[maverickronin]

Quote:

maverick, I know this will sound disappointing, but I ended up going with the polarizing Audio GD NFB 5 as my DAC/AMP.

That one isn't too bad.  In that price range the NFB 5 is a lot more excusable given its power and features.  I'd take that one over the Burson just for the power if nothing else.  I can't give HA-160DS a pass like that because of its price and piss poor max power.  Its not what I'd go with myself but its not a $DEITY forsaken waste of money either.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

I guess I'll find out hopefully soon enough whether it's worth it or not, though I don't exactly have headphones that take advantage of all that power... I do see some HE-4s on sale for stupid cheap here, and I'm considering it... I'd put the power at over 2+watts for the 38ohm HE-4, which is quite a lot...

What gets me is that the polarizing NFB 12 also has the same power specs... and I don't know how powerful people here consider it. That is clearly more powerful than anything I've seen in the price range, with the exception of the Lyr...but that thing is scary powerful.... hell, the C-2.2 gives 4.5 watts to a 25ohm load... THAT is crazy.

In any case, I may end up getting the ODAC/C anyways.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I guess I'll find out hopefully soon enough whether it's worth it or not, though I don't exactly have headphones that take advantage of all that power... I do see some HE-4s on sale for stupid cheap here, and I'm considering it... I'd put the power at over 2+watts for the 38ohm HE-4, which is quite a lot...
What gets me is that the polarizing NFB 12 also has the same power specs... and I don't know how powerful people here consider it. That is clearly more powerful than anything I've seen in the price range, with the exception of the Lyr...but that thing is scary powerful.... hell, the C-2.2 gives 4.5 watts to a 25ohm load... THAT is crazy.
In any case, I may end up getting the ODAC/C anyways.

If the specs are honest it should be about 2.3 watts into 38 ohms.  Probably even a decent job with the HE-6 too.
 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

The only thing about the NFB 5 is that people here haven't tried it, probably due to going straight for the NFB10SE. FWIR, Kingwa stated that the NFB 5 is pretty much the same as the NFB10SE in single ended mode (actually more powerful with lower impedance cans, and the same at 300/600ohms). I have no desire to go balanced, so the $170 I saved should be worth it. That and it has a volume knob, as opposed to the the digital buttons on the NFB10SE.

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

How much different? TRY and explain, fool!

<3
What you say will most likely be the deciding factor on whether I get them or not. I've already made the decision to purchase the NFB 5 which should have plenty of power for the foreseeable future, as well as a DAC.

The price is considerably less than the $800+ I was almost about to spend on the DAC/AMP, so it leaves me with some money for a complimentary open can.

 

Well, I've only been listening for about 30-45 minutes but I'm having trouble coming up with any reasons why someone would prefer K702s to the Q701s, and several reasons for the opposite. 
 
I can definitely see how K702 owners would wish for a little fuller sound/more impact in bass and overall sound, and in that respect Q701s truly seem like an upgrade/fix.  If you just don't like the K702 signature in general, Q701s won't fix that.  It's essentially the same signature, just tuned to be fuller sounding.  If you wished for more low end, midrange body, and overall fuller/punchier sound....then yes I think the Q's fix some of that. 
 
When I got the Q701s, the sound I was expecting is the sound these K702s are giving me.  I kept saying how surprised I was that people could call the Q701s thin and bass light.  Hearing the K702s, I can see how those statements would apply.  But having come from the Q701s first, I was really confused

 
 

1. So, bass and lower mids are different.  More fullness, body, and impact on the Q's.  K702s sound sort of like Q701s being run through some bass/lower mid reducing EQ.

 

1. The K702 upper mids sound a little colder.  Q701s upper mids sound a little warmer and more natural. 

 

1. The Treble: isolated by itself it its technically similiar, the thinner sound of the K702s make the treble more dominant in the overall  signature.  Q701 treble is technically the same, but it sounds more in line with the rest of the sound with the added weight/fullness from the lower half.  It ends up sounding slightly smoother as a result.  I don't think the K702 has piercing treble, but you get more of that impression (when compared to the Q's) because it sounds a little thinner and colder. 

 

1. Soundstage wise, they sound the same so far.  The variation in the signatures can make them sound slightly different, but I have a feeling the imaging is nearly the same.  I haven't tried the K702s for gaming yet, just music, so I will have to report back on this  a little later....

 
 
If I had K702s and actually knew how the Q's sounded in comparison, I would absolutely go through the trouble of selling the K's and picking up the Q's instead.   They sound like improved/re-tuned/etc. K702s.
 
Q701's win again! 

 
 
I'll probably make a new review/comparison thread so others can find it.  Not many people have owned both of these at the same time, for good reason, so it will be helpful to others....

