or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › So far, disappointed with AKG Q701.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

So far, disappointed with AKG Q701. - Page 3

post #31 of 86

concerning the vocals... they aren't recessed, the treble is just so much elevated that everything else sounds recessed.

The plasticy sound comes from the 2k spike and it's ressonance... shouting

 

 

wow...

http://en.goldenears.net/en/files/attach/images/254/138/004/d0058c9a2fc5b24c8748aae57d3b3d63.png

the 10k ringing is anything but good for your ears.

 

Yeah, I know, it shows the K, not the Q701... but they are almost identical. Most fanboys only talk of the bass compared to the K701 anyway.

 

To get to the argument of "not liking a certain signature"...

Any headphone with a "special signature" is a bad headphone to begin with (IMHO, hahahaha). Why? Well just because you should hear what the artist is trying to make their songs sound like in the first way. Why strife for a decent DAC and AMP if the headphone at the end is anything but even close to neutral? Plus you don't have the urge to crank up the volume on a neutral-ish headphone because they don't lack treble, mids or bass you want to adjust your volume to -> healthier, haharrrrrrr

 

Plus... due to the small amount of air moving due to small driver size of headphones, a small bass boost is necessary to sound neutral to the human ear.

Goldenears is following this by showing their ideal,target-line. (green)

 

now let's take a look at a good headphone:

funfacts... look ath the HD 558

http://goldenears.net/board/files/attach/images/783981/208/971/001/f22317121ab26aaf0ca3be9f6c79b0b7.png

 

 

well... much less of a "signature" and closer to an ideal sounding one. There is less treble -> so less fake micro-details compared to the newer AKG, but less fatiguing.

 

funfacts: the HD 600 and 590, while both more neutral and darker are both faster than the K/Q701

 

HD598

 

K701

 

now let's look at a really good headphone, which can be found (unlike the K701) in Studios:

 

HD600

 

 

in b 4 the Q701 is a totally different headphone


Edited by roBernd - 8/19/12 at 1:45am
post #32 of 86

i think its still early days to judge a can...popcorn.gif

 

and  there are many enthusiastic viewpoints over too many cans...k701..k702..q701...650 

from people with diff diff setups...diff taste.

tongue.gif

 

===========

 

when i had the E9, my first head-amp... i happened to have three diff powercords from my home hi fi rig...and i just plugged them in one at a time...

each one gave a diff flavour to my headcans. most interesting indeed. it goes down to a matter of wats acceptable to your taste.

i am not suggesting u play around with cables...but i am talking about synergy of your setup vs your taste.

 

============

 

its hard to fault the q701..i think its quite a transparent can...it has great great potential to be very good sounding..

it will sound out the gung dirt distortions in the upstream equipts if its there...

or play superb music when the right synergy is somehow achieved..to your taste.

 

if u are impatient..n want a quick like/dun like decision...by all means sell it/return it...if u dun like it.

but the fault is not the can.

 

============

 

most likely u hit the jackpot when u paired a fullbodied can like 598 with a lean solidstateamp like the E9

but when u put in a more analytical sounding can like the Q701 into the equation, it just gotten too strident for your ears...just my guess.

i like my Q701 with tube amps. ( and a few other tweaks to make it deliciousssssssss)

 

===========

post #33 of 86
It is fine to express one's opinion and the share your perceptions of a headphone's sonic signature. This is what Head-fi is about. We all have varying hearing, differing musical tastes and experience in terms of hearing, recording or playing instruments. Very few of us actually have the means like Tyl to collect objective data. 

I find when we speak about "flaws" many times we are not speaking objectively, but are speaking about deviations from our euphonic preferences; particularly when we are speaking about high-end offerings from manufacturers like AKG, Beyerdynamic, Denon, Sennheiser and Shure. As someone who does science for a living, we need to remember that most of the impressions communicated here, while of value, are far from being objective science. Without an understanding of unit-to-unit variability in terms of performance or an understanding of AKGs supply chain, manufacturing processes or continuous design improvements the whole Q701 vs. K701/702 is quite qualitative and speculative IMO. It is quite possible that there is more variability between units of a model over the years than there is between these models.

