[derbigpr]

Quote:

I'm surprised to see that the Q701s are an improvement to the K701s in EVERY way... even when a company tweaks the driver, there are always some small flaws that's brought in. A bit unrealistic if you ask me. I had the chance to audition the Q701s not too long ago, along with many other headphones. Here is my somewhat negative impression of the Q701s. However, I do acknowledge the possibility of having listened to a "bad" Q701 since the production of these headphones are apparently not consistent (like LCD-2). Nevertheless, I don't think the differences are to the point where one person will label the Q701 as good and another as bad. 
 
First of all, there are a lot of people posting about the similarity between the Q701 and the HD-598. I can see the reasons behind the comparison (price, soundstage, bass neutral/lean) , but to me they are very different; the former sounds extremely unnatural while the latter is one of the most natural headphones I've heard. 
 
The reason why I can't stand the Q701 is its soundstage. Funny because that's the characteristic that distinguishes it from all its other competitors. The soundstage is VERY wide, the widest I've heard. However,it has very little depth, and poorly pinpoints the location of every instrument. This isn't obvious for most pop music, but if you focus on certain types of music, the issue becomes obvious. Instrumental separation is - any many claims - good. But then again, I don't expect anything less from a $200+ headphone. The HD-598 by far has the superior soundstage. In fact, the best soundstage of any headphones I've tried (though I've yet to try the HD-800). It is not only wide and tall, but DEEP and is very realistic in its imaging. Vocals never sound distant due to its full and forwardish- midrange. I would actually take the Senn HD 6xx series - despite their far smaller soundstage - because it has more of a core to it, and therefore, engagement. 
 
That brings up another point: timbre. Q701s have a somewhat plastic timbre to it. You get used to it after listening to it for long periods of time, but when compared side to side with other headphones, it becomes obvious that it's on the thin side. I found the Q701 to sound more clear than the HD598 but I think the difference in clarity was due to it sounding more thin. I found the 598 to sound more... "musical". Tonality wise, the 598 is FAR more balanced while the Q701s have more treble emphasis (which sort of takes away from the mids) and skewed towards upper mids (decent for female vocals). 
 
The Q701s are a very attractive looking headphone, and is actually quite comfortable. The headbands do hurt but despite that, the clamping force is decent and I preferred it over, say, the HD-650. I did enjoy them for certain classical tracks; it was interesting to hear things from a different soundstage view. However, my concern for them is that they do not work for other genres as well. I felt that their biggest strength was their midrange and to some extent, their bass. I could barely hear the bass but the texture was decent for that level of quantity. But still, I expected more from an AKG flagship, and what people consider a "hi-fi" headphone. I'll take the "mid-fi" 598s over the Q701s anyday. 
 
P.S. don't take my criticism too personally. If you enjoy the Q701s now, there is no reason to. 

 
 
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks that Q701 has a unnatural timbre and poor sound stage depth/imaging.  By the way, if you like HD598's, try the HD558's. They're even more fun with more forward mids, vocals and most instruments sound fuller on it.

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

I'm surprised to see that the Q701s are an improvement to the K701s in EVERY way... even when a company tweaks the driver, there are always some small flaws that's brought in. A bit unrealistic if you ask me. I had the chance to audition the Q701s not too long ago, along with many other headphones. Here is my somewhat negative impression of the Q701s. However, I do acknowledge the possibility of having listened to a "bad" Q701 since the production of these headphones are apparently not consistent (like LCD-2). Nevertheless, I don't think the differences are to the point where one person will label the Q701 as good and another as bad. 
 
First of all, there are a lot of people posting about the similarity between the Q701 and the HD-598. I can see the reasons behind the comparison (price, soundstage, bass neutral/lean) , but to me they are very different; the former sounds extremely unnatural while the latter is one of the most natural headphones I've heard. 
 
The reason why I can't stand the Q701 is its soundstage. Funny because that's the characteristic that distinguishes it from all its other competitors. The soundstage is VERY wide, the widest I've heard. However,it has very little depth, and poorly pinpoints the location of every instrument. This isn't obvious for most pop music, but if you focus on certain types of music, the issue becomes obvious. Instrumental separation is - any many claims - good. But then again, I don't expect anything less from a $200+ headphone. The HD-598 by far has the superior soundstage. In fact, the best soundstage of any headphones I've tried (though I've yet to try the HD-800). It is not only wide and tall, but DEEP and is very realistic in its imaging. Vocals never sound distant due to its full and forwardish- midrange. I would actually take the Senn HD 6xx series - despite their far smaller soundstage - because it has more of a core to it, and therefore, engagement. 
 