 

[chicolom]

These K702s are pretty fresh BTW.  Only about 10 hours on them.  Some people may cray "burn-in!", but I don't think it's that much of a factor.  My Q701s sounded great out of the box, and I didn't notice much change with burn-in, so I'm tempted to think the same will hold true for these K702...
 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Sorry Chico. Head-fi states 500 hours of burn in for the AKGs. :rolleyes:

Not kidding, people actually believe that.

 

[maverickronin]

Tyll didn't find too much change over about 125 hours...

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

Sorry Chico. Head-fi states 500 hours of burn in for the AKGs.

Not kidding, people actually believe that.

Seriously  *sigh*.  I can feel already feel the banhammer coming for "posting K702 impressions without proper burn-in"

 
I haven't noticed much burn-in with any of my headphones including the Q701s.  It's annoying when people say "headphone X sounded like GARBAGE, out of the box - after X hours of burn-in they COMPLETELY changed.  The difference was "night-and-day"!
 
And why would a company make a product that needed 500 hours warmup before it functioned correctly?!  = \

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

Seriously  *sigh*.  I can feel already feel the banhammer coming for "posting K702 impressions without proper burn-in"

 
I haven't noticed much burn-in with any of my headphones including the Q701s.  It's annoying when people say "headphone X sounded like GARBAGE, out of the box - after X hours of burn-in they COMPLETELY changed.  The difference was "night-and-day"!
 
And why would a company make a product that needed 500 hours warmup before it functioned correctly?!  = \

Haha I think 98% of the people here might not have ever experienced a headphone that sounded like junk out of the box (and great with burn-in). I'm not so lucky. I've had two new pairs of DJ100's and was able to compare them to well burned in pairs. The differences are really shocking and I think it's due to the titanium driver. I actually once complained that I may have had a defect! Twice! Many Koss headphones are known to need lots of burn-in. I believe the Pro4AAT is one and may explain the muffled sound out of the box. I've been through about 6 pairs of DJ100s and only 2 sounded perfect out of the box. It makes no sense. I know the DJ100's signature inside and out and know when something's a bit "off".
 
I think out of maybe the 100 pairs of headphones I've tried, only 2-3 models needed burn-in. My rule is that if they sound good out of the box, then burn in is NOT required.
 
People think it's the end of the world when you suggest burn-in. I mean, is it so difficult for some to shove a headphone into a drawer overnight for a possible FREE improvement? Maybe they're worried about spending 2 cents on all that extra electricity.
 
I remember when I had my first KRK KNS-8400 it had treble that felt like icicles stabbing me in the ear without burn-in. Went away in about 3 days of burn-in. Luckily none of my new pairs needed any.
 
I do think it's a bit weird how people always say 100+ hours for EVERY headphone. Each one that actually DID need some only took 3-5 days with 8 hours of burn-in each night while I slept.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[chicolom]

 
Quote:

People think it's the end of the world when you suggest burn-in. I mean, is it so difficult for some to shove a headphone into a drawer overnight for a possible FREE improvement? Maybe they're worried about spending 2 cents on all that extra electricity.
 
I do think it's a bit weird how people always say 100+ hours for EVERY headphone. Each one that actually DID need some only took 3-5 days with 8 hours of burn-in each night while I slept.

 
 
My problem is when people make statements saying a headphone requires 500 hours of burn in.  That' just ridiculous.
 
That's like saying  a car needs 100,000 miles on it before it begins to drive correctly.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Yeah, if the headphone isn't enjoyable within the first day of use, I won't be waiting around for some fairy to sprinkle miracle dust on them.

The only headphone that changed (literally within 30 minutes) was the first M50s, which had a sharp metallic treble that went away quite noticably... and that was before I even got on Head-fi and knew a damn thing about burn in. I attributed it to it adjusting to actually being used...

A billion cans later, they all sound pretty much the same as the first day I got them.

 

[tdockweiler]

So...I take it you guys don't believe in amp burn in? You didn't know the E5 needs 100 hours of burn-in?

Then there are some who think that an amp's sound quality degrades if you turn it on and off too much. Or won't sound right without warming up first.

 
Not sure what to think about amp/dac burn in. Or wait...cable burn in! That one's the best.
 
Thankfully I haven't started believing that USB and HDMI cables make any difference..
 
 

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

Yeah, if the headphone isn't enjoyable within the first day of use, I won't be waiting around for some fairy to sprinkle miracle dust on them.

LOL
 
Haven't you heard of the "Burn-in Fairy"?  You put your headphones under you pillow while it's playing music, and 500 hours later the fairy will come and give you bass response!

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

 
 
Not sure what to think about amp/dac burn in. Or wait...cable burn in! That one's the best.
 
Thankfully I haven't started believing that USB and HDMI cables make any difference..
 
 

You should read some of these reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
 
they're funny