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 13

post #181 of 386

Just post some more plots for comparison purposes.  They were taken this morning as my last post.  The FR is with 1/3 smoothing to smooth out the fluctuations for better comparison.

 

fr_compare.jpgimpule_compare.jpg

 

The following plots were taken this evening and the trends are almost the same as before:

 

fr_compare.jpgimpulse_compare.jpg

 

The FR curves are with 1/2 Octave smoothing for ease of comparison.

 

In comparing the FR curves you can see why HD650 is warmer in mid range and roll off at high frequencies.  The curve also shows why K702 is a bit lean and produces more noticeable high frequencies when compare with HD650. 

 

I am not exactly sure about the detail design of both headphone speakers but from the FR plot it appears that there is a cross-over frequency at 300Hz.  There may also be other reasons due to "box effect" of the hearing compartment.


Edited by inter voice - 3/24/12 at 2:05am
post #182 of 386

My friend has just bought a pair of brand new Q701 in white color and I managed to borrow it for a few days for a test.

 

I took measurements using the exactly same settings and obtained the following plots for Q701 and K702:

 

fr_onethird.jpgimpulse.jpg

 

The RED curve is for Q701 while the GREEN curve is for K702.

 

The curves have shown that the sonic signature of Q701 and K702 are almost the same, i.e. that both have very similar frequency response as well as controls over the mini speakers.  It appears that Q701 and K702 are actually the same and AKG just marketed the same products using different brand names bearing in mind that Q701 costs a lot more than K702.

 

With these measurements I would expect the sound quality produced by both CANs should be the same.  To confirm this I AB tested the two CANs with different CDs and SACDs.

 

After lengthy tests it proved that I am WRONG !!!  Even though the Q701 is brand new and without any burning in the sound quality is actually better than my K702 which has been using for more than 9 months.

 

The following is my observation:

Low Freq. : Q701 is slightly tighter and extended than K702

Mid range:  vocals from Q701 is more sweet and natural than K702

High frequency:  High frequencies of Q701 is rolled off by a bit when compared with K702.

 

Though the overall sonic signature of both CANs is very similar, i.e. good musical clarity with excellent sound staging, my ears told me that Q701 is a bit more musical while K702 is more analytical which shows up all the details in the CD.

 

Don't ask me how come there is a difference between the two CANs if the measurements are very similar.  I cannot give an explanation.

 

Whether you like Q701 or K702 depends very much on your preference in what you want to hear but to me the sound reproduced from Q701 suits me more.  I believe this Q701 should perform even better after its burning in.

 

post #183 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by inter voice View Post


The following is my observation:

Low Freq. : Q701 is slightly tighter and extended than K702

Mid range:  vocals from Q701 is more sweet and natural than K702

High frequency:  High frequencies of Q701 is rolled off by a bit when compared with K702.

 

Though the overall sonic signature of both CANs is very similar, i.e. good musical clarity with excellent sound staging, my ears told me that Q701 is a bit more musical while K702 is more analytical which shows up all the details in the CD.

 

Don't ask me how come there is a difference between the two CANs if the measurements are very similar.  I cannot give an explanation.

 

Whether you like Q701 or K702 depends very much on your preference in what you want to hear but to me the sound reproduced from Q701 suits me more.  I believe this Q701 should perform even better after its burning in.

 


Spot on with my impressions and comparisons. K702 is not bad for female vocals, but wouldn't be my first choice for them. The Q701 is much better. The mids have always seemed much fuller sounding and not as thin as those of the K702. One of my complaints about the K702 was that often things sounded a bit too distant on any amp. Kind of as if the soundstage wasn't that accurate or true to the recording as it could be. Kind of like listening to music in an airplane hanger with some music.

 

I think there's only one other person out there along with me who feels the Q701's soundstage is very slightly smaller and more accurate. It's tough to test this, but have you found this to be true at all? Sometimes it's hard to tell. For me, the K702 was unusable for gaming because everything felt too distant and not very accurate. On any amp. The Q701 is a favorite for gaming.

 

Q701 still has a large soundstage, but it just feels more accurate than the K702. It could be the different foams used or a combinations of many things. Maybe a combination of different pads, foam, the button and several other things. I think someone on Amazon even claimed the Q701 uses a higher quality internal wire than the K702! Sounds kind of silly to me.

 

I hope someday someone can dissect both and compare each and every part. Very unlikely, but it'd be nice. I think nobody has really confirmed if the Q701 and K702 used the same wire for the cables. That could lead to a slightly warmer sound too.

 

Despite the similar measurements it's really strange how the Q701 has such good sub-bass. It's able to do the low bass rumbling sounds for gaming so easily. Doesn't have as much mid-bass as my HD-600 I think, but better low bass.

