K701/702 and only with the help of other, or missing filters the sound is influenced is irrelevant in the end. However, I would certainly not have paid the called price at that time, because the Q701 does not offer me such a big sound advantage compared to its K-siblings. If you get an offer below 200 €, you have made a good purchase. On the internet you can also find some instructions for a bass mod, which can be undone and should not influence the rest of the signature. Thanks to Sattler Electronic Showtronic AG for providing the test headphones.

Criteria: Over-Ear + Semi-Open Price range: 20 € - 50 € Explanation: I keep my experience report as simple as possible during the shootout. For the most part, headphones in a similar price range and with comparable technical characteristics are compared. The price does not play a role in the evaluation. The rating is also dynamic, depending on the current listening experience. The weighting of sound and handling is 2:1. HD681 EVO HD668 B HD672 Sound 7.5 7.7 7.5 Bass 8 8 8 Mids 7.5 7.5 7.5 Trebles 7.5 8 7.5 Imaging 7.5 7.5 7.5 Stage 7 7.5 7 Handling 7 6 5.5 Processing 7 7 6 Comfort 7 5 5 Total 7.3 7.1 6.8 Price 29 € 29 € 24 € Comparison: Individual reviews below It is not easy for me to name a clear favorite. Everyone has his individual weaknesses and therefore can't completely convince me. That's of course also because they have different applications and signatures, at least when it comes to SUPERLUX. Handling I have to say that SUPERLUX is not very good at ergonomics. This is a great pity and a real point, because the sound quality is sometimes really impressive at the prices quoted. But that doesn't help me if I can't have the headphones on my head for 10 minutes or have to put up with pain. Here, the winner's medal definitely goes to the HD681 EVO, even if its wearing comfort still has some room for improvement, but at least I don't have any ear or headaches with it, but still an unpleasant pressure on the ear in the long run, which is still tolerable. The additional velour pads, which provide relief and minimize sweating, are convincing. Sound One thing can be said and I see this as very positive. All presented over-ears have their own signature. The HD681 EVO serves the bass fetishists, but is a very good allrounder and doesn't disadvantage the mid and high frequencies too much. But I really see only the listening to music as an area of application for it. For more professional applications, it simply lacks the accuracy and level in the mid and treble range. Nevertheless, it has an audiophile claim to sound, which is not particularly pronounced. In contrast to the EVO, the HD668 B is delicately trimmed and focuses more on balance. It is a bit too thin in the midrange, but more defined than the HD681 EVO. For me it has the most appealing sound, although I also appreciate the direct and lively nature of the HD672. However, it is a bit too demanding for me in the long run and I get along better with the high frequency of the HD668 B. But when it comes to mixing or monitoring, the HD672 is probably ahead of the rest, since it misses less due to its direct and lively nature. The HD668 B and the HD681 EVO are more subtle. Conclusion Basically, the HD681 EVO is for me the musical, bass-driven all-rounder, the HD668 B the sensitive and audiophile connoisseur and the HD672 the lively and exploring bachelor, which can also serve as a tool for producers and musicians with a smaller purse and a certain tolerance. However, there is some comfort to be tinkered with, be it new ear pads or head padding, especially for the HD668 B or HD67 HD681 EVO 50 mm driver, sensitivity: 98 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 10 - 30000 Hz The HD681 EVO is the evolution of the HD681 price/performance benchmark. It's tuned quite bass accentuated, but doesn't neglect the mids and highs. A good overall package that is fun to use, but doesn't set any standards in terms of sound quality. A musical all-rounder that lacks a bit of clarity and precision. Handling The HD681 is completely made of plastic. There was definitely a saving in the choice of materials, but it makes a very robust impression and even looks quite massive, as long as you don't hold it in your hands. A clear advantage is the detachable cable, but the connection was moved outside, which can cause more wear and tear. It comes with 2 cables to 3.5mm jack (1m & 3m), an adapter to 6.3mm and a carrying bag. We also have a choice between the standard pads, which are comfortable but make you sweat quickly, and velour pads for extra comfort. The comfort is manageable. The headband is a bit cumbersome and too tight. The contact pressure of the earphones is also quite high. There are certainly more comfortable alternatives, but you get used to the continuous pressure if you have to. Sound Bass is the main focus of the HD681 EVO. It's quite physical and can make a fire under your ass. But it stays surprisingly clean and doesn't overshadow the other frequency ranges too much. It's still a bit bloated and could be a bit more controlled and firm, but it's still fun and gives a pleasant warmth. In the midrange it is a little more reserved. The mids clear up to the top and are full bodied. Vocals come out well, but could be a bit more present. The HD681 EVO moves in a quite strong V-signature and you can hear that. There are no major blunders in the high frequencies. It has enough level so that the HD681 EVO doesn't drift into the dark and provides enough information, but is no detail monster. Sibilants, or unpleasant peaks are not to be detected, but in rare cases it can become a bit unclean. Due to the bassimpact the EVO has a quite deep stage, which also has a clean panorama image, but the instrument separation could be more precise and in general clarity and transparency suffer. https://www.thomann.de/de/superlux_hd_681_evo_bk.htm HD668 B 50 mm driver, sensitivity: 98 dB, resistance: 56 Ohm, frequency response: 10 - 30000 Hz The HD668 B is a studio earphone at a bargain price. It finds a good balance over the entire bandwidth, but could be a bit more relaxed in the high frequencies. Nevertheless, the slight push in the trebles provides a clearer and more open sound image, but the HD668 B can be a bit demanding. Handling The HD668 B is similarly robustly built as the HD681 EVO and is also completely made of plastic, except for the headband, which is made of metal. Due to the bracing on the ear cups and the leather headband replaced with individual brackets (left/right), the HD668 B looks quite filigree and is also very light with just over 220 grams. All the more incomprehensible is this headrest. The fact that the pressure is now applied to the head very selectively, instead of being distributed over a continuous band, quickly causes headaches, at least if you are not allowed to call a full head of hair your own, or wear a woolly hat without interruption. For me, after a maximum of one hour, the fun is over, even if the ear pads are okay in themselves, but also a bit hard. Included in delivery are two cables (1m & 3m) to 3.5mm jack, as well as an adapter to 6.5mm, and a carrying bag. Sound The HD 668 B focuses on a balanced sound, which is particularly noticeable in the bass and mid-range. The bass is not in focus, but has enough punch and firmness to satisfy even bass hungry tracks. It has a supporting function and does full justice to this. In addition, it is always controlled and clean and offers a solid, detailed and musical foundation. The mids take themselves less important than they could. Although the bass gives them room, they are a bit too subtle for me. The separation works perfectly, but especially when it comes to mixing or mastering, they may not have enough presence to reveal everything. I find the mids very pleasant and authentic, but I would like to see a bit more healthy aggressiveness. The high frequencies are sometimes a bit too much emphasized, which makes them more susceptible to sibilants and the odd unpleasant peak, but they are also very airy and detailed. They are not razor sharp, but they do reveal a lot of details and present them without excessive hardness. Rarely a bit demanding, but in "professional" use this is sometimes necessary and absolutely tolerable for me! The stage appears wide with a small hole in the middle, through the somewhat shy mids. Nevertheless, it offers a lot of space for an accurate sound arrangement and especially in the 3D representation the HD668 B has its strengths. https://www.thomann.de/de/superlux_hd668_b.htm? HD672 50 mm driver, sensitivity: 95 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 20 - 20000 Hz The HD672 is also a damn cheap over-ear from SUPERLUX. It focuses on a distinct midrange with balanced bass and emphasized treble. If you like it energetic and lively, the HD672 will certainly do something for you. Handling The HD672 is lightweight and not particularly elaborate. Keep it simple is probably the approach here. The headband is quite flexible and does not exert much pressure on the head, which I find pleasant. However, I have a completely different problem with the HD672. I'm less bothered by the rubber padding on the ear cups, which is actually quite comfortable, although a bit sweaty. However, these do not stick out far enough to keep my ear away from the earphone. So it bumps into the plastic and that becomes very unpleasant in the long run. So it's also nothing for a long music session, at least for me. The cable is fixed, one-sided and misses 2,5m which is quite long. An adapter to 6.3mm and a bag is included in the purchase. Sound The bass is quite neutral, with a slight, welcome push. It has a good depth and is tight and fast. At the same time it has a dry punch and an entertaining detail reproduction. Not too dominant, but not shy with a slight physique, but somehow I miss the dynamics a bit. The HD672 concentrates more on the mids and highs. The midrange can sometimes be a bit demanding, especially when it comes to vocals. Here, we're slightly on the borderline of shrillness, but still within limits. We are rewarded for this with liveliness, clarity and energy. But it might be a bit more relaxed, especially on longer listening periods. This also applies to the highs. The HD672 is a bit brightly tuned and can also get a bit sharp. In return, the HD672 has a good level stability in the high frequencies and also reveals finer details. The treble sounds very lively and brings good mood, if you are not too sensitive. Due to the midrange emphasis we have voices that come more to the fore, which of course also affects the 3D perception and stage extension. Everything seems a bit closer, more tangible and direct. I like it a lot, because the HD672 is also very pleasing in width. In addition there is a clean instrument separation and strong stereo image. In the depth, however, there is still air to the top. https://www.thomann.de/de/superlux_hd_672_white.htm

