Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG Q701 Vs. AKG K702 | Comparison & Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AKG Q701 Vs. AKG K702 | Comparison & Review - Page 11

post #151 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post

 

X1

Acix,

have you heard the Q701?
 

 

post #152 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishski13 View Post

Acix,

have you heard the Q701?
 

 



Not yet, but I'm aware of AKG changing drivers during the production time to the same individual model.

post #153 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

If the K701 had the bass that the Q701 has, I'd have kept them. That's for sure.


Couldn't help but notice this. I bought the pair from the review and have a studio engineer background - I'm far from practicing, but the AKG K702's scream 'studio engineer' to me in a way that makes me understand why you should have them. If you like classical, jazz, anything except majoritively electronic music. Looking at well-mastered tracks - Bjork's - Play Dead, Mc Solaar's - Nouveau Western, the bass on the K702 is ample. Listening to the bass on a cello, it sounds natural, full, warm.

 

To say these sound cold is to forget just how warm most audio lo-fi gear is. Studio engineers like it cold so we can hear everything perfectly, and we often push the treble level as far as isn't clipping - and the K702 doesn't roll it off (Halou's - Ingenue is a good cello example, and also a good 'hey, damp that treble a bit, both in the piano and synth).

 

There are definitely tracks that the Q701 would get me a shout for - anything from Tom Jones except Chicane feat. Tom Jones - Stoned in Love, most soul, funk - stuff which is mastered a little warm, to my ear, gets that hot buttered sexeh sound we all love - it's a dirty truth :).

 

But for reproduction of what's on the master tape when heard in the studio - give me the reference monitors I've got on my head right now. Just listening to Chicane - Middledistancerunner will tell you the bass is exactly where it should be, but the Q701's have the edge for me with almost every badly mastered file I've heard. (And I've heard a lot of badly mastered files), or something thrashy/chainsaw guitar like Blur's - Song 2

 

These days I've got more and more picky about good recordings - favourites at the moment are The Norwegian Soloist's Choir's - White Night, Nitin Sawney's - Prophesy (heard so much new stuff on there lately) and Michael Goldschlaeger's rendition of Bach's Cello Suites.

 

The Bach does not sound good on the K702 - the 2nd CD is far too close miked - to the point where you'll be running for the Sennheisers or the loudspeakers and away from the earspeakers (or just for Isserlis's version), but this to my mind doesn't get a reprieve on the Q701's. If you're after something that plays to the strengths of the K702 - try Eagle-Eye Cherry's old classic, the Desireless album. Guitar couldn't sound more real, while the drums have all the bass a guy could reasonably want. 

 

For all that I prefer the K702 for my own varied listening , I can see why soul/funk/hip-hop listeners could prefer the Q701, and those who find the K702 too fast in the highs - EQ before you reject these cans though! Essentially, the Q702 accentuates what a lot of people already like about those genres, while the K702 is more faithful - mastering treble push and all.

 

I prefer listening reversed too, but I'd usually switch the channels physically as soon as I've got something analog with a L & R to work with. Hope this 7am ramble helps people deciding between the two - I've tried to chuck in music to help reference what I'm hearing on a very basic level.

 

chicolom is an awesome head-fi'er to deal with. very easy seller. 

post #154 of 386

Comment on burn-in... I have K702's I got from Amazon 2 days ago, and have been listening all day with them since. I'd say I have about 25 hours on them.

 

Just in the last hour or so, I've noticed a more present lower register. I stopped listening to get something to eat, and the soundfield went back to a more subtle bass... until I got about 3 songs into an album. Then I noticed that the bass had come back. Sounds to me like these phones are just beginning to settle... as I use them I'm assuming that the bass won't retreat so far and will take less time to come back, until it's always there.

 

Has anyone else experienced this?

post #155 of 386

I got both HD 650 and K702 and in A/B test I found K702 has more highs while HD 650 got more prominent lows but lacks a bit of very high frequencies when compared with K702.  To me HD 650 is wonderful for vocals (more sweet and warm) while K702 is more neutral and is good for jazz, acoustics and classics.

 

To my ears HD 650 sounds veil at high freq however having removed the foam grill the veil has gone (but the highs still cannot compete with K702) !!

 

To me the lows of K702 is not lacking at all while its highs are not causing ear fatigue and this headphone has honestly reproduced what is in the CD without added color.  I have read with interests about the differences of Q701 and K702 and is interested to make the sound signature of K702 close to that of Q701.  To this end I have inserted an acoustic foam piece of about 1/4" thick inside the 2 dooms of K702 and put another 1/4" thick round acoustic foam of just about 1-1/4" dia to cover the driver in additional to the foam already in place .  To my amazement the lows of K702 are now more extended and the highs has been reduced by a small amount.

 

I then had another A/B test with both the modified HD 650 and K702 and now the two cans sound much closer.  The lows of K702 is very closed to HD 650 though failed by a small margin.  Overall I love the sound signature of the modified K702 more than the HD 650 even though HD 650 sound a bit more sweet with vocals.  The soundstaging of K702 is bigger than HD 650 and the sound produced is cleaner, clearer and more transparent.

