or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Some of the myths associated with K701/2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Some of the myths associated with K701/2 - Page 8

post #106 of 164
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Monkey View Post
The premise that myths are false by definition reflects a superficial understanding and use of that word. Some simple research would reveal to you that myths are deeply textured and nuanced cultural narratives, the truth of which can be nearly impossible to ascertain--myth is comprised of both truth and fiction, often intertwined. Accordingly myths can be both true and false...simultaneously.

And lest you think that myths are solely the province of the ancient Greeks, read some Barthes or similar. We engage in myth all the time here. I think it is particularly noticeable on both sides of the great (I use that word loosely) burn-in and cable debates. Similarly, here, the myth of the bassless 701 is a good example. I've heard this phone dozens of times in all kinds of setups. Most of the time I think it sucks. Its anemic bass compared to other mid-to-high end phones is startling to me. But I have heard it sound good, as noted above, out of the big HR amps.

So which is it? Do they lack bass or not? The answer is who the hell knows. Maybe the bass is great, but only with a very certain few amps. Or maybe it does, indeed, suck, but I was in a good mood (read drunk if Tyll was around) each time I heard the 701 out of HR amps. Regardless, I would be inclined to say yes they lack sufficient bass to be fully satisfying, if asked. And there we have a myth. In my perception, the bass of the K701 is anemic. But I also have heard it sound good on a couple of occasions. How do I reconcile these two states? I tend to take the couple of dozen times they've sounded lousy to me and think that's more in line with the "truth." As I tell others that I think the 701 lacks bass, I perpetuate this myth, which has embedded in it both truth and falsehood.

People here like to speak in absolutes. "It has great bass; you just have the wrong amp!" or "cables make a difference, you just can't hear it!" Myths. Opinion as fact. Both true and untrue. Here, it appears that what you really meant instead of "myths" was "falsehoods." If that's the case, then that is what should have been stated. Words are important.

And there is plenty of room for reasonable minds to differ on my interpretation of myth. Lord knows there are plenty of people smarter than me who have made it their job to write about and discuss such things. But that "myth" is a word loaded with cultural and narrative significance that transcends merely whether a myth is true or false cannot reasonably be debated.
Mythology is mostly allegorical cultural narratives, a by product of irrational primitive man trying to make sense of what it cannot understand otherwise... Hence, a myth is that which people believe in but an objective analysis shows that it is not true and cannot be true because it sometimes defies the laws of physics.

When we're talking about a headphone, the word myth comes to mean false beliefs and conclusions that stem from people's inability to get the proper synergy with the headphone, their taste in music and their snobbery (too cheap to be good mentality).
post #107 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by wali View Post
A myth is an event or a conclusion that is accepted by many simply as a matter of faith.
</snip>
No, that is called "dogma".

Quote:
Originally Posted by wali View Post
It has nothing to do with objective reality, otherwise it would be called a fact.
</snip>
I see two problems with that statement:

1.- It is well documented that several myths are rooted in real events. Richard Dawkins mentions a couple in his book "The God Delusion" (The "Cargo" myth in several religions that popped up in islands of the South Pacific during WWII); Carl Sagan mentions another one in "Cosmos" (the myth of the Heike Samurai crabs).

2.- There is very little in the Universe that you can call "objective reality", particularly where human perception is involved. Your opinion that "The K701 is a bright can" is a myth is no more objective than the opinions of others to whose ears it sounds bright.


For the record, I own and love a set of K701s. I just don't think that others opinions about this can should be labeled as "myths". They're just opinions; the 701 is not the first or last can to be attached such 'myths' (e.g. The Sennheiser 'veil').
post #108 of 164
Some of the myths associated with the K701/2 in my book:

1. It is a flagship headphone - It is certainly not AKG's flagship
2. It's soundstage is natural - It's wide but not natural as the drivers are not angled to accomodate it's wideness.
3. It is neutral - Bass wise it is lacking and I've heard it on quite a few amps, I would say it's bass shy rather than neutral
4. It is bright - It is not bright, just not full enough in the bass
5. It is on par with the HD800, just a different flavor - Ok, NO, no it's not
6. It is a horrible headphone - No it's actually decent, but it's not a flagship, it's not flagship quality and that's why there's so much K701 hate.....at least the HD600 was for a time, flagship quality.
post #109 of 164
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_equalizer View Post
No, that is called "dogma".
Dogma is a myth on steroids.

Quote:
I see two problems with that statement:

1.- It is well documented that several myths are rooted in real events. Richard Dawkins mentions a couple in his book "The God Delusion" (The "Cargo" myth in several religions that popped up in islands of the South Pacific during WWII)
Myths can be rooted in real events, but an event which are so extraordinary that they defy belief.

Quote:
2.- There is very little that you can call "objective reality", particularly where human perception is involved. Your opinion that "The K701 is a bright can" is false is no more objective than the opinions of others to whose ears it sounds bright.
My opinion was that its a false belief, a myth, for people who think K701/2 is bright. I'm entitled to that opinion and it is also supported by everyone here who likes K701/2.

Quote:
For the record, I own and love a set of K701s. I just don't think that others opinions about this can should be labeled as "myths". They're just opinions; the 701 is not the first or last can to be attached such 'myths' (e.g. The Sennheiser 'veil').
here you're using the word myth to mean what i meant it to mean, so you're arguing against yourself.

But anyway, I think first of all we should stop the madness and not confuse the word myth with its opposite. To me that is very important because it makes my brain hurt.



