Find the best product and price, effortlessly.
Discover deals on the best products
AKG K240 (2001) vs Mixcder E7
While the AKG K240 (2001) makes for a passable Over-Ear Headphone for its asking price, the Mixcder E7 simply doesn't make the cut and should be avoided by the majority of people. In either case, we suggest that you look into some better alternatives that cost around $55 or $30.
However, if you'd nonetheless like to find out more about the AKG K240 (2001) and the Mixcder E7, you can continue reading for our summary of what we know about them:
The AKG K240 (2001) hasn't managed to earn a top spot in any roundups from sources that conduct trustworthy hands-on testing. Nevertheless, reviewers from sites, such as Head-fi, SoundGuys, and Wirecutter (NYTimes) all gave it a spot on their list.
Taking a look at the Mixcder E7, it got featured in roundups from two reliable sources that conduct their own testing - Head-fi and TrustedReviews - but it fell short of earning a top spot in either.
We conducted an analysis of all of the review data that we could find on these two products. First, we focused on sources that tested and rated both of them, like Head-fi, and learned that they all showed a preference for the Mixcder E7.
Then we took a look at the highest review scores that these two Over-Ear Headphones received. We found that the AKG K240 (2001) managed to earn a rating of 9.5 from Head-fi, whereas the Mixcder E7 got its highest, 10, score from reviewers at Head-fi.
Lastly, we averaged out all of the reviews scores that we could find on these two products and compared them to other Over-Ear Headphones on the market. We learned that both of them performed far better than most of their competitors - the overall review average earned by Over-Ear Headphones being 7.5 out of 10, whereas the AKG K240 (2001) and Mixcder E7 managed averages of 8.7 and 8.0 points, respectively.
Due to the difference in their prices, however, it's important to keep in mind that a direct AKG K240 (2001) vs. Mixcder E7 comparison might not be entirely fair - some sources don't take value for money into account when assigning their scores and therefore have a tendency to rate more premium products better.