[Mad Lust Envy]

Chicolom has a thread.
Sorry for the derailment. Just that the comparisons were coming up.


TBH, they're too different to be really comparable, more like two different flavors.

 

[NimbleTurtle]

Quote:

 
Hmmmm, call me cynical, but makes me wonder why Beyer keeps pimping the 600 Ohm versions as the premium versions.
 
When I bought my DT880s, I auditioned the floor model which was 32 Ohm thru an Audiolab CD player.
I bought the 600 Ohm version because I thought it may work well with my Matrix M Stage.
When I got home, I didn't think the DT880 600 Ohm and Matrix sounded as good as the DT880 32 Ohm and Audiolab.
I just assumed that the Audiolab had a better haedphone amp.
Maybe I should have stuck with the 32 Ohm versions.

 
The story has a happy ending, I do like the 600 Ohm version with my tube amp.

Maybe a problem with amping? I've only personally listened to the DT880/600 but I remember reading from Tyll's article at Inner Fidelity that the 600 ohm version was far superior to the 32 ohm version. A tube amp should provide enough sufficient voltage to such a high impedance can, although maybe unfavorable distortion will occur. 

 

[Colgin]

[size=medium]After a very lengthy process of choosing by elimination, I purchased the AKG Q 701 (black) about three weeks ago.  I have been by and large very pleased with it.  I love the looks of these cans.  Even my wife likes their looks (she thinks they are “cool, geeky”, as opposed to just “geeky geeky” when she saw pics of me with the Beyer DT880 (no offense to Beyer lovers)).  I also find these very comfortable and have no issue with the strap that so many complain about, even though I have a large bald spot on my scalp where one of those nubs rests. Fortunately, it just does not bother me. [/size]
 
[size=medium]I ultimately chose the AKGs over the Beyers because of their soundstage. Maybe it was just the older K70x models, but these do not seem unnatural to me but simply large where the recording warrants it. I have a lot of music with a narrow stage and those are rendered narrowly by the AKGs.  While there is not extraordinary depth, I do find depth to be decent. But height and width are very good IMO. [/size]
[size=medium]I do find the bass to be a little light in some recordings. This may well be because I am used to a less neutral can, coming from the Grado SR80i and the V-Moda M-80 (both of which I like). In music that is already low in bass impact, on the AKG, sometimes I wish there was a little more impact.  But on tracks that have decent bass impact already, I find the AKG adequate in terms of impact.  For example, the MFSL recordings of R.E.M.’s Murmur and Reckoning (for better or worse, I say better) still have a lot of bass impact. It is there on the CD and represented by these cans. But certainly these will never be a basshead can. OTOH, the bass is incredibly tight and articulate. I realize now that many bass lines that I thought I was familiar with are actually more complex as I was not really hearing all the notes as they had previously bled into each other. With the AKG, I can hear each and every bass note and has inspired its fair share of air bass guitar jamming. Still, I would overall like a little more bass impact if I could get it. BTW, can anyone explain why my Grados seem to have more bass impact than the AKG. When I look at Headroom graphs, the Grados seem much more rolled off in the bass, yet I hear more bass impact. I don’t understand this.[/size]
 
[size=medium]My biggest (intermittent) issue has been that I have found these cans fatiguing at times. Maybe it is that they need break-in, which I certainly have not done. I have read all about the extensive burn-in necessary but was somewhat skeptical that several hundred hours would be required.  I have only the 15 or so hours of listening time. For practical reasons I cannot leave these burning in while I am away from home or overnight.  The fatigue mostly seems to be coming from certain female vocals and horn instruments like saxophone and trumpet when played in higher registers.  Any thoughts on this?  Is this a burn-in issue or are these just bright cans that I will need to adjust to or move on from.  For the record, I am playing ALAC lossless files from my Sonos to my Marantz AVR to the AKGs.[/size]
 
