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 121

post #1801 of 3317
Quote:
Originally Posted by muxamed View Post


They look quite nice with black pads.

I agree, plus they won't show up dirt.

post #1802 of 3317

Is that the 65ths earpads?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicolom View Post

He just replied to me.

 

Great price on the K702/Q701 pads at $10.40 each, with free shipping!

 

"Submitting" the order....

post #1803 of 3317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaiiancerveza View Post

Is that the 65ths earpads?


No, those are around $70-$75 shipped.

 

Frank from AKG told me they were shipped from Austria to the USA today.

He quoted me another 3 weeks mad.gif

I think they could ship earlier.

post #1804 of 3317
Quote:
Originally Posted by muxamed View Post


They look quite nice with black pads.


My avatar would know....

post #1805 of 3317

Ah I see I thought those were the Annie's because he quoted me $30/pad of the Annie's.  Ya 2-3 weeks shipping time....frown.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post


No, those are around $70-$75 shipped.

 

Frank from AKG told me they were shipped from Austria to the USA today.

He quoted me another 3 weeks mad.gif

I think they could ship earlier.

post #1806 of 3317
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post


No, those are around $70-$75 shipped.

 

Frank from AKG told me they were shipped from Austria to the USA today.

He quoted me another 3 weeks mad.gif

I think they could ship earlier.


Why did you order directly from AKG instead of amazon for example?

post #1807 of 3317
Quote:
Originally Posted by musiclife View Post


Why did you order directly from AKG instead of amazon for example?

 

Uhh....the only AKG earpads amazon sells are the small pleather ones from the K240...

post #1808 of 3317

Hi, first post here.

 

Been lurking for the past 2 months on this forum reading impressions and reviews of headphones trying to decide since I don't have any hifi shops in my area.  I've read this entire thread and wanted to give my feedback.

 

Just received a set of K702.65s, which replaced a set of regular K702s that I had for a month.  Also using a set of Audio-Technica ATH-M50s for about 3 years and a set of Beyerdynamic DT 770 PRO 80 Ohm.

 

I listen to pretty much all genre's of music, but mostly listen to ambient, new age, IDM, folk, classic rock, classical orchestral and chamber, solo classical and acoustic guitar.  Some of my favorite artists are Hope Sandoval, Jim Campilongo, Enya, Steve Roach, Vangelis, John Williams, Brian Eno, Tangerine Dream, Autechre, Boards of Canada, BT, Alice in Chains, David Bowie, 80s pop music, etc.  I also play the guitar, both acoustic (nylon and steel-strings) and electric (solidbody and semi-hollow).

 

I wanted to get a set of open headphones, with a clear, detailed sound, and with less bass than the ATH-M50s or DT 770s.  By the way the DT 770 PRO 80 Ohm cans, in my opinion have way too much bass with recessed midrange and a harsh treble shelf above 7000Hz.  Their soundstage was pretty wide though and stereo imaging was decent.

 

I found the regular K702s to have too little bass though and it's stereo imaging and wide soundstage a bit strange to my ears.  Monophonic sounds, for example vocals and bass guitars, which are in the center of the stereo image, seemed to be dominated by sounds that were panned hard right or left.  Also it seemed that each instrument in a rock recording was isolated from one another and they didn't gel together.  Hard to explain but maybe they were too analytical for me.  Also, I'm assuming that due to the lack of lower midrange and bass, vocalists had very little weight or body to their voice, and guitars sounded thin.  They were very detailed sounding, but not very musical and a bit hard-sounding.  I'm assuming that the hard sound was due to a harsh peak in the upper midrange and the lack of lower midrange and bass.

 

I had about 200 hours on the regular K702s before I sent them back.

 

These new K702.65s have only about 20 hours on them but they sound very different than the regular K702s.  First thing I noticed was a big boost in the bass and lower midrange.  It is noticeable and maybe a little too much bass for me, though it has significantly less bass than the DT 770 Pros and the ATH-M50s, but quite a bit more than the regular K702s.  Also sounds in the center aren't dominated by sounds panned to the left or right like with the regular K702s.  Instruments seem to gel together better in rock recordings and vocals have more body and are easier to hear compared with the regular K702s.  But, again, I'm assuming that the higher levels of lower midrange and bass give extra weight to the vocals and instruments, but it doesn't make female vocals sound unnaturally deep.  The bass doesn't interfere too much with the midrange.  Also the harsh peak in the upper midrange that the regular K702s had seems to be tamed.  There seems to be a very very slight boost to the treble above 5000Hz too.  They might not be as analytical or detailed sounding as the regular K702s and are definitely warmer sounding and not hard-sounding.  The headband doesn't have the bumps like the regular K702s so I can use them for more than an hour without having to readjust them.

