JaZZ
Headphoneus Supremus
.
.
I thought it is a good idea to revive a closed thread to offer another view on and my own experience with the K 701.
Quote:
I own all three, and that's certainly true.
Quote:
The two Senns have the higher efficiency, but the AKG's much lower impedance (62 ohms, compared to ~350 ohms) makes up for that, so it should offer about the same or slightly higher sensitivity on an amp with 0-ohm output. The volume-level behavior described by vai-777 is a clear indication for high amplifier output impedance. Which is a bad precondition for most headphones and a particularly severe handicap for low-impedance cans (such as the K 701).
Quote:
That's possibly a consequence of the inappropriate amplification. In my setup (and to my ears) the K 701 has the highest detail and resolution of the trio.
Quote:
To my ears the K 701 is a soundstage master. It's still close to the HD 650, though, but in favor of the AKG.
Quote:
I can't reproduce this in my setup. After all the K 701 has the least pronounced midrange of the three cans, and maybe I'd agree that there's a slight midrange deficit -- although nothing that synergetic components couldn't passably compensate for.
Quote:
Hard to judge. The attribute «fast» is often used in a misleading way. In most cases the brighter, treble-friendlier headphone is rated faster (e.g. a typical Grado), not the one with the greater high-frequency extension (which I would absolutely rate as a virtue, despite the CD's 21-kHz limitation) enabling faster transient response. In the case at hand, all three headphones have very similar HF extension. However, also to my ears the K 701 seems to follow the signal a little faster than the Senns. This may nevertheless primarily be a matter of sonic balance and (thus) to some degree system dependent.
Quote:
I do understand this qualification. The K 701 seems to need rather warm and full sounding equipment to not sound too lean and bass-shy (up to sterile). And above all it needs at least 300 hours of break-in as well as a wearing-in of its earpads -- to allow the drivers to be placed closer to the ears, which leads to a somewhat fuller sound.
Quote:
This phenomenon is explained above. The different impedance makes the difference: a high-impedance headphone is less susceptible to high output (= serial) impedances than a low-impedance headphone.
Quote:
You don't seem to have appropriate equipment to get a fair image of these three headphones and their capabilities. But even under more ideal conditions there's some likelihood that you'd find the K 701 bass-light, at least in comparison to the Senns. Different people need different headphone characteristics for musical enjoyment and/or the impression of a fairly realistic reproduction. Some need more bass, some need more mids, some need more treble than others. There's no sense in trying to disqualify a specific properly designed headphone after a first personal disappointment, the less so if it has a strong following in a specialized forum with many experienced people. BTW, the K 701 is far from being overhyped these days, so nobody is to blame for false expectations.
Everybody's ears and tastes are different.
Although the K 701 is my currently preferred headphone, I can detect a certain sensitivity to component characteristics and even recordings. So I have to take special care to interconnect synergy. And of course it isn't perfect by no means. It's just a relatively neutral and accurate headphone with little tendency to euphony (less than most other headphones I know), which may be a let-down to many headphone fans, but an advantage to others -- provided that they have matching ears and equipment.
.
.
I thought it is a good idea to revive a closed thread to offer another view on and my own experience with the K 701.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by vai-777 What's the HYPE with the AKG 701?[/b] I have a pair and have done some extensive A/B tests between the SENN HD 600 and SENN HD650 and find the AKGs to be... 1. The brightest of the bunch (those who think that the 701 and HD600 are close they arent!). |
I own all three, and that's certainly true.
Quote:
| 2. Must turn volume WAY up to get to the same sound levels as the SENNS (I used a SPL from radio shack). |
The two Senns have the higher efficiency, but the AKG's much lower impedance (62 ohms, compared to ~350 ohms) makes up for that, so it should offer about the same or slightly higher sensitivity on an amp with 0-ohm output. The volume-level behavior described by vai-777 is a clear indication for high amplifier output impedance. Which is a bad precondition for most headphones and a particularly severe handicap for low-impedance cans (such as the K 701).
Quote:
| 3. They don't have the detail that the SENNs do, not even in the higher frequencies. |
That's possibly a consequence of the inappropriate amplification. In my setup (and to my ears) the K 701 has the highest detail and resolution of the trio.
Quote:
| 4. The soundstage is close but not quite there. |
To my ears the K 701 is a soundstage master. It's still close to the HD 650, though, but in favor of the AKG.
Quote:
| 5. MIDRANGE DOES NOT EXIST (put on a copy of HYSTERIA and see (hear) what I'm talking about). |
I can't reproduce this in my setup. After all the K 701 has the least pronounced midrange of the three cans, and maybe I'd agree that there's a slight midrange deficit -- although nothing that synergetic components couldn't passably compensate for.
Quote:
| 6. They are FASTER than the SENNS. |
Hard to judge. The attribute «fast» is often used in a misleading way. In most cases the brighter, treble-friendlier headphone is rated faster (e.g. a typical Grado), not the one with the greater high-frequency extension (which I would absolutely rate as a virtue, despite the CD's 21-kHz limitation) enabling faster transient response. In the case at hand, all three headphones have very similar HF extension. However, also to my ears the K 701 seems to follow the signal a little faster than the Senns. This may nevertheless primarily be a matter of sonic balance and (thus) to some degree system dependent.
Quote:
| 8. UNINVOLVING. |
I do understand this qualification. The K 701 seems to need rather warm and full sounding equipment to not sound too lean and bass-shy (up to sterile). And above all it needs at least 300 hours of break-in as well as a wearing-in of its earpads -- to allow the drivers to be placed closer to the ears, which leads to a somewhat fuller sound.
Quote:
| So I have heard about the burn stuff 300 hours or so they say. And all the talk about them needing a proper amp (HEED). However I don't understand why I can plug in my SENNS (300 ohm) into the HEADPHONE jack of my MARANTZ 5001CDP (no I don't have an amp yet) and they sound great, but the AKG 701s sound awful? |
This phenomenon is explained above. The different impedance makes the difference: a high-impedance headphone is less susceptible to high output (= serial) impedances than a low-impedance headphone.
Quote:
| Also do the AKG 701s even have BASS or is the set I have defective? I thought the SENN 600s were a little light/neutral on BASS, but the AKG bass seems to be non existant (this coming from someone who doesn't like too much BASS to begin with). |
You don't seem to have appropriate equipment to get a fair image of these three headphones and their capabilities. But even under more ideal conditions there's some likelihood that you'd find the K 701 bass-light, at least in comparison to the Senns. Different people need different headphone characteristics for musical enjoyment and/or the impression of a fairly realistic reproduction. Some need more bass, some need more mids, some need more treble than others. There's no sense in trying to disqualify a specific properly designed headphone after a first personal disappointment, the less so if it has a strong following in a specialized forum with many experienced people. BTW, the K 701 is far from being overhyped these days, so nobody is to blame for false expectations.
Everybody's ears and tastes are different.
Although the K 701 is my currently preferred headphone, I can detect a certain sensitivity to component characteristics and even recordings. So I have to take special care to interconnect synergy. And of course it isn't perfect by no means. It's just a relatively neutral and accurate headphone with little tendency to euphony (less than most other headphones I know), which may be a let-down to many headphone fans, but an advantage to others -- provided that they have matching ears and equipment.
.