[size=11pt]Some music that I have played has sounded as good as anything I have heard them on, particularly acoustic music or acoustic-oriented rock (e.g., early Rod Stewart albums, AIC Unplugged, Richard & Linda Thompson).  Classical is amazing and these make me want to listen to more.  Jazz is great except for the sometimes fatigue that I have experienced. For dance/electronic these have been adequate to good depending on the track, but again I wish a little more bass impact.[/size]

 

[Iostream]

Quote:

 
[size=medium]My biggest (intermittent) issue has been that I have found these cans fatiguing at times. Maybe it is that they need break-in, which I certainly have not done. I have read all about the extensive burn-in necessary but was somewhat skeptical that several hundred hours would be required.  I have only the 15 or so hours of listening time. For practical reasons I cannot leave these burning in while I am away from home or overnight.  The fatigue mostly seems to be coming from certain female vocals and horn instruments like saxophone and trumpet when played in higher registers.  Any thoughts on this?  Is this a burn-in issue or are these just bright cans that I will need to adjust to or move on from.  For the record, I am playing ALAC lossless files from my Sonos to my Marantz AVR to the AKGs.[/size]
 

This is absolutely a burn in issue. As I have said before, I wasn't too sure when I got my K701s 6 years ago. But getting the Qs recently and being able to directly compare to the Ks on the same equipment, the Qs hurt my ears... It wasn't just fatigue, it was unlistenable. After 72 hours of burn in, the problem was gone, and they suddenly sound like the Ks I have known and love.  I did the burn in over the weekend while I was not listening to them at all, when I came back to them, they sounded great. The difference was dramatic.  a Little bit in the bass, a lot on the treble.  I would highly recommend finding something to plug them into to burn in if you get a chance.  If not, it will get better.  It isn't you changing, it's the Q701s. 

 

[NimbleTurtle]

Quote:

This is absolutely a burn in issue. As I have said before, I wasn't too sure when I got my K701s 6 years ago. But getting the Qs recently and being able to directly compare to the Ks on the same equipment, the Qs hurt my ears... It wasn't just fatigue, it was unlistenable. After 72 hours of burn in, the problem was gone, and they suddenly sound like the Ks I have known and love.  I did the burn in over the weekend while I was not listening to them at all, when I came back to them, they sounded great. The difference was dramatic.  a Little bit in the bass, a lot on the treble.  I would highly recommend finding something to plug them into to burn in if you get a chance.  If not, it will get better.  It isn't you changing, it's the Q701s. 

While I do agree the burn-in affects the sound somewhat, the 701 series do have very unnatural peaks in the treble region. There is no doubt this is bad for your ears, and it's the primary reason why these cans seem detailed, when in actuality, they're revealing things that should have been more obscure to the listener. Burn-in probably won't be a huge factor in how fatiguing the cans are, although your brain will most likely adapt easily to the trebles. These cans are great for classical/ jazz/ acoustics/ ambient music but if I were listening to say, an organ trio sonata from Bach, their treble becomes overly prominent. 
 
I'm curious what your impressions of the Q701 and K701 are. 

 

[lejaz]

Quote:

While I do agree the burn-in affects the sound somewhat, the 701 series do have very unnatural peaks in the treble region. There is no doubt this is bad for your ears, and it's the primary reason why these cans seem detailed, when in actuality, they're revealing things that should have been more obscure to the listener. Burn-in probably won't be a huge factor in how fatiguing the cans are, although your brain will most likely adapt easily to the trebles. These cans are great for classical/ jazz/ acoustics/ ambient music but if I were listening to say, an organ trio sonata from Bach, their treble becomes overly prominent. 
 
I'm curious what your impressions of the Q701 and K701 are. 