 

My HD-600 with DHC and the Q701 are a good pair. HD-600 is good for when I want a smaller soundstage, less airy sound and more mid-bass. The HD-600 is warmer than the Q701 and often it's better for rock music at times. I'd still take the K601 over the HD-600 for that though.

 

Oh yeah..thanks for the measurements and notes! This sure adds to the this mystery as to why the Q701 sounds so much different. Maybe we'll never know..

 

post #184 of 386

Really I cannot explain why Q701 and K702 can sound some what different even though they have very similar frequency response curves.

 

One explanation may be due to the 3rd, 5th and higher harmonics at various frequencies produced by these two CANs are not the same on account of the material they used, such as the foam, the inner cables etc.

 

As to the sound stage the two CANs are quite similar but I can confirm that I can also observe what was mentioned by tdockweiler even though one can only tell the difference at AB testing.

 

As I mentioned earlier I also own a pair of Senn HD650 and I use this CAN and my K702 for listening to different types of music.  Though Q701 suits my taste better nevertheless I can live with my present K702.

post #185 of 386

I just jumped into this thread on this last page, and a good page of info it is.  smile_phones.gif

 

tdockweiler made some comments in another Q701 thread I started that matched with my own ears, and then I Googled for any Q701 reviews, and this thread popped up.

 

In my experience as well, the Q701 and K701 are not the same headphone and do not sound the same either.

 


Ha ha, and now I just saw the 1st post also agrees with this.  And ...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital-Pride View Post

Another excellent comparo review, Chicolom!  The Q's are on my short list of headphones to reacquire.


 

smile_phones.gif

 

I had the Q701's too, sold them, but I have been thinking about them for a while now ...

 


Edited by Kevin Brown - 4/4/12 at 4:00pm
post #186 of 386

I have to say that Intervoice's graphs and comments are really interesting, and quite match Innerfidelity's own measurements. In the end anyone can just make his mind based on that.

 

Think the measurements take precedence ? Go for whatever, preferably the cheapest I guess. Think the sighted review is more meaningful ? Go for the Q I suppose. Already have a Q or a K ? Don't think it's worth selling one to get the other or vice versa.

 

Personally, I think AKG might have introduced a new manufacturing process, and thus changed very slightly the sound, as well as changing the damping. I'd be curious to see the results of a DBT. Might not be as obvious as some think.

post #187 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchbat View Post
I'd be curious to see the results of a DBT. Might not be as obvious as some think.


I think too many people have posted way too many similar comments on the differences between the Q701 and K701, to think that those differences aren't real.

 

I think most of the people questioning whether the Q701 and K701 actually sound that different actually haven't heard them both and compared themselves !!

 

smile_phones.gif

 

post #188 of 386
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchbat View Post

Already have a Q or a K ? Don't think it's worth selling one to get the other or vice versa.

 

Personally, I think AKG might have introduced a new manufacturing process, and thus changed very slightly the sound, as well as changing the damping. I'd be curious to see the results of a DBT. Might not be as obvious as some think.



I think it is worth selling a K to get a Q, if you have complaints about it that match what I described in the review (K702 too dry for you, too bright, not enough bass/warmth, etc.).  I would listen to the Q701s before you say it's not worth changing out K702 for them.

 

I agree with you that AKG might have silently changed them in manufacturing.  Its possible there are different versions of K70x and Q70x floating around that sound different or the same as one another.  You would think that if they had a new process or dampening that improved the sound (which the Q701s do IMO) they would retrofit that to the K70x as well.  Maybe they don't want to catch flak for messing with the K70x models.  I don't know though.  I wish we had some information about this from AKG...

 

 

With the K702 and Q701 I compared, the difference was obvious.  I had some family members compare them, who know nothing about headphones that cost >$50 and/or aren't sold at Wal-Mart, and they said the same things I did.  One said the "black ones" have "almost annoying amounts of bass" when compared to the K702.

 

Perhaps other pairs are floating around that are different and sound closer.  I wish I knew...

post #189 of 386

@Kevin Brown and Chicolom

 

Looks like you missed the fact that I was talking about a DBT. There's a lot of ways our mind actually tricks us into thinking something. For the record I did check on the Q's when I bought my K. I didn't think the difference was worth the extra dough at the time.

 

As for selling the K to buy a Q, I respectfully disagree with you. the loss incurred by the sale, is too high for a pair of headphone that can be found for around 300$ new. Just look at the Sales forum, it's full of guys selling their K for less than 200$. I'd personally go for a higher class pair of headphones instead of beating around the bush, and that's what I did actually.