Criteria: Over-Ear + Closed-Back Price range: 20 € - 50 € Explanation: I keep my experience report as simple as possible during the shootout. For the most part, headphones in a similar price range and with comparable technical characteristics are compared. The price does not play a role in the evaluation. The rating is also dynamic, depending on the current listening experience. The weighting of sound and handling is 2:1. PRO 10 PRO 30 PRO 50 Sound 7.1 7.1 7.4 Bass 7.5 7.5 8 Mids 7 7 7 Trebles 7 7 7.5 Imaging 7 7 7.5 Stage 7 7 7 Handling 7 7.5 7.5 Processing 7 7 7 Comfort 7 8 8 Total 7.1 7.2 7.4 Price 24 € 27 € 28 € Comparison: Individual reviews below Does it really need 3 "different" models. Only subtleties (color, riffling) and the ear padding change on the housing. The PRO 10 and PRO 30 do not even differ in sound. For me all STUDIO PRO over-ears are a bit too bass accentuated, especially the PRO 10 and PRO 30. The PRO 50 also has hum, just a bit tighter and with more mid and high frequencies. All in all it is more lively and musical, but also not more than good average at a very reasonable price. Handling There are no differences in processing. All of them are robust, especially at the joints, and they certainly stand up to a lot. And they have to, if they should function as DJ tools. The difference is the upholstery. The padding of the PRO 30 is a clear update to the PRO 10, but for my ears it is still a bit too small to fit in completely. Compared to the PRO 30, I think the PRO 50 is slightly more comfortable, but basically it's the same padding in a different design. The link feature of the headphones is great and also connecting two devices at the same time can be an added value. Since all of them have the same package contents, the only real difference is in comfort (PRO 10 to PRO 30/50). Sound ONEODIO makes its job relatively easy with their wired over-ears. 3 x the same design and 3 x the same driver. Soundwise the PRO 10 and PRO 30 are basically the same. With the PRO 30 you have a slightly improved isolation due to the optimized ear pads, which makes it appear slightly fuller, but basically this is very subtle. Since the PRO 10 only costs a few Euros less, you don't really need it, or the other way around, whoever has the PRO 10 doesn't need a PRO 30, but can get the protein memory pads of the PRO 50 for just under 10 Euros. Even though I feel a bit more comfortable with the PRO 30, in my opinion the PRO 50 has the most to offer in terms of sound, because the mids and highs come out better and the bass is a bit cleaner/tighter. I guess a different filter was used here, or maybe it was omitted completely. However, the mids can also be a bit shrill and therefore demanding. The PRO 10 and PRO 30 are more pleasant contemporaries. If you are more into bass and like it more relaxed in the mids and highs, but can also do without some details and don't need the full view, you might feel more comfortable with the PRO 10, or PRO 30. If you like it a bit clearer and prefer more vocal presence and crisp guitars, you can certainly do more with the PRO 50. However, the high frequencies can rarely be exaggerated and the mids can be a bit demanding. But the signature is a bit more balanced (even if balanced is probably the wrong word in total) and you have to turn up the volume, otherwise the bass will dominate again. Conclusion None of them are suitable for professional monitoring. For DJs, in noisy surroundings, or as instrument headphones at home (piano/guitar etc.) to keep the neighbors in their apartments, more likely. Listening to music is also quite possible, but certainly not on an audiophile level. My recommendation: PRO 50 - not wrong for the price and comfort. If you focus more on sound and less on wearing comfort, look around SUPERLUX for the same price. PRO 10 50 mm driver, sensitivity: 110 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 20 - 20000 Hz The PRO 10 is a headphone designed for DJs. It is very bass accentuated and more suitable for beats and electro than for audiophile music enjoyment. Nevertheless, it is not exclusively a bass monster, but can also show its sensitive side in quieter recordings. Handling The PRO 10 is made of plastic, but makes a durable impression. The joints can be rotated/moved by 90° and the ear cups by 180°. So the PRO 10 is good for DJ monitoring, but it can be a bit tricky to arrange the auricles. A nice feature is the operation with two different sources at the same time. I can use the inputs (6.3mm and 3.5mm) in parallel (e.g. playback and guitar), or even use one as output and use another headphone, or even more (headphone chain). Two cables are included (spiral cable up to 2.8m - 3.5mm to 6.3mm and a 1.2m cable with mic - 3.5mm). There is also a headphone bag, which is very soft and silky. The Pro 10 comes with soft leatherette ear pads, but they could be a bit bigger and deeper to completely enclose the (big) ear and keep it away from the inner workings. Another point of criticism is the headband, which has a padding and is adjustable, but only sits quite punctually in the middle, does not distribute the weight of the headphones over the entire head and can thus create a somewhat unpleasant pressure in the long run, which is still tolerable. Sound PRO 10 = PRO 30 The bass has a little ADHD. It not only sets the beat, but also defines the musical journey. It is slightly booming and focuses more on quantity than quality. Especially when a lot of bass is used, it gets confusing and spongy. With less bass-hungy tracks, however, it forms a fun foundation and provides a welcome ear massage. Now one would suspect dead pants in the midrange. It is not that bad. Yes, the mids are reduced and don't have a pronounced rise from 1-2 kHz to provide more clarity, but they resonate musically without developing much attention to detail. Nothing for the couch, but for the loud DJ stage quite sufficient, since they can also give the bass a voice and are differentiated despite the distress. The trebles skilfully stay out of the battle of the bass, against the mids.. However, they also have no ambitions to stand out in particular. They do what is necessary to keep the PRO 10 alive, but without drawing attention to themselves. Nevertheless, they provide enough information and there is not much to blame them for if the claim is not too high. Solid. The stage size is average. With an equalizer, which screws the bass down a bit, it can still be opened upwards. So everything sounds a bit musty and pressed, which doesn't please the separation either. https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_dW1A44x PRO 30 50 mm driver, sensitivity: 110 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 20 - 20000 Hz The PRO 30 is virtually a PRO 10 with other earpads, without any tonal changes. Therefore it is not worth a further review and so I repeat myself for the most part. Handling The PRO 30 is made of plastic, but makes a durable impression. The joints can be rotated/moved by 90° and the ear cups by 180°. So the PRO 30 is good for DJ monitoring, but it can be a bit tricky to arrange the auricles. A nice feature is the operation with two different sources at the same time. I can use the inputs (6.3mm and 3.5mm) in parallel (e.g. playback and guitar), or even use one as output and use another headphone, or even more (headphone chain). Two cables are included (spiral cable up to 2.8m - 3.5mm to 6.3mm and a 1.2m cable with mic - 3.5mm). There is also a headphone bag, which is very soft and silky. The Pro 30 comes with protein memory pads and is quite comfortable to wear on the ears, as they are not only very soft, but also breathable, although they should be slightly larger to completely enclose the (large) ear. A point of criticism remains the headband, which has a padding and is adjustable, but only sits quite punctually in the middle, does not distribute the weight of the headphones over the entire head and can thus create a somewhat unpleasant pressure in the long run, which is still tolerable. Sound PRO 30 = PRO 10 The bass has a little ADHD. It not only sets the beat, but also defines the musical journey. It is slightly booming and focuses more on quantity than quality. Especially when a lot of bass is used, it gets confusing and spongy. With less bass-hungy tracks, however, it forms a fun foundation and provides a welcome ear massage. Now one would suspect dead pants in the midrange. It is not that bad. Yes, the mids are reduced and don't have a pronounced rise from 1-2 kHz to provide more clarity, but they resonate musically without developing much attention to detail. Nothing for the couch, but for the loud DJ stage quite sufficient, since they can also give the bass a voice and are differentiated despite the distress. The trebles skilfully stay out of the battle of the bass, against the mids. However, they also have no ambitions to stand out in particular. They do what is necessary to keep the PRO 10 alive, but without drawing attention to themselves. Nevertheless, they provide enough information and there is not much to blame them for if the claim is not too high. Solid. The stage size is average. With an equalizer, which screws the bass down a bit, it can still be opened upwards. So everything sounds a bit musty and pressed, which doesn't please the separation either. Compared to the PRO 10 you can fantasize that the PRO 30 sounds a bit fuller due to the slightly better isolation. https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_dW1A44x PRO 50 50 mm driver, sensitivity: 110 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 20 - 20000 Hz The PRO 50 is the third in the bunch and its family affiliation cannot be denied. Rather, it is another twin, with a slightly different color scheme, chic earpads and a different packaging. However, it is no longer focused only on the bass, like the PRO 10 and PRO 30. Handling The PRO 50 is made of plastic, but makes a durable impression. The joints can be rotated/moved by 90° and the ear cups by 180°. So the PRO 50 is good for DJ monitoring, but it can be a bit tricky to arrange the auricles. A nice feature is the operation with two different sources at the same time. I can use the inputs (6.3mm and 3.5mm) in parallel (e.g. playback and guitar), or even use one as output and use another headphone, or even more (headphone chain). Two cables are included (spiral cable up to 2.8m - 3.5mm to 6.3mm and a 1.2m cable with mic - 3.5mm). There is also a headphone bag, which is very soft and silky. The Pro 50 comes with protein memory pads and is quite comfortable to wear on the ears, as they are not only very soft, but also breathable, although they should be slightly larger to completely enclose the (large) ear. A point of criticism remains the headband, which has a padding and is adjustable, but only sits quite punctually in the middle, does not distribute the weight of the headphones over the entire head and can thus create a somewhat unpleasant pressure in the long run, which is still tolerable. Sound With the STUDIO PRO series from ONEODIO you have to like your bass. It is punchy and very physical. But it is a bit too much in the foreground for me. Even though the PRO 50 pays more attention to the mids and highs compared to the PRO 10/30, it's still a bit too intense. Sure, if you like bass you'll get it and that's not bad at all, but quantity comes before quality. But it's fun to play and a cleaner than the PRO 10/30. The PRO 50 has a clear V-signature. The mids are more present in the upper range, which makes them a bit musty in the lower range, but quite demanding for voices. Not really the hottest combo, but it also has something lively and provides better separation and clarity compared to the PRO 10/30. The trebles are also raised, but not to the extent of the bass. They are quite lively and quite detailed. Cymbals sound mostly natural and the high frequency provides a more open sound which is quite good for the PRO 50 compared to the PRO 10/30. Sibilants are quite well under control and unpleasant background noise rarely gets around. The PRO 50 is closed, which speaks rather for a more intimate stage, but the PRO 50 offers a quite wide expansion within its possibilities and above all a good three-dimensional image. https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_dW1A44x

Not a prodigy, but competitive - AKG's closed flagship frequency range: 5 - 54000 Hz | sound pressure level: 112 dB | impedance: 36 Ohm | dynamic One thing you should keep in mind with the K872. It probably won't convince you at first impression, but you should definitely take some time to familiarize yourself with its signature and sound presentation. Sound 8.5 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8.5 8 8.5 8.5 9 Handling 8.5 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 10 7 6 8 390 grams Total 8.5 Price 975 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - isolation - Mid Peak - good separation - fit of the earpads - detail rendition - some missing extension at both ends - warm, neutral sound - tonal fluctuations Intro That the transformation of an open headphone into a closed one is not so easy is shown by AKG with its K872, which follows the K812. I certainly can't judge whether this is the same driver, but I strongly suspect it is. The K872 can't inspire me right away, even though I wished for a bit more warmth and a more potent bass on the K812, which I get on the K872. Still, for my taste, it has the drawback when it comes to sound quality. But it is without question a good headphone. Handling The design is similar to that of the K812, with the main difference being the closed auricles. This also gives the K872 a very noble and above all robust appearance. The materials used are absolutely harmonious and create a very pleasing overall appearance. The headband is comfortable and can be intuitively adjusted on the sides to fit the shape of the head. It is made of leather, but has an air-permeable fabric sewn into it, which makes sense especially for longer use. The K872 uses basically the same ear pads as the K812, but they are lined slightly differently, i.e. thicker in some places (under the ear). One problem that can be noticed here is the variation of the bass depending on how well the pads fit. With frequent use (quick and rough putting on and taking off) the "housing" can bend and thus not fit tight enough. This can severely affect the sound and may need to be brought back into shape. With the K812 this is less of a problem due to its open construction. I also find the K872 less comfortable to wear than the K812 due to the slightly modified thickness of the ear pads and the heat development. The weight of the K872 is not a big criterion for me personally, but surely there are other opinions, especially if you want to use it on the road, which is possible even on a cell phone with a corresponding DAC (even without) due to its low impedance. The detachable cable measures a good 3m and has a 3-pin LEMO connector towards the headphones, as well as a gold-plated 3.5mm jack plug, for which a 6.3mm adapter is of course also included. In contrast to the K812, the isolation is of course much better due to the closed construction. But sometimes I have the feeling of a vacuum and it gets warm under the K872 too. Because of the somewhat questionable earpads, or rather the possible deformation of the case, there can be strong fluctuations. Instead of the nice wooden headphone holder (K812) we get a storage case for the K872, which is certainly not an eye-catcher. It serves its purpose and makes the K872 more mobile, but it is not very aesthetic. Sound Bass I was looking forward to the K872 a little bit, because I thought it would fulfill my wish for deeper and punchier bass compared to the K812. Well, it has more quantity and gives the signature much more warmth, but it doesn't have an extended bass and leaves me a bit disappointed in this respect. Nevertheless, the bass has class, as it has a good texture and a natural response. The dynamic driver of the K872 lives up to its name here. It has authenticity and stands out in all genres, even if I lack that certain something. But it is by no means to be understood as a bass cannon, as it is more neutral, with a mid-bass emphasis. The only shortcomings are the sub-bass and the fluctuation of the bass performance in connection with the fit of the earpads. Even wearing glasses ensures a low bass quantity here, which also has a negative effect on the sound for me. Mids The mids are probably the bigger compromise to be made with the K872. I find voices a bit nasal from time to time, but most of all there's a "shrill" peak playing into them, which is quite random, but can get really unpleasant (example: Linkin Park - Wasteland). I didn't notice that with the K812. The additional warmth is good for the mids, as it gives them a bit more fullness, liveliness and "authenticity". Nevertheless, they are flatter/neutral, have a very pleasant presence and the K872 can certainly not be called V-Shaped. This would not do justice to its own claim as a tool for monitoring and mixing. But all in all, the mids are sometimes a bit irritating, as they do not always show the desired consistency when it comes to the absolute high-end standard. Technically very high quality, but tonal variations can occur here and there. In addition, the more in the mix positioned voice presentation does not completely suit me. Grumbling on a high level. Trebles The high frequencies of the AKG K872 are very good in my opinion. They don't have the slight sharpness of the K812, but despite the more relaxed playing style they can bring out details very well. However, the airiness and the transparency is a bit lost. But I accept this as a compromise because of the better audibility. Sibilants are no longer an issue due to the lowered 6 kHz peak of the K812. A round and only in very rare cases demanding high tone with a remarkable resolution. In the top end, however, the K812 has the upper hand and is also more detailed. Stage The stage is no competition to the K812, but it is certainly also one of the most spacious I have heard, when it comes to closed headphones. This certainly has something to do with the fact that the drivers, as with the K812, have a relatively large distance to the ear. Imaging The K872 sounds more organic and musical than the K812. The bass is probably the decisive criterion here, but so is the closed construction. The K812 knows how to give absolutely every instrument its own space and has an impressive three-dimensionality. The K872, on the other hand, focuses more on a harmonious sound, which appears more natural and also offers a welcome intimacy for voices. Nevertheless, I miss the openness and absolute overview of the K812, no matter how hectic it gets. However, the K872 has strong technical qualities for closed headphones in terms of imaging. Outro One thing you should keep in mind with the K872. It probably won't convince you at first impression, but you should definitely take some time to familiarize yourself with its signature and sound presentation. Especially if you have heard other AKG representatives before, like the Q/K701, K702, or K812, you will be a bit irritated at the beginning. The K872 is more full-bodied and not as bright as those mentioned. Nevertheless, you will quickly hear yourself into the headphones and recognize the AKG house signature. You won't get a K812 in closed design. Also the K872 is not an absolute allrounder for me because of the midrange presentation and the bass dependence in connection with the sealing is a problem for me because I wear glasses. Thanks to Sattler Electronic Showtronic AG for providing the test headphones.

