Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition - Page 80

post #1186 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

You really think these have better low bass extension than the Q701 and K702? I mean if so is it more forward sounding? I found this really hard to believe if it's the same driver.

I imagine it just has more mid/upper bass and sacrifices the treble a little. There some recordings i've found lately with low bass that's inaudible on my HD-650 and Q701. It's so uncommon that it's not a big deal.

 

Hopefully the imaging is as good as the K601 and I think it will be.

 

I just have this feeling that if AKG released a 701/K702 headphone with completely flat bass down to 10hz it would ruin it's sound. You add something to one part of the signature and something else gets messed up. I never want to sacrifice my mids for more bass.

 

I'm a bit worried this might have too forward of low mids, but it's highly unlikely.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmore View Post

Headband bumps arent a problem for me, I just worry about possible midbass, because presense of more lower end, which can push the mids pretty nasty and I am not looking for that. Also, they have been compared to HD650 many times up here, which is no go for me.

But, if Anniversary edition have kept their balance, then we have a winner, I guess...

 

THX

 

 

 

Keep in mind I don't have the K701 on hand to do a direct comparison, but I have owned them on a few separate occasions -- so take these impressions with a grain of salt:

 

I think AKG managed to boost the bass without intruding on the mids.  To me, the K702.65 sounds very much like the K701 in the mids and treble.  I think the bass boost in the K702.65 essentially comes "for free" -- meaning they didn't sacrifice any other part of the sound to get it.  I don't think the bass / midbass intrudes into the mids at all.

 

I also don't think the K702.65 really improves much on the low-bass extension when compared to the K701.  I think the bass extension and quality are about the same, but the K702.65 has more quantity.

 

Imaging sounds just about the same to me between the K702.65 and the K701.  Which is to say that the imaging is quite sharp, and bested only by a couple other headphones I've heard (namely, the T1 and R10).  If anything, the soundstage on the K702.65 may be just a bit smaller than the K701 -- probably due to the pads, as I think the drivers sit a bit closer to the ears.

 

Personally, I don't think these sound like an HD650.  They sound much more like a K701 to me, just with some extra bass.  I think that the differences in the K702.65 may have been overstated a bit.  If you're looking for a K701 with a little extra bass, these are worth trying.  If you didn't like the K701, it might be wise to steer clear of the Anniversary edition.

post #1187 of 3253
I dunno about you, but the treble range is noticeably smoother to me than the K701 and Q701 I had. Yes, it's not a direct comparison, but the Annie is in a range where it barely manages to sparkle. It's smooth more than sparkly. This is where I'd see the tradeoff. More bass for less treble. Mids stay the same.
post #1188 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustA View Post

 

Yeah, I don't believe it could touch LCD-2... I've tried T50RP both modded (bluemonkeyflyer's) and unmodded and it was nowhere near clarity, transparency, detail and openness of rev2.

 

However, for the price...

 

I heard the Mad Dog at RMAF this past fall.  It was a pretty impressive headphone, especially considering that it was made from the T50RP, the stock version of which sound like garbage to me.

 

But I'd have to agree with RustA.  In my opinion, the Mad Dog lacked the transparency and openness of the LCD-2 -- which is saying something, because I think that listening to the LCD-2 is like listening to music in a broom closet.

 

To keep this on-topic, I think the K702.65 is far more open-sounding than either the Mad Dog or the LCD-2.

post #1189 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

I dunno about you, but the treble range is noticeably smoother to me than the K701 and Q701 I had. Yes, it's not a direct comparison, but the Annie is in a range where it barely manages to sparkle. It's smooth more than sparkly. This is where I'd see the tradeoff. More bass for less treble. Mids stay the same.

 

That could be the case -- I need to get myself a better amp before I can properly judge the treble on the K702.65.  Both the amps I have on hand admittedly have too high of an output impedance for these cans.

post #1190 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophonax View Post

 

 

Keep in mind I don't have the K701 on hand to do a direct comparison, but I have owned them on a few separate occasions -- so take these impressions with a grain of salt:

 

I think AKG managed to boost the bass without intruding on the mids.  To me, the K702.65 sounds very much like the K701 in the mids and treble.  I think the bass boost in the K702.65 essentially comes "for free" -- meaning they didn't sacrifice any other part of the sound to get it.  I don't think the bass / midbass intrudes into the mids at all.

