or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG K702 (The Classic) vs. K612 Pro (The Upstart) – Review and Comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AKG K702 (The Classic) vs. K612 Pro (The Upstart) – Review and Comparison - Page 5

post #61 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

..... like I said ..... preference (although I personally wouldn't call the K612 veiled in the mids in the slightest)

K702 definitely has a little more resolution - but it's not on a different planet (at least to my ears).

As far as 'break-in' goes, I'll leave that to the individual.  Tyll's tests on the Q701 didn't indicate night and day changes - and I'd never noticed major changes with my K701, K702 or Q701.

YMMV wink.gif  

You bet! I also think that we may be used to different source material. wink.gif
Quote:
I see we have similar headphone tastes.  How are the K550 - worth trying?

I don't know yet; just got them a few days ago. They were unlistenable to my ears straight out of the box, better after 3 days of burnin, but still sound like they have a way to go. FWIW, after 30+ of audio, I only became a believer in burnin after buying the 702. I always thought that it was me who brokein, but the sonic changes in the 702 were undeniable, IME. The 612 wasn't nearly as sensitive to the phenomenon, for a lack of a better descriptor.

Edit: text
Edited by Shaffer - 1/2/14 at 7:01pm
post #62 of 196
Thread Starter 

I'm yet to hear it - but would never deny anyone their own experiences or beliefs.

 

I guess the big doubt I have about burn-in is simply that I know our (human) auditory memory only lasts a matter of seconds (well under a minute anyway).  All the stories about night and day differences are very hard to agree with - especially in light of changes in:

 - positioning on your head

 - pad (and seal) condition

 - your mood / time of day

 - volume

 

I think the only one who's actually done it scientifically (AFAIK) is Tyll - and even though he thought he heard minute differences (expectation bias perhaps) - the actual frequency changes were very minute.  Changes may be slightly audible / noticeable - but nothing like the (laughable) stories of a headphone going from unlistenable to golden in a matter of a couple of 100 hours.

 

I guess the important thing is that we continue to remember its about the music - not the gear.

 

Just going to listen to Von Karajan & the Berlin Philhamoniker (1963) Beethoven Symphonies.  Hopefully get lost in it for a couple of hours.

 

If you get a chance please post back about the K550 later - genuinely curious :beerchug: 

post #63 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

I'm yet to hear it - but would never deny anyone their own experiences or beliefs.

I guess the big doubt I have about burn-in is simply that I know our (human) auditory memory only lasts a matter of seconds (well under a minute anyway).  All the stories about night and day differences are very hard to agree with - especially in light of changes in:
 - positioning on your head
 - pad (and seal) condition
 - your mood / time of day
 - volume

I don't disagree, which is where long-term listening comes into play. I don't sit around taking notes, way past the point of caring, but I don't do quick-switch comparisons as a matter of practice.
Quote:
I think the only one who's actually done it scientifically (AFAIK) is Tyll - and even though he thought he heard minute differences (expectation bias perhaps) - the actual frequency changes were very minute.  Changes may be slightly audible / noticeable - but nothing like the (laughable) stories of a headphone going from unlistenable to golden in a matter of a couple of 100 hours.

Heh, call me crazy, but I have a set of God-given ears and that's what I use to listen to music with. There's also a given point of reference to consider, as well as individual expectations. I love my Modi on my desktop system, but I'm truly grateful that it's not a primary source. Everything is relative.
Quote:
I guess the important thing is that we continue to remember its about the music - not the gear.

Agreed!
Quote:
Just going to listen to Von Karajan & the Berlin Philhamoniker (1963) Beethoven Symphonies.  Hopefully get lost in it for a couple of hours.

...that's the point of this whole thing, isn't it. I'm about to do the same.
Quote:
If you get a chance please post back about the K550 later - genuinely curious beerchug.gif  

Will do.
post #64 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

 

Think this one sums it up ......

 

.

My preference was the K612 Pro - but you can't really go wrong with either.

I might go for the newer K701 (which is a K702 without detachables, if I got it right).

I already own the MA900 [which might be too similar to the K612 Pros possibly] and the X1 [which is a semi bass-head]

And if the newer K701/2 are really similar to [if not same as] the Q701s tonality wise, [while being cheaper], then I think I've made my decision.

Both the K701/2 and K612 Pro can be head for the Amazon price from where I live, which is impressive IMO, the Q701, K712 are both more expensive :]

post #65 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by conquerator2 View Post
 

I might go for the newer K701 (which is a K702 without detachables, if I got it right).

