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

Q701 impressions thread - Page 164

post #2446 of 8171
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

 


Q701 > K601 > K501 > K702/1 > K400 > K240 Sextett

 

Of course that is ranked purely depending on personal taste, not the actual sound quality.  IMHO, after buying a used old version of K701 from 2007 before the revision (and new K701 definitely sound different than old), I can say that K701's are technically above Q701's. I mean, technically in terms of overall sound quality, regardless of someones preferences. I find them more revealing, they have a bigger and more precise soundstage, tonality is different, bass is more textured although not as present, mids are smoother but more detailed, and highs sound faster and more crystaline, but not sharper or brighter, just of higher resolution. But the main difference is, CLARITY. Never ever do K701's sound muddy, never ever do they sound anything else but absolutely perfectly clear and coherent.  They sound extremely transparent, and most of all fast. They just sound more immediate than Q701's to me. Putting the Q's on after K's feels like some veil has been added, yes there is more bass, all the soundstage, air, detail, clarity and speed are taken away.  In other words, K701's to me sound like the more "hi-fi" or more expensive headphones.

For some genres, I prefer the Q701's, mostly for some bass heavier music. But for classical, jazz, vocal, acoustic, any instrumental music especially guitar, K701's (again, old model) are in my opinion a step above the Q's and I find the new K701's to be inferior to old ones. I feel they've been modified to better suit more modern music, and in the process what made them really special was taken away from them.

post #2447 of 8171

Just wanted to add something. For people thinking about amps,  I've auditioned the Musical Fidelity V-CAN MKII shortly on my K701, and it sounded very good. Very very nice pairing, they just sound good together. Adds some bass heft, makes the highs smoother but more detailed at the same time, and it adds a lot imaging and soundstage precision. I guess its true that MF and AKG like each other. Plenty of power as well, no need to turn the knob over 30-40%, and its absolutely silent even at full when nothing is playing, no hiss.  Excellent for about 200$. I don't know why the amp is not more popular around head-fi....I mean, being priced so well and made by a very famous manufacturer.

post #2448 of 8171
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by derbigpr View Post

 

Of course that is ranked purely depending on personal taste, not the actual sound quality.  IMHO, after buying a used old version of K701 from 2007 before the revision (and new K701 definitely sound different than old), I can say that K701's are technically above Q701's. I mean, technically in terms of overall sound quality, regardless of someones preferences. I find them more revealing, they have a bigger and more precise soundstage, tonality is different, bass is more textured although not as present, mids are smoother but more detailed, and highs sound faster and more crystaline, but not sharper or brighter, just of higher resolution. But the main difference is, CLARITY. Never ever do K701's sound muddy, never ever do they sound anything else but absolutely perfectly clear and coherent.  They sound extremely transparent, and most of all fast. They just sound more immediate than Q701's to me. Putting the Q's on after K's feels like some veil has been added, yes there is more bass, all the soundstage, air, detail, clarity and speed are taken away.  In other words, K701's to me sound like the more "hi-fi" or more expensive headphones.

For some genres, I prefer the Q701's, mostly for some bass heavier music. But for classical, jazz, vocal, acoustic, any instrumental music especially guitar, K701's (again, old model) are in my opinion a step above the Q's and I find the new K701's to be inferior to old ones. I feel they've been modified to better suit more modern music, and in the process what made them really special was taken away from them.


I don't really care how technically better something is. I mean if all I cared about is that and not enjoying my music, i'd have stuck with the KRKs or a DT-880. The K601 really does sound better to me than the K702. People always said the K702 was "technically" better, but I think that's just some excuse. The K702 supposedly doesn't have as much detail as the K601, but I think now this is nonsense. To me it's like comparing the Q701 to the K701 too. I made the mistake of selling my K601 once because I kept saying to myself  that the K702 was "so much more detailed and clearer!".

 

I think it's virtually impossible for the K701 to be technically better than the Q701. The differences you've described are basically just the disadvantages of how the Q701 is tuned. I mean the Q701 is a little more warm and of course when you add warmth it often fools the brain that the sound is less clear. More bass and less treble usually means less sound clarity. I don't think this is really true, but just the brain being fooled. I first noticed this when modding my DJ100 and then of course having the very old HD-650 with bloated mid-bass. Oh and when you get more warmth the soundstage seems to shrink. This is probably why I always felt the soundstage of the Q701 was smaller than the K702.

