Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG Q701 Comprehensive Burn-In Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AKG Q701 Comprehensive Burn-In Thread

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

Hi Head-Fi. Today I received in the post the brand new Quincy Jones edition AKG 701s, aka the Q701s. Now I've been a fan of the K701s and K702s at meets (and a fan of AKG stuff in general). Many owners of the 700 series say they need a burn-in period of a couple hundred hours. Tyll of Headroom has done his own burn-in tests and noticed "the 'edginess' is markedly lessened" but very minimal differences occurred. I was made aware on another forum the coils are aluminum in the Q series, versus being copper in the K series housing, which may favor the burn-in more but I cannot confirm this. I figured I'd do my own test for fun over the next month or so and see if I could come to the same conclusion.

 

Head-Fi review thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/546591/akg-q701-review

 

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

 

DSCF0757.jpg

 

Testing tracks:

 

Fennesz - July

 

Brian Eno - Deep Blue Day

 

The Buffalo Bunch - T.I.T.T.S.

 

Anna Ternheim - To Be Gone

 

Paul Westerberg - World Class Fad

 

Week 1: Initial impressions are good. Slight sibilance/harshness at loud volume (expected.) Sound stage is good and detail is good. Balance is good.


Edited by slytown - 6/23/12 at 10:42pm
post #2 of 20

What are you using to drive you Q701s ?

post #3 of 20
I just got my Q701 2 days ago so I'll come back and post if I notice any differences over time.
post #4 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GL1TCH3D View Post

I just got my Q701 2 days ago so I'll come back and post if I notice any differences over time.

Will do.

post #5 of 20

Hi,

 

I once had two pairs of K701 and one was new while the other had close to 2000 hours on it I believe. Well they sounded the exact same with no differences. If anything the older unit was slightly brighter, but I attributed this to manufacturing differences.

post #6 of 20

I got me Q701's about 2 days ago. I listened to them to make sure they were not broken. I did notice the highs were a bit shrill but I  then just started letting them shuffle  through a few hundred songs for a day on my Yamaha HTR-5990. I noticed right away that the shrill hihgs were eased and it was sounding fuller. I've been just letting it burn in since I recieved it with only a few short listening sessions. It sounds better every time.

post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrwatch View Post

I got me Q701's about 2 days ago. I listened to them to make sure they were not broken. I did notice the highs were a bit shrill but I  then just started letting them shuffle  through a few hundred songs for a day on my Yamaha HTR-5990. I noticed right away that the shrill hihgs were eased and it was sounding fuller. I've been just letting it burn in since I recieved it with only a few short listening sessions. It sounds better every time.

I feel the same way about them, especially the treble. Though the difference was more subtle for me.
post #8 of 20

I just picked up a pair as well.  They sounded good upon a first listen but I'm definitely interested in how they will sound after a bit of burn in.  Never heard the k701/2's though.

post #9 of 20

I've put about 175 hours of burn in on the Q701's using a few different amps and the sound changes are very subtle. It seems like most of the more drastic changes  took place during the first 24 hours of burn in.

post #10 of 20

 

 

dude honestly receivers are horrible when acting as headphone amps!! you do realize less than 99.99999 percent of the power actually go to to the headphone out right? it barley has more power than a mp3 player! most receivers including yours generally run about 25 millawatts of power........ i have a yamaha receiver too (HTR 5890) AND the same headphone as you (q701) , the ONLY REASON the akg's may seem shrill is the yamaha it's self, because ALL and i mean ALL yamaha receivers have a very violent, coarse and abrasive sound centered around the upper mid range and mid range and is very thin and cold sounding and bad quality in general ESPECIALLY when you pair it with a AKG headphone VERY BAD MATCH

post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihearnoises1981 View Post

 

dude honestly receivers are horrible when acting as headphone amps!!