Eu' phon' ic

a. 1. Pertaining to, or exhibiting, euphony; agreeable in sound; pleasing to the ear; euphonious, as, a euphonic expression; euphonical orthography

The OP's perceptions are as valid as the person who adores the Q701s. These are in the top 10% of headphones in terms of their objective performance. We spend our time here trying to relate our preferences within this top 10%. 

My $.02

Bob
post #34 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by roBernd View Post

concerning the vocals... they aren't recessed, the treble is just so much elevated that everything else sounds recessed.
The plasticy sound comes from the 2k spike and it's ressonance... shouting



wow...
http://en.goldenears.net/en/files/attach/images/254/138/004/d0058c9a2fc5b24c8748aae57d3b3d63.png
the 10k ringing is anything but good for your ears.

Yeah, I know, it shows the K, not the Q701... but they are almost identical. Most fanboys only talk of the bass compared to the K701 anyway.

To get to the argument of "not liking a certain signature"...
Any headphone with a "special signature" is a bad headphone to begin with (IMHO, hahahaha). Why? Well just because you should hear what the artist is trying to make their songs sound like in the first way. Why strife for a decent DAC and AMP if the headphone at the end is anything but even close to neutral? Plus you don't have the urge to crank up the volume on a neutral-ish headphone because they don't lack treble, mids or bass you want to adjust your volume to -> healthier, haharrrrrrr

Plus... due to the small amount of air moving due to small driver size of headphones, a small bass boost is necessary to sound neutral to the human ear.
Goldenears is following this by showing their ideal,target-line. (green)

now let's take a look at a good headphone:

funfacts... look ath the HD 558
http://goldenears.net/board/files/attach/images/783981/208/971/001/f22317121ab26aaf0ca3be9f6c79b0b7.png


well... much less of a "signature" and closer to an ideal sounding one. There is less treble -> so less fake micro-details compared to the newer AKG, but less fatiguing.

funfacts: the HD 600 and 590, while both more neutral and darker are both faster than the K/Q701

HD598


K701


now let's look at a really good headphone, which can be found (unlike the K701) in Studios:

HD600



in b 4 the Q701 is a totally different headphone

Data collection methods and unit-to-unit variability are confounded. Which of the three is "correct"? Perhaps all if it's unit-to-unit variability or it could be measurement bias. Unless a crossover study was conducted, we'll never know. My point is to assign a reason behind a perception being associated with a peak or attenuation may not be as clear cut as it seems. Your perception is indeed valid. I just question the validity of the underpinning cause.

Same model of headphone. which is "correct"?

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AKGK701.pdf
http://www.headphone.com/headphones/akg-k-701-white.php
http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Headphones&page=11&document_srl=4138
post #35 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7 View Post


Data collection methods and unit-to-unit variability are confounded. Which of the three is "correct"? Perhaps all if it's unit-to-unit variability or it could be measurement bias. Unless a crossover study was conducted, we'll never know. My point is to assign a reason behind a perception being associated with a peak or attenuation may not be as clear cut as it seems. Your perception is indeed valid. I just question the validity of the underpinning cause.
Same model of headphone. which is "correct"?
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AKGK701.pdf
http://www.headphone.com/headphones/akg-k-701-white.php
http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Headphones&page=11&document_srl=4138

Thanks for the 3 different sets of measurements, interesting, no consensus WRT frequency response.

Depending on which measurements you believe, the K701 are almost perfect! Or not!

post #36 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by NimbleTurtle View Post

 

To defend the Q701 somewhat, with female vocals it didn't sound too distant. I'm not an expert but the Q701's impedance is not a good match for the Fiio E9 (nor is the HD598). The E9's output impedance (10 ohms) demands a headphone with a load impedance of at least 80 ohms for sufficient damping. Still, like I said, amps don't change the signature of a headphone significantly unless it's some kind of tube amp that greatly distorts the sound. 

 

The problem lies within its lower midrange and bass overall. The timbre in that range is unnatural, and I should know considering I'm a cellist and hearing the timbre of the bass guitars, cello, drumsticks, etc. I concluded the Q701 has a "flawed" presentation of these instruments. 