Dubious crypto offer from Yuan Pay Group Cryptocurrencies have become popular again at the latest since Elon Musk's statements and are on everyone's lips after the strong slump due to various external influences. One of them is certainly the Chinese government's rigorous action against crypto miners in its own country and the ban on trading. Not because China has a problem with cryptos and its energy balance. On the contrary. China is in the process of testing its own cryptocurrency (E-YUAN), among other things with the aim of becoming a leader in the field of blockchain technology and to declare war on Bitcoin, but of course also to further develop their surveillance state to a perfidious extent, because the anonymous basic idea of Bitcoin and Co no longer play a role in the "E-Yuan" of course, but probably more the complete control over the finances of the population. However, this is not directly about China, but about the YUAN PAY GROUP, which offers the E-YUAN with exuberant price forecasts for purchase, or investment. Since I myself like to invest in cryptos and of course I am always on the lookout for new interesting projects and investment opportunities, I would like to give you a WARNING about this offer, because I tried to find out myself for investigative reasons what the offer is all about. Reasons to avoid this offer: 1. Availability: the E-YUAN is not for free sale, nor is there any possibility to purchase it at all at the moment. It is in the testing phase within China and is only available to a small part of the population there. 2. Promises: The website aggressively advertises promises of profits, even though they use the subjunctive. They talk about these profits once the E-YUAN is launched. Here, however, one then wonders what exactly one is really "investing" in, since ultimately one cannot and will not receive any coins in the digital wallet in return. Also, it is not a CFD trade. 3. Profit: If the E-YUAN then really comes, it will be most probably a stable coin, since this is to be used as a regular payment method and thus may not be subject to volatile price fluctuations. Here I don't really see the chance to make high profits (and losses), as this would lack any sense. 4. Presentation: If you nevertheless enter your contact details (I used a fictitious name, test mail account and a pre-paid number), you will be taken to the website of a "broker", which is so poorly programmed and presented that all alarm bells should ring here at the latest. Here you are supposed to deposit your money, but there is no trace of an e-yuan. 5. Harassment: But it gets even better, because already after a short time you get calls from, for example, Denmark, Germany, England and other countries from so-called "consultants" who urge you to deposit and want to explain once again the urgency and "advantages" of the offer. You can only prevent this by blocking the numbers, as a NO is not an option for these gentlemen. Likewise, you are additionally contacted by mail. 6. Common sense: A serious broker would never harass the customer with telephone terror in order to urge him to invest his money, nor would he want to distinguish himself with lurid statements and, if you will, simply lie to the customer. Another indicator of unseriousness: twice as many coins with an investment of 250€? Which broker can afford such a thing? :D Conclusion: No matter what you read on the Internet for positive reports about the YUAN Pay Group, they do not correspond in any way to the truth and are intended to mislead. If you want to shoot your money out the window, give it rather to me!

Open back stage in closed back format frequency range: 10 - 30000 Hz | sound pressure level: 120 dB | impedance: 68 Ohm | dynamic The HP1000 impresses above all with its stage extension. Sound 7.9 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8 7.5 7.5 8.5 8 Handling 9 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 9 9 9 412 grams Total 8.3 Price 300 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - detailed and textured - dynamics - Stage - power hungry - Comfort - not the best all-rounder - Processing - tonal fluctuations Intro So far, I've been more familiar with SoundMagic's in-ears and am an obvious fan of the E11 in particular. In fact, there are even some sonic parallels to the company's flagship over-ear model, the HP1000, especially in the bass and midrange, although (to preface this) I appreciate the E11 more for its tonal consistency. Handling As expected, the build quality is very good considering the price. I like the simple and slim design, which conveys value and also confirms this haptically. Plastic and aluminum form an attractive symbiosis here. The comfort is very pleasant due to the soft PU leather (sheepskin) ear pads. Despite the noticeable weight of the headphones, they nestle very well against the head and can also be worn for several hours without any problems. The space inside the ear pads is ample and with the adjustable headband, the HP1000 should fit any anatomical requirements. The HP1000 comes in a hardcover case along with a cloth pouch, a detachable 3.5mm cable with 6.3mm adapter as well as extension and a 4.4mm upgrade cable. The connection is a bit unusual and looks like a banana jack of a speaker cable split in the middle. Still, the connection is secure and without restrictions. The isolation is certainly not a selling point and is quite permeable in both directions, which does not really do justice to a closed headphone. Sound Bass In the bass range, the HP1000 is quite balanced, with a slight mid-bass focus. It is not interested in making any bass head claims, but mostly stays in a focused, neutral base posture with pleasant warmth. For me, it is quite well proportioned within the signature and generally does not tend to exaggerate. Sometimes he even lets it go a bit too restrained for my taste. In contrast, however, on rare occasions it is too present in the upper bass and slightly boomy. A very solid, balanced bass with a warm note, with slight wobbles. Mids Basically, the mids are very detailed and of the somewhat brighter variety in the upper range, but slightly warmed up in the basement. This bears the risk of not always acting tonally correct. Voices can sound a bit thin around the top in some cases and fade into the background or sound a bit muffled and too warm. In general, the mids lack a bit of effervescence here and there, but this also depends a lot on the instruments used and their arrangement. For example, guitars tend to have a full character, but violinists or pianos do not always have the desired physicality or an authentic timbre. Here, the HP1000 turns out to be a bit of a grab bag for my taste and seems somewhat inconsistent as a result. This means that the HP1000's mids can be breathtaking on the one hand, but on the other hand there are also moments where the timbre could be judged as simply off the mark. This is where getting used to the sound plays a role above all. The more you are willing to give the HP1000 some time, the more the mids will unfold their magic, but the tonal fluctuations will always accompany you. Trebles The trebles are mainly present in the lower range and around 10 kHz. This ensures that sibilants and sharpness are minimized, but as with the mids, there is a bit of a feeling of not always being on the right track tonally. The emphasis in the upper range can seem a bit artificial, and substance is sometimes lacking. Thus, some songs sound rather slightly brightened and overdrawn in the absolute high frequencies than that the level increase also brings an added value in terms of content. I would gladly trade some "brilliance" for airiness and fullness. Stage This is clearly where the HP1000's strength lies. For a closed headphone, the stage extension is enormous and clearly extends beyond the head. However, this is not true to the same extent in the deep. Imaging Basically, the HP1000 draws a fine and well-divided 3D image. Even though the X-axis seems much more lush than the Y- or Z-axis, the amount of space and its use surprises one again and again. However, the instrument placement could be a bit more accurate and sharper separated in some cases. Nevertheless, the HP1000 is technically very well positioned and more than lives up to its price tag. Outro The HP1000 impresses above all with its stage extension. This is definitely comparable to an open design and is clearly the HP1000's strength. However, you sometimes get the feeling that musical content gets a bit lost in the expanse. Tonally, the HP1000 can be a bit of a grab bag and in some cases act a bit too thin and uninspired or as a contrast too warm and a bit dull. That's complaining on a high level, but still ensures that I can't give the headphones my complete trust musically, which limits them somewhat for me in daily use and it always takes some getting used to at the beginning in any case. Technically, however, the headphones definitely convince me and those who have their preferences in this area and can put up with the one or other tonal fluctuation should risk an ear. Thanks to SoundMagic for providing the test headphones.

The wattage is the most important sales argument for most amplifiers and speakers. It is often misunderstood and equated with volume (and the theory that more is better - like megapixels with cameras). Bigger numbers always seem to cost more, and numbers are easy to sell - A has more than B, so A must be better. Volume is a function of SPL (sound pressure level), measured in decibels (dB). Speakers are typically specified with the maximum wattage they can handle and the sound pressure level, e.g. "87dB @ 1W/1Meter". In other words, the 87dB loudspeaker produces 87 decibels with only 1 watt of amplifier power at a distance of 1 meter. Now consider that double the wattage is required to achieve a 3dB increase in volume level. So a 100 watt amplifier will deliver a 3dB higher volume level than a 50 watt amplifier. However, 3dB is not as noticeable as one would expect. To actually achieve a doubling of the perceived volume, an increase of 10dB is necessary. Let's take the 87dB loudspeaker as an example first and double the amplifier power: 1 Watt = 87dB 2 Watt = 90dB (Doubling the power to achieve an increase of 3dB) 4 Watt = 93dB 8 Watt= 96dB 16 Watt = 99dB (about twice as loud as on a 1 Watt amplifier) 32 Watt = 101dB 64 Watt = 104dB 128 Watt = 107dB 256 Watt = 110dB 512 Watt= 113dB Here you quickly realize that a higher volume not only has something to do with a more powerful amplifier, but that the loudspeaker sensitivity is also a variable. If you have a 97db @ 1W/1Meter sensitive loudspeaker, you get the following result: 1 Watt = 97db 2 Watt = 100dB ... 16 Watt = 109dB With the "87dB" loudspeaker, you would need about a 250 watt amplifier per channel to achieve the same volume as a 16 watt amplifier with the "97dB" loudspeaker. Of course, it is important to keep in mind how high a loudspeaker (manufacturer's specifications) can be amplified without causing damage. Therefore it also depends a lot on the sensitivity of the connected loudspeakers and especially on what I want to achieve/sonicate with the system. Basically, a powerful amplifier alone does not really say anything about the volume to be achieved, it's the combination that does it. Nevertheless, it can of course be assumed that an amplifier with a higher WATT specification can also generate a higher output if you compare this with a constant speaker. But you should not be guided by crazy PMPO specifications of some products. To know what an amplifier can do and what a loudspeaker can tolerate, the RMS value should always be used. But this is a different subject, which I will discuss separately in another article. Ps.: You will never be able to make a statement about sound quality with the WATT specification!

