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

Q701 impressions thread - Page 6

post #76 of 7932

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post


When are you getting the HRT? I love mine and I'm sure you'll find it's a nice upgrade. I was actually shocked at the difference between it and the other DAC I was using. Who know a DAC could make such a huge improvement.

 

 I'd be interested to know how it compares to your E10.

 

I just got the HRT today!

 

The HRT is bigger than I was expecting - feels nice and I love that it's made in California.  The HRT guys are also super helpful and eager to support their products. 

 

I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet.  I will definitely compare it with my E10, and M-Stage DAC and post some impressions.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Creizai View Post


 

Whats your take on the comparison of the Q701 and your old AD900s?


 

Quick comparison is that Q701 is warmer/darker sounding, punchier, and has more body.  Q701s have punchier bass (Q701 can actually produce deep sub-bass pretty good).  AD900 is lighter, leaner and air-er sounding.  AD900 has more emphasis on upper mids/highs. 

 

Q701s sound more "natural" to me.  AD900s are very easily driven, but I don't find the Q701s to be as stubborn as everyone was claiming the K70x to be.  Soundstage is large on both, although I find the Q's to have a taller soundstage.   The Q701s sound like they have more separation, and I think this is in part because they have a less "air" (high frequencies) connecting the sounds to each other.  So sounds get outlined more with greater separation and are suspended around you. 

 

I found the AD900s to be a little congested sounding in the mids : \  Maybe it's that peak at 4khz on the graph...

 

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2931&graphID[]=3061
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by higgsbison View Post


Would love to know this as well. The Q sounds like what i want sound wise for sure. If you could give an assessment of running it straight off the E10 as well would be great. If its not going to be good for a realtively long term rig (1year) will jave to go back to the 242HD or AD900.

 

I think the E10 is pretty impressive, and does surprisingly good job by itself with the Q701s.  Even though it boosts the soundstage over my soundcard, It still can't take full advantage of the potential soundstage that the Q701s can produce. With another amp you will get more soundstage (width/depth/separation), more clarity/detail, and better dynamics - but the E10 takes you pretty far.


Edited by chicolom - 12/26/11 at 7:15am
post #77 of 7932

Its a good thing I got the M-stage, as the Music Streamer would have clipped with the E9.  I can see now that the Streamer doesn't respond to OS volume controls, so it will always clip with the E9:

  

"The Streamer family does not implement a system volume function and ignores any OS changes"

     - From Kevin @ HRT

post #78 of 7932

My HRT MS II vs FiiO E10 vs M-stage DAC impressions will be up shortly (I'm going to make a new thread as some other people in some other threads were asking me about it too.....)

 

EDIT:  Here it is   -->  http://www.head-fi.org/t/587526/three-dac-comparison-fiio-e10-hrt-ms-ii-m-stage-usb#post_8007426

 

cool.gif


Edited by chicolom - 12/28/11 at 4:39am
post #79 of 7932

Just got mine in today.  Using my AV40's right now until my E10 comes in tomorrow.  I'm in HEAVEN with these cans.  

post #80 of 7932

They get better and better as they burn in... I'm somewhere around 100 hrs now and they sound totally different than those first few hours.  From all I've read here, I still have a couple hundred hours more until they are completely relaxed, but even now I'm perfectly content with the sound.  Expect to be around the full 300 hrs about the same time the E17 is released!  Congrats and enjoy yours!

post #81 of 7932

So now that I enabled WASAPI (everyone needs to do this), these headphones are simply amazing. They don't have that much burn in and still these are just ridiculous. The level of detail is amazing.

post #82 of 7932

The details are what these phones are all about, that is what they do well, and what sets them apart.  It's the most detail for the money that makes them special. I fully recommend WASAPI or ASIO if you can.  They are my microscope for sound.  The break in isn't as pronounced as people make it seam, but whats good about it is that unlike some other sets that I've had the break in perfects them and doesn't detract anything from the detail, it just smooths out the high end peak a bit and gives a bit more efficiency in the bass end of the spectrum.  You will notice the bass before the highs mellow out.

 

EDIT: the mid range however remains unchanged through burn in, and for the mids, they are there, and they are detailed, but they never really get to be anything really special, which lends to separating the instruments more and giving the elusion of a wider sound stage, but it also makes them a poor choice for a lot of distorted guitar rock songs like nirvana.