 

If you EQ the Q701 you can easily have it sound just like the K701 perhaps. Even removing the inner foam makes it closer to the K701, but it'll never get very close with mods alone.

 

It seems though most people say the K702/1 is much more cold and analytical. A bit thinner sounding, but with a very slight touch of warmth. I totally agree with this. The biggest difference for me is how much fuller sounding the mids are of the Q701 vs the K702. My K702 had a weird peak in the treble or upper mids somewhere that's not on the q701.

 

I had another K701 back in 2007 or earlier, but this was when I was clueless and didn't have a very good amp. I was using an Ipod Classic and Total Airhead. Sounded great though. Don't think i'm going to go out and search for the oldest K701 I can find, but I'm sure some differences could exist.

 

I totally believe you when you mention all the differences. It could sound sightly different due to the pads being flatter or more worn in. Have you tried a K701 with flat pads? You'd be pretty weirded out by what the Q701 sounds like with K601 pads. It's even closer to the K702/1 sound. I always felt that angled pads hurt imaging a little.

 

Some K701 also had different plastic parts behind the grill that were more open. Check this link:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/438413/markl-modded-k701

It's that smaller part on the first picture on the top.

People can say it has no effect on the sound, but I think it does. Not much.

 

My guess is that the version with that type of plastic piece (is that yours?) sounds best.

Most K701s have a piece that looks like the one on the Q701.

 

 

BTW the Q701 is pretty crystal clear at all times with the Micro Amp/Magni and ODAC. It depends entirely on the recording though.

Some songs sound really muffled and unclear, but it's IN the recording. How warm the Q701 sounds depends a lot on the recording too. Some recordings will always sound thin and too trebly with almost zero warmth.


Edited by tdockweiler - 2/1/13 at 8:59am
post #2449 of 8171
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post


I don't really care how technically better something is. I mean if all I cared about is that and not enjoying my music, i'd have stuck with the KRKs or a DT-880. The K601 really does sound better to me than the K702. People always said the K702 was "technically" better, but I think that's just some excuse. The K702 supposedly doesn't have as much detail as the K601, but I think now this is nonsense. To me it's like comparing the Q701 to the K701 too. I made the mistake of selling my K601 once because I kept saying to myself  that the K702 was "so much more detailed and clearer!".

 

I think it's virtually impossible for the K701 to be technically better than the Q701. The differences you've described are basically just the disadvantages of how the Q701 is tuned. I mean the Q701 is a little more warm and of course when you add warmth it often fools the brain that the sound is less clear. More bass and less treble usually means less sound clarity. I don't think this is really true, but just the brain being fooled. I first noticed this when modding my DJ100 and then of course having the very old HD-650 with bloated mid-bass. Oh and when you get more warmth the soundstage seems to shrink. This is probably why I always felt the soundstage of the Q701 was smaller than the K702.

 

If you EQ the Q701 you can easily have it sound just like the K701 perhaps. Even removing the inner foam makes it closer to the K701, but it'll never get very close with mods alone.

 

It seems though most people say the K702/1 is much more cold and analytical. A bit thinner sounding, but with a very slight touch of warmth. I totally agree with this. The biggest difference for me is how much fuller sounding the mids are of the Q701 vs the K702. My K702 had a weird peak in the treble or upper mids somewhere that's not on the q701.

 

I had another K701 back in 2007 or earlier, but this was when I was clueless and didn't have a very good amp. I was using an Ipod Classic and Total Airhead. Sounded great though. Don't think i'm going to go out and search for the oldest K701 I can find, but I'm sure some differences could exist.

 

I totally believe you when you mention all the differences. It could sound sightly different due to the pads being flatter or more worn in. Have you tried a K701 with flat pads? You'd be pretty weirded out by what the Q701 sounds like with K601 pads. It's even closer to the K702/1 sound. I always felt that angled pads hurt imaging a little.

 

Some K701 also had different plastic parts behind the grill that were more open. Check this link:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/438413/markl-modded-k701

It's that smaller part on the first picture on the top.

People can say it has no effect on the sound, but I think it does. Not much.

 

My guess is that the version with that type of plastic piece (is that yours?) sounds best.

Most K701s have a piece that looks like the one on the Q701.

 

 

BTW the Q701 is pretty crystal clear at all times with the Micro Amp/Magni and ODAC. It depends entirely on the recording though.