 

I've heard the HD650 and honestly, I greatly prefer the 598s for any music that involves a) vocals  b) necessary soundstage  c) punchy bass  d) treble energy. And considering your issues with vocals, I think you'll most likely prefer the 598s over the 650s. Well here are what some people think of the 598 vs 650:

 

 

I wish people would stop saying this non-sense without trying it. Why this is generally true and a good thing to consider, the E9 despite it's 10ohm output doesn't even remotely mess with the Q701's signature. It doesn't with my HD-598 and not even with my DJ100 that's 38 ohms. In fact, the DJ100 loves the E9.

 

I actually tried my Q701 with an old Technics receiver from 93 using the headphone jack. Sounded amazing with no change in it's signature. I was shocked to find that the headphone jack has a 330ohm output impedance!! Even my DJ100 sounded the same. Makes no sense.

 

I've yet to have any headphone sound awful with the E9.

 

Now if one were to use the small jack (33ohm output) then that might mess with some headphones.

 

BTW I wish I could agree that an amp doesn't significantly alter a headphones sound signature. I just haven't found this the case after testing the Asgard with the ATH-AD2000, K601 and Q701. I've found the Q701 is very hard to like on the wrong setup.

 

So far i've been through 3 amps just for the K702, K701 and Q701. Luckily i've found an amp that's finally good on everything and doesn't magically color the sound too much.

 

Then with my HD-598 it's easy to not like it with specific amps that are too warm. I dislike it with my E11 and I'm not sure yet, but it might not be a good match with the E10.

 

I will say that no amp could fix the K702s treble. There's a weird peak in the treble on that headphone that drove my ears bonkers, but it's not there on my Q701.


Edited by tdockweiler - 8/19/12 at 7:08am
post #37 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by roBernd View Post

 

To get to the argument of "not liking a certain signature"...

Any headphone with a "special signature" is a bad headphone to begin with (IMHO, hahahaha). Why? Well just because you should hear what the artist is trying to make their songs sound like in the first way. Why strife for a decent DAC and AMP if the headphone at the end is anything but even close to neutral? Plus you don't have the urge to crank up the volume on a neutral-ish headphone because they don't lack treble, mids or bass you want to adjust your volume to -> healthier, haharrrrrrr

 

Plus... due to the small amount of air moving due to small driver size of headphones, a small bass boost is necessary to sound neutral to the human ear.

Goldenears is following this by showing their ideal,target-line. (green)

 

 

But here's the thing for me.. the Q701 I have doesn't have one of these "special signatures". It's not so colored that it butchers the sound of what the artist intended (IMO). I don't think there's a headphone in my collection that does this. Ok, maybe the AD700 and Pro4AAAT. That headphone would have to be MAJORLY colored IMO. For all we know, they could be using crap gear in the studio that's majorly colored to begin with. I sure hope this isn't true. I've almost found that 99% of headphones i've tried are not really neutral yet people say they are. I think someone once told me the Pro900 and DT-770 Pro 80 are perfectly flat studio monitors!

 

Then what sounds neutral and flat to you isn't going to sound that way to everyone else despite graphs. Just look at the graphs of the HD-600 vs the DT-880. I remember long ago they looked almost identical on the graphs but couldn't sound any more different. People here will almost never agree on what is flat  despite graphs. I've yet to find a headphone that's completely flat. I've had two now that are perfectly balanced to my ears, but that's a little different. Maybe the DT-250 250 will be it. I need to try that. Then this crazy idea that everyone hears differently. People forget this too.

 

To my ears, the Q701 has some mild coloration. It has a bit of extra treble, but it's only bothersome on garbage recordings. If it had a tad bit less treble, it'd be as smooth sounding as my HD-598. People will think i'm nuts, but the 598 sounds more balanced than an HD-600 to me. I wouldn't use either in a studio though!

 

Another example is the HD-600. Most think this is neutral, but it doesn't sound that way to me at all. To me it has bloated mid-bass and almost recessed treble. How is recessed treble not a coloration? Not even neutral sounding treble. To me the HD-600 makes instruments sound warmer and fuller than they should be. The HD-580 at least gets it right. I would say the HD-580 to my ears is more neutral sounding than the HD-600. I would say the HD-600 is dead neutral if it had a tad more treble and less mid-bass. The 580 is just slightly different than the HD-600 due to the grill.

post #38 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

 

But here's the thing for me.. the Q701 I have doesn't have one of these "special signatures". It's not so colored that it butchers the sound of what the artist intended (IMO). I don't think there's a headphone in my collection that does this. Ok, maybe the AD700 and Pro4AAAT. That headphone would have to be MAJORLY colored IMO. For all we know, they could be using crap gear in the studio that's majorly colored to begin with. I sure hope this isn't true. I've almost found that 99% of headphones i've tried are not really neutral yet people say they are. I think someone once told me the Pro900 and DT-770 Pro 80 are perfectly flat studio monitors!

