Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The AKG K712 Pro Support and Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The AKG K712 Pro Support and Appreciation Thread - Page 20

post #286 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

 

First is the K 701, then the (modded) HP-50. You'd think it should be the other way around, but no.

I'm not familiar with this chart. Would you mind explaining what the various axes are?

post #287 of 2809

It shows the decay of sound in level from the driver along the frequency range after the sound signal has suddenly been stopped. The axis coming towards you is time in milliseconds, the horizontal axis is frequency, and the vertical axis is sound level in dB. Ideally the level would drop to zero instantly as the signal is cut, but in reality it doesn't.

post #288 of 2809

This is why I just EQ my Q701 a little. I add 2db from my E17.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roguegeek View Post

 

I think the Annie is great, but I think I would love it even more if it truly were a Q701 + 3dB bass as advertised. I want my sparkly goodness.

post #289 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

 

EQ would indeed introduce distortion - that is by changing (distorting) the original frequency response. Then again, the phones were distorting in that way to begin with unless they had a flat response.

Not entirely true. EQ is distorting the sound by shifting the phase of the signal in the EQ-ed regions.

post #290 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

 

If you've not heard better, you can be happy that they're the best.

 

 

That's the point.

 

You forgot to mention that Hp-50 are less detailed than Akg K701 and also don't have AKG's soundstage. Actually they sound inside your head. But they have very uncomfortable pleather pads...
I don't know about your modded Hp-50 (maybe you should also mod K701?) but original ones also have a problem with bass. It is even worse than bass of 701.
post #291 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by qazxsw80 View Post

It is even worse than bass of 701.

What is bad with the bass of q701??
post #292 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by qazxsw80 View Post

 

You forgot to mention that Hp-50 are less detailed than Akg K701 and also don't have AKG's soundstage. Actually they sound inside your head. But they have very uncomfortable pleather pads...
I don't know about your modded Hp-50 (maybe you should also mod K701?) but original ones also have a problem with bass. It is even worse than bass of 701.

 

Actually the HP-50 sound detailed while the K 701 sound extremely bright. The difference is indeed that with the HP-50 you know you're hearing true detail but with the K 701 you can't be sure. The HP-50 has tighter bass, though of course very bloated if you don't mod. They also have better mids and a smoother sound overall. You're right about the soundstage, though, in that the HP-50 don't have much of it. But I'm not very impressed by the K 701's soundstage in relation to the hype - I seem to recall the K 501 doing it better. Comfort-wise, the K 701 are horrible, while the HP-50 I find very comfortable.

 

Perhaps you can mod the K 701 to make them more neutral. I've not seen anyone post about it though.

 

I also compared the K 701 to the late '80s Sennheiser HD 530 that sell for about $30 used. Mine are also modded to be open-backed in the way of the HD 6x0 series. I found that the HD 530 came very close to the K 701 in terms of detail but also without having the huge treble emphasis.

 

Which brings me to my other wondering, that is, if the K 712 are much the same as the K 701, and assuming I don't have a faulty pair, there's no way 450 € is reasonable.


Edited by vid - 5/10/13 at 5:13am
post #293 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

 

Actually the HP-50 sound detailed while the K 701 sound extremely bright. The difference is indeed that with the HP-50 you know you're hearing true detail but with the K 701 you can't be sure. 

 

I really don't understand you people saying that k701 is "extremely bright sounding". What is your reference? And Vid, what exactly do you mean by "true detail"? How can any headphone resolve any true detail? Could you please explain that to us? A headphone is nothing but an electrical device for reproduction of sound signal. You seem to be a very self-confident person with many strong opinions which is good (in moderation) but you also need to backup your opinions with some basic facts when presenting them to us laymen. 


Edited by muxamed - 5/10/13 at 6:17am
post #294 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by muxamed View Post

 

I really don't understand you people saying that k701 is "extremely bright sounding". What is your reference? And Vid, what exactly do you mean by "true detail"? How can any headphone resolve any true detail? Can you please explain that to us? A headphone is an electrical device for reproduction of sound signal.

 

First, let's put it this way: the HP-50 reproduce detail in a way that is both more enjoyable and more accurate-sounding than the K 701. Second, my reference are my ears: I do a sine sweep on the K 701 and receive a treble peak in my face (or, if you will, I play a song and have its treble up in my face).

post #295 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

 

First, let's put it this way: the HP-50 reproduce detail in a way that is both more enjoyable and more accurate-sounding than the K 701. Second, my reference are my ears: I do a sine sweep on the K 701 and receive a treble peak in my face (or, if you will, I play a song and have its treble up in my face).