That brings up another point: timbre. Q701s have a somewhat plastic timbre to it. You get used to it after listening to it for long periods of time, but when compared side to side with other headphones, it becomes obvious that it's on the thin side. I found the Q701 to sound more clear than the HD598 but I think the difference in clarity was due to it sounding more thin. I found the 598 to sound more... "musical". Tonality wise, the 598 is FAR more balanced while the Q701s have more treble emphasis (which sort of takes away from the mids) and skewed towards upper mids (decent for female vocals). 
 
The Q701s are a very attractive looking headphone, and is actually quite comfortable. The headbands do hurt but despite that, the clamping force is decent and I preferred it over, say, the HD-650. I did enjoy them for certain classical tracks; it was interesting to hear things from a different soundstage view. However, my concern for them is that they do not work for other genres as well. I felt that their biggest strength was their midrange and to some extent, their bass. I could barely hear the bass but the texture was decent for that level of quantity. But still, I expected more from an AKG flagship, and what people consider a "hi-fi" headphone. I'll take the "mid-fi" 598s over the Q701s anyday. 
 
P.S. don't take my criticism too personally. If you enjoy the Q701s now, there is no reason to. 

 
What amp/dac was used? The Q701 IMO should never ever sound thin and there should never be an issue of how you could "barely hear the bass". It even has a mid-bass hump. The bass quantity between my 598 and Q701 is very similar. The only way I can get my Q701 to sound thin if I use it from a weak portable amp. Even the E11 isn't enough unless you don't use a LOD cable. Right now my Q701 is nearly as full sounding as my HD-598. Definitely not like the HD-600. Then again theres weirdos who claim the HD-600 is too lean.

 
I think the soundstage of the 598 isn't any more accurate than the Q701. The 598s imaging isn't that great IMO. Comparing the 598s imaging (and the Q701s) to the K601 is a joke. I think a part of the Q701 slightly worse imaging for some is due to the angled pads.
 
I once compared the K601 to the 598 and was pretty surprised at how much better the K601's soundstage was. If you think the Q701 sounds un-natural you should try the K601 sometime. Many think it sounds a bit more natural. It's much closer to the 598 sound, but not quite.
My HD-598 and Q701 are a good pair to have. Won't sell either. If I had to pick between the two I'd keep the Q701 I think. The 598 is often easier to like since it seems to "tame" some of my garbage tracks. It's a smooth sounding headphone and never seems to fatigue my ears.
 
Lately though i'm preferring the HD-580 to the 598 despite it's small soundstage. It's not an exact clone of the HD-600, but sounds similar. It has a more forward sound slightly and less crappy mid-bass. More forward upper mids and a tad more treble maybe.
 
Seems most people either like the AKG sound signature or that of a Sennheiser. I actually didn't like Sennheiser much until I heard the 598. I'd never buy an HD-600 at $399.

 

[NimbleTurtle]

Quote:

 
What amp/dac was used? The Q701 IMO should never ever sound thin and there should never be an issue of how you could "barely hear the bass". It even has a mid-bass hump. The bass quantity between my 598 and Q701 is very similar. The only way I can get my Q701 to sound thin if I use it from a weak portable amp. Even the E11 isn't enough unless you don't use a LOD cable. Right now my Q701 is nearly as full sounding as my HD-598. Definitely not like the HD-600. Then again theres weirdos who claim the HD-600 is too lean.

 
I think the soundstage of the 598 isn't any more accurate than the Q701. The 598s imaging isn't that great IMO. Comparing the 598s imaging (and the Q701s) to the K601 is a joke. I think a part of the Q701 slightly worse imaging for some is due to the angled pads.
 