 

Then what sounds neutral and flat to you isn't going to sound that way to everyone else despite graphs. Just look at the graphs of the HD-600 vs the DT-880. I remember long ago they looked almost identical on the graphs but couldn't sound any more different. People here will almost never agree on what is flat  despite graphs. I've yet to find a headphone that's completely flat. I've had two now that are perfectly balanced to my ears, but that's a little different. Maybe the DT-250 250 will be it. I need to try that. Then this crazy idea that everyone hears differently. People forget this too.

 

To my ears, the Q701 has some mild coloration. It has a bit of extra treble, but it's only bothersome on garbage recordings. If it had a tad bit less treble, it'd be as smooth sounding as my HD-598. People will think i'm nuts, but the 598 sounds more balanced than an HD-600 to me. I wouldn't use either in a studio though!

 

Another example is the HD-600. Most think this is neutral, but it doesn't sound that way to me at all. To me it has bloated mid-bass and almost recessed treble. How is recessed treble not a coloration? Not even neutral sounding treble. To me the HD-600 makes instruments sound warmer and fuller than they should be. The HD-580 at least gets it right. I would say the HD-580 to my ears is more neutral sounding than the HD-600. I would say the HD-600 is dead neutral if it had a tad more treble and less mid-bass. The 580 is just slightly different than the HD-600 due to the grill.

You need to try the k240DF one day, tdock.....or perhaps you already did?  As 'flat' as the hd580, with less bass and more treble. Some would find the bass lacking, but it's about the same impact as the k702 bass. Not sure which sounds more 'neutral', those or the 580, but one thing for sure, they don't sound at all the same. Did you ever do a sine wave sweep of any of your akgs? I found a big treble peak on both the k702 and the DF, but the DF doesn't sound as bright....the mids are a bit fuller and have more weight.....but not as much as the 580.

post #39 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lejaz View Post

You need to try the k240DF one day, tdock.....or perhaps you already did?  As 'flat' as the hd580, with less bass and more treble. Some would find the bass lacking, but it's about the same impact as the k702 bass. Not sure which sounds more 'neutral', those or the 580, but one thing for sure, they don't sound at all the same. Did you ever do a sine wave sweep of any of your akgs? I found a big treble peak on both the k702 and the DF, but the DF doesn't sound as bright....the mids are a bit fuller and have more weight.....but not as much as the 580.


I don't know why, but I always imagined the K240DF to possibly sound like a clone of the K240 Sextett LP. I don't know where on earth I got this idea. Maybe it's true?

I have a K240 Sextett LP and it has very nice and full mids, but other than that I kind of hate it. It's mids are quite realistic. They full sounding, but not like a Sennheiser. It's kind of hard to describe. More like a well amped DJ100.

 

Mine seems to have this severe lack of sound clarity and lacks treble. It's quite dark and often muffled sounding. It's upper mids are forward though and even more so than my DJ100.

 

What's sad is that my K240 Studio (despite it's mid-bass hump) sounds clearer and better than the Sextett. The Sextett has better mids though.

 

One headphone i've been loving lately is the K601. It seems that if your amp/dac isn't perfectly neutral or close it's easy for it to sound fatiguing or harsh in the lower treble. The Asgard and the HRT MSII are not a good match for it at all.

 

2nd Best AKG headphone i've heard that isn't the Q701 is the K501. Not worth $300+, but still quite good. The deal killer was it's MASSIVE soundstage. Yet nothing ever sounded too distant like on the K702. I sold mine when I got the Q701. It took me over a year to find a K501! I prefer it to the K400, but the K400 does seem to have a little more forward mids and more treble. I got the impression that the K400 was a little more "fun" to listen to.

post #40 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post


I don't know why, but I always imagined the K240DF to possibly sound like a clone of the K240 Sextett LP. I don't know where on earth I got this idea. Maybe it's true?