Edited by sexiewasd - 12/30/11 at 9:32pm
post #83 of 7932
Thread Starter 

I haven't noticed any changes with my pair after 100+ hours. I don't know how many hours I have on my pair, but I have at least 55 hours on them from playing Skyrim. It's probably the perfect headphone for that game. I'm guessing I'm way past 100 hours by now. You don't know how glad I am that I've found this headphone to be a keeper. All the K702s I've had always had something in it's signature that always bothered my ears. I could probably fall asleep listening to my Q701. No, it's not because it's boring. It's not, but just that it's never fatiguing.

 

I also never had any issues with any of the treble bothering me. If it ever does it's the fault of the recording. I can check when needed by also listening to the track on my KRK KNS-8400. If it's bad on the KRK, it's bad on the Q701. Q701 is actually a bit more forgiving somehow.

 

One thing I noticed is that this stock cable on the Q701 must be really good. When switching to something else, the sound just isn't the same. It's especially noticable during gaming. I tried two other copper cables and the mids seem a bit leaner and just different. Kind of less musical and more analytical.

 

Someday I'd like to take apart a K702 stock cable and see if it's the same thing as the Q701 cable. It actually looks a bit thicker.

 

The mids on the Q701 nothing special? Don't agree with that. That's the one reason I love them. With the K701 I always felt like the mids were missing something and almost felt as if there was a recession somewhere in them. I know this makes no sense. The mids with my setup are very full sounding, and not thin or lacking in any way. The Q701 I have seems to almost be as warm as the K601?! I do know that when I amp these with my E9 or a portable amp, there is just something missing with the mids. Still good, but just not the same.

 

I think the mids on the Q701 with my setup are even better than those of the K501 and K601 too. I'm still addicting to the mids of the HD-598, but the Q701 seems to have topped that finally as a favorite open headphone. The HD-598 is definitely warmer and is better for female vocals sometimes.

 

Seems the Q701 is very accurate too. When comparing them to my KRK KNS-8400, I'm surprised how similar everything sounds. For fun I was comparing every headphone I own last night. It's amusing how many headphones make bad recordings sound OK. My old favorite the DJ100 still impresses me every time I listen to it. Pretty accurate, but doesn't have the treble of the Q701, but more engaging mids. With my DJ100, the SR-325is I got in is rather pointless, but it has a better soundstage maybe. I loved every minute I listened to of the SR-225i I had, but don't get that with the 325is. It seems maybe I'm giving up some mids for more treble/bass.

 

BTW are there any Q701 fans that also love the HD-598? Both I like about equally. Q701 is technically better, but HD-598 is a keeper. Q701 is just a lot more clear and detailed. HD-598 is a bit better for relaxing and not wanting to analyze your music. I actually think the HD-598 might have a larger soundstage than the Q701, but I'd need to compare them more. It seems to get larger (depends on recording, I know) with a recable and a goo DAC. Of course the Q701 soundstage is probably more accurate.

post #84 of 7932

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

Hopefully more people can compare the K702/K701 to the Q701. Doing it with stock cables would be best.

I'd like to say there is absolutely no difference in sound, but I'd be lying. Just not what my ears heard.


They are the same headphones for all intents and purposes.

It's not surprising that they sound different, do you think two different K702's sound the same? There are always small differences in the manufacture since there are lots of variables involved.

 

every headphone is a snowflake, bro

post #85 of 7932
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

 

The mids on the Q701 nothing special? Don't agree with that. That's the one reason I love them. With the K701 I always felt like the mids were missing something and almost felt as if there was a recession somewhere in them. I know this makes no sense. The mids with my setup are very full sounding, and not thin or lacking in any way. The Q701 I have seems to almost be as warm as the K601?! I do know that when I amp these with my E9 or a portable amp, there is just something missing with the mids. Still good, but just not the same.

 

 


Probably just a difference in taste, I'l describe my ideal sound signature to shed some more light on my comment about the mids.

 

My ideal sound (doesn't exist in headphone form) starts with extremely low bass extension well below audible, not pronounced, but above flat (5-40hz) with a smooth gradual   climb to 40hz with a slight recession from 40hz to 100hz, and a small peak at 150hz.  300hz to 3000hz should be a smooth, warm, round arch, and even with 40hz level at both ends, and have a sharp peak at 7000 to 10000hz, then remain even for as long as possible.