I once compared the K601 to the 598 and was pretty surprised at how much better the K601's soundstage was. If you think the Q701 sounds un-natural you should try the K601 sometime. Many think it sounds a bit more natural. It's much closer to the 598 sound, but not quite.
My HD-598 and Q701 are a good pair to have. Won't sell either. If I had to pick between the two I'd keep the Q701 I think. The 598 is often easier to like since it seems to "tame" some of my garbage tracks. It's a smooth sounding headphone and never seems to fatigue my ears.
 
Lately though i'm preferring the HD-580 to the 598 despite it's small soundstage. It's not an exact clone of the HD-600, but sounds similar. It has a more forward sound slightly and less crappy mid-bass. More forward upper mids and a tad more treble maybe.
 
Seems most people either like the AKG sound signature or that of a Sennheiser. I actually didn't like Sennheiser much until I heard the 598. I'd never buy an HD-600 at $399.

I do not know what DAC was used but the amps he had in his collection were all at least $500. Much more costly than the headphones themselves. I tried pairing some with tube amps and such, and for the Q701 in particular, it seemed to placate some of the problems (thinness, lack of air). But obviously with a tube amp, every aspect of sound is distorted - I simply tried it for fun. 
 
I've never heard the K601. I'm very anxious to hear it though meanwhile, I'll look into some reviews of it. 
 
I understand monitor headphones like the Q701 / DT880 have slightly emphasized treble to discern more details. However, characterizing them as superior headphones simply because they reveal more is somewhat absurd. If anything, the Q701s and other monitor headphones make many recordings sound worse than they ACTUALLY are. And understandably so, since this would make them more useful as monitoring headphones. Have you compared the HD580 and the HD600 side by side? I never heard the HD580 but I read about how many people who have directly compared them saying they could not tell a difference, and when they did, they admitted the possibility of being affected by expectation bias. The HD600 is a fantastic headphone but I find it less diverse with genres than the 598, mainly due to their far smaller soundstage (depth and width). Vocals are easier to hear on the 598 as well, despite their bigger soundstage. The HD600 to me was only preferable with a few genres. 
 
If I'm not mistaken, the 598 had more bass than the Q701. However you're right that there isn't a too big of a difference between the two in that department. However, the bass of the 598 is much more tonally balanced together with the rest of the sound spectrum. And the 598's imaging is absolutely superb, far far far better than the Q701's. It was not even a fair competition. It seems Sennheiser really put in some work with the HD 598. The HD 600 was in production for nearly 20 years now. They've done quite a bit to improve the 598's sound in several areas. 

 

[NimbleTurtle]

Quote:

 
 
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks that Q701 has a unnatural timbre and poor sound stage depth/imaging.  By the way, if you like HD598's, try the HD558's. They're even more fun with more forward mids, vocals and most instruments sound fuller on it.

The HD558 is something I haven't heard. I heard they definitely have more bass. However, your description of the 558 is quite different from everyone else's. I heard the 598's have noticeably more forward midrange, soundstage, and a greater refinement in the sound (probably the grill affects this). 

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

I'm surprised to see that the Q701s are an improvement to the K701s in EVERY way... even when a company tweaks the driver, there are always some small flaws that's brought in. A bit unrealistic if you ask me. I had the chance to audition the Q701s not too long ago, along with many other headphones. Here is my somewhat negative impression of the Q701s. However, I do acknowledge the possibility of having listened to a "bad" Q701 since the production of these headphones are apparently not consistent (like LCD-2). Nevertheless, I don't think the differences are to the point where one person will label the Q701 as good and another as bad. 
 
First of all, there are a lot of people posting about the similarity between the Q701 and the HD-598. I can see the reasons behind the comparison (price, soundstage, bass neutral/lean) , but to me they are very different; the former sounds extremely unnatural while the latter is one of the most natural headphones I've heard. 
 
The reason why I can't stand the Q701 is its soundstage. Funny because that's the characteristic that distinguishes it from all its other competitors. The soundstage is VERY wide, the widest I've heard. However,it has very little depth, and poorly pinpoints the location of every instrument. This isn't obvious for most pop music, but if you focus on certain types of music, the issue becomes obvious. Instrumental separation is - any many claims - good. But then again, I don't expect anything less from a $200+ headphone. The HD-598 by far has the superior soundstage. In fact, the best soundstage of any headphones I've tried (though I've yet to try the HD-800). It is not only wide and tall, but DEEP and is very realistic in its imaging. Vocals never sound distant due to its full and forwardish- midrange. I would actually take the Senn HD 6xx series - despite their far smaller soundstage - because it has more of a core to it, and therefore, engagement. 
 