Modding is another way to try and deal with it, I also went down that road, it seems to introduce some changes for the better, but I haven't checked extensively.

post #190 of 386

Well, the discussion is very interesting.  IMO the difference in SQ between the Q and K are not that great unless you have the two CANs put side by side for A/B testing.

 

I have my K702 and at this moment I have no intention to sell it and buy the Q701 even though I must admit that it sounds a bit more musical to me.  In the UK the different in cost between these two CANs is almost 100 pounds which put me off from the desire of changing it.

 

BTW what is DBT ??


Edited by inter voice - 4/5/12 at 8:14pm
post #191 of 386

Double Blind Testing, I think it's prohibited to talk about that in the headphone forums and has to be moved Sound Science section.

post #192 of 386


Nope, it's only prohibited in the Cable section. The rest of the forum is neutral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neosk View Post

Double Blind Testing, I think it's prohibited to talk about that in the headphone forums and has to be moved Sound Science section.



 

post #193 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchbat View Post

@Kevin Brown and Chicolom

 

Looks like you missed the fact that I was talking about a DBT. There's a lot of ways our mind actually tricks us into thinking something. For the record I did check on the Q's when I bought my K. I didn't think the difference was worth the extra dough at the time.

 


Some headphone owners have essentially done that with family members with no headphone experience at all, so they wouldn't know an AKG from a Beyer, from a Sony, and the difference between the two was still apparent.

 

Dug this up, yup, more bass for the Q701:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/542909/k701-vs-q701-take-a-look-at-this-graph

 

I looked up some of my early comments in that I was originally one of the first people to actually get the Q701 and post comparisons to the K701.  Just about a year ago, actually:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Brown View Post

I got the black ones.  Very nice looking.  Still have the green cable though.  Cheap cable IMO.  Quick impressions right out of the box, no burn in for the 'phones or the Valhalla, vs the K701's I had before with the Aune and Sparrow in my sig: still too bright (that "treble emphasis"), but yes, more (improved) bass (but still could use more).  Even right out of the box, I prefer these to the K701's I had.  More after I burn them in a while ...

 

 

Yes, I did compare the Q701 to the K701's with the exact same DAC and amp.  This was just a comment about the Valhalla.  Sorry to give anyone hope that it wasn't an apples to apples comparison.  smile_phones.gif

 

This is after "pummeling" the Q701's overnight with about 10 hrs of music maybe 30% louder than I normally listen to.  "Accelerated" burn in, if you will.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Brown View Post


I'm going to add to what I posted this morning.  Yes, there was a definite change from what I was hearing yesterday.  All good: more lows and and settled down highs.


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Brown View Post

 

FWIW, I am convinced that the Q701's I have now do have more bass than the K701's I had.

 

 

And after some more listening:

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Brown View Post

C: There are 3 baffles for the K501. V1, V2, V3.  The V3 baffles might have the most bass.  I have the V1, and even the Q701 has more bass.  However, the previous K701 I had, had less bass than my 501.  Q701 has more depth and dimensionality than the 501.  Strangely, I did prefer the K501 to the K701's I had, but I like the Q701's more than the K501's.  That kinda tells me that the Q701's are indeed different than the K701's.

 

 

If the Q701's indeed don't have more of a low end than the K701's, then why are the comments from the people who have heard both essentially that?  For a year now ...

 

I'm telling you, the differences between the K701 and Q701 I had were not small.  Very easy to hear.  And it seems to me that there are now more than 1 different sets of measurements that also support that.

 


Edited by Kevin Brown - 4/6/12 at 1:45am
post #194 of 386

Dear Kevin,

 

Wether your family member know headphones or not, a sighted test is a sighted test. I'm not arguing you or your family members are hearing something, my comment was wether this difference would still be present in a DBT. It was a personal comment, or a question to self if you will. Now let's put this to rest shall we ?

 

Back to the discussion, it seems to me the difference in the graph is essentially in the mids, or should I say, the biggest amplitude is in the mids. The graph of Inter Voice is actually different from Innerfidelity as it shows a second difference in the mid-bass region. I'm wondering if that would be repeatable, or if that's a single occurrence quirk. If you haven't already laid your eyes on it, and you have interest in seeing good heaphones measurements, you might want to have a read there :

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/akg-quincy-jones-q701-sound-and-measurements

 

@Intervoice, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you did the test for each pair only once, right ?

post #195 of 386
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchbat View Post

 For the record I did check on the Q's when I bought my K. I didn't think the difference was worth the extra dough at the time.

 

So, you listened to them both back to back?  Or no...I'm confused...

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