I have a K240 Sextett LP and it has very nice and full mids, but other than that I kind of hate it. It's mids are quite realistic. They full sounding, but not like a Sennheiser. It's kind of hard to describe. More like a well amped DJ100.

 

Mine seems to have this severe lack of sound clarity and lacks treble. It's quite dark and often muffled sounding. It's upper mids are forward though and even more so than my DJ100.

 

What's sad is that my K240 Studio (despite it's mid-bass hump) sounds clearer and better than the Sextett. The Sextett has better mids though.

 

One headphone i've been loving lately is the K601. It seems that if your amp/dac isn't perfectly neutral or close it's easy for it to sound fatiguing or harsh in the lower treble. The Asgard and the HRT MSII are not a good match for it at all.

 

2nd Best AKG headphone i've heard that isn't the Q701 is the K501. Not worth $300+, but still quite good. The deal killer was it's MASSIVE soundstage. Yet nothing ever sounded too distant like on the K702. I sold mine when I got the Q701. It took me over a year to find a K501! I prefer it to the K400, but the K400 does seem to have a little more forward mids and more treble. I got the impression that the K400 was a little more "fun" to listen to.

No that's not even close to a description of the DF..,,not at all like your Sextett. The DF has much better clarity than the 240S, not worse. The mids are as good as the 580....maybe even more clarity, though different.. Would love to hear the 501 one day....and the 598

post #41 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lejaz View Post

No that's not even close to a description of the DF..,,not at all like your Sextett. The DF has much better clarity than the 240S, not worse. The mids are as good as the 580....maybe even more clarity, though different.. Would love to hear the 501 one day....and the 598


Ok, that's a good thing then. I think I did read the DF has more treble than the Sextett. I have heard many Sextetts sound much different.

 

One headphone that's been on my list to try for years has been the DT-48E. Those graphs of it scare me though..

 

If the graphs of it were very accurate you'd think nobody in the world would like it, but this isn't the case.

 

Read the DT-48e is being discontinued this year.

post #42 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

Thanks for the 3 different sets of measurements, interesting, no consensus WRT frequency response.

Depending on which measurements you believe, the K701 are almost perfect! Or not!

 

All Graphs show basically the same plus a different aproach of stretching the Graph and a different equation from raw- to percieved Graph.

 

Almost perfect? on which Graph? They look the best on the inner-fidelity-graphs... but there is a -5db dip from 2k to 3k which continues to 6.Xk followed by a +5db bump... this isn't almsot perfect.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7 View Post


Data collection methods and unit-to-unit variability are confounded. Which of the three is "correct"? Perhaps all if it's unit-to-unit variability or it could be measurement bias. Unless a crossover study was conducted, we'll never know. My point is to assign a reason behind a perception being associated with a peak or attenuation may not be as clear cut as it seems. Your perception is indeed valid. I just question the validity of the underpinning cause.
Same model of headphone. which is "correct"?
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AKGK701.pdf
http://www.headphone.com/headphones/akg-k-701-white.php
http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Headphones&page=11&document_srl=4138

 

fair point, and I agree to the value of measuring a single different pair with different equipment.

BUT all of these Graphs show the same caracteristic (2k bump + 7k-10k bump).

 

Obviously all sites use their very own special Diffuse Sound Field Equalizations + etc. to translate their measurements to a "perceived-Graph"

 

So you shouldn't look at a single "FR-Graph" or compare the graph of each site, this wouldn't offer any decent results.

What you should do is compare "FR-Graphs on a single site" (e.g. the Graph of Headphone A on site X to Headphone B of site X) Plus it helps if you have heard some benchmark headphones to compare a new headphone to the graph of this benchmark-headphone you know. For most people... it's the HD600 because it has been around for some time and is well regarded due to ... being actually good.


Edited by roBernd - 8/19/12 at 9:09am
post #43 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by roBernd View Post

 

All Graphs show basically the same plus a different aproach of stretching the Graph and a different equation from raw- to percieved Graph.

 

Almost perfect? on which Graph? They look the best on the inner-fidelity-graphs... but there is a -5db dip from 2k to 3k which continues to 6.Xk followed by a +5db bump... this isn't almsot perfect.

 

 

fair point, and I agree to the value of measuring a single different pair with different equipment.

