Originally Posted by PleasantSounds
If you like the Q701 then listening to HD800 may be a bad idea - they do everything the Qs do, only so much better. That experience has cost me a lot of dough. Mind you: they are much more sensitive to the selection of upstream gear, and generally require different setup than the Qs. On the other hand, investment in the right gear will reward you with even more refined and satisfying sound, if budget is not a concern.
Well, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the HD800 didn't outperform the Q701 gvien the price difference. The fact that a lot of people are actually comparing two headphones where one costs nearly 4-5 times as much as the other is testament to how well the Q701 performs at it's price point. Once you take the required DACs and amps into consideration you can be moving close to 7-8 times the price difference.
This next comment is most certainly not directed at you, PleasantSounds, but I've noticed a tendency for people to start dissing the Q/K70x when comparisons between them and the HD800 are asked for. Those that are doing the dissing are IMO completely missing the point. Is the HD800 better than the Q/K70x? Yes, but does that make the Q/K70x rubbish? No it most certainly does not given it's price point.
Technically speaking I have a "budget that is not a concern", the question is would I get value for money from the HD800 with suitable DAC/amp? Yes would be the answer. Would I get as much value for money from them when compared to my current setup, which is the Q701 and a Fiio E17? Hell no.
If somebody's taste is Classical, Jazz, or Acoustic then I would have no problems at all with recommending a Q701 in conjunction with an E17 as a budget setup which has a sound quality well above that which anybody would have a right to expect for the price. In fact that setup may well be the only setup some people will ever want.Edited by Slaphead - 7/27/13 at 12:23am