Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Q701 appreciation thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Q701 appreciation thread - Page 237

post #3541 of 6577
Thread Starter 

I destroyed my Anniversary pads today. I hate them so much that I didn't care. I was going to just take a peak inside but it was too tempting to totally destroy them and laugh about it.

 

Under the actual memory foam is a hard foam backing. I think this is one reason there is a bass difference and not so much due to the memory foam itself. The "vents" under the locking mechanism are more open on the Q701.

 

On the Q701 under the locks there is just thinner/lighter foam and not the hard stuff.

 

I tried some experiments but no real change. You would need to be able to install the hard foam all the way around inside and it's impossible.

post #3542 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

I destroyed my Anniversary pads today. I hate them so much that I didn't care. I was going to just take a peak inside but it was too tempting to totally destroy them and laugh about it.

 

You're a sick, sick man.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

 

Under the actual memory foam is a hard foam backing. I think this is one reason there is a bass difference and not so much due to the memory foam itself. The "vents" under the locking mechanism are more open on the Q701.

 

On the Q701 under the locks there is just thinner/lighter foam and not the hard stuff.

 

Do you have any pics of the hard foam?

post #3543 of 6577
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicolom View Post

Do you have any pics of the hard foam?

 

I'll try to take one. I had a hard time removing it because it originally is one round piece. It's pretty thick too. I doubt the Q701 pads have this.

 

I was thinking too..if these "vents" have no role in the sound/bass, then why are they even open on the actual headphone baffle where the pads clip into place?

 

I want to experiment if any changes are heard with modding anything under the pads. Maybe closing off areas. Q701 doesn't need any mods and I'm just curious.

 

Oh and I could try double foam circles biggrin.gif

 

I ordered AKG foam circles and they sent them  in a huge box with like 10 sheets of packaging material in case they broke during shipment! Free shipping so I can't complain.

post #3544 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by koiloco View Post

Or it could have been your ears that finally got adjusted to the sound signature.  Subjective call.
Mmmmh... Well, you're responding to two things. One was driver break-in, an hour of listening out of the box then a couple days (forget how long) burn-in via a pink noise (and silent "break" periods) without listening, and it did seem a little different. The other thing I said was that the more significant difference came from after I had listened for a while and gotten used to or "trained" in how the headphone presents detail and soundstage, and the pads/fit of the headphone settling in to my head's shape. Subjectively, I would say the change was slight rather than transformational. I would say hearing "A" difference is an observation, how much is a subjective call because I don't have quantifiable data.

It's an old debate, one I didn't used to believe in, but I'm confident in my conclusion. I wouldn't say it takes thousands of hours to happen (unless you're talking about a speaker beginning to blow out), and I don't worry about the difference because it is quite small.
post #3545 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by koiloco View Post

Or it could have been your ears that finally got adjusted to the sound signature.  Subjective call.

 

I'm with you. I'm convinced that it is 99% your ears getting used to the sound of the headphone.
post #3546 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

I'm with you.I'm convinced that it is 99% your ears getting used to the sound of the headphone.

You are convinced? And shall we know why?
Anyway, small sound differences or not Tyll needs less than 5 seconds (5!) to hear a difference, which is very short.
That means the difference is clearly audible (as his assistant also says at the end).
Furthermore, he probably notices a diffence immediately but waits a few secs to make sure he is right.
What do u want more?
When some people say "night and day" they probably just mean "clearly audible".
Edited by Hairspray - 9/3/13 at 4:16pm
post #3547 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairspray View Post


You are convinced? And shall we know why?
Anyway, small sound differences or not Tyll needs less than 5 seconds (5!) to hear a difference, which is very short.
That means the difference is clearly audible (as his assistant also says at the end).
Furthermore, he probably notices a diffence immediately but waits a few secs to make sure he is right.
What do u want more?
When some people say "night and day" they probably just mean "clearly audible".

 

Again - you are only referencing Tyll's first post in a series of 3.  This is dis-ingenious as you need to take all into account - especially the last one.  Here's my post from the previous page ......

 

 

The problem is that everyone quotes either the first or 2nd article in the series (the first one is the one that always comes up in a google search).  It's the third one that is the real summary though - here: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/measurement-and-audibility-headphone-break

 

Even if all anyone reads is the conclusion - it's worth the effort (page 4 of the article).  Here's a few quotes with the most pertinent bits .....

 

 

Quote:

Conclusions
Have I shown that break-in exists? No. I wish I could say the slowly descending IMD products is clear evidence ... but it's not. Who knows what that measurement represents. I do think, however, that if break-in is measurable, it would be this type of measurement that would show it. I'm pretty happy something showed up at all.

Have I shown that break-in doesn't exist and is not measurable? No. The slight changes around 9kHz on the CSD plots, and the significant change in IMD products over time do indicate that something is happening, and happening in a way that seems to me to be properly indicative of the things I've heard with break-in effects. I think the nay-sayers need to acknowledge something might be happening here.

The one thing I think I have proved, however, is that if break-in does exist, it is not a large effect. When people talk about night and day changes in headphones with break-in, they are exaggerating. This data clearly shows that the AKG Q701 --- a headphone widely believed to change markedly with break-in --- does not change much much over time.

 

and 

 

Quote:

If you do want to break-in your cans, I suggest pink noise at a slightly louder than normal listening level. If you don't have a pink noise track, just play music. If they sound lousy out of the box, but they start sounding a lot better as you listen to them over time, it's your amazingly versatile brain figuring out how to cope with the world.