A legend reports back frequency range: 12 - 38500 Hz | sound pressure level: 100 dB | impedance: 150 Ohm | dynamic Whoever wants a little more liveliness from the HD6XX besides a balanced sound, can risk an ear and gets an absolute price-performance hit. Sound 8.5 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 Handling 8.5 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 8 8 8 260 grams Total 8.5 Price 145 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - good wearing comfort - somewhat high contact pressure - energetic mids - slight shrillness - good, natural bass - sub bass rolloff - price-performance ratio - treble extension Intro In addition to the HD6XX, DROP also offers the HD58X Jubilee as a revised version of the HD580, the veteran of Sennheiser's dynamic high-end models, which was released almost 20 years ago and later replaced by the HD600/650. The HD580 gave SENNHEISER a very good reputation in the audiophile world and was, so to speak, the starting signal for the success story. The HD580 and the HD650 were not too far apart in terms of sound (judging by the graphs) at the time, nor are the HD6XX and the HD58X (based on real listening comparisons). They are even very similar. Handling There is not too much to add to the description of the HD6XX, because besides the sonic similarities they share the structural ones. The HD58X, consists of a good 80% of plastic. Only the reinforcement at the headband, with which the headphones can also be adjusted to the head shape, and the back grills of the ear cups are made of metal. The HD58X does not make a cheap impression, because the workmanship is of high quality and no production errors or rough tolerances can be detected. Compared to the HD6XX, you can't see the inside through the grid on the backside, but this is hidden by a thin foam inside. The earpads have a velour cover (which crunches a bit with glasses), which encloses the complete ear and fits very secure due to the (a bit too tight) contact pressure of the case. On the headband there is a foam padding, which prevents pressure pain as far as possible and allows wearing the headphones for a long time. The wearing comfort is therefore good, but somewhat limited by the high contact pressure and the somewhat spartan padding on the headband. I prefer a flexible headband. The accessories are reduced to a minimum, i.e. the same 3.5mm cable (1.8m) as with the HD6XX, plus an adapter to 6.3mm jack. The cable consists of two quite thick strands (left/right), which are led parallel. The connection to the headphones is done via a 2-pin connector (both sides). So we don't get much, but the most necessary things, which is also quite sufficient with regard to the price. Here, the headphones themselves are clearly in the foreground, and even without accessories, the price would justify itself for me. The HD58X is even 40 € cheaper than the HD6XX. Due to the open construction, one cannot speak of an isolation, which makes the HD58X only limited suitable for the public, whether on the street or in the office. Sound Bass In the bass we have a quantitative increase to the HD6XX. But this increase does not turn the whole signature upside down, but provides a somewhat stronger punch compared to the HD6XX. Qualitatively, the two don't take much, it's just a bit more present, which could please one or the other, but also scare off others. In the subrange I still miss a bit of pressure, but nevertheless I have the slightly higher expansion on the HD58X. Mids The mids have a good presence and play clearly and directly. However, I find them a bit demanding in the upper range with a slight shrillness in some songs. But they have the desired energy, which I sometimes miss on HD6XX. Vocals are a bit more in the foreground and have mostly a natural timbre, but are sometimes a bit garish, which can lead to symptoms of fatigue. Qualitatively they are however in sum quite high, both in resolution and tonal. However, you should keep an eye on the volume. This midrange presentation can be a curse and a blessing at the same time, especially if you love vocals. But for me the (upper) mids are still absolutely in the tolerable range. Trebles As with the HD6XX, the high frequency of the HD58X could be a bit more intense. It avoids the sibilants very well and has a good resolution, but I see some quality advantages with the HD6XX, which are not decisive. In comparison, the lower trebles are a bit more reduced, so that the upper mids are more effective than on the HD6XX. This makes the HD58X a little bit more mid-focused, which is nothing bad per se, but the balance and naturalness is lost a bit. Concerning the level of detail, both meet at eye level with a slight advantage on the HD6XX, which doesn't fire a spectacle either, but acts a bit more defined and leaves a more mature impression. Stage Despite the open design of the HD58X, the stage does not set any standards and moves on the same (good) level of the HD6XX with slight subjective advantages in all directions on the side of the HD58X, which certainly creates more tension, but is only a nuance. Imaging The separation appears a bit sharper than on the HD6XX due to the more direct response and voices come more to the fore, which also creates a more distinct depth, but there are no worlds in imaging between the HD58X and the HD6XX. The result is a clean 3D image, but this can by no means compete with the imaging of an AKG K812. Appropriate to the price is the right description. Outro This review is not intended to be a shootout between the HD6XX and the HD58X. Both have their right to exist. point. Nevertheless the comparison is obvious. The HD58X radiates more energy and also has the slightly better extension in the low frequency range. Due to the clearer focus on the upper mids due to the somewhat restrained lower treble range compared to the HD6XX, the absolute balance gets a bit lost, but still, the HD58X strives for a neutral sound with a slight warmth. However, the mids are a bit glaring and not as deep relaxed as on the HD6XX. In return, the HD58X sounds more lively and direct in its response, but I would attest the HD6XX a slightly better resolution, even if it doesn't have the clarity of the HD58X in comparison. In the end it depends on the personal preferences. If the HD6XX already brings you too much bass, you shouldn't orientate to the HD58X, but rather to the HD600. But if you want a little more liveliness from the HD6XX besides a balanced sound, you can risk an ear and get a competent headphone at an absolute price-performance hit. For me the HD6XX is the more mature and natural one of both, but the more fun and clearer one is the HD58X.

Neutral reference at an unbeatable price frequency range: 10 - 41000 Hz | sound pressure level: N/A | impedance: 300 Ohm | dynamic Life is not a rainbow-colored unicorn, so you can't really blame the HD6XX for trying to stay authentic. Sound 8.7 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8.5 9 9 8.5 8.5 Handling 8.5 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 8 8 8 260 grams Total 8.6 Price 185 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - good wearing comfort - somewhat high contact pressure - tonal correct - extension at both ends - neutral sound - not particularly exciting - price-performance - imaging Intro DROP (formerly Massdrop) is in the end nothing more than an online shop. But with the subtle difference that they also put their resources into product development with well-known big players. In most cases, the aim is to revise or reissue an existing product, make it more cost efficient and thus make it accessible to a wider audience. Examples are the AKG 7XX, HIFIMAN HE4XX, or the SENNHEISER HD6XX, which is based on the HD650 in terms of sound and appearance. This is still listed at SENNHEISER for 459 €, but is available at Thomann for just under 340 €. Well, the HD6XX is available via DROP for about 185 € and that without big differences in processing and sound (if you can believe the manufacturer, since I can't make a direct comparison at the moment). DROP also produces on demand and therefore in different batches, hopefully with the same quality control. So the product is not available on the shelf, but only exclusively through DROP and therefore not permanently. Soundwise you should be able to get something out of the SENNHEISER house signature, which is usually a bit more reserved and neutral, warmly tuned, at least when we talk about the H5XY and H6XY models. Handling Keyword cost efficiency. The HD6XX, consists of a good 80 % of plastic. Only the reinforcement on the headband, which also allows the headphones to be adjusted to the shape of the head, and the back grills of the ear cups are made of metal. However, the HD6XX does not make a cheap impression, because the workmanship is of high quality and no production errors or rough tolerances can be detected. The earpads have a velour cover (which crunches a little bit with glasses), which encloses the complete ear and fits very securely due to the (a little too tight) contact pressure of the housing. On the headband there is a foam padding, which prevents pressure pain as far as possible and allows wearing the headphones for a long time. The wearing comfort is therefore good, but somewhat limited by the high contact pressure and the somewhat spartan padding on the headband. I prefer a flexible headband. The accessories are reduced to a minimum, i.e. a 3.5mm cable (1.8m) and an adapter to a 6.3mm jack. The cable consists of two quite thick strands (left/right), which are led parallel. The connection to the headphones is done via a 2-pin connector (both sides). With the detachable cable you have the possibility to use the HD6XX balanced, whether with an adapter (25 €) to MMCX, or 2-Pin 0.78mm (a balanced cable to 4.4mm, or 2.5mm is required), or with a quite expensive balanced cable directly from Sennheiser. We don't get much, but we get the most necessary, which is quite sufficient in terms of price. Here, the headphones themselves are clearly in the foreground, and even without accessories, the price would justify itself for me. One cannot speak of isolation due to the open construction, which makes the HD6XX only suitable for public use to a limited extent, whether on the street or in the office. Sound Bass The bass is quite linear, with a slight drop in the subrange. Therefore, it is more emphasized in the mid-bass without being exaggerated, but still close to the neutral ideal. I would like to see a bit more punch and firmness, but when it comes to fun in the low end, the HD6XX likes to give the sceptre away and prefers to limit itself to a natural response and realism. For me it would be close to the ideal if it would give off 2-3 dB in the upper bass and add this to the sub bass. If you prefer a well-dosed, natural bass, which is a bit softer but not muddy, the HD6XX is the right choice. Mids For my taste, the mids are the heart of the HD6XX. However, I understand also such opinions, which describe them as somewhat veiled and conservative. Well, they certainly don't have a WOW-factor, but they are damn natural in their presentation. The point of criticism is the clarity, so I go with the first argument. But only to a limited extent, because I don't have the feeling that something is being withheld from me or that the mids are falling behind compared to the bass or trebles. On the contrary. The HDXX is a slightly mid-focused headphone, which however harmonizes very well with the bass and treble and is oriented towards a neutral frequency response. The mid/upper bass gives them a bit more warmth, to speak of absolute neutrality, but this makes the mids more musical and gives them a natural sounding timbre. Vocals should be mentioned here as a highlight, but the tonality of instruments is not to be blamed either. Trebles In the high frequencies the HD6XX is a bit more reserved than it should be. It sounds absolutely realistic and provides a lot of information, but in the top end it might be a few dB more without making the sound too bright or artificial in my opinion. This could also give the HD6XX more transparency. Here I would like a more direct response, but as in the bass and mids this is criticism on a high level, because basically the HD6XX does everything right when it comes to natural sound reproduction. Only a little bit the effervescence is missing, but life is not a rainbow-colored unicorn and therefore you can't really blame the HD6XX when it tries to stay authentic. Sibilants or peaks I can't make out, which makes for an absolutely safe and fatigue-free sound experience. Tonal correctness is clearly more important for the HD6XX than the big show. Stage Thanks to the open construction, the stage has a lot of space in the width, but it is somewhat limited in the vertical. This means that the sound information is displayed in a somewhat compressed form when compared with the AKG K/Q701, for example. However, this gives the HD6XX a pleasant intimacy and it has a robust foundation. Imaging When it comes to imaging, the HD6XX doesn't necessarily play over budget, but it plays within it. Due to the somewhat lacking clarity and sharp separation, the HD6XX doesn't have any localization problems, but the space between the individual pieces of information is not the biggest and can collide here and there. Nevertheless, a very coherent 3D image is created, which I find realistic, even though I would like to have a little more space to the top. Outro The HD6XX is often considered the best value for money at the moment when it comes to a laidback, neutral sound with a warm touch. This is true, but this characteristic is also a reason why the headphone won't knock people out in rows, because the HD6XX doesn't offer an exciting sound experience. Instead, a very natural one, with slight deficits in stage and imaging, which means grumbling on a high level. The relaxed and somewhat "veiled" sound presentation (typical for SENNHEISER) is certainly not to everyone's taste, but for me the HD6XX sounds just right and sufficiently musical, which it has ahead of many AKG models. In addition, there are no limitations in the audibility, which is a bit at the expense of the expansion at both ends. Also by its appealing detail rendition, the wearing comfort and the authentic sound, especially in the voice reproduction, it is indeed a value that is hard to top, since the HD6XX is above all a weapon in tonal terms.