That brings up another point: timbre. Q701s have a somewhat plastic timbre to it. You get used to it after listening to it for long periods of time, but when compared side to side with other headphones, it becomes obvious that it's on the thin side. I found the Q701 to sound more clear than the HD598 but I think the difference in clarity was due to it sounding more thin. I found the 598 to sound more... "musical". Tonality wise, the 598 is FAR more balanced while the Q701s have more treble emphasis (which sort of takes away from the mids) and skewed towards upper mids (decent for female vocals). 
 
The Q701s are a very attractive looking headphone, and is actually quite comfortable. The headbands do hurt but despite that, the clamping force is decent and I preferred it over, say, the HD-650. I did enjoy them for certain classical tracks; it was interesting to hear things from a different soundstage view. However, my concern for them is that they do not work for other genres as well. I felt that their biggest strength was their midrange and to some extent, their bass. I could barely hear the bass but the texture was decent for that level of quantity. But still, I expected more from an AKG flagship, and what people consider a "hi-fi" headphone. I'll take the "mid-fi" 598s over the Q701s anyday. 
 
P.S. don't take my criticism too personally. If you enjoy the Q701s now, there is no reason to. 

 
Those are interesting impressions.  I'd like to hear the HD598s some day.  I've only heard the Senn PC360s which are like the HD595s, but my experience has been very different comparing them with the Q701s.  I thought the Senn's were more brighter and more midrangey of the two ( "n" shaped freq response), while the Q701s sounded significantly thicker, darker, and warmer.  I also think the Q701s are more balanced, and are most natural sounding headphone I've heard to date (The timbre of instruments sounds closest to the real thing through them).  The Senns sounded thinner,and a bit boosted, nasally, and chalky in the upper midrange to my ears.  Too "n" shaped for me.
 
The K702s I heard were definitely thinner sounding then my Q701s, and they did sound a bit less natural and had some upper midrange funkiness.  The K702 were closer to the Senns in freq. response, but I still think the Senns are thinner sounding.  Still not sure what "plastic-y" is supposed to sound like. 

 
I agree with you that Senn HD5xx have a very nice soundstage, but I don't think the Q701 soundstage is all that bad (flat depth).  I think the Senns do have more depth going off memory.

 

[chicolom]

I think MLE said the PC360 has slightly more bass then the HD98, and my PC360 needs to have bass boost on to sound similar to my Q701 without bass boost. 

 

[Katun]

Interesting comments. Q701 vs HD598 is a tough one. From memory, I'd take the HD598. Comfort especially!
 
It's unfortunate they got rid of the K601. It used to be $180 new for the longest time. And it actually has a smooth headband!

 

[NimbleTurtle]

Quote:

Interesting comments. Q701 vs HD598 is a tough one. From memory, I'd take the HD598. Comfort especially!
 
It's unfortunate they got rid of the K601. It used to be $180 new for the longest time. And it actually has a smooth headband!

The change they should've made when they made the Q701 series... was the headband. I've been reading reviews of the K601. Seems like people have different opinions about it. 
 
Quote:

 
Those are interesting impressions.  I'd like to hear the HD598s some day.  I've only heard the Senn PC360s which are like the HD595s, but my experience has been very different comparing them with the Q701s.  I thought the Senn's were more brighter and more midrangey of the two ( "n" shaped freq response), while the Q701s sounded significantly thicker, darker, and warmer.  I also think the Q701s are more balanced, and are most natural sounding headphone I've heard to date (The timbre of instruments sounds closest to the real thing through them).  The Senns sounded thinner,and a bit boosted, nasally, and chalky in the upper midrange to my ears.  Too "n" shaped for me.
 
The K702s I heard were definitely thinner sounding then my Q701s, and they did sound a bit less natural and had some upper midrange funkiness.  The K702 were closer to the Senns in freq. response, but I still think the Senns are thinner sounding.  Still not sure what "plastic-y" is supposed to sound like. 