BUT all of these Graphs show the same caracteristic (2k bump + 7k-10k bump).

 

Obviously all sites use their very own special Diffuse Sound Field Equalizations + etc. to translate their measurements to a "perceived-Graph"

 

So you shouldn't look at a single "FR-Graph" or compare the graph of each site, this wouldn't offer any decent results.

What you should do is compare "FR-Graphs on a single site" (e.g. the Graph of Headphone A on site X to Headphone B of site X) Plus it helps if you have heard some benchmark headphones to compare a new headphone to the graph of this benchmark-headphone you know. For most people... it's the HD600 because it has been around for some time and is well regarded due to ... being actually good.

Agree about the hd600 being a good "benchmark". They're almost universally praised and were considered good enough to be used in classical mastering studios. It's one phone where you never hear anyone say, 'it's got a nasty peak here, or a big dip there', unlike the headphone that's the subject of this thread. The only criticism you often hear is that it's got a 'polite' treble. For my own purposes I use the hd580 along with the k240DF as a reference for what 'neutral' sounds like.

post #44 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

 

I wish people would stop saying this non-sense without trying it. Why this is generally true and a good thing to consider, the E9 despite it's 10ohm output doesn't even remotely mess with the Q701's signature. It doesn't with my HD-598 and not even with my DJ100 that's 38 ohms. In fact, the DJ100 loves the E9.

 

I actually tried my Q701 with an old Technics receiver from 93 using the headphone jack. Sounded amazing with no change in it's signature. I was shocked to find that the headphone jack has a 330ohm output impedance!! Even my DJ100 sounded the same. Makes no sense.

 

I've yet to have any headphone sound awful with the E9.

 

Now if one were to use the small jack (33ohm output) then that might mess with some headphones.

 

BTW I wish I could agree that an amp doesn't significantly alter a headphones sound signature. I just haven't found this the case after testing the Asgard with the ATH-AD2000, K601 and Q701. I've found the Q701 is very hard to like on the wrong setup.

 

So far i've been through 3 amps just for the K702, K701 and Q701. Luckily i've found an amp that's finally good on everything and doesn't magically color the sound too much.

 

Then with my HD-598 it's easy to not like it with specific amps that are too warm. I dislike it with my E11 and I'm not sure yet, but it might not be a good match with the E10.

 

I will say that no amp could fix the K702s treble. There's a weird peak in the treble on that headphone that drove my ears bonkers, but it's not there on my Q701.

How is it nonsense? High output impedance affects the tightening of the bass . 

 

It's no more of a "nonsense" than giving out opinions that constantly change over time. I still remember you talking about how you thought the 598s had a bigger soundstage over the 701s - though you admitted in never doing a direct comparison - and about how the 598s had an "edge" over your Q701s over your music. Obviously, you'd probably disagree with this today. Which brings up another point: have you done a direct comparison between the K701 and Q701? I really am curious what you would think of those two under a real double blind test.. very curious. I doubt it would matter much regardless though, considering how much variations between AKG models that exist. 

post #45 of 86

I have the Q701 and HD595, not 598. I have the FiiO E11, not the E9. I don't think the E11 properly drives the Q701. I have a Headstage Arrow 4G that's also not up to the task (IMO). I only have my memory of my audition of the Q701 (retail $399) at the Best Buy (music—instruments/equipment store section). I heard them on a studio-like headphone amp. I then bought the ugly lime-green ones from Amazon because they were $212 (or about $20 to $30 cheaper than the black ones at the time). I regret that decision. Green (matching the cable) is not pretty. The HD595 look much better. They don't have the “fanciness” of the 598 (aka “yuck” factor).

 

On an old thread (that I posted on by mistake) it was mentioned that the 595 and 598 have the same loudness at the same points on the FR graph. I still won't assume that they sound alike though. That FR curve may also apply to the 555 with the same speaker (without the tilt positioning and other factors).

 

Sources and amplification idiosyncrasies can turn you off (or on) to a particular headphone for your style of music.

 

 

BTW, the Q701 do sound better to me under most circumstances of source and amplification (that I own) than the 595. It's less edgy in frequency spikes in the upper mids and treble with slightly more detail and bass (IMO).

 


Edited by truckdriver - 8/19/12 at 10:11am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › So far, disappointed with AKG Q701.