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 9

post #121 of 164
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Monkey View Post
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"?
The word myth is used casually in the title of this thread and the context that its used, makes its meaning perfectly clear.

Now, if you and some others wish to get into a pissing context over what the word myth actually means, its up to you, but its a red herring which has nothing to do with the casual premise of this thread.

I have not put forward a hypothesis by posting this thread, and I'm going to stick with the meaning of the word myth as i understand it, even though it will make me come across as simple-minded.
post #122 of 164
The biggest myth is that the K-701/2 is a good headphone.

Any devotee of the older AKG models (e.g. K-501, K-1000) usually puts it far below those models.

The only reason the K-701/2 enjoys any popularity is because it costs less than a HD-600 or DT880. If the prices were equal, it wouldn't get half the praise it does.

The K-701/2 mangles the vocal range. Unfortunately, that doesn't jump out until you've heard better headphones or are acquainted well with live performances.
post #123 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by wali View Post
The word myth is used casually in the title of this thread and the context that its used, makes its meaning perfectly clear.

Now, if you and some others wish to get into a pissing context over sympathetic and what the word myth actually means, its up to you, but its a red herring which has nothing to do with the casual premise of this thread.

I have not put forward a hypothesis by posting this thread, and I'm going to stick with the meaning of the word myth as i understand it, even though it will make me come across as simple-minded.
+1 Really...99.99% of the population would understand exactly what you meant with the title of the thread. No wonder intellectuals can't agree on anything...they can't begin to see the forest for the trees. Interesting thread other than the sidetracks.
post #124 of 164
Actually the whole myth debate has been the most interesting, if not one of the more depressing things I've read recently. I don't see the point in trying to prove a position when people will just go crazy over how a word is used or the origins of a word.

To just be an idiot and stupidly try to relate this to another problem - No no, let's not give this bag of rice to the poor people because one grain is spoilt.
post #125 of 164
I just love all this pedantry and rallying over then net, about 'myth'. It reminds me of the debates I had with a couple of Cultural studies professors, when I didn't take their closeted world of conceptual ideas at face value, and challenged the fact their profession allows them to read far deeper into some things than needs be. There was some good and interesting stuff to be learned there, but just like here, the SNR is deafening.

HF is full of it. Myth, that is. It starts with any introspective discussion of a subjective topic. Add to that, masses of wannabes churning 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand opinions about things that were only read from somewhere else from the 1st hand source, or only ever having heard very mismatched equipment (FOTM expensive phones + onboard/minidisc/iPod etc) and like any good popular cultural vacuum, it starts, recycles and reinforces its own half and untruths, and eats itself like a mobius strip of misinformation.

FWIW I think the 701 are ugly MOFOs.
post #126 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by wali View Post
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.
Hamlet's Mill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sometimes flawed but pretty astounding work. The idea of a "far-flung and influential civilization" is not particularly interesting to me, and seems to be a misreading by the critic or editor of the entry. The most interesting aspect to me is the possibility that ancient cultures independently created very similar myths--myth being the most efficient means for people without writing to encode information and pass it on to future generations. What were they encoding? Many layers of information, ethical and practical, but the commonality is that myth often seems to encode astronomical cycles and events, useful to ancient civilizations dependent upon agriculture and/or migration. Why would many civilizations independently create similar myths that describe the same events? Because they all lived under the same night sky, the most interesting thing in a world without electricity. And they liked to survive.

As a species we may have a propensity for analyzing everything we can around us, and using every bit of information we can to make sense of and flourish in the world. The assumption that ancient civilizations were just wasting a lot of their very precious time with worthless data seems to show a lack of faith in one's ancestors. We have a great deal more free time to believe in stupid things today than they did then. Indeed, classical myth has probably been corrupted over time. Where it once served a very practical purpose, it has since degraded into... well, I won't say it, lest I place this thread in peril.
post #127 of 164
In spite of this entire discussion I still want to listen to these, and if I like them I'll buy them. Can't we all just go back to listening to music?
post #128 of 164
Well this thread has really taken off, and I grok two things from it so far:

1) The AKG K701s are VERY polarizing headphones, and their sound signature is unique.

I would say that they really shine with the best recordings, and are unpleasant with poor ones. With good recordings, the bass can reach pretty low with good dynamics, vocals sound great, the highs are quite smooth and everything is well-defined; a very nice-sounding headphone with an almost 3D soundstage. With a poor recording, the bass can be downright anemic and the rest of the spectrum can sound hollow as well, with distant vocals and tinny highs. Its like the dynamics disappear completely and all you are left with is the soundstage. To my ears, anyways. And they really scale up with a good amp.