 
I agree with you that Senn HD5xx have a very nice soundstage, but I don't think the Q701 soundstage is all that bad (flat depth).  I think the Senns do have more depth going off memory.

Yes the PC360s are identical to the HD 595. I actually do remember reading about MLE's impression about the PC360 having more bass than the HD 595. However, I do not think his impression involved a direct comparison. And I also read afterwards about how he said he was not sure which one had more bass. 
 
Having done a direct comparison with my friend's 595 and my 598, it was obvious which one had more bass. In fact, it was the factor that depressed my friend the most (XD). The 598 clearly had a tighter bass and more in quantity. If people consider the HD 598 to be bass lean, don't even bother with the 555/595 series. Another noticeable difference was the soundstage. The 555/595 introduces angle drivers as well but there is something that Sennheiser modified with the 558/598 series that makes the soundstage more accurate and bigger. 
 
I think what is unique about the 598s in particular is that while they do have some grain in the sound, they do not have this 'veil' that the Sennheisers are known for. The veil comes from the rolled off treble and with the 650 in particular, the bass emphasis. The 598s could sound more clear (less muffled) but it is not a big of a problem as with the Senns that have a veil - practically any Senneiser headphones that's not the HD 800/598. This is probably due to the 598's brighter presentation and its significantly stronger treble presence (an appropriate quantity of it I should say). The treble on the Q701 was quite pleasing and not as fatiguing as the DT880/600 but was still noticeably more fatiguing than the 598s in my ear. If listening fatigue is important for the purchaser, this should be a factor to be taken into consideration. 
 
The HD598s is more like... a HD 698. If Sennheiser made the earcups bigger (the housing), then I think timbre performance would improve which is probably the biggest advantage the 6xx series have over the 598 other than extensions. They do have a more refined sound, though it hardly plays a factor with most music. The musicality of the 598s is sublime. Others' experiences speak for themselves, since reading their comments gives you a clear idea of how these headphones moved them emotionally. 
 
"[size=9.5pt]Though lacking the refinement of the HD600, I still prefer the HD598 for a lot of music, mainly due to its midrange and better soundstage performance. "[/size]
[size=9.5pt]"I would brand the HD598 as a very fine Hifi headphone. It sounds good and among the best sounding headphones I've listened to" - Mike from Headfonia[/size]
 
And another comment of his which I find interesting, though with some skepticism: 
[size=11.0pt]"Now interestingly if you happen to have a $2,000 headphone amp, the HD598 scales up better than the HD600.. and again I suspect that's some of the things Sennheiser engineers have learned over the time which they didn't quite have when they designed the HD600. But for most people, I doubt they'll be pairing the HD598 with a $2K amp."[/size]
 
 
I have a variety of comments that felt genuine, copy/pasted in my word document. Have a lot for the HD598 actually, and this is just from one person. 

 

[chicolom]

I was really close to buying HD598s at one point.  I just couldn't justify getting them when I figured they would be only a small step up from the PC360, and I already prefered the Q701 to that.  I know I would love their soundstage, but I think they would have too much midrange for me

 
I would definitely take HD598 over HD600.  I need my soundstage!!

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

I actually do remember reading about MLE's impression about the PC360 having more bass than the HD 595. However, I do not think his impression involved a direct comparison. And I also read afterwards about how he said he was not sure which one had more bass.

Uhh, my impression was between the HD598 and PC360. I have never heard the 595. And I sold the HD598 and immediately got the PC360 as the replacement, literally days apart. I feel the PC360 is considerably more balanced than the HD598, which was very mid centric. The bass may be similar, but due to the HD598's heavy lean towards mids, the bass isn't as pronounced. The PC360 doesn't have any form of emphasis anywhere. It's as flat as I've heard in an open headphone, prior to the Q701. That's why i felt the bass on the Pc360 was more appreciable than the 598s.

In any case, the K701 definitely had bigger soundstage than the HD598 or PC360. The Q701 has a fuller sound than the K701 I had (7 bump version), and the soundstage was better integrated with the sound, so it may have appeared to be smaller than the K701's soundstage, which was so big, mostly in part because the K701 was thinner, but airier sound. I've always said that thin sounding headphones tend to have an airier sound (AD700), letting the soundstage really shine through. Considering the Q701 and K701 should have similar soundstages, the K701 still seemed bigger since no fullness of sound to detract from the sheer air in between instruments.