Technical and bright. The most "demanding" of the 7 series. frequency range: 10 - 39800 Hz | sound pressure level: 105 dB | impedance: 62 Ohm | dynamic For private use, I am often attracted to the K702 because of its better audibility, but more technically and precisely I am on the road with the K701, respectively the Q701. Sound 8.3 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8 8.5 8 8.5 9 Handling 8 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 7 8 6 235 grams Total 8.2 Price 125 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - variety of details - the bass is a bit too "neutral" - neutral tuning - bright and sharp in the high frequencies - great 3D image - headband quickly becomes uncomfortable (old version) - mid-range reproduction - Isolation Intro The K701 is considered an AKG classic when it comes to neutral-bright headphones for reference listening. The close relationship with the K702 cannot be denied, but the K702 sounds more relaxed in the midrange and in the high frequencies. With the Q701, however, one can almost speak of a twin. Handling Plastic, metal, leather, velour - the material combination including the design remains the same in every model of the 7-series. The design is of course a bit outdated, but still one of the most functional. The K701 is an open headphone, which means that the isolation does not play a big role, as it is practically non-existent, both inside and outside. The velour posters enclose the whole ear and have a thick (behind the ear) and thin side (in front of the ear). This causes the driver to supply the ear with sound a bit more from "in front", which is supposed to provide a spatial representation. Unlike the K702 & Q701, the cable (3m - 6.3mm jack) is not removable and can be adapted to 3.5mm jack (adapter included). For me the not removable cable is not the biggest disadvantage of the K701, because AKG "only" uses a 3-pin (single-sided) cable with the other models, so a balanced usage is not possible even with these without tinkering. The only advantage here remains the interchangeability in case of cable breakage or the use of different lengths (see Q701). With the headband, the old K7XY disease comes up (if you still catch an old serial number of the K701 like I did) in terms of wearing comfort. The headband has nubs (8), which are very hard and instead of padding they cause headaches because of the pressure points, if you were not given a full head of hair. Meanwhile there is a new version with a flat and more comfortable headband, as it is the case with the K702. Included in the delivery is a plastic headphone stand, which is not the most valuable, but functional. The headphones are simply placed in the foam insert and stand securely in it. Sound Bass The K701 is probably the weakest of the 7-series in terms of bass when it comes to quantity. Qualitatively it has a good, dry punch and a very solid detail reproduction, but I miss something the body, which makes it sound more sterile. Nevertheless it has a good dynamic and cannot be called lifeless. Nevertheless, for my taste, the "accustomed" naturalness is lost a bit. Maybe you ask yourself who actually decided that neutral always has to contain such a subtle bass? The answer is our "manipulated" listening habit. At every live concert, the drums are given a fatter sound via the PA. Also on many recordings (if they are not acoustic) instruments like bass and drums are amplified, which basically ends up in an "unnatural" sound. If you stand in front of an unamplified drum set, the bass drum will not sound room-filling and powerful, but rather duller and flatter than we are used to live or on the recording. Therefore "neutral" headphones usually have a subjectively quite bass-poor music reproduction. This is less fun, but in the case of the K701 I still find the bass to be musical enough to enjoy the music. In contrast to the K701 the Q701 has a bit more level, but the boost is still decent in comparison. Mids The K701 is slightly more relaxed in the mids compared to the Q701. However, the emphasis is on " slightly". The K701 also has this shrillness, which is probably caused by a peak around 2 kHz. Together with the high frequency peak around 5-6 kHz this gives a nice clarity and transparency, but it can also be quite demanding. The K702 is the brave one, but also a bit veiled in the mids. Vocals sometimes tend to be a bit harsh and a bit brighter than they should be, but you get used to the presentation very quickly. Except for this slightly over-enthusiastic reproduction, the mids sound mostly authentic, even if they could use a bit more warmth and body. Because of the more direct and subjectively clearer and more detailed mids, the point here goes to the K701 (as with the Q701) compared to the K702, even though I can hold out longer with the K702. Trebles The trebles of the K701 are a bit tricky. They sometimes have an unpleasant sharpness and are a bit too accentuated, which also gives the K701 its brightness. AKG has also clearly recognized this in the Q701 and made the high frequencies a bit more relaxed, while maintaining the same level of detail. Together with the stricter mids, the high tone of the K701 requires some tolerance. For me, using the K701 for several hours is not possible. Nevertheless, the treble is extremely competent in terms of its technical characteristics, but for me the price is a bit too high. So I have to consider the Q701 as an upgrade, even if the Q701 does not always make it easy for me as well. Stage The stage extension of AKG's 7-series models can always be described as exceptionally wide. Almost too wide to seem natural. This makes the K701 very interesting in the stereo panorama, because it knows how to use the space, occupies the spaces in between and the separation does the rest. Still, I miss the depth and intimacy a bit. A SENNHEISER HD6XX has that a bit better, even if it doesn't have the lush stage structure of the AKGs. Imaging As with the Q701, the K701 produces a very plastic 3D image. The differences here are marginal and can only be seen in the depth. The Q701 also has the more stable foundation. The imaging of the K701 seems to be a little more finely drawn, airy and therefore a little more fragile than the Q701, or K702. It's a matter of taste, but I prefer to have it a bit more catchy and obvious. Outro The AKG 7-series is a success story and has certainly earned its place in many studios and audiophile headphone collections. Meanwhile, the price is also extremely competitive, which speaks for a very good price-performance ratio. The models are all suitable in their own way as tools and/or musical companions with high standards. For private use (when I feel like getting the AKG 7 house signature), I am often attracted to the K702 because of its better audibility, but more technically and precisely I am on the road with the K701, respectively the Q701. Thanks to Sattler Electronic Showtronic AG for providing the test headphones.

In this price class the epitome of neutral, with a musical touch. frequency range: 12 - 39500 Hz | sound pressure level: 101 dB | impedance: 120 Ohm | dynamic The K612 PRO convinces me with an extremely neutral frequency response, which however sounds surprisingly musical. Sound 8.6 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8.5 9 8.5 8.5 8.5 Handling 8 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 7 8 6 238 grams Total 8.4 Price 110 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - price-performance ratio - somewhat artificial high frequency - neutral & musical - a tad too bright - linear bass with texture - isolation - mid-range reproduction - slight shrillness Intro The K612 PRO came out relatively simultaneously with the K712 PRO, which is supposed to be the top model within its series. The K612 PRO convinces me with an extremely neutral frequency response, which however sounds surprisingly musical. It also brings a little more calmness and composure to the music than some models of the K7 series. Nevertheless, you can immediately recognize (regardless of the outward appearance) that you have an AKG on your ear, especially in the mids. Handling In the K6XY and K7XY, AKG has decided on a design that has been followed through with only slight modifications. Why change a proven design when it offers functionality and comfort, at least as far as the ear cups are concerned. The velour posters enclose the whole ear, but are uniform in thickness, which is different from the K7 series, where there is a thick and thin side, which should let the sound hit the ear a little more directional. They are still comfortable, even though I generally like to use 3-party pads on the AKG models (see pictures), which has a positive effect on the sound, especially the shrillness of the typical AKG midrange. But for the review I use the original pads of course. The cable (3m - 6.3mm jack) is not removable and can be adapted to 3.5mm jack (adapter included). I wish that AKG had set their models with detachable cables (Mini-XLR) to 4-pin, because this way you are denied a purely balanced operation and the added value of a detachable cable is reduced, so that (with this knowledge) the tied one doesn't bother me much with the K612 PRO either. Due to the negative feedback from the K701 or K702, the headband is probably a flat one, which I personally find much more comfortable than the (older and meanwhile adapted) nubbed version of some other models. Apart from the 6.3mm adapter, the scope of delivery is actually non-existent. But good, you don't need more to use the headphones. Sound Bass AKG is not known for giving their reference models extra bass, but rather for their neutral bass reproduction. This certainly doesn't suit every taste and is not perfect for every style of music, but is a necessity for mastering, mixing, monitoring and anything else that requires a neutral frequency response for reference listening. Many AKG models are also not designed for mobile use, but are intended to find their way into the professional or home studio. The bass of the K612 PRO is part of this "reference series" from AKG and therefore does not provide a generous amount of bass. But it doesn't need to, because the K612 PRO handles the bass with its fine blade, has depth and above all texture down to the low frequencies. Compared to the bass of the closed K271 MKII the bass is nearly fun tuned. Of course I sometimes wish for a more powerful punch here and there, but I always know what I'm getting from the K612 PRO in the bass range and that with a consistently high quality. The bass is also more linear than on the K701/702. Mids I was taken with the midrange of the K612 PRO. AKG stays true to itself here and doesn't try any big experiments in the mids, but the neutral "house mids" of the company have a recognition value and therefore character. They are tuned a bit flatter than on the K702, but the 2kHz is also softened, which partly takes away the slight shrillness and nasality. You could assume that the K612 PRO is boring in the midrange, but I prefer to call it unadulterated. I can immerse myself in the music without any problems, since the bass also gives the mids enough warmth and musicality. Flat? Yes, but sterile? No. I especially like the attention to detail, as well as the tonal accuracy with mids that are a bit forward. With the appropriate replacement pads you can ensure a more relaxed reproduction, which also takes away a bit of liveliness, but takes another step towards absolute neutrality. Vocals and instruments sound very natural and also bring emotions across, although not as intimate as a SENNHEISER HD6XX. But the K612 PRO has a better grip. Trebles It's a slight AKG "disease" that the highs don't always have the absolute resolution, but that details (also due to the bright tuning) are sometimes rather simulated, which you can hear when you smooth the peaks with other pads or filters. Nevertheless I find them subjectively high quality and above all coherent, which I find much more important in this context. Trebles can have a high (technical) quality no matter how great. If they are not coherently integrated into the signature, you have gained nothing. The K612 PRO succeeds very well in this integration into a harmonious sound image. Likewise one should not misunderstand me. The trebles are on a very high level for me, they just can't quite keep up with higher class models. However, my expectations are met and for me information is presented in a comprehensive way. Nevertheless, they are still a bit too bright for my taste. Stage When I hold an open-back AKG in my hands, I can expect to get an extremely wide stage, which sometimes even seems a bit over the top. But the K612 PRO also manages to show presence in depth and in the vertical. It has this advantage over other models and therefore the stage appears realistic and three-dimensional. Imaging With the space provided, the K612 PRO can draw a fine 3D image, which has the strength in the panorama, but is quite capable of forming a sphere around the head rather than an ellipse. I find the K812 even more accurate in the separation, but the K612 PRO doesn't have to hide behind the K7 series. A very good and authentic imaging are the keywords here. Outro The K612 PRO has played itself into my heart. With no big gimmicks or teenage poses, it transports the music as neutrally as possible into our ears without sounding sterile or boring. At the same time, it has excellent all-rounder qualities and even with electronic music, it doesn't convince with a lush bass quantity, but with texture and stability down to the lowest frequencies. For me it is a successful mixture of the K701/Q701 and K702, but with a more relaxed overall presentation. The K612 PRO also sounds a bit bright, but it has better control over the sometimes shrill midrange around 2 kHz of the K702, or the sharp high frequencies of the K701. The Q701 may sound a bit livelier, but it's exactly this matter-of-fact yet musical approach of the K612 PRO that I love, because it stays true to itself in every song. However, it should be mentioned that in terms of sound, no quantum leaps should be expected in comparison to the other models mentioned. For the most part, AKG sticks to a neutral tuning with subtle adjustments in its reference models. For around 100 € the K612 PRO is not only the perfect entry into the AKG world, but also an honest companion that plays above its price range in technical terms. If you want to smooth out the frequency response a bit more and take away the remaining subtle shrillness in the upper midrange, you should think about additional pads (see link - Sheepskin with holes). I have no problems to mention the K612 PRO in one sentence with the SENNHEISER HD6XX. The HD6XX plays a bit more organic and is maybe a bit more natural in comparison, but the K612 PRO is for me in this price range the epitome of neutral, with a musical touch. Thanks to Sattler Electronic Showtronic AG for providing the test headphones. Pads: AliExpress

