[kool bubba ice]

The 701 mid range is not it's strongest suit.. I wonder how many headphones this guy has heard.
 
Quote:

 
Aaron:
 
Great read!

 
I agree with many of your points and love the reference to Rush (as you can tell by my avatar

). I really enjoyed the K701s with classical, jazz and acoustic music (and even some prog rock like Pink Floyd and Genesis). But with hard rock and metal (as you mentioned) the lack of bass really did take away from the excitement factor with those cans. They have since been replaced by the HD800s and I haven't looked back (except very recently for my new bedside rig...great price to performance ratio for the AKGs right now).
 
That's the beauty of the T1s is that they are great at classical, jazz, acoustic, AND rock, hard rock, prog rock and metal. For my money, they are the best all rounders I've heard. Though I have not heard the LCD-2s yet.
 

 

[Frank I]

I found no fault with the 701 mid range its weakness in regards to the T1 was bass impact and highs could be scratchy and piercing even with good source and amp. For the money a nice can. I even prefer the T1 with classical music over the LCD2 because of the sound stage and space.  The T1 is still here as is the LCD2 and the D7000 is my closed can choice. Life is good and my amps do well with all three cans.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

The 701 mid range is not it's strongest suit.. I wonder how many headphones this guy has heard.
 

 

Do I have to pull your last epic fail post that Nikkongod so eloquently shot down? But thanks for playing!

 
Just have a look at the headphones I've owned / own....more than just say the K701s/DT48s.

 
Here's where the vocals sound fake with the male voice...as the K701s are fairly bass lite, the male voice lacks the foundation in the lower tone to come off as sounding real.
 
Uncle Erik had the best comment with this regard....vocals to the K701 are like cheese in a can....not the real stuff. 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

I found no fault with the 701 mid range its weakness in regards to the T1 was bass impact and highs could be scratchy and piercing even with good source and amp. For the money a nice can. I even prefer the T1 with classical music over the LCD2 because of the sound stage and space.  The T1 is still here as is the LCD2 and the D7000 is my closed can choice. Life is good and my amps do well with all three cans.

The fault is with the lower mids that fail to give the male voice the proper foundation and thus a fake tone results.

 

[Clayton SF]

Quote:

 
Uncle Erik had the best comment with this regard....vocals to the K701 are like cheese in a can....not the real stuff. 

What!

I love cheese in a can! Cougar Gold! My niece goes to that U.
 
Of course I love my K701 as well.

 

[kyrandia]

Which tube amp is great for T1 up to 500-600 dollars? Thanks.

 

[Xcalibur255]

Quote:

 
Here's where the vocals sound fake with the male voice...as the K701s are fairly bass lite, the male voice lacks the foundation in the lower tone to come off as sounding real.
 
Uncle Erik had the best comment with this regard....vocals to the K701 are like cheese in a can....not the real stuff. 

After extensive (and expensive) tube rolling this is only about 20% true now in my case.  Not that the effort was worth it vs. just getting a different pair of headphones, but you CAN get the the K701 sounding natural without an EQ if you put your mind to it. 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

After extensive (and expensive) tube rolling this is only about 20% true now in my case.  Not that the effort was worth it vs. just getting a different pair of headphones, but you CAN get the the K701 sounding natural without an EQ if you put your mind to it. 

Equalizing would have taken less than 10 minutes and is free and the results would have been 100% effective and cleaner than tubes. Just saying.

 

[Clayton SF]

Quote:

Equalizing would have taken less than 10 minutes and is free and the results would have been 100% effective and cleaner than tubes. Just saying. 

x2. I've had this discussion with another member. We've talked about conducting a blind test with friends. We'll use an equalizer and not tell them. Do you think those unsuspecting friends will be able tell the difference between an NOS tube roll and a slight bump in the lower register with an equalizer? I wonder.

 

[Skylab]

You guys who recommend EQ forget that there are many of us who do NOT use computers as our sources

 

[MacedonianHero]

 
Quote:

You guys who recommend EQ forget that there are many of us who do NOT use computers as our sources

Exactly.

 
Quote:

After extensive (and expensive) tube rolling this is only about 20% true now in my case.  Not that the effort was worth it vs. just getting a different pair of headphones, but you CAN get the the K701 sounding natural without an EQ if you put your mind to it. 

Sorry, but I have never found a tube amp (with extensive tube rolling....including the WA6) that has even come close to sound as good as a SS amp with the K701. All sounded thin in comparison to even entry level SS amps.

 

[oqvist]

There is a lot good hardware equalizers out there for gear freaks that cost virtually nothing compared to a T1 for example

 
Quote:

You guys who recommend EQ forget that there are many of us who do NOT use computers as our sources .

 

[Clayton SF]

Quote:

You guys who recommend EQ forget that there are many of us who do NOT use computers as our sources

 
I've never used my computer as my music source. Way before I got into tube amplification (or even knew of their existence other than in my father's 1970s stereo console) I owned a Sansui solid state equalizer that I used extensively in the 1990s to enhance my meager stereo system with wonderful results. I only stopped using an ss equalizer last year when I got my first Woo Audio--the WA6.

 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Which tube amp is great for T1 up to 500-600 dollars? Thanks.

IMHO, there is little difference between the sound of my 637/627 M^3 and my Woo 3 w/ Cetron tube, so I  think a good SS is just as good as a good  tube amp with the T-1.
 
Also keep in mind that while tubes begin to deteriorate from the minute they are turned on,  a SS does not.  This is noted in the old Carver Challenge, where Bob Carver made his SS amp sound like a very expensive Tube amp.....  he was able to duplicate the tube amp's sound by adding resistors, IIRC, and won the challenge, but the interesting thing was that about 6 months later, when the two amps were compared again they were found not to sound the same any more, because the tubes had deteriorated from use, while the SS  remained the same.   Just saying.
 
Quote:

Equalizing would have taken less than 10 minutes and is free and the results would have been 100% effective and cleaner than tubes. Just saying.

" class="bbcode_smiley" height="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//wink.gif" title="

" width="" />

I'll agree with this too.  And there are many good, outboard EQs that are available to those who are not computer based. 
 
Not to open a can of worms, but excluding obviously bad sounding, poorly made tubes, this whole tube rolling thing reminds me of the interconnect, power cord and cable thing, with nothing but anecdotes for evidence.  Are there any scientific reasons why an expensive vintage tube should sound any different than an identical, well made, modern tube?  Just asking.
 
Quote:

x2. I've had this discussion with another member. We've talked about conducting a blind test with friends. We'll use an equalizer and not tell them. Do you think those unsuspecting friends will be able tell the difference between an NOS tube roll and a slight bump in the lower register with an equalizer? I wonder.

Hey Clayton
 
I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to duplicate the sound of a NOS tube roll with an equalizer.  An interesting exercise might be to let your friends adjust the EQ themselves, until they feel that there is no difference between the tube and the EQ'd sound.
 
USG

 

 

[Skylab]

I'm sorry but outboard EQ's are NOT a good alternative to changing tubes - you completely lose the economic benefit AND you may degrade the sound.  If they are analog, they add noise and distortion (phase shift).  If they are digital, then they are generally expensive if they are up to snuff, and limited to digital sources.  How adding an entire new component to the signal chain is somehow "better" from an economic or audio perspective than simply changing tubes is really quite difficult to fathom.  I can at least understand the argument for someone who uses a computer as their only source, but otherwise, the argument holds no water.