I agree. Even after much burn in the treble is quite 'hot' in my set....though I have the 'k' version. It's probably a matter of subjective taste, whether it's bothersome or not. Personally speaking, I don't like to have cymbals so prominent in the mix as what I hear with those phones. It's not what I'm used to hearing at a live jazz or rock performance, that's for sure. And high pitched trumpets sound very piercing and fatiguing with the 'k' version. I'm assuming it's not what the producer intended since when I do a sine wave sweep there's a noticeable peak in the treble around 8-9khz.

 

[tdockweiler]

I don't find the Q701 to have any un-natural peaks in the treble at all.
It's usually the recordings fault fro the fatigue or an amp or dac issue such as bad synergy or something else. If the amp is fairly colored (they rarely are) itself or has weird peaks, then it could possibly cause issues.
For example, my old Asgard made the K601 very fatiguing and more so than it should be. My HRT MSII can make the mids of my Q701 with bad recordings even MORE annoying.
 
I just got the ODAC for the Q701 and I'm surprised it didn't make bad recordings that much worse really. I still find them bad, but not any worse on the ears. The E10 does seem to take the edge off them slightly.
 
I can take the same recording and it's also nearly as bad on the HD-580 or DJ100.
 
There was some weird peak in the K702 that bothered my ears, but it was gone with the Q701.
 
I burned in my K702 once for 200 hours, but didn't hear any difference. I'm sure it exists, but my Q701 sounded perfect right out of the box.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

There was some weird peak in the K702 that bothered my ears, but it was gone with the Q701.

I burned in my K702 once for 200 hours, but didn't hear any difference. I'm sure it exists, but my Q701 sounded perfect right out of the box.

That's how I felt with the K701 vs Q701. The K701 has a glaring upper mids peak that is pretty fatiguing to me, and I don't usually get fatigued by anything but overly boomy bass. The Q701 was lovely from the first moment all the way until I gave them up. They were almost perfect.

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

I just got the ODAC for the Q701 and I'm surprised it didn't make bad recordings that much worse really. I still find them bad, but not any worse on the ears. The E10 does seem to take the edge off them slightly.
 

 
 
You have the ODAC now tdock?  No hurry of course, but after a while please post some impressions vs the E10/HRT MS II.

 

[NimbleTurtle]

Quote:

I agree. Even after much burn in the treble is quite 'hot' in my set....though I have the 'k' version. It's probably a matter of subjective taste, whether it's bothersome or not. Personally speaking, I don't like to have cymbals so prominent in the mix as what I hear with those phones. It's not what I'm used to hearing at a live jazz or rock performance, that's for sure. And high pitched trumpets sound very piercing and fatiguing with the 'k' version. I'm assuming it's not what the producer intended since when I do a sine wave sweep there's a noticeable peak in the treble around 8-9khz.

Agreed. People who aren't bothered by the treble have little experience with live performances, which is why they have little experience judging timbre and tonality, or even soundstage/imaging for that matter. The Q701, to put it lightly, doesn't do well in these aspects which is why I've considered them unnatural sounding cans. But damn you have to admire what AKG did with the sheer build quality of these phones. The build on these are much more impressive than any Sennheiser can - except perhaps the HD700/800 - and most other cans as well. When it comes to the build alone, the cans are well worth the money, though they need to update that headband. 

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

Agreed. People who aren't bothered by the treble have little experience with live performances, which is why they have little experience judging timbre and tonality, or even soundstage/imaging for that matter. The Q701, to put it lightly, doesn't do well in these aspects which is why I've considered them unnatural sounding cans.

 
 
I'm not bothered by its treble, and guess what:  I love going to symphonies (although I don't do it as often as I'd like) and I have even played some piano concertos with a symphony myself, so I have some experience judging timbre, tonality, blah, blah, etc.
 
I've heard many less natural sounding cans then Q701s.  The treble on the AD700, KSC75, and DT990 all sounds less accurate and more bothersome, to name a few.
 
 
Try some 600 ohm DT990s and then tell me how bothersome the Q701 treble is

 
- As usual, let me add that not everyone's hearing is the same

so the Q701 could very well sound like garbage to you.  Just don't assume that the people who aren't bothered by them must lack the experience to know any better. 