 

I also don't think the K702.65 really improves much on the low-bass extension when compared to the K701.  I think the bass extension and quality are about the same, but the K702.65 has more quantity.

 

Imaging sounds just about the same to me between the K702.65 and the K701.  Which is to say that the imaging is quite sharp, and bested only by a couple other headphones I've heard (namely, the T1 and R10).  If anything, the soundstage on the K702.65 may be just a bit smaller than the K701 -- probably due to the pads, as I think the drivers sit a bit closer to the ears.

 

Personally, I don't think these sound like an HD650.  They sound much more like a K701 to me, just with some extra bass.  I think that the differences in the K702.65 may have been overstated a bit.  If you're looking for a K701 with a little extra bass, these are worth trying.  If you didn't like the K701, it might be wise to steer clear of the Anniversary edition.

Agree and disagree,

 

"I don't think these sound like an HD650" totally agree. I also agree with most of your observations on the sound, they were mine as well.

 

"If you didn't like the K701, it might be wise to steer clear of the Anniversary edition", disagree.

I do think the bass is both greater and extends deeper with the K702.65. Granted I was using a different amp back when I tried the K701 (and K702). I am currently using a much better amp, Burson Soloist, with the K702.65, that may be impacting for the better the sound I am hearing.


Edited by Carlsan - 2/9/13 at 7:49pm
post #1191 of 3253

Dont worry, appreciate your input.

 

THX

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophonax View Post

 

 

Keep in mind I don't have the K701 on hand to do a direct comparison, but I have owned them on a few separate occasions -- so take these impressions with a grain of salt:

 

I think AKG managed to boost the bass without intruding on the mids.  To me, the K702.65 sounds very much like the K701 in the mids and treble.  I think the bass boost in the K702.65 essentially comes "for free" -- meaning they didn't sacrifice any other part of the sound to get it.  I don't think the bass / midbass intrudes into the mids at all.

 

I also don't think the K702.65 really improves much on the low-bass extension when compared to the K701.  I think the bass extension and quality are about the same, but the K702.65 has more quantity.

 

Imaging sounds just about the same to me between the K702.65 and the K701.  Which is to say that the imaging is quite sharp, and bested only by a couple other headphones I've heard (namely, the T1 and R10).  If anything, the soundstage on the K702.65 may be just a bit smaller than the K701 -- probably due to the pads, as I think the drivers sit a bit closer to the ears.

 

Personally, I don't think these sound like an HD650.  They sound much more like a K701 to me, just with some extra bass.  I think that the differences in the K702.65 may have been overstated a bit.  If you're looking for a K701 with a little extra bass, these are worth trying.  If you didn't like the K701, it might be wise to steer clear of the Anniversary edition.

post #1192 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwappo99 View Post

 

I think that having bass go down that low is impractical from a design sense. I think it's more important to tune the other frequency ranges accurately. 

 

 

Well, they did it right with the HD-800, there is no need to get it flat on the 10 Hz...this will probably cause distortion. With the HD-800 you can hear sometimes distortion in the low area if the mastering didn't take care of those FR's.

 

Looks like today all the KQ-70X drivers are the same, AKG just mod theme by adding more foam, or pads... 

 


Edited by Acix - 2/10/13 at 4:45am
post #1193 of 3253
Then can you explain how the few people who did swap pads on this thread have stated that the Annie still has more warmth and bass even with non-Annie pads, and how the others get too boomy, etc with the Annie pads? They may have the same drivers, but the Annies have been stated to be re-tuned.
post #1194 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

Then can you explain how the few people who did swap pads on this thread have stated that the Annie still has more warmth and bass even with non-Annie pads, and how the others get too boomy, etc with the Annie pads? They may have the same drivers, but the Annies have been stated to be re-tuned.

 

How do you think they re-tuned the Annies if they have the same drivers?

post #1195 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post

 

How do you think they re-tuned the Annies if they have the same drivers?