 

Both cans used their stock cables on A/B testing and the foam used are acoustic foam (open cell) instead of normal foam (closed cell).  K702 has a burn-in time of over 300 hrs while HD 650 is just over 100 hrs. The headphone amplifier used is Fidelity Audio HPA-200   http://www.fidelityaudio.co.uk/hpa-200.html

 

A lot of folks here expressed that K702 has a lean bass which I cannot agree with.  According to the specifications from the two makers K702 has a freq. response of 10-39800Hz with 62 ohm impedance while HD 650 also got a freq. response of 10-39800Hz but with 300 ohm impedance.  IMHO the main cause of lean bass is most probably due to insufficient current being fed to the headphone from the headphone amplifier.  Just like driving a pair of power hungry speaker if your amplifier is unable to deliver sufficient current the bass will be greatly affected.  You may wish to know that the headphone amplifier I used adopted a 250mA audio buffer in each of the channels (dual mono design) and that explains why I do not feel K702 is bass lean at all. 


Edited by inter voice - 3/4/12 at 1:50pm
post #156 of 386

Thanks for the review.  

post #157 of 386

Great findings and a good read, I'm looking to get the HD650's, but not sure if I should as I have the K702's. Its the HD650 or a new DAC (Matrix mini-i) although I only just got the FiiO E17 (used as a DAC)..

Quote:
Originally Posted by inter voice View Post

I got both HD 650 and K702 and in A/B test I found K702 has more highs while HD 650 got more prominent lows but lacks a bit of very high frequencies when compared with K702.  To me HD 650 is wonderful for vocals (more sweet and warm) while K702 is more neutral and is good for jazz, acoustics and classics.

 

To my ears HD 650 sounds veil at high freq however having removed the foam grill the veil has gone (but the highs still cannot compete with K702) !!

 

To me the lows of K702 is not lacking at all while its highs are not causing ear fatigue and this headphone has honestly reproduced what is in the CD without added color.  I have read with interests about the differences of Q701 and K702 and is interested to make the sound signature of K702 close to that of Q701.  To this end I have inserted an acoustic foam piece of about 1/4" thick inside the 2 dooms of K702 and put another 1/4" thick round acoustic foam of just about 1-1/4" dia to cover the driver in additional to the foam already in place .  To my amazement the lows of K702 are now more extended and the highs has been reduced by a small amount.

 

I then had another A/B test with both the modified HD 650 and K702 and now the two cans sound much closer.  The lows of K702 is very closed to HD 650 though failed by a small margin.  Overall I love the sound signature of the modified K702 more than the HD 650 even though HD 650 sound a bit more sweet with vocals.  The soundstaging of K702 is bigger than HD 650 and the sound produced is cleaner and more clear.

 

Both cans used their stock cables on A/B testing and the foam used are acoustic foam (open cell) instead of normal foam (closed cell).  K702 has a burn-in time of over 300 hrs while HD 650 is just over 100 hrs. The headphone amplifier used is Fidelity Audio HPA-200   http://www.fidelityaudio.co.uk/hpa-200.html

 

A lot of folks here expressed that K702 has a lean bass which I cannot agree with.  According to the specifications from the two makers K702 has a freq. response of 10-39800Hz with 62 ohm impedance while HD 650 also got a freq. response of 10-39800Hz but with 300 ohm impedance.  IMHO the main cause of lean bass is most probably due to insufficient current being fed to the headphone from the headphone amplifier.  Just like driving a pair of power hungry speaker if your amplifier is unable to deliver sufficient current the bass will be greatly affected.  You may wish to know that the headphone amplifier I used adopted a 250mA audio buffer in each of the channels (dual mono design) and that explains why I do not feel K702 is bass lean at all. 



 


Edited by Mikesin - 3/4/12 at 11:55am
post #158 of 386

If I were you I will forget HD 650 unless you mostly listen to POP and Rock music.  As a matter of fact HD 650 is relatively easy to drive but the overall sound quality is not as good as K702.  Since you already have the K702 and according to my personal experience it would be more effective to buy a GOOD DAC with GOOD headphone amplifier of sufficient output to drive your K702.  With that I am sure you can hear a great improvement in sound quality and hear a lot of bass.  

post #159 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by inter voice View Post

To my ears HD 650 sounds veil at high freq however having removed the foam grill the veil has gone (but the highs still cannot compete with K702) !!

 

The lows of K702 is very closed to HD 650 though failed by a small margin.  Overall I love the sound signature of the modified K702 more than the HD 650 even though HD 650 sound a bit more sweet with vocals.  The soundstaging of K702 is bigger than HD 650 and the sound produced is cleaner, clearer and more transparent.

 

A lot of folks here expressed that K702 has a lean bass which I cannot agree with. 


 

This why I was never interested in the 650...they sounds like under the water (scuba dive). The K702 sounds like a free fly over the puffy clouds with a cleaner and transparent view.

post #160 of 386

Hi Intervoice, thanks for the comment. Do you have the possibility to post pictures of your mod here ? Fishski, and then myself, have been trying to work with some tape and felt for some time, and I'm curious about this open foam thing. However I'm not visualizing it very well, would you mind giving us a little more info ?