 

The Q701's have a pretty flat mid range which to me isn't ideal for pure pleasurable listening, I prefer a warmer, and exaggerated midrange. but that isn't what these are, and would detract from there sound signature more than help it, I wouldn't change them, there are other sets for that.

 

post #86 of 7932

There is a measurable difference between the q series and the k series.

 

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2621&graphID[]=2931&graphID[]=703

post #87 of 7932
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisenhower View Post

 


They are the same headphones for all intents and purposes.

It's not surprising that they sound different, do you think two different K702's sound the same? There are always small differences in the manufacture since there are lots of variables involved.

 

every headphone is a snowflake, bro

 

Based on what I'm hearing, this is not true and people can tell me otherwise all they want. Yes, very similar. The same? Not a chance.


Have you heard them side by side with the same gear and at the same time? If not, how do you know? Did you disassemble them and compare each part?

Actually, I don't care if anyone felt they sounded the same. I'm aware of two people who think they sound identical. To me, it's a little bit of a difference that makes them better than the K702 for me.

I'd say that the Q701 is a SLIGHTLY tweaked K702. If you like the K702, then you'll most likely like the Q701.

 

I had the K702 and K701 multiple times and could never keep them. Even after 100+ hours of burn-in, several issues with them kept me from keeping them. Mostly it's mids, abnormal soundstage and piercing treble.Q701 fixes all this. I don't know how.

 

Don't you find it strange that the K702 has treble that's very fatiguing for me, but the Q701 does not? This Q701 is not even remotely fatiguing.

 

It's also funny how I always hated the K702 for gaming due to it's inaccurate soundstage. With the Q701 it's actually quite good now.

 

FYI the differences I'm hearing are much greater than variations between pairs of the same model.

 

Here's another thing to consider...when I got my K501 I sold my K702 because I felt the K601 and K501 were far better despite the K702 being "technically" better.

 

When I got the Q701 I compared it to the K501 and K601 and prefer the Q701 by far. K501 ended up being traded away since the Q701's fixed all my issues with the K702 I had.

 

Don't know why I bother to write this since my comments are in the first post to begin with. Basically saying the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

post #88 of 7932
Thread Starter 


in before...

 

"But those are just measurement variations and they're really the same"!

 

That graph actually looks accurate.. I wonder what frequency bothered me so much on the K702. Something in it's treble that drove my ears crazy.

Yet the SR-325is or DT-880's treble doesn't bother me ever..it makes no sense.

 

I have to admit though that the soundstage seems much smaller and more accurate. This could have a large effect on the overall sound too.

I no longer get that airplane hangar type soundstage with specific music. Maybe it's caused by the new button? No idea..

 

My idea is that the cable was improved and that button may effect the sound slightly. I'd say there's probably a 10% difference between the K702 and Q701.

It's as if someone wrote down 2-3 issues with the K702 and AKG fixed them on the Q701.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danthrax View Post

There is a measurable difference between the q series and the k series.

 

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2621&graphID[]=2931&graphID[]=703



 

post #89 of 7932
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

 

Based on what I'm hearing, this is not true and people can tell me otherwise all they want. Yes, very similar. The same? Not a chance.


Have you heard them side by side with the same gear and at the same time? If not, how do you know? Did you disassemble them and compare each part?

Actually, I don't care if anyone felt they sounded the same. I'm aware of two people who think they sound identical. To me, it's a little bit of a difference that makes them better than the K702 for me.

I'd say that the Q701 is a SLIGHTLY tweaked K702. If you like the K702, then you'll most likely like the Q701.


You didn't get what I was saying, I think.

The differences (audible, or measurable) between a Q701 and a K702 are no different than the differences between a K702 and another K702 because there are inconsistencies in the manufacturing process.

I am not denying you can hear differences between them, I'm just saying they are technically the same headphone. What you are hearing is a manufacturing inconsistency. Making a separate thread is slightly dishonest in this way.

 

If you have heard multiple Q701's and multiple K702's, and reached your conclusion, then I would concede.


Edited by Eisenhower - 12/31/11 at 12:18am
post #90 of 7932

I don't think so there are design differences between the k and the q the most noticeable being the button. And I doubt they would post that graph with only one sample. There isn't a few db variance in the production of a headphone that isn't hand built. That would be ridiculous.

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