[donthuang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...Have those who own/love AKG K701/2 heard and rejected the Sony SA5000?

I do, IMO SA5000 is a overrate headphone, narrow frequency and directivity
, poor dynamic range、rather bad driver-force/sound pressure linarity.

120Khz? even ion tweteer can't got enough soundpressure, just sony's marking language.

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donthuang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do, IMO SA5000 is a overrate headphone, narrow frequency and directivity , poor dynamic range、rather bad driver-force/sound pressure linarity. 120Khz? even ion tweteer can't got enough soundpressure, just sony's marking language.

I'm sure a lot of it is down to marketing. Although despite being limited to roughly 20 Hz - 20 kHz I've noticed the brighter phones are always much higher in Khz and the bassier headphones are much lower in Hz, some claiming 4-6 Hz.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you want balanced then K701 is the way to go.

K-702 Balanced, here more info: AKG Headphones

 

[DavidMahler]

I don't LOVE the K701s. I think the HD600 are a much better buy at the same price point. To me the HD600 are sonically almost as good as the HD800, better than the HD650, and even on par with the R10s......no they're not as good, but we're talking about maybe the HD800 and R10s being in the range of 10 to 20% better (in my opinion)

I think however, if someone is looking for a extremely neutral headphone the K701 are still recommendable. They lack some essence in the bass and a ton of transparency in the region above 2Khz. But they have a more than adequate representation of what a flat frequency response should be. The midrange is above standard. The way the headphone handles certain aspects of bass and treble is subpar. I think for it's price point it is still one of the best headphones, but it should NEVER be your only headphone because it does not handle a broad spectrum of music as well as some other cheaper headphones can. When the K701 is good, it's very good, and when it's bad it's about as uninvolving as a bad 20 dollar pair of headphones.

I think if someone had 500 bucks to spend and already owned a decent amp.....purchasing the HD600 and K701 would be a great idea. They are very different. I think my enjoyment of the K701 was diminished even moreso when the HD800 were released because although I never truly understood the obsessive comparisons of the HD800 and K701, it did however take the basic benefit of the K701 (the large soundstage and good imaging) and leave the K701 in the dust with regards to every sonic aspect.

I'd be curious to hear the K701 balanced on my new rig, but again I don't think it will ever compare overall to the HD600, not to mention the other headphones in this post.

 

[spartan123]

Yes, the SA5K IMHO needs a tube amp to tame it a bit. With that being said... I can also deal with it also on SS with crossover. I own a lot of cans and honestly the SA5K to me is one of the most underrated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have no tube amps :/, but then wouldn't that remedy the SA5K too?

 

[Skylab]

The DT880 are also terrific balanced

I think there are things that the K701 did better than the DT880. And some things the DT880 did better. And there are some ways the HD600 are better, and some ways in which those other two beat the HD600. They are all flawed, and they all have their strengths. This should not come as a shock. What matters in the final analysis is only what an individual listener thinks of the total sum result of any given pair, within the context of his or her system.

Just sayin' - there are no universal absolutes when it comes to headphone preference. And as such, while recommending one's favorite is very natural, I find the concept of continually trying to claim some sort of objective supremacy and trying to "convert" people to be over the top. This is just as true for K701 owners as it is for HD800 owners.

 

[donunus]

ʌʌ AMEN...x2 on that

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just sayin' - there are no universal absolutes when it comes to headphone preference. And as such, while recommending one's favorite is very natural, I find the concept of continually trying to claim some sort of objective supremacy and trying to "convert" people to be over the top. This is just as true for K701 owners as it is for HD800 owners.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donthuang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do, IMO SA5000 is a overrate headphone, narrow frequency and directivity , poor dynamic range、rather bad driver-force/sound pressure linarity. 120Khz? even ion tweteer can't got enough soundpressure, just sony's marking language.

I can see how you don't like the headphone, but poor dynamic range? they have like the craziest frequency response and boatloads of prat. They are bright, but a good amp does bring out much more bass. It is still very very tight bass though. Detail is much better than K70X too, especially tone.

Feed it some high quality tunes with good drumming, like Tool and you will start to see its strengths.

TBH I agree with it being underrated, not overrated... you see few people singing the cans technical and sonic merits.

It is also the best built headphone I have every seen. Proof that a good headphone can be made out of high quality parts and not weight much.


All Sony would need to do is release a new headphone with similar drivers, that have all that speed and detail + clarity, take away the heavy bass roll off, tame the highs slightly... and you have the best dynamic headphone

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can see how you don't like the headphone, but poor dynamic range? they have like the craziest frequency response and boatloads of prat. They are bright, but a good amp does bring out much more bass. It is still very very tight bass though. Detail is much better than K70X too, especially tone. Feed it some high quality tunes with good drumming, like Tool and you will start to see its strengths. TBH I agree with it being underrated, not overrated... you see few people singing the cans technical and sonic merits. It is also the best built headphone I have every seen. Proof that a good headphone can be made out of high quality parts and not weight much. All Sony would need to do is release a new headphone with similar drivers, that have all that speed and detail + clarity, take away the heavy bass roll off, tame the highs slightly... and you have the best dynamic headphone

I regret selling my SA5000.. They are very under appreciated.. Technical merit means little here.. There durability is no where near that of the DT48..But the comfort level is much, much better on the SA5000.. I only sold my SA5000 cause my DT48 is faster, more detailed, resolving, with better clarity & mid range.. But the SA5000 still has a advantage over the DT48 in certain areas, that the DT48 can't compensate for.. There for, I regret selling mine.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif But the K70X is not overly musical... My W1000X is more detailed, fairly close in soundstage but more wholesome and images a world better, and waaaay more musical.... That super huge soundstage is not musical IMO

So what exactly do you mean by "detailed" and "musical" or lack of same?