 

[audiophoolz]

Quote:

Agreed. People who aren't bothered by the treble have little experience with live performances, which is why they have little experience judging timbre and tonality, or even soundstage/imaging for that matter. The Q701, to put it lightly, doesn't do well in these aspects which is why I've considered them unnatural sounding cans. But damn you have to admire what AKG did with the sheer build quality of these phones. The build on these are much more impressive than any Sennheiser can - except perhaps the HD700/800 - and most other cans as well. When it comes to the build alone, the cans are well worth the money, though they need to update that headband. 

As was stated earlier, everyone's ears are different. Each individual has a unique HRTF and hears things differently. I have tons of experience with live performances (rock/classical/opera/etc) and I am aware of how they sound live. The AKG Q701 does not have any treble peak nor any upper midrange spike to my ears, even when playing with a sine wave sweep, I notice nothing oddly sticking out. If I had to criticize it on tonal balance, I would wish there was more bass weight. The Q701 is the possibly the most neutral and natural full sized headphone I have ever heard and I have heard the HD600, HD650, DT880, HD800, T1.

http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2931&graphID[]=743

Why don't I see people complaining of the upper midrange / lower treble emphasis of the ER4S? Because it's engineered that way.

 

 

[lejaz]

Quote:

Agreed. People who aren't bothered by the treble have little experience with live performances, which is why they have little experience judging timbre and tonality, or even soundstage/imaging for that matter. The Q701, to put it lightly, doesn't do well in these aspects which is why I've considered them unnatural sounding cans. But damn you have to admire what AKG did with the sheer build quality of these phones. The build on these are much more impressive than any Sennheiser can - except perhaps the HD700/800 - and most other cans as well. When it comes to the build alone, the cans are well worth the money, though they need to update that headband. 

I played in jazz bands and orchestras throughout high school and the way the 'k' version does brass sections is often very different from what I heard live. I'm referring to the midrange, not the treble. Was it one of your posts that mentioned a problem with the way they do the cello? It's the same problem I'm hearing with the mids with some brass instruments. I have other phones that do brass sections better....k240DF and hd580, to name two that get it right.....to my ears anyway. But other folks hear the 70X as natural, so we should agree to disagree. It's an interesting exercise to listen to the same horn section part with the hd580 and then with the k702.....you get a totally different presentation. It's quite possible someone could enjoy both, or even prefer the akg's I'm sure. I've never heard the 'Q' version.

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

 
 
You have the ODAC now tdock?  No hurry of course, but after a while please post some impressions vs the E10/HRT MS II.

 
Yep, but the first two days have been a major annoyance and pain. I'll try to keep this short, since I go overboard in my posts a lot.
First, my ODAC could not sound normal straight from my rear usb ports on my desktop. The ODAC was giving me majorly harsh treble. I was forced to use a usb powered hub.
It's even more picky than my HRT MSII which can't be used with my laptop.
 
Then when I was troubleshooting all this I connected my amp straight to the wall. I've found that this also degraded the sound I was getting too because I live in a really old house. My amp seems to sound slightly better with a surge protector with filtering etc.
Probably my imagination, but I don't care.
 
The ODAC turns the Q701 into some major detail monster. You think the HRT MSII is detailed? Wait until you try the ODAC. You know how with the DT-880 you can go from having songs sounds horrible to good despite them all being FLAC? Well, that's what I get with the ODAC, Micro Amp + q701. Song quality varies so much more with the ODAC compared to the HRT MSII. The MSII is fairly revealing, but not overkill. I'd say it's perhaps just slightly leaning towards being "musical" which is good.
 
Since owning the Q701 I never felt it was so detailed and revealing that i'd have to weed out my garbage tracks like I had to with my DT-880. I definitely do think I can now! There's even some FLAC files I have that sound like 128kbps files.
 