I already own the MA900 [which might be too similar to the K612 Pros possibly] and the X1 [which is a semi bass-head]

And if the newer K701/2 are really similar to [if not same as] the Q701s tonality wise, [while being cheaper], then I think I've made my decision.

Both the K701/2 and K612 Pro can be head for the Amazon price from where I live, which is impressive IMO, the Q701, K712 are both more expensive :]


I've owned both the K612 and the MA900 for months, the K612 and MA900 are quite different. I think the K701/K702/Q701 are a little more similar to the MA900 than the K612 is to the MA900. The MA900 seemed like a bit of a fusion of the HD 558 and the Q701s sound signature to me. The newer K701/K702 sounded exactly the same as the Q701 to me. None of the AKGs really sounded like the MA900 to me though. I think either the K701 or K612 are great choices. It really depends if you want a bassier and more intimate sound(K612) or a more spacious and airy sound(K701).


Edited by kman1211 - 1/3/14 at 1:09pm
post #66 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by kman1211 View Post
 


I've owned both the K612 and the MA900 for months, the K612 and MA900 are quite different. I think the K701/K702/Q701 are a little more similar to the MA900 than the K612 is to the MA900. The MA900 seemed like a bit of a fusion of the HD 558 and the Q701s sound signature to me. The newer K701/K702 sounded exactly the same as the Q701 to me. None of the AKGs really sounded like the MA900 to me though. I think either the K701 or K612 are great choices. It really depends if you want a bassier and more intimate sound(K612) or a more spacious and airy sound(K701).

Any chance you can compare each to the MA900 a bit?

Having a reference point would be incredibly helpful.

 

Important factors for me are soundstage [or rather instrument separation] as I want to hear every instrument clearly [doesn't necessarily have to be dead neutral], forward midrange [not glary, but I find the MA900 perfect as it has both forwardness and instruments have impact], lots of highs and extension there [though I'd like to have very little sibilance, so no peaks]. Since both of my headphones are satisfying in bass, I merely require it to be tight and some punch.

 

You could say I lean towards slightly bright, detailed headphones with good PRaT and some bass...

 

The MA900 would be perfect for me if - a] it had better highs extension  b] the comfort was a bit better [not that I find them uncomfortable but... I am not a particular fan of it either] and c] had a slightly more resolution and detail in the instruments [but this is something I can't expect at that price point + it is still pretty impressive]

 

Thank you I'd immensely appreciate it even if only by memory :]

 

Anyway, back to sq. 1 612 vs 701 :D


Edited by conquerator2 - 1/3/14 at 1:37pm
post #67 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by conquerator2 View Post
 

Any chance you can compare each to the MA900 a bit?

Having a reference point would be incredibly helpful.

Thank you.


I did a review a while back, I need to update the review a little as my impressions are slightly different now, but it's still similar overall in terms of my impressions of the two. I personally favored the K612 of the two and I do have a fondness of the AKG house sound.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/691053/review-and-comparison-of-the-200-open-back-underdogs-the-akg-k612-pro-and-the-sony-mdr-ma900

post #68 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by kman1211 View Post
 


I did a review a while back, I need to update the review a little as my impressions are slightly different now, but it's still similar overall in terms of my impressions of the two. I personally favored the K612 of the two and I do have a fondness of the AKG house sound.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/691053/review-and-comparison-of-the-200-open-back-underdogs-the-akg-k612-pro-and-the-sony-mdr-ma900

A bit off topic but, how is the EF2A?

Do you think it can sufficiently drive both the K701 and/or the K612?

Also, does the "CD input" on the back work as a regular coax/RCA input? [Meaning I can connect it to a source/another amp, not pre]?

If yes, than as a DAC/amp it seems very impressive.

 

EDIT - That's a great write-up. Shame the K7XX ain't in there as well, but a great thing to read nonetheless.

What are the things you feel different about now though?


Edited by conquerator2 - 1/3/14 at 1:53pm
post #69 of 196

I think the DAC on the EF2A is rather subpar which is why I use the ASUS Xonar DX as the dac, some reason making the sample rate to 24-bit on the Xonar really brings out the bass and fullness on the K612, but the amp especially with NOS tubes is quite great and was a noticeable step up from my Magni. Yes, It works as a regular RCA input.

post #70 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by kman1211 View Post
 

I think the DAC on the EF2A is rather subpar which is why I use the ASUS Xonar DX as the dac, some reason making the sample rate to 24-bit on the Xonar really brings out the bass and fullness on the K612, but the amp especially with NOS tubes is quite great and was a noticeable step up from my Magni. Yes, It works as a regular RCA input.

Thanks.

So... how did your opinion changed since writing the review.