The Q701 was fuller sounding and more natural sounding than the HD598, EASILY. Nothing realistic about vocals that are so heavily pushed forward. The Q701 didn't have any unrealistic emphasis towards any part of the spectrum. The sound was meaty, and realistic to me. The same CANNOT be said of the K701 I had, which was dry, analytical, and had some plasticky upper mids, which I felt was about as fatiguing as the DT990's treble. I can't be certain the newer 8 bump K701 sounds the same as the old 7 bump one, so YMMV.

It's funny, people bitch about bass or treble being too pronounced on certain headphones, making it unnatural, but when mids are unnaturally forward, they keep their mouth shut. Fact to me is, the HD598 has unrealistically forward mids. They are clearer than the PC360, but the PC360 didn't have unnatural emphasis ANYWHERE.

Chico: You're not missing anything. The Q701 is better than the HD598 in practically everything but amp requirements. The only reason to get the HD598 is if you want more mids, at the expense of fullness and sheer soundstage size (though the HD598 has a natural soundstage size).

There is no reason to own both. I'd say the HD598 is for those who don't wanna meet the amping requirements of the Q701, yet the HD598 needs at least a portable amp to shine, as I felt they didn't sound good unamped at all.

The ESW9 has a very full sounding signature, with warm, and very forward mids, but the treble was lacking for my taste. At least the mids didn't come off unnaturally forward, mostly in part due to how full the sound was as a whole. Still, too warm for my taste..

I was in love with the Q701 from the first listen. I was never wowed by the HD598/K701 other than for competitive gaming. The PC360 while not being as good as any of the previous ones mentioned, was still a well balanced all rounder, and could handle everything fine, though not being GREATER than any of the rest in anything.

 

[National]

 
But actually, I own both, and I think I might agree.

 

[NimbleTurtle]

Quote:

Uhh, my impression was between the HD598 and PC360. I have never heard the 595. And I sold the HD598 and immediately got the PC360 as the replacement, literally days apart. I feel the PC360 is considerably more balanced than the HD598, which was very mid centric. The bass may be similar, but due to the HD598's heavy lean towards mids, the bass isn't as pronounced. The PC360 doesn't have any form of emphasis anywhere. It's as flat as I've heard in an open headphone, prior to the Q701. That's why i felt the bass on the Pc360 was more appreciable than the 598s.
In any case, the K701 definitely had bigger soundstage than the HD598 or PC360. The Q701 has a fuller sound than the K701 I had (7 bump version), and the soundstage was better integrated with the sound, so it may have appeared to be smaller than the K701's soundstage, which was so big, mostly in part because the K701 was thinner, but airier sound. I've always said that thin sounding headphones tend to have an airier sound (AD700), letting the soundstage really shine through. Considering the Q701 and K701 should have similar soundstages, the K701 still seemed bigger since no fullness of sound to detract from the sheer air in between instruments.
The Q701 was fuller sounding and more natural sounding than the HD598, EASILY. Nothing realistic about vocals that are so heavily pushed forward. The Q701 didn't have any unrealistic emphasis towards any part of the spectrum. The sound was meaty, and realistic to me. The same CANNOT be said of the K701 I had, which was dry, analytical, and had some plasticky upper mids, which I felt was about as fatiguing as the DT990's treble. I can't be certain the newer 8 bump K701 sounds the same as the old 7 bump one, so YMMV.
It's funny, people bitch about bass or treble being too pronounced on certain headphones, making it unnatural, but when mids are unnaturally forward, they keep their mouth shut. Fact to me is, the HD598 has unrealistically forward mids. They are clearer than the PC360, but the PC360 didn't have unnatural emphasis ANYWHERE.
Chico: You're not missing anything. The Q701 is better than the HD598 in practically everything but amp requirements. The only reason to get the HD598 is if you want more mids, at the expense of fullness and sheer soundstage size (though the HD598 has a natural soundstage size).
There is no reason to own both. I'd say the HD598 is for those who don't wanna meet the amping requirements of the Q701, yet the HD598 needs at least a portable amp to shine, as I felt they didn't sound good unamped at all.
The ESW9 has a very full sounding signature, with warm, and very forward mids, but the treble was lacking for my taste. At least the mids didn't come off unnaturally forward, mostly in part due to how full the sound was as a whole. Still, too warm for my taste..
I was in love with the Q701 from the first listen. I was never wowed by the HD598/K701 other than for competitive gaming. The PC360 while not being as good as any of the previous ones mentioned, was still a well balanced all rounder, and could handle everything fine, though not being GREATER than any of the rest in anything.