Myth | Define Myth at Dictionary.com

myth
   
–noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
post #110 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler View Post
Some of the myths associated with the K701/2 in my book:

1. It is a flagship headphone - It is certainly not AKG's flagship
2. It's soundstage is natural - It's wide but not natural as the drivers are not angled to accommodate it's wideness.
3. It is neutral - Bass wise it is lacking and I've heard it on quite a few amps, I would say it's bass shy rather than neutral
4. It is bright - It is not bright, just not full enough in the bass
5. It is on par with the HD800, just a different flavor - Ok, NO, no it's not
6. It is a horrible headphone - No it's actually decent, but it's not a flagship, it's not flagship quality and that's why there's so much K701 hate.....at least the HD600 was for a time, flagship quality.
I appreciate your contribution to this thread. Interesting to get yet another opinion on the HD800 v K701 argument [I have never had the pleasure of listening to a HD800]. I agree with the rest of your points although I'd argue it is bright.
post #111 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by wali View Post
Myths can be rooted in real events, but an event which are so extraordinary that they defy belief.
Sagan's and Dawkins examples are far from belief-defying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wali View Post
<snip>
My opinion was that its a false belief, a myth, for people who think K701/2 is bright. I'm entitled to that opinion and it is also supported by everyone here who likes K701/2.
</snip>
My point is that saying that others' opinion on how the 701 sounds is false is like saying that somebody's opinion that 'caviar is disgusting' is false. It's just a subjective opinion based on perception, there's no factual basis on which to call one true and another false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wali View Post
<snip>

here you're using the word myth to mean what i meant it to mean, so you're arguing against yourself.

</snip>
Not at all, notice the ' ' marks with which I enclosed the word 'myth'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wali View Post
Myth | Define Myth at Dictionary.com

myth
   
–noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
<snip>
Emphasis added by me, naturally.
post #112 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler View Post
Some of the myths associated with the K701/2 in my book:

1. It is a flagship headphone - It is certainly not AKG's flagship
2. It's soundstage is natural - It's wide but not natural as the drivers are not angled to accomodate it's wideness.
3. It is neutral - Bass wise it is lacking and I've heard it on quite a few amps, I would say it's bass shy rather than neutral
4. It is bright - It is not bright, just not full enough in the bass
5. It is on par with the HD800, just a different flavor - Ok, NO, no it's not
6. It is a horrible headphone - No it's actually decent, but it's not a flagship, it's not flagship quality and that's why there's so much K701 hate.....at least the HD600 was for a time, flagship quality.
This is why you need the K702, http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f9/que...ording-467484/
post #113 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post
Sorry for asking this but is it really that different? Genuine question with no malice.
post #114 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MomijiTMO View Post
Sorry for asking this but is it really that different? Genuine question with no malice.
Yep, they are studio headphones. It means that they're balanced and not bass heavy. They're not supposed to be bassy, again, because they are studio monitor headphones.

You can check his profile. It says he's an audio engineer and he doesn't know how to mix bass, so it seems a little strange to me.
post #115 of 164
There is a big difference between knowing everything there is to know about audio equipment, and being musical, but this critical fact seems to be lost on a lot of people here, as evidenced in this discussion about the K701s. IMO, Head-fi should be about both, and while technical opinions have an important role to play, they should not automatically trump musicality and musical knowledge/experience. That is the biggest myth being perpetuated by some here.
post #116 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post
Yep, they are studio headphones. It means that they're balanced and not bass heavy. They're not supposed to be bassy, again, because they are studio monitor headphones.

You can check his profile. It says he's an audio engineer and he doesn't know how to mix bass, so it seems a little strange to me.
being a good human being is more important
post #117 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post
It says he's an audio engineer and he doesn't know how to mix bass, so it seems a little strange to me.
Listening through the tracks from your album, one might come to the conclusion that you don't either.
post #118 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by subtle View Post
Listening through the tracks from your album, one might come to the conclusion that you don't either.
Ohhh, beef has begun!

But seriously folks, let's all just calm down and eat some fruit. Just because one person hears something a different way, doesn't mean their observations should be spat on. The basic senses that we as humans possess can be influenced and perceived in many ways... I think french onion soup is disgusting, yet my brother loves it. Logically speaking, who is correct?

On the other hand, Acix' pontifications regarding the K701/2 are always an anticipated barrel of fun.
post #119 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post
Yep, they are studio headphones. It means that they're balanced and not bass heavy. They're not supposed to be bassy, again, because they are studio monitor headphones.
I just checked the AKG site and you're right. The K701's are in the Personal Audio products, while the K702's are among the Professional solutions, intended for studio monitoring applications.

The paradox is that when the bass is compared between the two, it's the K702's that are usually described as the more bassy of the two. How do you explain that one Acix?
post #120 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by wali View Post

But anyway, I think first of all we should stop the madness and not confuse the word myth with its opposite. To me that is very important because it makes my brain hurt.



Myth | Define Myth at Dictionary.com

myth
   
–noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
The definition you choose to use is one-dimensional and superficial in the face of an ample showing made that the word is charged with meaning. Your own adherence to "myth as falsehood" itself perpetuates a myth, does it not? I think your purpose would be better served by saying what you mean in the first place; rather than trying to shoehorn a definition that is not necessarily apt.

Once you get past the need to defend your position, don't you really mean "falsehoods" or "lies"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Some of the myths associated with K701/2