 

Thanks.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by inter voice View Post

I got both HD 650 and K702 and in A/B test I found K702 has more highs while HD 650 got more prominent lows but lacks a bit of very high frequencies when compared with K702.  To me HD 650 is wonderful for vocals (more sweet and warm) while K702 is more neutral and is good for jazz, acoustics and classics.

 

To my ears HD 650 sounds veil at high freq however having removed the foam grill the veil has gone (but the highs still cannot compete with K702) !!

 

To me the lows of K702 is not lacking at all while its highs are not causing ear fatigue and this headphone has honestly reproduced what is in the CD without added color.  I have read with interests about the differences of Q701 and K702 and is interested to make the sound signature of K702 close to that of Q701.  To this end I have inserted an acoustic foam piece of about 1/4" thick inside the 2 dooms of K702 and put another 1/4" thick round acoustic foam of just about 1-1/4" dia to cover the driver in additional to the foam already in place .  To my amazement the lows of K702 are now more extended and the highs has been reduced by a small amount.

 

I then had another A/B test with both the modified HD 650 and K702 and now the two cans sound much closer.  The lows of K702 is very closed to HD 650 though failed by a small margin.  Overall I love the sound signature of the modified K702 more than the HD 650 even though HD 650 sound a bit more sweet with vocals.  The soundstaging of K702 is bigger than HD 650 and the sound produced is cleaner, clearer and more transparent.

 

Both cans used their stock cables on A/B testing and the foam used are acoustic foam (open cell) instead of normal foam (closed cell).  K702 has a burn-in time of over 300 hrs while HD 650 is just over 100 hrs. The headphone amplifier used is Fidelity Audio HPA-200   http://www.fidelityaudio.co.uk/hpa-200.html

 

A lot of folks here expressed that K702 has a lean bass which I cannot agree with.  According to the specifications from the two makers K702 has a freq. response of 10-39800Hz with 62 ohm impedance while HD 650 also got a freq. response of 10-39800Hz but with 300 ohm impedance.  IMHO the main cause of lean bass is most probably due to insufficient current being fed to the headphone from the headphone amplifier.  Just like driving a pair of power hungry speaker if your amplifier is unable to deliver sufficient current the bass will be greatly affected.  You may wish to know that the headphone amplifier I used adopted a 250mA audio buffer in each of the channels (dual mono design) and that explains why I do not feel K702 is bass lean at all. 



 

post #161 of 386

Source?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post



Not yet, but I'm aware of AKG changing drivers during the production time to the same individual model.



 

post #162 of 386

I have my AKG K702 driven by my Matrix M-Stage and FiiO E17 as my DAC, the DAC I would get next would be the Matrix Mini-I which is supposedly very good with the MStage...


- I also don't find the bass actually lacking that much to be honest.. Its only when I have the DT770 PRO's on then switch to the K702 , it becomes less bass heavy but much more clear and open.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by inter voice View Post

If I were you I will forget HD 650 unless you mostly listen to POP and Rock music.  As a matter of fact HD 650 is relatively easy to drive but the overall sound quality is not as good as K702.  Since you already have the K702 and according to my personal experience it would be more effective to buy a GOOD DAC with GOOD headphone amplifier of sufficient output to drive your K702.  With that I am sure you can hear a great improvement in sound quality and hear a lot of bass.  



Is the HD650 really that veiled? I want to try them . . .



Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post


 

This why I was never interested in the 650...they sounds like under the water (scuba dive). The K702 sounds like a free fly over the puffy clouds with a cleaner and transparent view.



 


Edited by Mikesin - 3/4/12 at 6:08pm
post #163 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanuthead View Post

Source?
 



 



Sorry man, you'll need to dig for yourself through the old AKG threads.

post #164 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchbat View Post

Hi Intervoice, thanks for the comment. Do you have the possibility to post pictures of your mod here ? Fishski, and then myself, have been trying to work with some tape and felt for some time, and I'm curious about this open foam thing. However I'm not visualizing it very well, would you mind giving us a little more info ?

 

Thanks.


 



 




X2

I've been working on some mods of the 702 as well....mostly the 'friend or foe' mod with some variations. I'd love to see a photo of that 'open foam'. 1/4 inch thick seems a bit much. That would be awesome if it can reduce the brightness a bit without losing any of their great clarity and detail retrieval. I find they're a lot easier on the ears with a small eq cut in the treble

post #165 of 386

If I am coming off of some Denon D2000s I'm not liking so much so far, would the Q701 or K702 be a better fit if I want nice thick mids and nice highs and bass that is there but isn't overwhelming? I can't seem to find if they are different or the same, some people say the Q701 have better bass and some people say they all sound the same. Or should I be looking at a different headphone, I've heard these can sound thin and lifeless. I was thinking about the HD 650s but they are very expensive and some people say they have a veil. My musical interests tend to go towards rock, alt rock, experimental rock, instrumental music like ambient stuff, and some classical. I like a bit of rap and funk too.


Edited by shorke - 3/4/12 at 7:10pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG Q701 Vs. AKG K702 | Comparison & Review