Sorry I meant to say the HD 598, rather than the 595. Easy typo considering all these similar numbers. 
 
As for your comment about the 598 having forward mids, sorry I think it's exaggerated. It seems forward because most headphones have recessed mids in comparison. But taking a look at the frequency response, it's actually very well balanced and close to neutral with a slight warmish tilt like tdock described. The K701/ Q701s are skewed towards the upper mids, and to a degree the treble region (double peak at 4-6khtz). So no, they do have unrealistic emphasis towards a certain part of the spectrum. This is why people consider the 5xx series to be a more natural headphone with a far balanced sound. I believe you are the first person to complain about the 598s as having midrange that is "heavily pushed forward". 
 
Assuming the 595 = PC360, well here is my take on it. I've tested out a wide range of genres on these and it was obvious in electronica/ vocals that the bass on the 598 was tighter and greater. Without a doubt. If you felt the bass was greater on the PC360 (which can be understandable depending on the music), then it was more due to the 598s having more treble presence, rather than midrange presence, rendering it a brighter presentation. A brighter presentation after all tends to make the bass more perceived on the light side. 
 
Did I listen to a bad Q701? Maybe. You can't really trust a product with such different variations (from what others are saying). But having done a direct comparison between the two, it was obvious which had the better timbre, imaging, soundstage, etc. I would like to know if you actually directly compared the K701/ Q701 / HD598 rather than going by your past memories. No one is subject from expectation bias. And if I remember correctly, you much preferred the Q701's appearance to the 598s did you not? Of course a direct comparison is still subject to tons of biases... I'm only confident in my analysis because the difference between the two - on specific tracks- were glaringly obvious. 
 
And another thing to take into consideration is that they were built for different purposes. Q701s seems to be built more for monitoring purposes, hence the emphasized treble to discern micro details. The 598s and 650s by design were created to be "musical" headphones and for me, they do exactly just that. I find the 598s smoother signature to be more pleasing - and less fatiguing - than the Q701s, which I would not go far as to say is analytically sounding, but it can give off that impression sometimes (a common complaint). 

 

[NimbleTurtle]

Quote:

I was really close to buying HD598s at one point.  I just couldn't justify getting them when I figured they would be only a small step up from the PC360, and I already prefered the Q701 to that.  I know I would love their soundstage, but I think they would have too much midrange for me

 
I would definitely take HD598 over HD600.  I need my soundstage!!

I've seen a variety of comments regarding the 598s. Never have I heard anything about them having "too much midrange". Well except just now by MLE. I did hear some complaints about headphones like the AD-2000 though for having too emphasized of a midrange. 