Some songs sound really muffled and unclear, but it's IN the recording. How warm the Q701 sounds depends a lot on the recording too. Some recordings will always sound thin and too trebly with almost zero warmth.

 

 

The K701 I have is definitely not thin or cold. Its quite warm actually, and mids have really full, smooth and liquid feel to them. Overall a weighty sounds that is slightly brighter than neutral, but its worth it.  Sometimes, headphones are bright in a bad way. They just add sibilance or harshness to a recording. But AKG is not what I would have though bright is before hearing them. They're not bright in a bad way, all the brightness adds to the openness of the sound and the amount of air. There's a lot more separation between sounds than on the Q701, soundstage is bigger and deeper as well. You know I don't like Q701 soundstage, but I like the K701 a lot.   To me, now after hearing the original K701's, Q701's sound inferior. I mean, they don't sound bad. But they're very middle of the road. Nothing about them stands out. They're not bass heavy, treble heavy, mid heavy, but they're not very flat like DT880's either. They don't sound particularly exciting, they don't have a massive soundstage, it's just dull compared to K701's in direct comparison. The only way I can describe it, if I listen to Q701's and put K701's on, I feel like everything sounds much more alive and just higher in fidelity. It just sounds more expensive if that makes sense. And when going from K's to Q's, they sound somehow dull and grey. The point being, if I want absolute neutrality I can take DT880's. If I want a fat bassy sound, I can take the HD650's, and if I want a very up front, lively sound which I prefer for jazz, acoustic, instrumental, vocal, classical, any live music, etc., then I go for K701's.  Q's are out of the game for me and I'm gonna end up selling them.   The only advantage over K701 for me is a bit more bass that they have, but the thing is, that bass is still not satisfactory enough for bass heavy music, its not like they have a lot more bass, just slightly more. But the rest of the sound is inferior to K701 in my opinion.

post #2450 of 8171
Quote:
Originally Posted by derbigpr View Post

 

 

The K701 I have is definitely not thin or cold. Its quite warm actually, and mids have really full, smooth and liquid feel to them. Overall a weighty sounds that is slightly brighter than neutral, but its worth it.  Sometimes, headphones are bright in a bad way. They just add sibilance or harshness to a recording. But AKG is not what I would have though bright is before hearing them. They're not bright in a bad way, all the brightness adds to the openness of the sound and the amount of air. There's a lot more separation between sounds than on the Q701, soundstage is bigger and deeper as well. You know I don't like Q701 soundstage, but I like the K701 a lot.   To me, now after hearing the original K701's, Q701's sound inferior. I mean, they don't sound bad. But they're very middle of the road. Nothing about them stands out. They're not bass heavy, treble heavy, mid heavy, but they're not very flat like DT880's either. They don't sound particularly exciting, they don't have a massive soundstage, it's just dull compared to K701's in direct comparison. The only way I can describe it, if I listen to Q701's and put K701's on, I feel like everything sounds much more alive and just higher in fidelity. It just sounds more expensive if that makes sense. And when going from K's to Q's, they sound somehow dull and grey. The point being, if I want absolute neutrality I can take DT880's. If I want a fat bassy sound, I can take the HD650's, and if I want a very up front, lively sound which I prefer for jazz, acoustic, instrumental, vocal, classical, any live music, etc., then I go for K701's.  Q's are out of the game for me and I'm gonna end up selling them.   The only advantage over K701 for me is a bit more bass that they have, but the thing is, that bass is still not satisfactory enough for bass heavy music, its not like they have a lot more bass, just slightly more. But the rest of the sound is inferior to K701 in my opinion.

 

 

This is very hard to agree with.  For me if I had to call one on the cold or bright side of neutral it would be the K701.  I don't find them thin just airy.  The Qs to me fix that.  I'm also hoping the 65th fix the bass even more from the Qs.

 

It's hard to put the 701s on after listening to a darker headphone.  But not so much with the Qs.  If you listen to a wide variety of headphones most of the time.  One has to get the cold label and out the ones I have it would be the 701s.  Now I had the T70s I sold them because they were worst than the 701s to me.  

 

AKG does soundstage good, very good with all there headphones - when compared to others like orthos, HD650s/ 600s but not the HD800s.

 

To each is own and no one is right in this case - it's just what you prefer.


