Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG K701/K702 vs. AKG Q701?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AKG K701/K702 vs. AKG Q701? - Page 12

post #166 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicolom View Post

 

No, just a nice solid state headphone amp.

how does it do good?

post #167 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaSushi2 View Post

how does it do good?

 

Seems like you are caught up on marketing things like 5.1 'surround sound' and automatically assume it's better since there are more channels involved. Surround sound means there are 5 channels and 1 subwoofer channel for sound. Stereo amplification means two channels, left and right. Almost all music is done in stereo, and it works out well since headphones are also always two channels (well, at least high end ones).

 

Amplifiers focus on improving the sound quality from those two channel sounds. It is a strange concept at first. Once you get these headphones, try plugging them into various outputs like your phone, a portable music player, and a home receiver if you have one. You'll notice each one sounds a little different, and maybe some will sound better than others. That's due to the different amplification systems in each one. 

post #168 of 222

An amplifier is exactly that, a unit that amplifies the power of the signal going into your headphones/speakers. Obviously, an amplifier will make your music's volume louder, but amplifiers can also affect the fullness of the sound that you're experiencing, the resonance in the bass frequencies, etc.

 

If you're looking for 5.1, then you're going to need a receiver or a sound card or something that supports it. You could always hook the Matrix M-Stage (or most any other amp) up to a surround sound system, though, as long as the amp has an applicable audio output (in this case, we say the amp is functioning as a "pre-amp").

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaSushi2 View Post

oh nice, does it add 5.1 or anything cool?

post #169 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilky61 View Post

An amplifier is exactly that, a unit that amplifies the power of the signal going into your headphones/speakers. Obviously, an amplifier will make your music's volume louder, but amplifiers can also affect the fullness of the sound that you're experiencing, the resonance in the bass frequencies, etc.

 

If you're looking for 5.1, then you're going to need a receiver or a sound card or something that supports it. You could always hook the Matrix M-Stage (or most any other amp) up to a surround sound system, though, as long as the amp has an applicable audio output (in this case, we say the amp is functioning as a "pre-amp").

 

Very Shway.... :D But are the any amps that truely add 5.1?

post #170 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaSushi2 View Post

Very Shway.... :D But are the any amps that truely add 5.1?

 

What do you mean "truely add 5.1"?  

 

5.1 surround is just digital signal processing.  An amps job is just to amplify whatever signal it receives.  The job of adding a a surround effect falls to the DAC (soundcard). 

 

The Astro mixamp has an amp and a soundcard built in to create the surround sound effect.  Same with PC soundcards like ASUS Xonar DG.

post #171 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicolom View Post

 

What do you mean "truely add 5.1"?  

 

5.1 surround is just digital signal processing.  An amps job is just to amplify whatever signal it receives.  The job of adding a a surround effect falls to the DAC (soundcard). 

 

The Astro mixamp has an amp and a soundcard built in to create the surround sound effect.  Same with PC soundcards like ASUS Xonar DG.

Well a few people told me 5.1 was a gimmick. So does the MixAmp actually do 5.1 or DSS do 7.1 or is it not worth it?

post #172 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaSushi2 View Post

Well a few people told me 5.1 was a gimmick. So does the MixAmp actually do 5.1 or DSS do 7.1 or is it not worth it?

 

It's virtual surround.  Headphones with multiple drivers such as the AX Pro are more gimmicky as their driver sound quality is bad. 

 

Dolby Headphone is what the Mixamp and DSS (Version 1, not Version 2) use.  If you have decent headphones it's definitely worth it.

post #173 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicolom View Post

 

It's virtual surround.  Headphones with multiple drivers such as the AX Pro are more gimmicky as their driver sound quality is bad. 

 

Dolby Headphone is what the Mixamp and DSS (Version 1, not Version 2) use.  If you have decent headphones it's definitely worth it.

So does Zalmic, K702, MixAmp work? Or should I go with an O2 amp or even M-Stage?

post #174 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaSushi2 View Post

So does Zalmic, K702, MixAmp work? Or should I go with an O2 amp or even M-Stage?

Looking at the MixAmp, I have trouble imagining it drive the mighty k701. Only a handful of portable amps can drive the k701's properly. Plus at $130 I have trouble imagining how it could be profitable when the O2 costs about $100 built from cheap, ordinary parts.

