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 122

post #1816 of 3252
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 #1817 of 3252

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 #1818 of 3252

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

post #1819 of 3252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sequencer1 View Post

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. 

 

Yes, I personally enjoy the extra room in the angled pads, although the anniversary pads are still very comfortable.  They're also quite soft.  I don't think the clamp is any different from any other AKG x70x.  The headband is obviously an improvement.

 

I don't think the K702 anniversary will change that much over time.  I say that because my Q701s have hundreds of hours of on them, yet when you put the anniversary pads on them they still sound the same as the new anniversaries.

post #1820 of 3252

Frank from Harman quoted me $14.68 ea pad for part number 2458M12020 (Q701/K702 pads).  I'll probably order these just to test them on the K702.65s.

I purchased a few CDs - The Beatles, Alan Parsons Project, and Emerson, Lake & Palmer.  The K702.65 sounds perfect with The Beatles, since the early recordings are light on bass but a bit hot on trebles.  It seems that early rock vocals were recorded to sound distant with a lot of reverb and the more forward midrange of the K702.65s helps with these early recordings.  It seems modern recordings have a more intimate and forward sounding vocal presentation.

 

Alan Parsons Project and ELP are beautifully recorded, and sound wonderful.  Acoustic guitars are well represented - wide, shimmering, and full of detail; bass is fairly tight and impactful; vocals are clear and full-sounding; analog synths in ELP are powerful and panning sweeps are well-defined across the stereo image.

 

Also bought a classical CD with cello, piano, and violin, 'Chopin- Trio, Polonaise Brillante, Cello Sonata' and all instruments are clearly defined and sound wonderful.  No instrument sticks out too much, though the slightly elevated bass of the K702.65s give the cello and lower keys on the piano more 'boom', so maybe 1 or 2 decibels too much below 200Hz.

 

Portishead and Massive Attack studio recordings have too much bass, but their Portishead's 'NYC Live' recording sounds balanced; the live orchestra in the background sounds great and gives the recording spaciousness and depth.

 

Great headphones.  I guess the next step up would be the much more expensive HD800s or T1s.  Not sure though.

post #1821 of 3252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sequencer1 View Post

Alan Parsons Project and ELP are beautifully recorded, and sound wonderful.  Acoustic guitars are well represented - wide, shimmering, and full of detail; bass is fairly tight and impactful; vocals are clear and full-sounding; analog synths in ELP are powerful and panning sweeps are well-defined across the stereo image.

 

I've been having some strange Alan Parsons Project obsession kinda week. cool.gif

post #1822 of 3252

Is it safe to say that Q701's are superior then the HD600's?

 

Im basically driving with a CMOY (its an Ipod GO DAP) so i assume the lower impedance of the Q's will yield better results

post #1823 of 3252
Quote:
Originally Posted by mingamo View Post

Is it safe to say that Q701's are superior then the HD600's?

 

Im basically driving with a CMOY (its an Ipod GO DAP) so i assume the lower impedance of the Q's will yield better results


I think so, but it all comes down to sound preferences.

The HD-650 and Q701 to me are pretty close.

 

I have a strange HD-650 that sounds more neutral than the HD-600. Weird.

BTW I saw a frequency response graph of my 580 and 650 yesterday and they were almost identical....or extremely close.

post #1824 of 3252
Man that Q701 sounds so so sweet. I would be buying that if I wasn't saving for K550.
post #1825 of 3252
Get the Q, much much better.
post #1826 of 3252

I have my 65th Annie at the moment.  So far... they remind me of the HD650 where the mid bass hits but the low end isn't as prominent.  Sound stage ATM isn't very wide...I think these need to be burnt in also.  I'll give them a few hundred hrs.  

post #1827 of 3252

AKG FTW!!!! 

post #1828 of 3252
I prefer the HD650 over the Q701. I prefer the Annie over the HD650. The Annie is like a hybrid between the two headphones, which I love. More meat and body than the Q701, more energy and air than the HD650.
post #1829 of 3252

Damn man, this sounds like a really need to have a listen to those annies!

post #1830 of 3252

How much more bass is there between the 65th and the Q701? Are we talking about maybe 2-3db? I use my Q701 with a +2db bass boost from my E17 and I feel that it's the perfect amount of bass for me 99% of the time. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

I prefer the HD650 over the Q701. I prefer the Annie over the HD650. The Annie is like a hybrid between the two headphones, which I love. More meat and body than the Q701, more energy and air than the HD650.
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