Edited by preproman - 2/1/13 at 9:55am
post #2451 of 8171
Quote:
Originally Posted by derbigpr View Post

 

 

The K701 I have is definitely not thin or cold. Its quite warm actually, and mids have really full, smooth and liquid feel to them. Overall a weighty sounds that is slightly brighter than neutral, but its worth it.  Sometimes, headphones are bright in a bad way. They just add sibilance or harshness to a recording. But AKG is not what I would have though bright is before hearing them. They're not bright in a bad way, all the brightness adds to the openness of the sound and the amount of air. There's a lot more separation between sounds than on the Q701, soundstage is bigger and deeper as well. You know I don't like Q701 soundstage, but I like the K701 a lot.   To me, now after hearing the original K701's, Q701's sound inferior. I mean, they don't sound bad. But they're very middle of the road. Nothing about them stands out. They're not bass heavy, treble heavy, mid heavy, but they're not very flat like DT880's either. They don't sound particularly exciting, they don't have a massive soundstage, it's just dull compared to K701's in direct comparison. The only way I can describe it, if I listen to Q701's and put K701's on, I feel like everything sounds much more alive and just higher in fidelity. It just sounds more expensive if that makes sense. And when going from K's to Q's, they sound somehow dull and grey. The point being, if I want absolute neutrality I can take DT880's. If I want a fat bassy sound, I can take the HD650's, and if I want a very up front, lively sound which I prefer for jazz, acoustic, instrumental, vocal, classical, any live music, etc., then I go for K701's.  Q's are out of the game for me and I'm gonna end up selling them.   The only advantage over K701 for me is a bit more bass that they have, but the thing is, that bass is still not satisfactory enough for bass heavy music, its not like they have a lot more bass, just slightly more. But the rest of the sound is inferior to K701 in my opinion.

 

I'll take both of your guys' K701's and I'll decide which is superior in terms of SQ biggrin.gif

post #2452 of 8171
Quote:
Originally Posted by derbigpr View Post

 

 

The K701 I have is definitely not thin or cold. Its quite warm actually, and mids have really full, smooth and liquid feel to them. Overall a weighty sounds that is slightly brighter than neutral, but its worth it.  Sometimes, headphones are bright in a bad way. They just add sibilance or harshness to a recording. But AKG is not what I would have though bright is before hearing them. They're not bright in a bad way, all the brightness adds to the openness of the sound and the amount of air. There's a lot more separation between sounds than on the Q701, soundstage is bigger and deeper as well. You know I don't like Q701 soundstage, but I like the K701 a lot.   To me, now after hearing the original K701's, Q701's sound inferior. I mean, they don't sound bad. But they're very middle of the road. Nothing about them stands out. They're not bass heavy, treble heavy, mid heavy, but they're not very flat like DT880's either. They don't sound particularly exciting, they don't have a massive soundstage, it's just dull compared to K701's in direct comparison. The only way I can describe it, if I listen to Q701's and put K701's on, I feel like everything sounds much more alive and just higher in fidelity. It just sounds more expensive if that makes sense. And when going from K's to Q's, they sound somehow dull and grey. The point being, if I want absolute neutrality I can take DT880's. If I want a fat bassy sound, I can take the HD650's, and if I want a very up front, lively sound which I prefer for jazz, acoustic, instrumental, vocal, classical, any live music, etc., then I go for K701's.  Q's are out of the game for me and I'm gonna end up selling them.   The only advantage over K701 for me is a bit more bass that they have, but the thing is, that bass is still not satisfactory enough for bass heavy music, its not like they have a lot more bass, just slightly more. But the rest of the sound is inferior to K701 in my opinion.

 

So you think the Q701 doesn't have a large soundstage?..

post #2453 of 8171

The Q701 has one of the largest soundstages I've heard, as well as excellent separation. I'm not convinced that some of these people have even heard the Q701.

post #2454 of 8171
Quote:
Originally Posted by derbigpr View Post

 

Of course that is ranked purely depending on personal taste, not the actual sound quality.  IMHO, after buying a used old version of K701 from 2007 before the revision (and new K701 definitely sound different than old), I can say that K701's are technically above Q701's. I mean, technically in terms of overall sound quality, regardless of someones preferences. I find them more revealing, they have a bigger and more precise soundstage, tonality is different, bass is more textured although not as present, mids are smoother but more detailed, and highs sound faster and more crystaline, but not sharper or brighter, just of higher resolution. But the main difference is, CLARITY. Never ever do K701's sound muddy, never ever do they sound anything else but absolutely perfectly clear and coherent.  They sound extremely transparent, and most of all fast. They just sound more immediate than Q701's to me. Putting the Q's on after K's feels like some veil has been added, yes there is more bass, all the soundstage, air, detail, clarity and speed are taken away.  In other words, K701's to me sound like the more "hi-fi" or more expensive headphones.