 

Dude, you do realize that that's a VERY contentious and arguable statement. I've used integrateds and receivers for years with great results. Of course, it depends on the receiver. I find Marantz to have the best headphone outs. 

post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihearnoises1981 View Post

 

 

dude honestly receivers are horrible when acting as headphone amps!! you do realize less than 99.99999 percent of the power actually go to to the headphone out right? it barley has more power than a mp3 player! most receivers including yours generally run about 25 millawatts of power........ i have a yamaha receiver too (HTR 5890) AND the same headphone as you (q701) , the ONLY REASON the akg's may seem shrill is the yamaha it's self, because ALL and i mean ALL yamaha receivers have a very violent, coarse and abrasive sound centered around the upper mid range and mid range and is very thin and cold sounding and bad quality in general ESPECIALLY when you pair it with a AKG headphone VERY BAD MATCH

Well I can't speak for every Yamaha receiver, I have tried the K 701 (8-bump version) with the family Yamaha RX-V492 receiver and I did experience a sound similar to what you describe.

 

My K 701 sounds muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better with an Objective 2 amp.

 

 


Back on topic, I don't believe in driver break-in, but after wearing the K 701's for quite some time (over 200 hours while playing Assassin's Creed 3 on Windows), the highs did change. When I tried the K 701's out of the box, I almost cried because the highs were so strident. They still are to me, but not nearly as much and much more tolerable.

 

Again, I don't believe in driver break-in, but I do believe the difference in sound is due to a better fit with the earpads: which has been shown to be a large factor for the sound quality (e.g. Shure SRH940 and V-MODA Crossfade M-100, both of which I own and have applied earpad modifications to).

post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

 

Dude, you do realize that that's a VERY contentious and arguable statement. I've used integrateds and receivers for years with great results. Of course, it depends on the receiver. I find Marantz to have the best headphone outs. 

well okay they sound OKAY but for the money? you clearly haven't conceived that receivers can be very expensive and at the same time headphone amps almost all the time perform better and are ALOT CHEAPER and yeah my i do agree marrantz sticks out of the bunch when it comes to using it as amp, it goes neck to neck with my mcintosh tube amps although they do sound better than the marrantz though

post #14 of 20
Originally Posted by ihearnoises1981 View Post

well okay they sound OKAY but for the money? you clearly haven't conceived that receivers can be very expensive and at the same time headphone amps almost all the time perform better and are ALOT CHEAPER and yeah my i do agree marrantz sticks out of the bunch when it comes to using it as amp, it goes neck to neck with my mcintosh tube amps although they do sound better than the marrantz though

 

Back in the 1970s, Marantz (and others) built decent headphone circuits into their receivers. The headphone output on my vintage Marantz 2225 is at least as good as many mid-level dedicated headphone amps I've heard. Plus, it still functions as a full receiver, with FM tuner, speaker amp, etc.

 

I wouldn't recommend a receiver for someone who only wants headphone amplification, but for someone seeking other functions plus headphone amp, a vintage receiver can be a very good (and inexpensive) choice.

post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonears View Post

Back in the 1970s, Marantz (and others) built decent headphone circuits into their receivers. The headphone output on my vintage Marantz 2225 is at least as good as many mid-level dedicated headphone amps I've heard. Plus, it still functions as a full receiver, with FM tuner, speaker amp, etc.

I wouldn't recommend a receiver for someone who only wants headphone amplification, but for someone seeking other functions plus headphone amp, a vintage receiver can be a very good (and inexpensive) choice.
Yeah, there is no question they were decent as well as good, since back when we didn't have anything else to use when headphone amps didn't exist and since the industry wasn't so " money hungry " and about all about selling out. But in this generation is different, it's all about selling out and mass production, and to make the speaker output more efficient and powerful, and to add more pointless features, sucking the power out of the headphone out and concentrating it the speaker out provides more wattage, making people more satisfied and wasn't so much of a compromise to have a **** headphone out, since average consumers couldn't tell the difference between a quality and a crap one and to the fact that a very low majority actually uses the headphone out as a headphone amplifier, it rendered it pointless to most... To them , having precious power concentrated In something they didn't use was a waste and well ..., pointless. So that's why the Industry made them crappy so they can improve the speaker output, and add more features, not having considered that more inclined and experienced enthusiast and audiophiles actually appreciated and cared for the headphone out quality, but then again... Majority rules, today they basically have the headphone out just for the gimmick of having the headphone out so it can sell, but in the end is piss poor for the money you pay
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 Comprehensive Burn-In Thread