 

Also when mic-ing my acoustic and classical guitars and recording them on the computer in Cakewalk Sonar, the K702.65 seem to most accurately portray the actual sound of my guitars versus the bass-heavy DT770s and ATH-M50s or the bass-light regular K702s.

 

I'm not an expert at headphones plus I couldn't directly compare the regular K702 with the K702.65, so maybe my brain/ears are playing tricks on me.

 

So do the Q701s have a bit less bass than the K702.65s?  How would the K702.65 compare to the Hifiman HE-400 or Seinheisser HD650 or HD600?  I would like more bass than the regular K702s but less than the K702.65s.

 

Thanks, great forum here.

post #1809 of 3317

Haven't heard the 65th's.... But it sounds like the Q or newer K701's could be what you are looking for. If you are using them for studio applications then I would say they are going to better than the Senn650/600 as the AKG's are more neutral and analytical. The Senns are more hifi friendly and colour the sound (650 more so than the 600)

 

The description you have given of the K702's is exactly how I remember them. The Newer K701's fix this in respect to the more centered image and balance.

post #1810 of 3317

I don't think you would like the HE-400 that much according to your post.

post #1811 of 3317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sequencer1 View Post

Hi, first post here.

 

Been lurking for the past 2 months on this forum reading impressions and reviews of headphones trying to decide since I don't have any hifi shops in my area.  I've read this entire thread and wanted to give my feedback.

 

Just received a set of K702.65s, which replaced a set of regular K702s that I had for a month.

 

So do the Q701s have a bit less bass than the K702.65s?  How would the K702.65 compare to the Hifiman HE-400 or Seinheisser HD650 or HD600?  I would like more bass than the regular K702s but less than the K702.65s.

 

Thanks, great forum here.

 

Yes, the Q701s have a little less bass than the K702 anniversaries, but not that much less.

 

Also, if you've been reading the thread you'll know that the consensus is that it is the pads that are changing the sound.  So if you put K702/Q701 pads on your anniversaries ($20 shipped), you will get the Q701 sound with less bass. 

 

I did just that, because I love both the Q701 sound and the anniversary pad sounds.

post #1812 of 3317

LugBug1 and preproman,

 

Thank you for your insight.  I've read that the Hifiman cans are warm sounding and would probably also prefer headphones with a single cable since dual cables interfere with my guitars while seated.

 

Also, I'm not using a dedicated desktop headphone amp, I'm just using the headphone output on my Roland Cakewalk V-Studio 100 multi-channel audio interface and Roland tells me that it has an output impedance of 50 ohms and they recommend that I try to use a set of cans with an impedance as close to 50 ohms as possible.  I've read about the 'less that 1/8 impedance rule', so it seems strange that Roland would say that I should match the impedances of the headphones to the headphone amp.

 

With the volume of the headphone amp at around 2 (max is 10), the K702.65s (62 Ohms) are at a comfortable listening level with modern (compressed) music, and 3 is better for classical music and older rock music.  The DT 770 PRO 80 Ohm have about the same level as the K702.65s.   The ATH-M50s (38 Ohms) are noticeably louder.

 

Where do you think a set of Beyerdynamic DT 880 Premium 600 Ohms would be at a comfortable listening level (as compared to my other cans)?

 

Thanks again.

post #1813 of 3317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sequencer1 View Post

Hi, first post here.

 

Been lurking for the past 2 months on this forum reading impressions and reviews of headphones trying to decide since I don't have any hifi shops in my area.  I've read this entire thread and wanted to give my feedback.

 

Just received a set of K702.65s, which replaced a set of regular K702s that I had for a month.  Also using a set of Audio-Technica ATH-M50s for about 3 years and a set of Beyerdynamic DT 770 PRO 80 Ohm.

 

I listen to pretty much all genre's of music, but mostly listen to ambient, new age, IDM, folk, classic rock, classical orchestral and chamber, solo classical and acoustic guitar.  Some of my favorite artists are Hope Sandoval, Jim Campilongo, Enya, Steve Roach, Vangelis, John Williams, Brian Eno, Tangerine Dream, Autechre, Boards of Canada, BT, Alice in Chains, David Bowie, 80s pop music, etc.  I also play the guitar, both acoustic (nylon and steel-strings) and electric (solidbody and semi-hollow).

 

I wanted to get a set of open headphones, with a clear, detailed sound, and with less bass than the ATH-M50s or DT 770s.  By the way the DT 770 PRO 80 Ohm cans, in my opinion have way too much bass with recessed midrange and a harsh treble shelf above 7000Hz.  Their soundstage was pretty wide though and stereo imaging was decent.

 

I found the regular K702s to have too little bass though and it's stereo imaging and wide soundstage a bit strange to my ears.  Monophonic sounds, for example vocals and bass guitars, which are in the center of the stereo image, seemed to be dominated by sounds that were panned hard right or left.  Also it seemed that each instrument in a rock recording was isolated from one another and they didn't gel together.  Hard to explain but maybe they were too analytical for me.  Also, I'm assuming that due to the lack of lower midrange and bass, vocalists had very little weight or body to their voice, and guitars sounded thin.  They were very detailed sounding, but not very musical and a bit hard-sounding.  I'm assuming that the hard sound was due to a harsh peak in the upper midrange and the lack of lower midrange and bass.