Plus, there really is no K612 vs Q/K7XX comparison out there, so it'd be nice to have one :P

I am still not sure over which amp or DAC to get... I think making a stretch for the A-gd would be the best thing to do, though the EF2A seems tempting [is it any good stock though]

Sorry for all these questions :P

post #71 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by conquerator2 View Post
 

Thanks.

So... how did your opinion changed since writing the review.

Plus, there really is no K612 vs Q/K7XX comparison out there, so it'd be nice to have one :P

I am still not sure over which amp or DAC to get... I think making a stretch for the A-gd would be the best thing to do, though the EF2A seems tempting [is it any good stock though]

Sorry for all these questions :P


Well mainly the bass and naturalness of sound, I think the K612 has more bass overall now and it sounds more real to me now. Well this review here is basically the K612 vs Q701 as it's a newer K702 being compared to the K612. It's pretty good in stock form, the tubes are bright at first though, but they settle down after burn in, the stock tubes don't seem quite powerful enough to properly power the K612 though while my rtc nos tubes have no problem at all giving them the power they need. The stock tubes don't have the transparency, power, or detail my nos tubes have. I would suggest it as an amp, but not so much as a dac, but there are other tube/hybrid amps to look at in it's price range.


Edited by kman1211 - 1/3/14 at 2:25pm
post #72 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by conquerator2 View Post
 

Any chance you can compare each to the MA900 a bit?

Having a reference point would be incredibly helpful.

 

Important factors for me are soundstage [or rather instrument separation] as I want to hear every instrument clearly [doesn't necessarily have to be dead neutral], forward midrange [not glary, but I find the MA900 perfect as it has both forwardness and instruments have impact], lots of highs and extension there [though I'd like to have very little sibilance, so no peaks]. Since both of my headphones are satisfying in bass, I merely require it to be tight and some punch.

 

You could say I lean towards slightly bright, detailed headphones with good PRaT and some bass...

 

The MA900 would be perfect for me if - a] it had better highs extension  b] the comfort was a bit better [not that I find them uncomfortable but... I am not a particular fan of it either] and c] had a slightly more resolution and detail in the instruments [but this is something I can't expect at that price point + it is still pretty impressive]

 

Thank you I'd immensely appreciate it even if only by memory :]

 

Anyway, back to sq. 1 612 vs 701 :D


The problem with the Q701 is that it's somewhat glary up top and has center imaging issues at times, the K612, K702 Annies, and K712 don't have those issues. I found the K612 is the most forward of the bunch. The MA900 is slightly glary but not enough to fatigue me. The K612 does have more clarity, texture, and detail than the MA900 imo, especially in instruments. The MA900 has a slightly punchier bass due to a slightly elevated midbass, the K612 is a fuller more robust bass with more definition and refinement. Comfort is a toss-up, the K612 take time to reach peak comfort, although I found them more comfortable than the MA900 after a lot of use.


Edited by kman1211 - 1/3/14 at 2:38pm
post #73 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by kman1211 View Post


The problem with the Q701 is that it's somewhat glary up top and has center imaging issues at times, the K612, K702 Annies, and K712 don't have those issues. I found the K612 is the most forward of the bunch. The MA900 is slightly glary but not enough to fatigue me. The K612 does have more clarity, texture, and detail than the MA900 imo, especially in instruments. The MA900 has a slightly punchier bass due to a slightly elevated midbass, the K612 is a fuller more robust bass with more definition and refinement. Comfort is a toss-up, the K612 take time to reach peak comfort, although I found them more comfortable than the MA900 after a lot of use.

Hmm Now I am slightly swaying towards the 612...
One last thing, how different are they in terms of soundstage width and depth and imaging (701 vs 612)
Thanks a ton man.
I am really thankful for this
post #74 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by conquerator2 View Post


Hmm Now I am slightly swaying towards the 612...
One last thing, how different are they in terms of soundstage width and depth and imaging (701 vs 612)
Thanks a ton man.
I am really thankful for this


The K701 is wider in the soundstage, but in terms of depth and imaging accuracy the K612 may be better at least from memory it is. I haven't heard the K701/2 and Q701 in some time so it's purely from memory.

post #75 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by kman1211 View Post


The K701 is wider in the soundstage, but in terms of depth and imaging accuracy the K612 may be better at least from memory it is. I haven't heard the K701/2 and Q701 in some time so it's purely from memory.

You say it is different enough from the MA900... hmmm. Very well I'll go with you on this one and go for the 612 Pros. wink.gif

Btw, the Aune T1 looks good what do you think?
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 (The Classic) vs. K612 Pro (The Upstart) – Review and Comparison