Based on memory, the HRT MSII gives the Q701 even fuller mids and a TINY bit of extra warmth. Not much. The Q701 is still warm and full sounding on any normal source/amp. It's treble never bothers me on my other setup. Of course as you know, the HRT MSII won't turn the Q701 into an HD-650

 
I'd say the soundstage is slightly larger, but the mids are weird. This thing is so revealing of the song that you feel like you're analyzing the recording studio's gear. The mids depending on the song can go from sounding nice and warm/full sounding to being really thin and annoying. It's 100% the recording.
 
For example, listen to Eddie Vedder's "Rise" (ukulele music). With the ODAC it sounds really, really bad. Thin and lifeless sounding and not fun to listen to. The E10 makes the mids (and vocals) sound a lot fuller and a little more fun to listen to. It's hard to say what it's supposed to REALLY sound like. It's not the headphone. There's so many recordings where it's almost as if my Q701 feels like it's transformed into an HD-600 or something. Never experienced this sort of thing before ever. There's a few Pearl Jam songs that are very warm sounding on the Q701. The "Buena Vista Social Club" CD is one that sounds great on the Q701 and never sounds too thin or lacking in any area.
 
The treble on the ODAC is definitely more extended and present. The ODAC won't smooth over any bad recordings (with harsh treble) and make it easier on the ears like the E10 does somewhat (for me). So yeah, the E10 and HRT MSII definitely have fuller mids than the ODAC. With the ODAC I think it's just trying to sound as accurate as possible with nothing added to make it sound better than it really is. The MSII seems like it has more forward sounding mids than the E10 (definitely more than the ODAC!), but I haven't compared them yet. The treble of the ODAC doesn't make garbage tracks sound really that much more fatiguing or worse. Maybe a tad on those where it sounds like the treble is cranked to max at the studio.
 
What's strange is that the HRT MSII seems like it has more treble than the E10 by far. The E10 doesn't sound like it lacks that much treble, but it's not a good match at all for my HD-598 and DJ100. The ODAC makes the HRT MSII and E10 seem almost dark. I don't think the MSII is exactly dark, just in comparison to the ODAC maybe.
 
I don't know if the ODAC would be a good match for those with just AKG type headphones. It seems to make them even MORE analytical, detailed and revealing. My impression of the ODAC is that it makes the Q701 almost sound like it has a silver plated copper cable attached. Just so much thinner sounding, but improvements in every area. Now for those that don't believe in slight differences in cables (in this case it's probably just due to capacitance)...I won't go there. I hate the Q701 with SXC.
 
ODAC and Q701 with a SXC cable would suck the life out of the Q701 I think. Probably nice for a studio.
 
One thing i've noticed lately is that my amp doesn't seem to be adding any coloration at all to my headphones. It seems that it's pretty transparent (more so than I thought) and you can quite easily "hear" what's connected to it. What's interesting is that with my E9 I have a harder time hearing the differences of what's connected. Not sure why. Tomorrow i'll try the ODAC with the E9. That might be a bit weird. I always felt like when I connected my HRT MSII to my E9 I wasn't hearing all the benefits of the DAC somehow. I know this makes no sense. Maybe some amps are less revealing of what's connected to them. Who knows. Maybe the Micro Amp is as transparent as the O2. Highly unlikely, but it's possible. For a year i've kept trying to describe the signature of my amp, but it's impossible. I can describe it completely different with whatever I connect to it

 
So far the best headphone for the ODAC has been the HD-580, followed by the DJ100. None of my headphones have really had their signature changed. The Q701 only sounds slightly different because i'm coming from the HRT MSII.

 

[lejaz]

Interesting comments on the ODAC, tdockweiler. Sounds like it's following the same philosophy as the O2 amp.....as neutral as possible....no added color. I recall reading the the  e10 is a bit 'dark before.  I'd like to hear the ODAC with the O2 and my dt48....that might be a match made in heaven.