Criteria: Over-Ear + Closed-Back - KXX Serie Price range: 25 € - 50 € Explanation: I keep my experience report as simple as possible during the shootout. For the most part, headphones in a similar price range and with comparable technical characteristics are compared. The price does not play a role in the evaluation. The rating is also dynamic, depending on the current listening experience. The weighting of sound and handling is 2:1. K52 K72 K92 Sound 7.5 7.3 7.3 Bass 7.5 7.5 7.5 Mids 7.5 7 7 Trebles 7.5 7 7 Imaging 7.5 7.5 7.5 Stage 7.5 7.5 7.5 Handling 7.5 7.5 7.5 Processing 8 8 8 Comfort 7 7 7 Total 7.5 7.4 7.4 Price 28 € 37 € 43 € Comparison: Individual reviews below AKG is expanding its budget range with the K52, K72 & K92. The jump in price from K52 to K72 is the biggest with almost 10 €, even if I wonder what the 10 € make up. In my opinion the K52 has the most to offer in terms of sound and only the "better" pads can't be the reason for the price difference. Well, of course there is a bit of marketing involved. On paper the K52 has a range of 18 - 20000 Hz, the K92 has a range of 16 - 22000 Hz (K72: 16 - 20000 Hz). Whoever hears it, will be blessed. The K92 is also attested a slightly better sensitivity (+ 3 dB). Handling The three models are practically triplets, whereby one has enjoyed a somewhat different upbringing (K52). Externally they hardly differ, except that the K92 has golden headbows and an outer gold ring on the ear cups. Likewise, the K52 has no ribbing on the back. They are all wired and there is no difference in accessories. The K72 & K92 get another 50cm more cable length, which brings them up to 3m. Also the comfort is on the same good level. The pads of the K72 & K92 look a bit more valuable and therefore more durable, but this is not really noticeable when wearing them, because they are neither thicker, thinner, softer nor firmer. There is no winner here and the look remains a matter of taste. Sound Soundwise there are no really big differences between the siblings. All of them have a V-signature, where the mids fall a bit behind and are absorbed by the emphasized but not unpleasant highs (at least on the K52). The bass is not the most solid, but it brings fun into the music. Because the bass of the K52 tends to drop towards the mids and the highs are earlier and more linear, the K52 sounds tidier and more balanced than the big ones. The K72 & K92 actually only make the K52 worse, as they only amplify the obvious problems. They sound duller in the mids and are more accentuated in the lower range, which sounds unnatural, as well as a bit sharper in the treble, with earlier roll-off in the sub range (K72). The K92 is on the same level in the bass as the K52. These are all minimal differences, but they do not represent an added value. I am of course aware that AKG has enough other alternatives when it comes to natural timbre and neutrality. The three models are a welcome change, as AKG is going a different way, but not like this. At least not with the mentioned marketing, because without any analytical claim you can consume music very well with the K52. In the studio, the models have little to look for, only for short listening or recording. If someone does get lost, then the K52 is the one that sounds most "authentic". The differences between the individual models, however, remain more than manageable and are actually non-existent with the K72 & K92. Conclusion The triplets are mainstream listeners, which can be fun to listen to and are also suitable for on the go (except for the cable lengths), but do not meet the professional demands of the marketing department. The winner is the cheapest model, but this is a close but unexpected choice. The K52 manages to sound most natural, as far as possible, and is somewhat more harmonious in its sound presentation than the more highly bred V-signatures of its big siblings. I like to listen to music with the K52 and it is a good alternative in this price segment for me, or rather can stand out positively here. A remedy for the wearing comfort are ear warmers from China, which are good and cheap, have twice the thickness of the originals and due to the greater distance to the ear the headphones also improve/relax the sound a bit. It remains questionable, however, why AKG was of the opinion to bring three models onto the market, which differ so slightly. But this is not really different with their K7 series. In any case, the K72 & K92 do not represent any added value for me compared to the K52. EarPads - AliExpress K52 40 mm driver, sensitivity: 110 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 18 - 20000 Hz The AKG 52 is already for favorable 28 € (Thomann.de - time of the review) to have. Thus it is probably the most favorable AKG at present on the market, but would like to be noticed according to marketing nevertheless as professional tool. Well, a fun factor when listening to music is not to be denied to the K52, due to the potent and generous bass, which allows the mids and highs still enough air to breathe. But for critical listening the K52 is less suitable. It may work as a monitor for monitoring and recording, but for other professional applications it is not neutral and accurate enough. Handling At the price called I find the workmanship and functionality very successful. The frame of the headband is made of metal, whereas the ear cups are completely made of plastic. The headband is self-adjusting and therefore adapts to the shape of the head. Even large skulls should not be a problem for the AKG K52. The wearing comfort on the head is therefore good, even if the headband does not offer any significant additional padding. With the ear cushions the comfort looks a little different. For the first moment, it's not bad at all, as they cover the whole ear and find a good mix of padding and stability. However, the pads are quite flat and therefore the ear bumps against the inside. This can cause unpleasant pressure in the long run. The durability of the leatherette cover can also be questioned. Reminds me a bit of the SENNHEISER H201, which thinned out over time, but that is pure speculation. The fixed cable (3.5mm) measures a good 2.5mm and an included adapter allows us to use a 6.3mm output. The cable looks robust and has a comfortable length, even if it is a bit too long for mobile use. For a closed construction, it will leak quite a lot to the outside world, which is suboptimal. Sound AKG probably thought they needed a headphone that could also provide bass in generous quantities. The result is a lush V-signature, or rather U-signaur, where the bass is very dominant. The bass plays very deep and offers a good amount of punch. However, this is very dependent on the fit of the ear pads and thus the sealing. I deliberately like to distort the sound a little bit by the fit so that the bass is not too overloaded. Glasses can help here :) I find the bass to be quite qualitative, even if it convinces me a bit more in the low frequencies than in the mid and upper bass, where it doesn't always have the desired firmness and sometimes sounds a bit hollow. The bass influence is clearly audible in the mids. Apart from the fact that they are set back, they have a bulbous body and get a bit too much warmth. They are of the relaxed type without obtrusive peaks or shrillness in voices. They don't really sound authentic, because the bass and treble have too much of an upper hand. It lacks clarity and presence, even though I don't necessarily miss the AKG-typical emphasis of 2kHz, but that's too reserved and therefore flat or a bit monotonous. Here I wish for more clarity and assertiveness. Still not the worst mids out there. The trebles then go full throttle and stay at a constant high level up to 7 kHz until they drop and thus avoid sibilants as far as possible. For the typical hifi peak around 12 kHz they don't really respond, which also means they lack some brilliance. But they are quite safe and stable even at high volumes. For everyday use I find the presentation and quality of the trebles absolutely sufficient and definitely above average considering the price. The trebles catch the emphasized bass, which subjectively balances the valley in the mids and gives the K52 the necessary openness. The AKG 52 is closed-back, but can still present a really appealing stage, which may not have the largest dimensions, but produces a rather homogeneous image. Here, there are far worse things in the price range. The imaging suffers a bit from the average separation, but even here I find it absolutely acceptable for everyday consumption of music. Analytically I would not want to look at music with it. https://www.thomann.de/de/akg_k_52.htm K72 40 mm driver, sensitivity: 112 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 16 - 20000 Hz The K72 is a K52 in the end, except that the bass loses a minimal amount of level and the lower mids gain. In the high frequencies, a pinch around 6 kHz is added, which is supposed to simulate a higher resolution. Compared to the K52, this doesn't convince me and rather goes in a more negative direction. Handling For the price called I find the workmanship and functionality successful. The frame of the headband is made of metal, whereas the ear cups are completely made of plastic. The headband is self-adjusting and therefore adapts to the shape of the head. Even large skulls should not have any problems with the AKG K72. The wearing comfort on the head is therefore good, even if the headband does not offer any significant additional padding. With the ear pads the comfort looks a little different. For the first moment it is not bad at all, because they cover the whole ear and find a good mixture of padding and stability. However, the pads are quite flat and therefore the ear bumps against the inside. This can cause unpleasant pressure in the long run. Compared to the K52, a firmer imitation leather cover is used, which looks more robust, but doesn't add much in the way of comfort. The fixed cable (3.5mm) measures a good 3m and an included adapter allows us to use a 6.3mm output. The cable looks robust, but is too long for mobile use. The isolation is good due to the closed construction, but not optimal. Sound With the K52, I've already said a lot because of the almost outrageous tonal similarities, so I'll be a bit shorter here. The bass has a pleasant punch and depth, but is not the most solid and reduced compared to the K52. That's not wrong per se, but it doesn't drop off sufficiently towards the mids and colours them. It could also like to be a bit more organic and dynamic, as it sounds a bit dull to me despite the quantity. Basically, it doesn't really differ from the K52 in terms of quality, even though I notice a better sub-expansion on the K52. The bass is basically good and a different approach from AKG, but if it has to be a lot of bass, then please do it with a bit more taste. The mids together with the highs are actually a worsening of the K52. The not fast enough bass dropping leads to an unnatural emphasis of the lower mids, but around 1-2 kHz they fall even lower than those of the little brother. This hollows them out even more and causes more obfuscation. What the sonic upgrade to the K52 should represent here is a mystery to me. The highs climb their peak from 3 kHz on quite late and keep the level (like the K52) up to around 7 kHz, but with a more pronounced drop around 5 kHz, where the K52 is more linear. Especially the slightly increased energy around 6 kHz makes the K72 a bit more sharp than the K52, which seems more balanced in the high frequencies. This is supposed to simulate more details, but for me this is rather a disadvantage, because sibilants and sharpness come out more, even if only subtly. Again, I wonder what the intention of the "improvement" was. Stage and imaging differed only slightly from the K52. Due to the slight increase in level in the high frequencies, the K72 is perhaps more discreetly airy and better positioned vertically, but that is more imagination than demonstrable. Basically, I find the imaging of the K52 rounder and more natural, whereas the K72 is slightly more artificial. But as I said, this is analysis on a very thin ice, without much substance. https://www.thomann.de/de/akg_k_72.htm K92 40 mm driver, sensitivity: 113 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 16 - 22000 Hz Criteria: Over-Ear + Closed-Back - KXX Serie Price range: 25 € - 50 € Explanation: I keep my experience report as simple as possible during the shootout. For the most part, headphones in a similar price range and with comparable technical characteristics are compared. The price does not play a role in the evaluation. The rating is also dynamic, depending on the current listening experience. The weighting of sound and handling is 2:1. K52 K72 K92 Sound 7.5 7.3 7.3 Bass 7.5 7.5 7.5 Mids 7.5 7 7 Trebles 7.5 7 7 Imaging 7.5 7.5 7.5 Stage 7.5 7.5 7.5 Handling 7.5 7.5 7.5 Processing 8 8 8 Comfort 7 7 7 Total 7.5 7.4 7.4 Price 28 € 37 € 43 € Comparison: Individual reviews below AKG is expanding its budget range with the K52, K72 & K92. The jump in price from K52 to K72 is the biggest with almost 10 €, even if I wonder what the 10 € make up. In my opinion the K52 has the most to offer in terms of sound and only the "better" pads can't be the reason for the price difference. Well, of course there is a bit of marketing involved. On paper the K52 has a range of 18 - 20000 Hz, the K92 has a range of 16 - 22000 Hz (K72: 16 - 20000 Hz). Whoever hears it, will be blessed. The K92 is also attested a slightly better sensitivity (+ 3 dB). Handling The three models are practically triplets, whereby one has enjoyed a somewhat different upbringing (K52). Externally they hardly differ, except that the K92 has golden headbows and an outer gold ring on the ear cups. Likewise, the K52 has no ribbing on the back. They are all wired and there is no difference in accessories. The K72 & K92 get another 50cm more cable length, which brings them up to 3m. Also the comfort is on the same good level. The pads of the K72 & K92 look a bit more valuable and therefore more durable, but this is not really noticeable when wearing them, because they are neither thicker, thinner, softer nor firmer. There is no winner here and the look remains a matter of taste. Sound Soundwise there are no really big differences between the siblings. All of them have a V-signature, where the mids fall a bit behind and are absorbed by the emphasized but not unpleasant highs (at least on the K52). The bass is not the most solid, but it brings fun into the music. Because the bass of the K52 tends to drop towards the mids and the highs are earlier and more linear, the K52 sounds tidier and more balanced than the big ones. The K72 & K92 actually only make the K52 worse, as they only amplify the obvious problems. They sound duller in the mids and are more accentuated in the lower range, which sounds unnatural, as well as a bit sharper in the treble, with earlier roll-off in the sub range (K72). The K92 is on the same level in the bass as the K52. These are all minimal differences, but they do not represent an added value. I am of course aware that AKG has enough other alternatives when it comes to natural timbre and neutrality. The three models are a welcome change, as AKG is going a different way, but not like this. At least not with the mentioned marketing, because without any analytical claim you can consume music very well with the K52. In the studio, the models have little to look for, only for short listening or recording. If someone does get lost, then the K52 is the one that sounds most "authentic". The differences between the individual models, however, remain more than manageable and are actually non-existent with the K72 & K92. Conclusion The triplets are mainstream listeners, which can be fun to listen to and are also suitable for on the go (except for the cable lengths), but do not meet the professional demands of the marketing department. The winner is the cheapest model, but this is a close but unexpected choice. The K52 manages to sound most natural, as far as possible, and is somewhat more harmonious in its sound presentation than the more highly bred V-signatures of its big siblings. I like to listen to music with the K52 and it is a good alternative in this price segment for me, or rather can stand out positively here. A remedy for the wearing comfort are ear warmers from China, which are good and cheap, have twice the thickness of the originals and due to the greater distance to the ear the headphones also improve/relax the sound a bit. It remains questionable, however, why AKG was of the opinion to bring three models onto the market, which differ so slightly. But this is not really different with their K7 series. In any case, the K72 & K92 do not represent any added value for me compared to the K52. EarPads - AliExpress K52 40 mm driver, sensitivity: 110 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 18 - 20000 Hz The AKG 52 is already for favorable 28 € (Thomann.de - time of the review) to have. Thus it is probably the most favorable AKG at present on the market, but would like to be noticed according to marketing nevertheless as professional tool. Well, a fun factor when listening to music is not to be denied to the K52, due to the potent and generous bass, which allows the mids and highs still enough air to breathe. But for critical listening the K52 is less suitable. It may work as a monitor for monitoring and recording, but for other professional applications it is not neutral and accurate enough. Handling At the price called I find the workmanship and functionality very successful. The frame of the headband is made of metal, whereas the ear cups are completely made of plastic. The headband is self-adjusting and therefore adapts to the shape of the head. Even large skulls should not be a problem for the AKG K52. The wearing comfort on the head is therefore good, even if the headband does not offer any significant additional padding. With the ear cushions the comfort looks a little different. For the first moment, it's not bad at all, as they cover the whole ear and find a good mix of padding and stability. However, the pads are quite flat and therefore the ear bumps against the inside. This can cause unpleasant pressure in the long run. The durability of the leatherette cover can also be questioned. Reminds me a bit of the SENNHEISER H201, which thinned out over time, but that is pure speculation. The fixed cable (3.5mm) measures a good 2.5mm and an included adapter allows us to use a 6.3mm output. The cable looks robust and has a comfortable length, even if it is a bit too long for mobile use. For a closed construction, it will leak quite a lot to the outside world, which is suboptimal. Sound AKG probably thought they needed a headphone that could also provide bass in generous quantities. The result is a lush V-signature, or rather U-signaur, where the bass is very dominant. The bass plays very deep and offers a good amount of punch. However, this is very dependent on the fit of the ear pads and thus the sealing. I deliberately like to distort the sound a little bit by the fit so that the bass is not too overloaded. Glasses can help here :) I find the bass to be quite qualitative, even if it convinces me a bit more in the low frequencies than in the mid and upper bass, where it doesn't always have the desired firmness and sometimes sounds a bit hollow. The bass influence is clearly audible in the mids. Apart from the fact that they are set back, they have a bulbous body and get a bit too much warmth. They are of the relaxed type without obtrusive peaks or shrillness in voices. They don't really sound authentic, because the bass and treble have too much of an upper hand. It lacks clarity and presence, even though I don't necessarily miss the AKG-typical emphasis of 2kHz, but that's too reserved and therefore flat or a bit monotonous. Here I wish for more clarity and assertiveness. Still not the worst mids out there. The trebles then go full throttle and stay at a constant high level up to 7 kHz until they drop and thus avoid sibilants as far as possible. For the typical hifi peak around 12 kHz they don't really respond, which also means they lack some brilliance. But they are quite safe and stable even at high volumes. For everyday use I find the presentation and quality of the trebles absolutely sufficient and definitely above average considering the price. The trebles catch the emphasized bass, which subjectively balances the valley in the mids and gives the K52 the necessary openness. The AKG 52 is closed-back, but can still present a really appealing stage, which may not have the largest dimensions, but produces a rather homogeneous image. Here, there are far worse things in the price range. The imaging suffers a bit from the average separation, but even here I find it absolutely acceptable for everyday consumption of music. Analytically I would not want to look at music with it. https://www.thomann.de/de/akg_k_52.htm K72 40 mm driver, sensitivity: 112 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 16 - 20000 Hz The K72 is a K52 in the end, except that the bass loses a minimal amount of level and the lower mids gain. In the high frequencies, a pinch around 6 kHz is added, which is supposed to simulate a higher resolution. Compared to the K52, this doesn't convince me and rather goes in a more negative direction. Handling For the price called I find the workmanship and functionality successful. The frame of the headband is made of metal, whereas the ear cups are completely made of plastic. The headband is self-adjusting and therefore adapts to the shape of the head. Even large skulls should not have any problems with the AKG K72. The wearing comfort on the head is therefore good, even if the headband does not offer any significant additional padding. With the ear pads the comfort looks a little different. For the first moment it is not bad at all, because they cover the whole ear and find a good mixture of padding and stability. However, the pads are quite flat and therefore the ear bumps against the inside. This can cause unpleasant pressure in the long run. Compared to the K52, a firmer imitation leather cover is used, which looks more robust, but doesn't add much in the way of comfort. The fixed cable (3.5mm) measures a good 3m and an included adapter allows us to use a 6.3mm output. The cable looks robust, but is too long for mobile use. The isolation is good due to the closed construction, but not optimal. Sound With the K52, I've already said a lot because of the almost outrageous tonal similarities, so I'll be a bit shorter here. The bass has a pleasant punch and depth, but is not the most solid and reduced compared to the K52. That's not wrong per se, but it doesn't drop off sufficiently towards the mids and colours them. It could also like to be a bit more organic and dynamic, as it sounds a bit dull to me despite the quantity. Basically, it doesn't really differ from the K52 in terms of quality, even though I notice a better sub-expansion on the K52. The bass is basically good and a different approach from AKG, but if it has to be a lot of bass, then please do it with a bit more taste. The mids together with the highs are actually a worsening of the K52. The not fast enough bass dropping leads to an unnatural emphasis of the lower mids, but around 1-2 kHz they fall even lower than those of the little brother. This hollows them out even more and causes more obfuscation. What the sonic upgrade to the K52 should represent here is a mystery to me. The highs climb their peak from 3 kHz on quite late and keep the level (like the K52) up to around 7 kHz, but with a more pronounced drop around 5 kHz, where the K52 is more linear. Especially the slightly increased energy around 6 kHz makes the K72 a bit more sharp than the K52, which seems more balanced in the high frequencies. This is supposed to simulate more details, but for me this is rather a disadvantage, because sibilants and sharpness come out more, even if only subtly. Again, I wonder what the intention of the "improvement" was. Stage and imaging differed only slightly from the K52. Due to the slight increase in level in the high frequencies, the K72 is perhaps more discreetly airy and better positioned vertically, but that is more imagination than demonstrable. Basically, I find the imaging of the K52 rounder and more natural, whereas the K72 is slightly more artificial. But as I said, this is analysis on a very thin ice, without much substance. https://www.thomann.de/de/akg_k_72.htm K92 40 mm driver, sensitivity: 113 dB, resistance: 32 Ohm, frequency response: 16 - 22000 Hz If there are still differences between the K52 and K72, the belief that I have a different product on my ears when I go from the K72 to the K92 leaves me. Here the differentiation is so marginal that I would certainly fail the blind test. Therefore I find it difficult to understand the K92's raison d'être. Handling For the price called I find the workmanship and functionality successful, even if it is more impressive with the K52 due to its much lower price. The frame of the headband is made of metal, whereas the ear cups are completely made of plastic. The headband is self-adjusting and therefore adapts to the shape of the head. Even large skulls should not have any problems with the AKG K92. The wearing comfort on the head is therefore good and if the headband does not offer any significant additional padding. With the ear cushions the comfort looks slightly different. For the first moment this is not bad at all, because they cover the whole ear and find a good mixture of padding and stability. However, the pads are quite flat and therefore the ear bumps against the inside. This can cause unpleasant pressure in the long run. Compared to the K52, a firmer leatherette cover is used (like the K72), which seems more robust, but doesn't add much to the comfort. The fixed cable (3.5mm) measures a good 3m and an included adapter allows us to use a 6.3mm output. The cable looks robust, but is too long for mobile use. The isolation is good due to the closed construction, but not optimal. Sound Here I like to refer to the analysis of the K72. If I had to name differences, the K92 has more presence in the bass (on the same level as the K52), sounds slightly fuller/warmer and emphasizes the lower mids even more (500 Hz). In addition, the valley around 1 - 2 kHz is more pronounced, which pushes voices a bit further into the background. With the K92 the V is probably the most pronounced, as the treble remains at the same high level as with the K72. Nevertheless the differences are hardly noticeable. I stick to it, here the K52 has the most to offer, since it sounds most harmonic, although not quite correct in terms of tone. But that is an even bigger problem with the K72 and K92. https://www.thomann.de/de/akg_k_92.htm

Explanation: In contrast to the full review, the QUICK VIEW only provides a brief tonal and functional overview. Either I haven't been able to spend enough time with the headphones, where the rating has to be taken with a grain of salt, or I don't consider it particularly worthwhile in terms of sound. I will mark which of the two variants applies with "Time", or "Average". The weighting of sound and handling is 2:1. frequency range: 18 - 20000 Hz | sound pressure level: 120 dB | impedance: 18 Ohm | dynamic Sound 6.9 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8 5.5 6.5 7 7.5 Handling 8 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 8 8 8 8 217 grams Total 7.3 Price 55 € Quick View reason: Average Intro The H400S is a headphone for mobile use, which can be used on a cell phone (18 Ohm, 120 dB) without any problems. It has good isolation, but the sound is too inconsistent and rarely works musically. Handling Although the earpads seem too small for over-ears, they are very ergonomic and manage to be very comfortable for hours with a mixture of lay-on (in front of the ear) and ear wrap (behind the ear). In addition, they have a robust design with enough twist room for the ear cups and adequate padding, although the headband is somewhat uncomfortable. The audio cable is removable, but unfortunately the connector is not compatible with external cables. The cable also has a remote and measures 140cm. Sound The bass is somewhat isolated from the rest of the signature and is really good in itself. Powerful with emphasis in the subrange, without exaggerating it. For driving beats or hip-hop a fun affair and quite detailed. But the mids are the deal breaker on the H400s. These are very unbalanced and especially voices are sometimes hard to bear as they can get very shrill. In general the H400S is too bright and tonally inconsistent. The trebles also don't have a big extension and sometimes sound a bit tinny. You can't speak of naturalness or authenticity with the HD400S and it definitely can't be described as an all-rounder. Stage and imaging are average here. Outro The HD400S is a headphone that has a good functionality, but the sound is very unharmonious and artificial. Some music styles work quite okay with the HD400S and the bass is very well done, even if it seems to be split off from the mids and highs, but almost 70 € (RRP) can surely be better invested if you have a demand for sound. What works: Song Genre Monet Hip-Hop, Electro, partly Pop Alligatoah, Sido What does not work: Song Genre Under Pressure (Remastered) Rock, Acoustics, female voices Queen, David Bowie Amazon