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

Uhh, my impression was between the HD598 and PC360. I have never heard the 595. And I sold the HD598 and immediately got the PC360 as the replacement, literally days apart. I feel the PC360 is considerably more balanced than the HD598, which was very mid centric. The bass may be similar, but due to the HD598's heavy lean towards mids, the bass isn't as pronounced. The PC360 doesn't have any form of emphasis anywhere. It's as flat as I've heard in an open headphone, prior to the Q701. That's why i felt the bass on the Pc360 was more appreciable than the 598s.
In any case, the K701 definitely had bigger soundstage than the HD598 or PC360. The Q701 has a fuller sound than the K701 I had (7 bump version), and the soundstage was better integrated with the sound, so it may have appeared to be smaller than the K701's soundstage, which was so big, mostly in part because the K701 was thinner, but airier sound. I've always said that thin sounding headphones tend to have an airier sound (AD700), letting the soundstage really shine through. Considering the Q701 and K701 should have similar soundstages, the K701 still seemed bigger since no fullness of sound to detract from the sheer air in between instruments.
The Q701 was fuller sounding and more natural sounding than the HD598, EASILY. Nothing realistic about vocals that are so heavily pushed forward. The Q701 didn't have any unrealistic emphasis towards any part of the spectrum. The sound was meaty, and realistic to me. The same CANNOT be said of the K701 I had, which was dry, analytical, and had some plasticky upper mids, which I felt was about as fatiguing as the DT990's treble. I can't be certain the newer 8 bump K701 sounds the same as the old 7 bump one, so YMMV.
It's funny, people bitch about bass or treble being too pronounced on certain headphones, making it unnatural, but when mids are unnaturally forward, they keep their mouth shut. Fact to me is, the HD598 has unrealistically forward mids. They are clearer than the PC360, but the PC360 didn't have unnatural emphasis ANYWHERE.
Chico: You're not missing anything. The Q701 is better than the HD598 in practically everything but amp requirements. The only reason to get the HD598 is if you want more mids, at the expense of fullness and sheer soundstage size (though the HD598 has a natural soundstage size).
There is no reason to own both. I'd say the HD598 is for those who don't wanna meet the amping requirements of the Q701, yet the HD598 needs at least a portable amp to shine, as I felt they didn't sound good unamped at all.
The ESW9 has a very full sounding signature, with warm, and very forward mids, but the treble was lacking for my taste. At least the mids didn't come off unnaturally forward, mostly in part due to how full the sound was as a whole. Still, too warm for my taste..
I was in love with the Q701 from the first listen. I was never wowed by the HD598/K701 other than for competitive gaming. The PC360 while not being as good as any of the previous ones mentioned, was still a well balanced all rounder, and could handle everything fine, though not being GREATER than any of the rest in anything.

 
Pretty much my thoughts exactly.  Don't worry MLE, as you know I LOVE the Q701s, and I have NO intentions of getting the HD598s.  I was just saying that I did at one point, but after owning the PC360 and reading your impressions on the HD598s, I have a good idea of how they'd sound now. 
 
Oh, and I agree with you about the midrange thing, people don't seem to want to bash headphones for having too much midrange - they usually say it's just a plus! 

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

 
Assuming the 595 = PC360, well here is my take on it. I've tested out a wide range of genres on these and it was obvious in electronica/ vocals that the bass on the 598 was tighter and greater. Without a doubt. If you felt the bass was greater on the PC360 (which can be understandable depending on the music), then it was more due to the 598s having more treble presence, rather than midrange presence, rendering it a brighter presentation. A brighter presentation after all tends to make the bass more perceived on the light side. 
 
I think Mike at Headfonia talked about how the HD558 had looser and slightly boomier/muddier bass than the HD598.  Maybe the PC360 is similar to that.  The HD598s should be brighter though, which like you said, should make the whole headphone a bit arier
 
Did I listen to a bad Q701? Maybe. You can't really trust a product with such different variations (from what others are saying). But having done a direct comparison between the two, it was obvious which had the better timbre, imaging, soundstage, etc. I would like to know if you actually directly compared the K701/ Q701 / HD598 rather than going by your past memories. No one is subject from expectation bias. And if I remember correctly, you much preferred the Q701's appearance to the 598s did you not? Of course a direct comparison is still subject to tons of biases... I'm only confident in my analysis because the difference between the two - on specific tracks- were glaringly obvious. 
 
Your not wrong, of course, but I find it really strange that you hear the Q701 as thinner sounding then any Senn HD5xx.  That's just the opposite experience I've had when comparing PC360 to Q710 directly. 

And another thing to take into consideration is that they were built for different purposes. Q701s seems to be built more for monitoring purposes, hence the emphasized treble to discern micro details. The 598s and 650s by design were created to be "musical" headphones and for me, they do exactly just that. I find the 598s smoother signature to be more pleasing - and less fatiguing - than the Q701s, which I would not go far as to say is analytically sounding, but it can give off that impression sometimes (a common complaint). 
 
Aren't all headphones designed to be "musical"

?  Actually the K702 are the "studio" version, while the K701 and Q701 are the "Personal Audio" i.e. "musical" models.  I thought the K702 and K701 were supposed to sound identical, so I guess being dark blue somehow makes it suitable studio use.  The K702 was more studio-ey, but I've never heard a K701 - just the Q701.  Could be they've been tweaked to sound the same, and the K702 may be different...