newbie with the K702's -will they really get better or just louder with another amp?

The K70X are low sensitivity, and low impedance, so they need a powerful amp that delivers a lot of current for them to be able to perform their best. Low sensitivity meaning for a given amount of power, they will be less loud than a more sensitive headphone.

With a better amp, they will go louder, there is no question. However, the reason why hi-fi enthusiasts have beefy amps is so at any volume the music is very fluid and dynamic. When a headphone is under powered it lacks sparkle, punch and some life. With proper amping they sound a fair bit better. Sometimes there is even distortion if it is severely underpowered. 

Will it blow you a way? That is up to you really. Personally, I love the difference my Meier Concerto makes, but what a 15% is improvement to me, could be 5%,10%, 30%, anything to you. It goes without saying that the AKG is a headphone generally seen as absolutely needing an amp to sound its best. Personally, even a nice amp didn't cut it for me, but that is my preference, it is still a great headphone. 

But just so we are clear, better amp doesn't only mean louder, it means clearer, and more precise at any volume. With a proper amp, you should be able to listen at lower levels and have a better experience.

If you wanna go solid state, definitely check the Meier Concerto out.. its quite the piece of kit.

The benefit of amps for me is that you get better quality sound at lower volume levels than you do w/o an amp (depending on the headphone).  In the grand scheme of things, it may only be a 10% improvement, and whether or not that is worth the price to you, I can't say.

But if the 702 doesn't "blow you away", I don't think it ever will no matter the amping situation.  Not sure if any headphone will, but who knows?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dxanex 

Thanks for that Sokolov, and yes I did experience a bit of distortion last night running the 702s off my ipod and e7.

 

Like I said I wish that I could hear these things on a higher powered amp so I can hear the sparkle and punch that you're speaking on. I live a few hours outside of Chicago and just missed the CanJam 2010 which would have been perfect for comparing these things! Oh well...

 

I'm looking at the Meier Concerto now, and one of the reviewers is using the 702's with it. Looks very nice but a bit steep as I would be buying blindly. I'm leaning towards the Canamp based on the fact that it wont break the bank and if it didn't make me smile and get lost in the music I could easily sell it.

 

I was also leaning towards the D2000's. I read that they sound great and require much less power. Do you suppose I would get better results with my little E7? I know that they do sound lots different than the 702s. I'm beginning to feel like I've just bitten off a bit more than I can chew, but I'm willing to learn and up my equipment if need be.

 

I should also add that so far the headphones only have about 50 hours burn in, so I'm still far from the 200-300 hour mark. Maybe that too will make a difference.

 

Well do you have a stereo/home theater receiver, or something with a headphone jack? That would give you a good idea.

Other than that it shouldn't be too hard to find a local hi-fi shop, or even go to a futureshop or something with your ipod and usb cable, most receivers now support ipods. It won't be the best amp, but it will definitely give you an idea... that is if the noise levels aren't atrocious. 

I have never heard the canamp, so I can't comment. Between the two, objectively the concerto is a fair bit better, but it is also a pretty big investment. The canamp will certainly do much better than your E7, though. 

I have the D7000 and they should night and day different than the K70X (had the K702). Especially when under-amped, the K70X have very little bass, the DX000 series have quite a bit. The DX000 series are much more efficient, but they are also very low impedance and suck up power like crazy. You would definitely need a quality amp for them to sound their best as well. Without my Concerto, the bass on my D7000 is a fair bit sloppier. So, I do not think you will get much better results no. Better, probably, much better no.

As far as burn in and cables go, a lot of people believe in such things, a lot of people don't. All I can advise you is to trust your ears, and not what others tell you. From my experience, time is the biggest factor as your brain needs time to explore the new headphone and get a firm grip on its sound. It happens with all headphones, for better or for worse, and I have gone through a lot.

You perhaps have bitten of more than you can chew, but this is a pretty big hobby. Theres lots of cool things to learn, and lots of rubbish, so chose where you spend your time wisely.

I would two things in your position. See how much I am willing to spend on an amp, do lots of research and audition of possible, and buy the best one I can. 2, I would try and discern if the K70X are the headphone I really want, then try and see what people have enjoyed with the K70X. The nice thing about a concerto is it would play nice with any headphone you threw at it, so it would be a solid investment, especially if you find yourself liking this hobby more and more.

Yea You dont wanna run them unamp like sanjose mention for that same reason, Even if you get a amp make sure it enough so they're driven good enough. You are gonna have to go and take your headphones with you when you vist a shop and listen to a couple to see how your AKGs sound thru them. Thats the only way, as people will just give you confusing anwsers and drive you up a wall. Because I was getting confusing anwsers when couple say one thing then another couple say another.

they'll just get louder

Hi

First I don't have any experience of the actual dacs or amplifiers you have described dxanex.

The impression I get, looking through these Head-Fi forums is that many people have very good headphones being driven by fairly average sources and amplifiers.

Personally I am a "front end first" kind of a guy (I'm talking hi fi here!) in that the most important thing is the source, then the amplifier, than the headphones (or speakers).

The reason for this is that if the source loses data it cannot be replaced by the amplifier, and if the amplifier loses data it cannot be replaced by the headphones.

In fact even fairly average headphones provide amazingly good resolution compared with speakers, so I think that average headphones with very good source and amplifier can sound very good indeed.

So, I do feel that with your excellent AKG 702 headphones you will very likely get extremely good results as you keep improving the source and the amplifier. This will be in the form of increasing fidelity.

Chicago you say? See my sig. It will be held on Nov 13th. Let Billy know if you want to come. I think my amp will be a fantastic match for the K70x. You should take a listen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dxanex 

 

Like I said I wish that I could hear these things on a higher powered amp so I can hear the sparkle and punch that you're speaking on. I live a few hours outside of Chicago and just missed the CanJam 2010 which would have been perfect for comparing these things! Oh well...

I recently upgraded from a Total Bithead to a Heed Canamp. While I am glad I made the choice, partly psychologically, I do not hear a huge huge difference. Better, more spacious, definitely more bass, but nothing that would even be noticed by 95% of average people.

Now this might be my source (ipod and/or bithead) slowing things down a bit. (I have heard enough high end sources to suggest that those do not provide massive differences either, though.)

One of the big issues with head-fi is that people who don't hear differences tend to stop reading/posting, while those left spend a lot of time proving to the board how golden their ears might be. As a result, its easy to be talked into believing that you are hearing a huge difference. In reality you aren't. Its nuance more than anything. This isn't to say nuance isn't worth it for some. Just that we could all use to temper (curb?) our enthusiasm a bit.

I reccommend picking one up used. Worst case scenario is you sell it for almost no loss. I am glad I bought one, and I am definitely keeping it.

I think that a huge quantity of reported benefits in hi fi are psychological, and  in fact I think your estimate of 75% might well be a good one!

There is a good chance that "burn in" reports might well often be psychological.

Human hearing is astonishingly capable of hearing fine detail etc, but it is equally selective. In fact the two things are interconnected. The hearing is good because it can ignore things it doesn't deem relevant.

I think the second most significant area to consider is that hi fi is a consumerist activity (for the most part) and consumerism is about anxiety. Anxiety is generated by the retailers that what you have is not good enough and you must buy what they have to be good enough.

I don't wish to get into a debate about whether components improve with burn in because I think that very often that might be the case, however what is much more important imho is that when the hi fi consumer receives the new thing, be it an amp or whatever, he/she is at a high point of consumerist anxiety asking themselves, "is this any good?", and that anxiety can wipe out the possibility of appreciating any qualities that might be present for some considerable time. 

Unfortunately I know that there are many people who are quick to say things like this! They say it to me when I say that, for example, I cannot hear the difference between, say, an ordinary power cable and a "high end" one. However what these people who want to tell you your ears suck haven't done is try out blind testing. If they did I think they might quickly realise that the great capability in hearing they think they have is in fact a fantasy.

In assessing hi fi it is absolutely vital to consider the psycho-acoustic. Human beings are capable of hearing benefits that are not there and equally not hearing benefits that are there.

Hi fi consumers have been hugely let down by the Hi Fi press for their total abandonment of objectivity in the 90s. We have a problem now where Hi Fi manufacturers are having to create equipment with overly vivid sound characteristics simply so that the reviewers notice something. Hi Fi companies that really do make Hi Fi, i.e. equipment which seeks to minimise euphony etc. are sometimes finding it difficult against others who sell chrome plated euphony machines.

So it has become difficult for the consumer to make good decisions.

I recommend that whatever amplifier you buy you take a long time before making a judgement about it.

Do not "analyse" the sound at all. This "analysing" mode people go into is a bit of a fantasy, they are just honing selectivity.

After a month of ownership, start to consider if the amp has merits.

Don't look for features within the sound presentation but consider instead if the music is working, coherent and enjoyable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by p a t r i c k 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that a huge quantity of reported benefits in hi fi are psychological, and  in fact I think your estimate of 75% might well be a good one!

 

There is a good chance that "burn in" reports might well often be psychological.

 

Human hearing is astonishingly capable of hearing fine detail etc, but it is equally selective. In fact the two things are interconnected. The hearing is good because it can ignore things it doesn't deem relevant.

 

I think the second most significant area to consider is that hi fi is a consumerist activity (for the most part) and consumerism is about anxiety. Anxiety is generated by the retailers that what you have is not good enough and you must buy what they have to be good enough.

 

I don't wish to get into a debate about whether components improve with burn in because I think that very often that might be the case, however what is much more important imho is that when the hi fi consumer receives the new thing, be it an amp or whatever, he/she is at a high point of consumerist anxiety asking themselves, "is this any good?", and that anxiety can wipe out the possibility of appreciating any qualities that might be present for some considerable time. 

 

 

 

Unfortunately I know that there are many people who are quick to say things like this! They say it to me when I say that, for example, I cannot hear the difference between, say, an ordinary power cable and a "high end" one. However what these people who want to tell you your ears suck haven't done is try out blind testing. If they did I think they might quickly realise that the great capability in hearing they think they have is in fact a fantasy.

 

In assessing hi fi it is absolutely vital to consider the psycho-acoustic. Human beings are capable of hearing benefits that are not there and equally not hearing benefits that are there.

 

Hi fi consumers have been hugely let down by the Hi Fi press for their total abandonment of objectivity in the 90s. We have a problem now where Hi Fi manufacturers are having to create equipment with overly vivid sound characteristics simply so that the reviewers notice something. Hi Fi companies that really do make Hi Fi, i.e. equipment which seeks to minimise euphony etc. are sometimes finding it difficult against others who sell chrome plated euphony machines.

 

So it has become difficult for the consumer to make good decisions.

 

I recommend that whatever amplifier you buy you take a long time before making a judgement about it.

 

Do not "analyse" the sound at all. This "analysing" mode people go into is a bit of a fantasy, they are just honing selectivity.

 

After a month of ownership, start to consider if the amp has merits.

 

Don't look for features within the sound presentation but consider instead if the music is working, coherent and enjoyable.

Very good posts by both of you!

hi-fi is as much a curse as it is a blessing. Like my warning in my first post, there is tons of rubbish out there. And even more people buying into said rubbish.

Hearing is entirely psychological at the end of the day, because we do not function with raw data. Everything you hear is what you mind has decided what happened. So, if you are super excited my a new cable, you will literally hear a new sound. If you don't like the look of an amp, you probably won't like how it sounds etc etc. So much of our hearing is psychological it is scary. If you stimulate the brain to hear, it is just as real as hearing something int he world, because to you, they both originate in your brain. So a lot of these reported changes are in fact real - in the minds of the reviewers, but on earth they are not real.

If you can get past all of this psycho acoustic stuff, with an open mind and some logic, thats when the magic of the human ear begins to shine. If you are aware of your own short comings, you can be pretty accurate in your hearing.

Be realistic, be frugal, keep an open mind, and be aware of bs when you see it/hear it. Also, question yourself. If you aren't sure/can't hear a difference, say so and don't be embarrassed people will think your hearing sucks. Certain people will, but only those are out in their own dream world, with horrible hearing clouded by their minds fantasies. 
 

After your mind has had time to toy with a new headphone or amp, that is when you will get the best and most accurate impressions. Also, late at night, relaxed, is a very good setting.

I hope you like the can amp.

If not try the schiit asgard maybe? it has a 30 day money back guarantee and doesn't break the bank