The budget long runner from AKG frequency range: 15 - 25000 Hz | sound pressure level: 91 dB | impedance: 55 Ohm | dynamic The K240 MKII is an affordable and functional headphone that is suitable for monitoring and also offers musicality Sound 7.6 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 7.5 7.5 8 7.5 7.5 Handling 7 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 7 7 8 6 226 grams Total 7.4 Price 63 € Quickcheck Pro Contra - warm & musical - a bit dull in the mids - processing / accessories - Imaging not the best - no unpleasant peaks - upper bass - treble presentation - pad comfort Intro The AKG 240 MKII is a warm and quite linear tuned headphone that is relaxed and musical, but does not reach the clarity and accuracy of an AKG 612 PRO or K701/702. On the other hand, its sound characteristics are more mainstream, making it a good musical companion for a wider audience. With its functional design it was/is also a model for many cheap replicas from Asia. Handling AKG has the knack of designing functional headphones. The K240 MKII is certainly one of them, even though the pads appear rather cheap compared to the 7-series and don't come close to comfort, since they don't completely surround my ear. Many companies already helped themselves to the design, such as Superlux for the HD681. The headband is comfortable and flexible and automatically adjusts to the shape of your head without you having to put your hands on it. With two different removable mini-XLR cables (3.5mm - 3m and 5m spiral), a 6.3mm adapter and two kinds of pads, the scope of delivery is quite generous. The velour pads have less contact with the head, which means that they can take some of the bass intensity away from the K240 MKII, which can be a welcome side effect for some people. I find the leatherette pads more comfortable, even if it gets a bit warmer under them. The isolation is certainly not the best due to the semi-open construction, but that was clear from the start. However, the K240 MKII is therefore not necessarily suitable for travel. Sound Bass The bass of the K240 MKII has a typical AKG basic orientation. It is rather dry with a linear roll-off from 100 Hz, which is not as drastic as on the K271 MKII. This takes away the physicality and organicity. Nevertheless it is very accurate and fast. In the upper bass it still has a bit too much presence, which colors the mids. The K240 MKII therefore sounds more natural in music without much bass. Mids If you've been more involved with the K702 or K612 PRO before, the presentation of the mids is certainly a change. They don't sound quite so clear and separated, but are warmer, more relaxed and softer tuned. I find the mids quite pleasant and unobtrusive, but I lack a bit of differentiation. I also find voices a bit too thick and reserved. The mids of the K240 MKII are certainly not the most exciting, but they are detailed and musical. However, they cannot be described as neutral, as they sound too full, especially in the lower range, and therefore the K240 MKII is more suitable as a monitoring tool than for mixing. To me, however, the mids are a bit too dull and uninspired. Trebles The trebles stand out as winners in the signature of the K240 MKII. They have this relaxed basic attitude as well as the mids, but they convince me with a good variety of details and a nice transparency despite the largely secure tuning. In addition, they don't tend to overdraw and can still reach their potential at higher volumes without becoming too exhausting Stage The stage has a realistic extension and convinces with a balanced construction in all directions, even though it has the largest dimensions in width. Imaging Imaging suffers a little from the upper bass and the low-energy mids, resulting in a lack of clarity and the sharp separation of instruments and voices. This sometimes leads to overlapping. Here the stage size could have been better utilized. Outro The K240 MKII is an affordable and functional headphone that is suitable for monitoring and also offers musicality. However, it is tuned a bit too warm and the mids lack assertiveness. The bass should be more crisp and the ratio upper bass/subbass should be more balanced. Nevertheless, one gets used to the presentation and can use the K240 MKII for hours without signs of fatigue. I have heard better things about the AKG, but the K240 MKII is certainly not a bad start if you are looking for relaxed headphones that provide enough information to look at music more critically from time to time, but do not see it as his core competence. Thanks to Sattler Electronic Showtronic AG for providing the test headphones. THOMANN

Explanation: In contrast to the full review, the QUICK VIEW only provides a brief tonal and functional overview. Either I haven't been able to spend enough time with the headphones, where the rating has to be taken with a grain of salt, or I don't consider it particularly worthwhile in terms of sound. I will mark which of the two variants applies with "Time", or "Average". The weighting of sound and handling is 2:1. frequency range: 16 - 28000 Hz | sound pressure level: 104 dB | impedance: 55 Ohm | dynamic Sound 7 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 6.5 6 7.5 7.5 7.5 Handling 7 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 7 7 6 8 239 grams Total 7 Price 75 € Quick View reason: Average Intro The K271 MKII is a closed headphone, which is supposed to be especially suitable for studio work. Personally, I hear no reason that would justify this, as it lacks a natural sound reproduction and puts too much emphasis on the mids. Handling The K271 MKII is optically a closed version of the K240 MKII, which in its old version was the inspiration for many Superlux models and their descendants. The construction is very robust and will surely survive a frustrated throwing away of the headphones. Also the removable mini-XLR-cable (3m - 3.5mm jack cable & 5m spiral cable) is an added value, as well as the "automatic switch-off" when taking off the headphones. The K721 MKII comes with two types of pads (imitation leather and velours), but I recommend using the leather pads, which also offer better comfort, as the velours pads do not seal well enough, have less padding and make the K271 MKII sound even more sterile. Changing the pads is a bit tricky. The wearing comfort of the self-adjusting headband is not much to criticize. Sound With the K271 MKII, AKG has gone too far with their mid-range philosophy. Because the bass shines with absence, which can't really be justified with a neutral sound (it says goodbye from 100 Hz) and the K271 MKII therefore sounds like with a built-in low-cut, it focuses strongly on the mids. However, these sound too thin and unrealistic. Add to this an exaggeration of the 2kHz region and an unusual peak around 500 - 700 Hz and the K271 MKII sounds a bit like a cardboard box. Yes, the mids have good clarity and detail, but if I had to mix with it, the sound characteristics of the K271 MKII would make me create a mix that would be inedible with other headphones or equipment. I still find the high frequencies the most successful, even if the complete signature seems a bit inharmonic and unnatural. Nevertheless it is quite transparent and has a high information variety, even if sometimes a bit artificially inflated. Stage and imaging are not really worth mentioning, but for closed headphones the K271 MKII sounds quite airy. However, the placement of instruments and voices is not the most realistic. Outro The K271 MKII has received some good reviews, especially for professional use in the studio and for mixing. I can't quite understand this, because the K271 MKII seems neither neutral nor natural to me. It sounds more or less false, unemotional and too much midrange accentuated.. What works: Song Genre Cannonball singer-songwriter, partly 80s pop/rock Damien Rice What does not work: Song Genre Don't You Worry pretty much everything that requires bass, but R. City classical music also lacks body Thanks to Sattler Electronic Showtronic AG for providing the test headphones. THOMANN

Explanation: In contrast to the full review, the QUICK VIEW only provides a brief tonal and functional overview. Either I haven't been able to spend enough time with the headphones, where the rating has to be taken with a grain of salt, or I don't consider it particularly worthwhile in terms of sound. I will mark which of the two variants applies with "Time", or "Average". The weighting of sound and handling is 2:1. frequency range: 5 - 28000 Hz | sound pressure level: 104 dB | impedance: 55 Ohm | dynamic Sound 9.1 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 9 9.5 9 9 9 Handling 8.5 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 8 8 8 450 grams Total 8.9 Price 1500 € Quick View reason: Time Intro After the ELEGIA and partly also after the ELEAR (which couldn't completely convince me with its price tag), I had lost a bit of faith in FOCAL, since this is supposed to be the hifi headphone brand par excellence. But then the CLEAR came and taught me better! For me, it is a headphone on which other brands have to be measured when it comes to a neutral and pleasantly warm sound. However, you have to dig deep into your pocket for this. Handling In the meantime I have understood that FOCAL sticks to their design and I can't expect any big surprises in this respect. The basic design is similar to the ELEAR, ELEGIA, or STELLIA and there are only small differences, for example the pads. These still have the fast soiling microfiber cover and for me it's a mystery how to emphasize this with "white" or better after a short time "grey", but the pads have apart from their good comfort through their holes a better breathability. On the headband you can see quite well on the photo what a frequent use can cause. If you already want to use this pad cover, I think a darker color is appropriate. The design is, however, as with all "home headphones" from FOCAL, attractive and the workmanship is very satisfactory, even if I would like to have some elements also made of metal. The weight of 450 grams on the datasheet is quite high, but that doesn't stand out too much due to the good padding. The cable has a black and white striped cloth sheath and measures 1.2m (3.5mm jack). Included in delivery is a hardcover transport case and an adapter to 6.3mm. The CLEAR can also be used at a balanced output due to the double-sided feed (mono jack - 3.5mm), with an appropriate cable. Sound Soundwise all FOCALs are not far apart in their basic idea, especially concerning the ELEAR and CLEAR. Both have a neutral and pleasantly warm orientation and a similarly good spatial presentation. Here it depends more on small details, where the CLEAR can finally stand out clearly. It is such a headphone that you don't want to take it off again so quickly because there is absolutely nothing that would make you notice anything unpleasant in the signature. Of course you could interpret it negatively that it has no edges and corners, but for me it is an extremely coherent and authentic headphone, which perhaps lacks a bit of brilliance here and there and which sometimes could be a bit more dedicated, but all in all I have little to criticize, especially concerning the tonal aspects. It sounds extremely natural and manages to reveal details without being obtrusive or strained. Due to a reduction around 4-5 kHz it might lose some of its effervescence and the high frequency is certainly not for trebleheads, but it is very pleasant, transparent and velvety soft, with plenty of reserves when the volume increases. A bit more firmness in the bass and a bit more sub-bass would be desirable. The bass, however, convinces with a natural response, attention to detail and excellent dynamics. In contrast to the ELEAR it has the better characteristics not only in sound but also technically. Stage and imaging are more mature and vivid. It fully exploits the advantages of its open design and produces a coherent 3D image, which still appears natural despite its dimensions. An AKG K812 creates a bit more space between the instruments for my taste, but the CLEAR sounds more realistic. Outro Even though the CLEAR has a very relaxed signature, it doesn't disguise anything or appear muted (as is sometimes the case with the ELEAR), but presents you tonal authentically everything you need and want to hear, without compromise. Although the CLEAR is expensive and you may well have to consider whether the step from a Sennheiser HD600/650/6XX is worth the extra money, the FOCAL CLEAR is a great headphone regardless of the price. Thanks to K55.ch for providing the headphones and the exciting day in the showroom. https://www.k55.ch/focal-clear-offener-kopfhorer-55-ohm-dynamisch.html

Explanation: In contrast to the full review, the QUICK VIEW only provides a brief tonal and functional overview. Either I haven't been able to spend enough time with the headphones, where the rating has to be taken with a grain of salt, or I don't consider it particularly worthwhile in terms of sound. I will mark which of the two variants applies with "Time", or "Average". The weighting of sound and handling is 2:1. frequency range: 5 - 23000 Hz | sound pressure level: 105 dB | impedance: 35 Ohm | dynamic Sound 7.7 Bass Mids Trebles Stage Imaging 8 7 7.5 8 8 Handling 8.5 Processing Comfort Earpads Headband Weight 9 8 8 8 340 grams Total 8 Price 899 € Quick View reason: Time Intro On paper, the ELEGIA seems to be the closed version of the ELEAR. Transforming an open headphone 1 to 1 into a closed one is rarely successful with an acceptable result and so the ELEGIA is not exactly the yellow of the egg for me in terms of tonality. Handling The design of the ELEGIA is similar to the ELEAR, as is the "equipment". That means, we get the same comfortable earpads (which are dust magnets and probably do not provide optical pleasure for long), where my ear also touches the inside of the auricle slightly. The headband padding does not make the most durable impression either. The design of the ELEGIA is nice to look at, but appearances are deceptive, because it does not feel 100% premium in the hand. Nevertheless the workmanship is great and so is the isolation, especially because of the closed design. With 35 Ohm and a high sensitivity it is also very suitable for on the road. Compared to the ELEAR, the ELEGIA is a good 100 grams lighter, which is not immediately (positively) noticeable. The cable has a black and white striped fabric sheath and measures 1.2m (3.5mm jack). Included in delivery is a hardcover transport case and an adapter to 6.3mm. The ELEGIA can also be used at a balanced output due to the double-sided feed (mono jack - 3.5mm), with an appropriate cable. Sound If the ELEAR is already not the most sparkling in the FOCAL family, the ELEGIA goes one step further. It sounds a bit dull and uninspired and doesn't seem to have the ambition to entertain you musically. It is an absolutely stress-free headphone, which is also suitable for long sessions, but for the own HIFI or rather audiophile demands of the headphones, or rather of FOCAL, I find the ELEGIA surprisingly average. The bass has a good punch, but is surprisingly reserved for closed headphones. Here I would have expected a bit more after the open ELEAR. The mids and highs sound equally muffled. Also I can't make out any great detail or transparency. I have the feeling that the sound is suppressed and cannot develop freely. There is a lack of openness in the stage presentation and airiness in the separation. Imaging and stage are on a good level, but at the price I was a bit more euphoric in the run-up. Voices are set back and lack liveliness, even if they don't necessarily sound wrong. Outro Decent, but nothing special. That describe the ELEGIA quite well. Here there are clearly cheaper representatives, which can easily keep up with its performance and surpass it. I miss the resolution and the feeling of space, which I get better from a Beyerdynamic DT770 PRO (closed), even if it overdoes it in the high frequencies. Thanks to K55.ch for providing the headphones and the exciting day in the showroom. https://www.k55.ch/focal-elegia-geschlossener-kopfhorer-35-ohm-dynamisch.html