 

I had about 200 hours on the regular K702s before I sent them back.

 

These new K702.65s have only about 20 hours on them but they sound very different than the regular K702s.  First thing I noticed was a big boost in the bass and lower midrange.  It is noticeable and maybe a little too much bass for me, though it has significantly less bass than the DT 770 Pros and the ATH-M50s, but quite a bit more than the regular K702s.  Also sounds in the center aren't dominated by sounds panned to the left or right like with the regular K702s.  Instruments seem to gel together better in rock recordings and vocals have more body and are easier to hear compared with the regular K702s.  But, again, I'm assuming that the higher levels of lower midrange and bass give extra weight to the vocals and instruments, but it doesn't make female vocals sound unnaturally deep.  The bass doesn't interfere too much with the midrange.  Also the harsh peak in the upper midrange that the regular K702s had seems to be tamed.  There seems to be a very very slight boost to the treble above 5000Hz too.  They might not be as analytical or detailed sounding as the regular K702s and are definitely warmer sounding and not hard-sounding.  The headband doesn't have the bumps like the regular K702s so I can use them for more than an hour without having to readjust them.

 

Also when mic-ing my acoustic and classical guitars and recording them on the computer in Cakewalk Sonar, the K702.65 seem to most accurately portray the actual sound of my guitars versus the bass-heavy DT770s and ATH-M50s or the bass-light regular K702s.

 

I'm not an expert at headphones plus I couldn't directly compare the regular K702 with the K702.65, so maybe my brain/ears are playing tricks on me.

 

So do the Q701s have a bit less bass than the K702.65s?  How would the K702.65 compare to the Hifiman HE-400 or Seinheisser HD650 or HD600?  I would like more bass than the regular K702s but less than the K702.65s.

 

Thanks, great forum here.

 

Wow, that's the best post i've read in awhile. You've described every single tiny thing I didn't like about the K702. The K702 I do like, but had several nit-picks about it that kept me from loving it. When I got the Q701 it solved most every issue I had with the K702. I don't know what the chances of that are, but whatever AKG did, it works.

 

You've described the 65th as how my Q701 sounds sort of. My guess is that the 65th and Q701 sound quite similar.

 

If you can't return the 65th or don't want to sell it, you can get some $10 K702/Q701 pads for the 65th and it should very very similar to the Q701. Based on what i've read lately, the 65th is a slightly warmer and bassier Q701. When you put K702/Q701 pads on the 65th the bass is reduced. The memory foam 65th pads should be what causes the differences in sound. I think MLE said the 65th with Q701 pads was still a tad bassier, but probably not by much.

 

The Q701 isn't just a K702 with a new color.

 

I think the Q701 or the 65th wth Q701/K702 pads will have the perfect amount of bass for you.

 

If you want less bass than the 65th I wouldn't suggest the HD-650 or even HD-600.

 

Another option is the K601. It has more bass and warmth than the K702, but not the Q701 or 65th. I don't think they're worth $250 and the Q701 is much better.


Edited by tdockweiler - 3/7/13 at 1:54pm
post #1814 of 3317

chicolom and tdockweiler,

 

Thanks, I've read about swapping the pads and may have to do that, and it's strange that the Q701/K702 pads are significantly less expensive compared to the K702.65's pads.  To be honest, I thought that the regular K702 pads were more comfortable and were slightly angled too.  There might be a bit more clamp on the K702.65s too, though nowhere close to the ATH-M50s or DT770PROs.

 

Do you guys really think the K702.65 will sound different after a few hundred hours of break-in?  If so, what will change?  More bass, less bass?  The K702.65s (Annie's) are near perfect, so I'm interested in what may change, other than my brain/ears.  No flame wars please.  wink.gif

 

I'm not sure I'm allowed to do this, but Pro Audio Star still has the K702.65s in stock, search their webpage, and submit an offer. 

post #1815 of 3317

I got my HD650 a few weeks ago, and the AKG K702 65th came in yesterday. Initial use...

 

For Music:

HD650 is more "musical" and enjoyable. It feels like the music is more upfront, but smaller soundstage compared to K702.

K702.65 sound good, more spacious and slightly more emphasis on higher frequency vs bass.

 

For Gaming:

HD650 is more bassy, which sometimes makes it more difficult to pickup details, also I do not like the somewhat narrow feeling soundstage.

K702.65 feels more imersive, open and enjoyable. I prefer to run it off the HT Omega eClaro instead of Bifrost/Lyr combo for gaming.

 

For Movies:

TBD

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