 

The O2 drives the k701 with authority. Even low gain reaches high enough volumes, and you get truly transparent performance. The M-Stage has a similar level of performance as the O2, both are excellent, transparent amps at quite a low price. Personally I prefer the O2. It sounds drier - and by that I mean it sounds utterly transparent. The M-Stage has a tiny, tiny tint of warmth compared to the O2... although the differences are minute. Objectively, the O2 lives up to its name with pretty much flawless objective performance... I do like the O2, although both are an excellent choice. Personally, if I was looking for surround sound, I would be thinking of an Asus Soundcard feeding into the O2.

post #175 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthem View Post

Looking at the MixAmp, I have trouble imagining it drive the mighty k701. Only a handful of portable amps can drive the k701's properly. Plus at $130 I have trouble imagining how it could be profitable when the O2 costs about $100 built from cheap, ordinary parts.

 

The O2 drives the k701 with authority. Even low gain reaches high enough volumes, and you get truly transparent performance. The M-Stage has a similar level of performance as the O2, both are excellent, transparent amps at quite a low price. Personally I prefer the O2. It sounds drier - and by that I mean it sounds utterly transparent. The M-Stage has a tiny, tiny tint of warmth compared to the O2... although the differences are minute. Objectively, the O2 lives up to its name with pretty much flawless objective performance... I do like the O2, although both are an excellent choice. Personally, if I was looking for surround sound, I would be thinking of an Asus Soundcard feeding into the O2.

Indeed. Though I will be using this mostly on my xbox as I have speakers on for my computer. I wanted something better than TV speakers or turtle beaches but with a way that only I can hear my games as not to disturb my wife when she reads in bed late at night. (Though she tells me I'm too loud anyways! lol) 

 

The only reason and I mean ONLY reason  I was looking at the MixAmp was to see if it truly processed 3D positioning like it says it does. I play a lot of FPS so having an advantage I can get would be great.

 

Currently my squad on Ghost Recon Future Soldier is ranked 3 so we are talking about going competitive - this in mind - what setup, no matter the price, would you recommend for competitive gaming? Would anyone recommend?

post #176 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaSushi2 View Post

Indeed. Though I will be using this mostly on my xbox as I have speakers on for my computer. I wanted something better than TV speakers or turtle beaches but with a way that only I can hear my games as not to disturb my wife when she reads in bed late at night. (Though she tells me I'm too loud anyways! lol) 

 

The only reason and I mean ONLY reason  I was looking at the MixAmp was to see if it truly processed 3D positioning like it says it does. I play a lot of FPS so having an advantage I can get would be great.

 

Currently my squad on Ghost Recon Future Soldier is ranked 3 so we are talking about going competitive - this in mind - what setup, no matter the price, would you recommend for competitive gaming? Would anyone recommend?

 

No matter the price?  Those are dangerous words.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/534479/mad-lust-envys-headphone-gaming-guide-updated-6-10-2012-ultrasone-pro-2900-added-many-edits

post #177 of 222

If you are into gaming , IMO go to specialized Surround headphones. They tuned better for surround DSP whether its EAX or equivalent. While audiophile headphone tuned better for analog music.

post #178 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimoo View Post

If you are into gaming , IMO go to specialized Surround headphones. They tuned better for surround DSP whether its EAX or equivalent. While audiophile headphone tuned better for analog music.

I dont know what that is but if you can link it I would love it.

post #179 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaSushi2 View Post

I dont know what that is but if you can link it I would love it.

 

 

No link, cos i'm not into gaming headset. Sorry, you can google the gaming surround headset review, Razer for example . Last time i read it , that gaming headphone have specialized their sound in surround department with a lot of gaming-bass. 

While audiophile specialized their sound in hifi sound refinement. Gaming headset wont have refinement Sennheiser, AKG, and other top audiophile headphone maker. Vice versa.

If you are into gaming go directly with gaming headphone, compared to music hifi headphone.

  The same unwritten law also hold true for speakers, where high-end audiophile usually come in 2.0 or 2.1 setup. For surround movie theatre there's 7.1 setup. This 7.1 music performance wont be as good as audiophile grade 2.0 / 2.1. Period.

IMHO, Just get the right gear for the right stuff.

post #180 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimoo View Post

 

 

No link, cos i'm not into gaming headset. Sorry, you can google the gaming surround headset review, Razer for example . Last time i read it , that gaming headphone have specialized their sound in surround department with a lot of gaming-bass. 

While audiophile specialized their sound in hifi sound refinement. Gaming headset wont have refinement Sennheiser, AKG, and other top audiophile headphone maker. Vice versa.

If you are into gaming go directly with gaming headphone, compared to music hifi headphone.

  The same unwritten law also hold true for speakers, where high-end audiophile usually come in 2.0 or 2.1 setup. For surround movie theatre there's 7.1 setup. This 7.1 music performance wont be as good as audiophile grade 2.0 / 2.1. Period.

IMHO, Just get the right gear for the right stuff.

Oh I don't want a garbage headset anyway. lol I'm leaning towards the Q701 atm because I found them for 234 instead of 284. :D

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG K701/K702 vs. AKG Q701?