 

1) There are several reviews here and all of them mention the same - better bass, less sharp treble, less artificial soundstage width = better balance.

2) AKG stated that this version is specially tuned and limited... It seems like it is true, both sound and comfort -wise (pads, headband, look, matched drivers).

 

So what exactly do you want to discuss here? In the way I see it, you can choose to pay some extra money in order to get most probably the best recently produced AKG headphone in terms of comfort and overall sound fidelity, K702ANV. Or, you can just stick with the basic version of current AKG headphone generation, K701/Q701/K702.


Edited by RustA - 2/10/13 at 6:34am
post #1196 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustA View Post

 

1) There are several reviews here and all of them mention the same - better bass, less sharp treble, less artificial soundstage width = better balance.

2) AKG stated that this version is specially tuned and limited... It seems like it is true, both sound and comfort -wise (pads, headband, look, matched drivers).

 

So what exactly do you want to discuss here? In the way I see it, you can choose to pay some extra money in order to get most probably the best recently produced AKG headphone in terms of comfort and overall sound fidelity, K702ANV. Or, you can just stick with the basic version of current AKG headphone generation, K701/Q701/K702.

 

Dude, I got the same sound symptoms when I added foam over my original K702 drivers...and the Q version have no better balance, you can see the graph. Second, to really get a good review with the K70X, you should make it in stages, because the sound change during the first 350 hrs...and you'll need a flat good system to really get the differences between those versions, as well you'll need some other K702 to compare to the Anv, and this is because the 702's are the closest one to the Anv and both share the same drivers, with the same serial number.

 

BTW, I don't see in your your profile that you have, or had any of the K70X models.

post #1197 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post

 

Dude, I got the same sound symptoms when I added foam over my original K702 drivers...and the Q version have no better balance, you can see the graph. Second, to really get a good review with the K70X, you should make it in stages, because the sound change during the first 350 hrs...and you'll need a flat good system to really get the differences between those versions, as well you'll need some other K702 to compare to the Anv, and this is because the 702's are the closest one to the Anv and both share the same drivers, with the same serial number.

 

BTW, I don't see in your your profile that you have, or had any of the K70X models.

 

I've never experienced any sort of burn-in with dynamic or orthodynamic headphones... Maybe my imagination is not good enough for that?

 

I have heard K701 in the past and didn't like it very much for their artificial sound... I am now interested in K702ANV or HD650, need an open-back headphone for my girlfriend.

post #1198 of 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post

 

Dude, I got the same sound symptoms when I added foam over my original K702 drivers...and the Q version have no better balance, you can see the graph. Second, to really get a good review with the K70X, you should make it in stages, because the sound change during the first 350 hrs...and you'll need a flat good system to really get the differences between those versions, as well you'll need some other K702 to compare to the Anv, and this is because the 702's are the closest one to the Anv and both share the same drivers, with the same serial number.

 

BTW, I don't see in your your profile that you have, or had any of the K70X models.

 

Graphs are worthless when comparing the sound of the K702/K701 and Q701. You really need to try the Q701 to understand the better balance. Not sure if you've heard it.

There was a person here a few months back who measured the Q701 and K702 and they measured exactly the same and yet sounded very different.

I think amps sometimes sound this way too despite measuring the same. One can be kind of warm and the other cold and analytical.  Yet both measure flat.

I guess they say you can measure warmth, but it sure doesn't seem like it!!

 

The Q701 is definitely more balanced to me, but some may still prefer the K701/K702 for studio use. I remember at one point I felt the Q701 was making some music seem warmer than it should be. This was in comparison to the K601 and KRKs though. I think the Q701 is a bit smoother for very bad (and harsh) recordings.

 

BTW I don't think anyone has confirmed if the Anv. has new foam over the driver. I doubt it. Someone can check the part numbers.

post #1199 of 3253

If they were dampened by foam to make them sound different wouldn't sensitivity go down? Many people have said that the Q701 and the 65th anny are slightly easier to drive than the original k701/k702. Some people claim the 65th anny would be louder because the new pads put the driver closer to the ear, but that is not the case with the Q701.

post #1200 of 3253

Ordered.  Wil be here on Monday according to UPS..

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition