K-167
The K-167 sadly is the weak link in the trio. I find it overly thin sounding and lacking body and definition in comparison to the K-67. Despite being a whole $100 more than the K-67, it offers less quality to my ears and a sound type that is unpleasant. Side by side with it’s little brother, it sounds tinny and odd. The quality of the K-267 for yet another $150 beyond the price of this K-167 only makes this deal that much more sour.
After enjoying the K-67 sound type that much and being perhaps one of the best on ear portables ever made for that price, the K-167 seems lost in the void somewhere, aimlessly walking the wastelands in a post apocalyptic world, forever alone. There are certainly better headphones out there for this $100 – $150 or so price tier. I think a used Philips Fidelio L1 might best it overall pretty much everywhere in the sonic playground.
I find the K-167 the most comfortable of the three headphones, it’s earcups are deeper than the more shallow cup design of the K-267. It allows the earpads to sink in a bit more and my ears never touch anything inside, where as my ears instantly touch the driver face plate and interiors of the K-267’s enclosure. It also has a very ergonomic headband design. Thank the Audio Gods! Someone finally gets it. A big thank you to the designers of the K-167 and K-267 headbands. That designer deserves a raise for understanding that nobody wants a satellite dish on their noggin. The headband seems like it was created for an actual human beings head. I know, crazy right?! You’d think that was a no brainer but the likes of Shure, Sennheiser and Ultrasone really have no idea that human heads tend to have a certain shape. This design leads to more comfort and the lack of clamp, leaves no giant gaps on the side of your head and looks very slick while you wear it. I’d like to have seen more padding, but for this price I guess that might be asking too much.
The low end of this model is a bit shaky, not sure what went wrong here. I find it highly boring and lack luster but it provides a solid experience in a physical sense. I think AKG played it super safe with this one and only wanted to bridge the gap between the K-67 and the K-267. This K-167 has a different sound type than the other two, it seems more thin everywhere and lacks the dynamic forwardness it’s two siblings offer. Coloration and tonality is the same as the K-67, less bass quantity and a more dry appeal to it.
The midrange is extremely thin by comparison and offers significantly less body and definition than the other two in this series. The upside is that the headphone offers the same non fatiguing experience that seems common in these Tiesto’s. This is a good thing for any other engineers who want a larger, but still smaller than usual over the ear headphone that is easily driven. I find the mid range in general to offer a bit of a U-shape by comparison to it’s brothers who are more physically forward. The mid’s here are definitely more relaxed and pushed back just a bit. Not much, but just enough to register to my ears.
The highs are still relaxed and anti-potent which is a great thing I suppose. I find them both engaging and physically enjoyable, but they have a massive drop off ( as do the K-267’s ) with regard to measurements on the upper end. But who cares? They sound good and drop off the cliff in areas I personally do not care about. If you are listening to music for pure enjoyment, don’t let that bother you. If you are a critical listener…this could be an issue.
I am not a treble head, nor do I mix and edit master tracks, all the while looking for imperfections in the treble regions. If that is your game, avoid all three of these headphones. If you are into music and want a fatigue free upper experience that caresses the upper regions always, grab yourself one of these…I’d highly recommend the K-267 over this set though.
Click next page for the K-267 review