For some genres, I prefer the Q701's, mostly for some bass heavier music. But for classical, jazz, vocal, acoustic, any instrumental music especially guitar, K701's (again, old model) are in my opinion a step above the Q's and I find the new K701's to be inferior to old ones. I feel they've been modified to better suit more modern music, and in the process what made them really special was taken away from them.


I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think most in this thread would agree that the DT880 is a superior headphone to the K701 in terms of clarity, transparency, and soaring highs. I don't have a K701 to compare against but I do have the DT880 and I have to say that the Q701 is in the same league. I don't feel I am lacking in any particular detail compared to the 880. They are a little more grainy than the 880 but mine are still breaking in. In terms of detail they are right up there with the 880, have a little more bass, similar extension, and the main difference at this point is the mid bump on the Q701's that the 880's don't have.

 

If I want to really listen to a vocalist, tell if they are a smoker or not, if it's dry in the room they're singing in, if they are on the first take or the fifth, I use the Q701's. They are simply god like in the mid range. I really mean it when I say that the 880 and Q701 are in the same league, quality wise they are different but nearly equal in my eyes. When I go from one to another I don't feel I am denying myself anything so much as changing the focus and frequency curve which is why I own both to begin with. Each is king of what it does best.

 

Also I will second the soundstage observation. For traditionally placed drivers, pointed at the ear vs angled back like on the Tesla or HD650, the soundstage is truly exceptional on the Q701. There have been FLAC's I've listened to and seriously had to take my headphones off to make sure I wasn't outputting on my speakers at the same time. Some sound effects also literally have me looking around the room to make sure my wife or cat aren't doing something off to the side. Put on Scissor Sisters track "Laura (City Hi-Fi vocal mix)" and listen to the congo drum playing in the right speaker, it sounds like it's in the room. One of the best stereo effects I've heard on a non binaural song.


Edited by Kodhifi - 2/2/13 at 9:31pm
post #2455 of 8171
Hi, not sure what to say here (today), just a Q701 owner who feels obliged to subscribe to the thread.
post #2456 of 8171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evshrug View Post

Hi, not sure what to say here (today), just a Q701 owner who feels obliged to subscribe to the thread.

 

It's about time.  wink.gif

post #2457 of 8171
XD
I feel welcome? Lol! Also tempted to make a quick Q701 overview video on YouTube between Superbowl commercials biggrin.gif
post #2458 of 8171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodhifi View Post


I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think most in this thread would agree that the DT880 is a superior headphone to the K701 in terms of clarity, transparency, and soaring highs. I don't have a K701 to compare against but I do have the DT880 and I have to say that the Q701 is in the same league. I don't feel I am lacking in any particular detail compared to the 880. They are a little more grainy than the 880 but mine are still breaking in. In terms of detail they are right up there with the 880, have a little more bass, similar extension, and the main difference at this point is the mid bump on the Q701's that the 880's don't have.

 

 

The Q701's have more bass than the DT880's? I was under the impression that they were heavier than the Q's, the 770's even heavier than the 880's as well?

post #2459 of 8171
If by "heavier" you mean warmer with more bass, the Q701 has more bass than the DT880. The closed DT770 does have more bass than either (particularly some versions of that headphone). I am excited though, I think I'll have a chance to audition the DT880 next week.
Edited by Evshrug - 2/5/13 at 10:51pm
post #2460 of 8171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evshrug View Post

If by "heavier" you mean warmer with more bass, the Q701 has more bass than the DT880. The closed DT770 does have more bass than either (particularly some versions of that headphone. I am excited though, I think I'll have a chance to audition the DT880 next week.

 

?

 

Maybe more mid-bass on the Q's (marginal) and slightly more in the lower mid section - but not more sub-bass.   Graphs say same .....

 

 

 

Curious about your choice of words too.  You state the Q701 has more bass than the DT880 - then in the next sentence you say you are excited to audition a DT880?  Curious - because if you haven't heard the DT880 yet - how can you make that statement .... ?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Q701 impressions thread