2) The word myth has a mythological definition, if it means anything at all any more after this thread.
post #129 of 164

I’ll spare you guys the word « myth’s » definition in french... :¬)

 

Anyways, number one myth for me regarding the K70x would be that they are giantkillers (because of price).

 

They are not!

 

They have their strengths and their weaknesses... They can rival the big guys on certain fronts and with certain kinds of music. But they will get brutally beaten on other areas.

post #130 of 164


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

Well this thread has really taken off, and I grok two things from it so far:

1) The AKG K701s are VERY polarizing headphones, and their sound signature is unique.

I would say that they really shine with the best recordings, and are unpleasant with poor ones. With good recordings, the bass can reach pretty low with good dynamics, vocals sound great, the highs are quite smooth and everything is well-defined; a very nice-sounding headphone with an almost 3D soundstage. With a poor recording, the bass can be downright anemic and the rest of the spectrum can sound hollow as well, with distant vocals and tinny highs. Its like the dynamics disappear completely and all you are left with is the soundstage. To my ears, anyways. And they really scale up with a good amp.

2) The word myth has a mythological definition, if it means anything at all any more after this thread.


lol, maybe some members have polarizing mind....but just some, not all of us  : )

post #131 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

Well this thread has really taken off, and I grok two things from it so far:

1) The AKG K701s are VERY polarizing headphones, and their sound signature is unique.

I would say that they really shine with the best recordings, and are unpleasant with poor ones. With good recordings, the bass can reach pretty low with good dynamics, vocals sound great, the highs are quite smooth and everything is well-defined; a very nice-sounding headphone with an almost 3D soundstage. With a poor recording, the bass can be downright anemic and the rest of the spectrum can sound hollow as well, with distant vocals and tinny highs. Its like the dynamics disappear completely and all you are left with is the soundstage. To my ears, anyways. And they really scale up with a good amp.

2) The word myth has a mythological definition, if it means anything at all any more after this thread.



g/k

after lurking this thread for a while I am inclined to agree.......the K701s get my award for world's most polarizing headphone!  Try finding this kind of controversy in (for example) a Stax thread or a Beyer thread or a Senn thread.

I would also agree with the good recording/bad recording thing.

Nevertheless, I love my Q701s.  But I still lust after a good tube amp to drive 'em.

 

p.s.   let's start a "50 reasons to hate (insert your favourite hp brand here)"

 

 

post #132 of 164

I remember hearing K701 for the first time

 

It was on a friend's, with a proper burned-in headphones, and really high-end equipment.

 

All the listening session was with original CDs. No Mp3, no laptop with FLAC, WAV or whatever other files 

 

I first looked at them and I thought "wow! what a beautiful and professional-looking headphones" bigsmile_face.gif. Then I put them on my head and I thought "wow! how comfortable" k701smile.gif

So far so good

 

... then my friend put Sting's 'Fields Of Gold' song. The "wow" feeling was gone confused_face(1).gif I heard a somewhat artificial soundstage, with less punch of the drums and NO BASS frown.gif

After hearing tons and tons of songs and playing myself guitar/bass/keyboards I couldn't believe how tinny was that bass. In no way the sound coming out of a bass amp.

 

We tried then more bassy stuff. Depeche Mode, Peter Gabriel. Then more rocker stuff. AC/DC, Toto.

 

After 20+ min of hearing I thought they were the definition of detail, but lacking feeling, lacking that IT factor. And of course, lacking bottom.

post #133 of 164

Just because the equipment was "high end" doesn't mean the amp was a good match for the headphone.

 

Chris J, you can do very well for the K/Q701 with a Schiit Lyr.

post #134 of 164

I love my 702's. They are stunning for vocal jazz, soul, anything where the vocals are the focal point of the music. They are stunning for atmospheric music like some Trance, Trip-Hop or solo instrumental classical where the 701/702 soundstage shines. For everything else I have my SR80i's with taped bowls.  What more could someone need?

post #135 of 164

I lol'ed. Hard.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by subtle View Post

Here are a couple you left out.

-It sounds "good"
-It is the best in the world when amped from a Phonitor/Auditor

I keed, I keed.


 

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