The fact that the detail of HP-50 is more enjoyable has nothing to do with the actual resolution of the headphones. It can even be to some degree an indicator of "unaccuracy" i.e. transient and frequency coloring. "Live music" is not always "enjoyable" but it is extremely accurate. What do you mean by "accurate sounding" anyway and how can you know that something is even near accurate if you don't have any reference to compare with (besides using sine sweep which I see as a very odd way to test accuracy of any headphone)? 


Edited by muxamed - 5/10/13 at 7:19am
post #296 of 2809

To repeat what you said, that something is enjoyable doesn't mean it's accurate and that something is accurate doesn't mean it's enjoyable – hence I specified that the HP-50 are both. Their transient response is likewise better than that of the K 701 as the graphs above will let you know (if you don't want to take my word for it). The HP-50 also feature less harmonic distortion than the K 701, hence being more accurate in that objective regard as well (again, if you don't want to accept my subjective impressions).

 

I don't know what sort of reference you want me to have. I've existed in this world for decades and even prior to my birth have been hearing the various sounds emanating from the reality surrounding me. I'm sure that qualifies me to an extent enough to decide which of these two headphones is closer to that reality. I don't have intimate knowledge of the instruments in whichever recordings I use to judge, nor was I present at their recording so can't have knowledge of which sounds truly belong and which don't – but that sort of fidelity of review you can do without.

post #297 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

 

First, let's put it this way: the HP-50 reproduce detail in a way that is both more enjoyable and more accurate-sounding than the K 701. Second, my reference are my ears: I do a sine sweep on the K 701 and receive a treble peak in my face (or, if you will, I play a song and have its treble up in my face).

Maybe FR of HP-50 fit your own ears FR better than K701.

 

 

Quote:
The HP-50 also feature less harmonic distortion than the K 701

Almost the same on innerfidelity. I don't think people can hear this difference.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AKGK701.pdf

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/YamahaHP50ADIYModifieddBel84HP3.pdf

And by the way where can i buy HP-50 for 30 dollars?

post #298 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

To repeat what you said, that something is enjoyable doesn't mean it's accurate and that something is accurate doesn't mean it's enjoyable – hence I specified that the HP-50 are both. Their transient response is likewise better than that of the K 701 as the graphs above will let you know (if you don't want to take my word for it). The HP-50 also feature less harmonic distortion than the K 701, hence being more accurate in that objective regard as well (again, if you don't want to accept my subjective impressions).

 

I don't know what sort of reference you want me to have. I've existed in this world for decades and even prior to my birth have been hearing the various sounds emanating from the reality surrounding me. I'm sure that qualifies me to an extent enough to decide which of these two headphones is closer to that reality. I don't have intimate knowledge of the instruments in whichever recordings I use to judge, nor was I present at their recording so can't have knowledge of which sounds truly belong and which don't – but that sort of fidelity of review you can do without.

 

OK. Judging from the graphs above HP-50 are far superior headphone to even Sennheiser HD800 so I guess there is no contest. However, having heard HP-50, HD800 and K701 I would say that the spectral decay graphs are, to my ear, completely misleading. Tonal accuracy of HP-50 is, again to my ears, inferior to both K701 and HD800. The soundstaging too. Why can I claim this? For the simple reason as you do. I also have been present in this world for decades. I am also regular visitor of musical concerts of different kinds, mostly acoustic orchestral classical and modern, chamber and so on so I am very much acquainted with the sound characteristics of a wide range of instruments and voices. Mind you, I own AKG k701 as well as some other headphones and I certainly would not call them "extremely bright" in comparision. I don't see that you own k701 and that you actually compared them side by side to HP-50 (you maybe have). That is what I reacted upon in your previous post. In a blunt way you claimed something that contradicted my own experience and I had to react. 

post #299 of 2809

Tough luck on getting a dud HP-50, muxamed. They're around. On the whole, though, you've not measured your phones so it's hard for me to put flesh on the bones of your words of their comparative tonal accuracy.

 

I can say that the K 701 I own (for a few more days) could not and should not be considered tonally accurate, as can indeed be seen from their frequency response.

post #300 of 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

Tough luck on getting a dud HP-50, muxamed. They're around. On the whole, though, you've not measured your phones so it's hard for me to put flesh on the bones of your words of their comparative tonal accuracy.

I can say that the K 701 I own (for a few more days) could not and should not be considered tonally accurate, as can indeed be seen from their frequency response.

Maybe your k701 is a dud. As for the measurements look at those done by professionals at Innerfidelity provided in the links above. Who would I trust more?
Edited by muxamed - 5/10/13 at 12:08pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The AKG K712 Pro Support and Appreciation Thread