T

post #3548 of 6577
Again, he is not referencing Tyll, he's giving his personal opinion. Even Tyll is saying his personal opinion as he didn't apply any statistical tool to determine if the data is significant or not. The graphs clearly show an evolution, you can read them as you want though.

Every, and I mean EVERY single mechanical device and material is subject to run off and wear. In the specific case of headphones it's basically fatigue. The modification of the mechanical properties on the material/system can or cannot lead to a change in sound, and that will depend on the design and the materials used. Membranes and plastics are even more susceptible to mechanical properties changes. Again, Tyll said he didn't prove it, but he didn't say it didn't exist either. He expressed his personal opinion as I'm doing right now, as he didn't perform a test with enough samples to ratify or deny anything.
Edited by Ashade - 9/3/13 at 4:45pm
post #3549 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashade View Post

Again, he is not referencing Tyll, he's giving his personal opinion.

 

Agree it was his personal opinion - but he clearly references Tyll twice (check previous page as well) - even linked the video and original article.

 

I also agree with you on mechanical wear - however the real question is how much the small differences in mechanical wear are audible - compared to the larger differences brought about by:

 - position on head

 - wearing/compression of pads

 - effect of 'brain burn-in'

 

Especially when a lot of people claiming requirement of hundreds of hours burn-in don't take into account the issues with auditory memory.

 

But hey - if he hears a difference - that's his experience.  Mine differs considerably - and I recognise any changes I experience over time relate more to the 3 points I listed above than any type of mechanical break-in.

post #3550 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairspray View Post


You are convinced? And shall we know why?
Anyway, small sound differences or not Tyll needs less than 5 seconds (5!) to hear a difference, which is very short.
That means the difference is clearly audible (as his assistant also says at the end).
Furthermore, he probably notices a diffence immediately but waits a few secs to make sure he is right.
What do u want more?
When some people say "night and day" they probably just mean "clearly audible".

 

So in your opinion all Q701s with burn in sound exactly the same and all Q701 without burn in also sound exactly the same?  It's impossible that you simply have two different sounding pair of headphones?  Sample variations?  The differences are automatically attributed to breakin? 

 

All we have here are two different sets of Q701s which sound different; this is assuming that listener based his choices 100% based on the difference on sound;  that the pads are exactly the same, the feel (clamping force) of the headphone were exactly the same, etc. and that the sound was the only factor taken into factor for the identification. But of course, why would you make an assumption which could very easily render the whole test irrelevant? 

 

But breakin/burnin does seem to happen, it's been measured with speaker drivers (http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm) as well as  headphones (http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break), but 1000 hours definitely seems to be an unreasonably long period for for breakin ...  Might be clamping force, pads, placebo, simply sample variations, etc.


Edited by GirgleMirt - 9/3/13 at 5:06pm
post #3551 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

Especially when a lot of people claiming requirement of hundreds of hours burn-in don't take into account the issues with auditory memory.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
 

But breakin/burnin does seem to happen, it's been measured with speaker drivers (http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm) as well as  headphones (http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break), but 1000 hours definitely seems to be an unreasonably long period for for breakin ...  Might be clamping force, pads, placebo, simply sample variations, etc.

 

Thousands of hours is not breaking in, it´s definitely wear, and that includes of course the pads. I cannot say my ears are very sensitive, therefore I don´t care about a variation of half a db or even 1db, but I don´t think the evolution should be measure in frequency response, but in square wave response, impulse response or cumulative spectral decay, that are in my opinion the ones measuring the detail capacity of a headphone. That being said, I don´t think the Q701 would be very prone to high differences through wear.

 

That being said, I agree that positioning does a lot of difference in the frequency response perceived and that it can clearly overlay the effect of these mechanics variations. Of course this does not mean it does not exist, but this is going to depend as well of the headphone itself. Tyll only tested one headphone.

post #3552 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairspray View Post


You are convinced? And shall we know why?
Anyway, small sound differences or not Tyll needs less than 5 seconds (5!) to hear a difference, which is very short.
That means the difference is clearly audible (as his assistant also says at the end).
Furthermore, he probably notices a diffence immediately but waits a few secs to make sure he is right.
What do u want more?
When some people say "night and day" they probably just mean "clearly audible".

I believe God walks on water.  Do you?  Get the point?

This is a very subjective hobby.  Believe in what you want, be it cable, power cord, break in, OFC vs OCC ... Enjoy.


Edited by koiloco - 9/3/13 at 7:17pm
post #3553 of 6577

 


Edited by Ashade - 9/3/13 at 7:58pm
post #3554 of 6577

I've had these since Saturday and I can't get over how good they sound. Choral/Classical music through a tube amp is just...wow. Goosebumps.

post #3555 of 6577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairspray View Post

You are convinced? And shall we know why?
Anyway, small sound differences or not Tyll needs less than 5 seconds (5!) to hear a difference, which is very short.
That means the difference is clearly audible (as his assistant also says at the end).
Furthermore, he probably notices a diffence immediately but waits a few secs to make sure he is right.
What do u want more?
When some people say "night and day" they probably just mean "clearly audible".

Relax, man.
It's just my opinion.

Based on my humble experience, I did not hear any burn-in with either my DT880 600 Ohm cans or my Q701 or my SRS-2170 system.
I have other weird beliefs if anyone is interested!tongue.gif
Edited by Chris J - 9/4/13 at 4:54am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Q701 appreciation thread