I see those two words bandied about so often here, but just words, no foundation or description to support them.

Most of the time (around here), detailed means bright and musical means colored. Yecch!

 

[greenstuffs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif So what exactly do you mean by "detailed" and "musical" or lack of same? I see those two words bandied about so often here, but just words, no foundation or description to support them. Most of the time (around here), detailed means bright and musical means colored. Yecch!

The problem is that there isn't a standard set of words that people use to describe the characteristics of the music. More often than not the best audiophile on the internet is the one that writes the best.
I really don't care what my someone else has to say but look at the overall picture of the headphone other than that it is like chasing a wild goose when you get into the minute details.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenstuffs /img/forum/go_quote.gif The problem is that there isn't a standard set of words that people use to describe the characteristics of the music. More often than not the best audiophile on the internet is the one that writes the best. I really don't care what my someone else has to say but look at the overall picture of the headphone other than that it is like chasing a wild goose when you get into the minute details.

The http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/des...ossary-220770/ can help to describe the characteristics of hps.

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif So what exactly do you mean by "detailed" and "musical" or lack of same? I see those two words bandied about so often here, but just words, no foundation or description to support them. Most of the time (around here), detailed means bright and musical means colored. Yecch!

My take on some of the phones mentioned here and a few others with, hopefully, enough description to communicate the essentials:

I would say that the DT-48 is detailed, but not bright at all, actually a bit dark. Restricted bandwidth, but beguiling and natural. In head but intimate presentation. Brick s-house build.

The HD-800 is detailed and a bit bright, but most of it's detail is not a result of its slight brightness, maybe resolving would be a better word in this case? Wideband, magisterial but sometimes a bit aloof. Close to real sounding on good live classical recordings.

The AKG 701 is an excellent phone in many ways, but let down by a certain characteristic in the lower treble that adds a texture to tenor voice. I think I am more sensitive than others to this (on the other hand I am less critical about bass than most, I suspect). Otherwise good across the board. Not for bassheads.

I don't have enough experience with the SA5K as I would like yet, but so far, I think it is fairly detailed, but seems more detailed than it really is from it's bright, somewhat light sound. But the mids are very clear and on some music, the phone can sound quite exciting. For some reason, rock drums sound great. Maybe the bass will work in...

The Ultrasone 750 strikes me as just OK with a rough treble. Many like this phone, I just don't get on with it and always want to move on to another.

Then there's the Sony PFR-V1. It's strange construction makes proper fitting tough, as you move the elements around, the tonal balance changes but unfortunately, there are no comprehensive adjustments. It can sound good, but variable. Airy image, however, as you would expect from the oper air arrangements of the drivers. Not for a bass freak for sure. Overall, I am not sure just what to make of it. Hard to drive, sounds terrible without an amp. Someday I will sit down for extended sessions with it. Certainly, a facinating idea.

AKG K-1000 is on the way according to UPS...

Kevin

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif My take on some of the phones mentioned here and a few others with, hopefully, enough description to communicate the essentials: I would say that the DT-48 is detailed, but not bright at all, actually a bit dark. Restricted bandwidth, but beguiling and natural. In head but intimate presentation. Brick s-house build. The HD-800 is detailed and a bit bright, but most of it's detail is not a result of its slight brightness, maybe resolving would be a better word in this case? Wideband, magisterial but sometimes a bit aloof. Close to real sounding on good live classical recordings. The AKG 701 is an excellent phone in many ways, but let down by a certain characteristic in the lower treble that adds a texture to tenor voice. I think I am more sensitive than others to this (on the other hand I am less critical about bass than most, I suspect). Otherwise good across the board. Not for bassheads. I don't have enough experience with the SA5K as I would like yet, but so far, I think it is fairly detailed, but seems more detailed than it really is from it's bright, somewhat light sound. But the mids are very clear and on some music, the phone can sound quite exciting. For some reason, rock drums sound great. Maybe the bass will work in... The Ultrasone 750 strikes me as just OK with a rough treble. Many like this phone, I just don't get on with it and always want to move on to another. Then there's the Sony PFR-V1. It's strange construction makes proper fitting tough, as you move the elements around, the tonal balance changes but unfortunately, there are no comprehensive adjustments. It can sound good, but variable. Airy image, however, as you would expect from the oper air arrangements of the drivers. Not for a bass freak for sure. Overall, I am not sure just what to make of it. Hard to drive, sounds terrible without an amp. Someday I will sit down for extended sessions with it. Certainly, a facinating idea. AKG K-1000 is on the way according to UPS... Kevin

Great right up.. Yes, the SA5000 does rock drums the best I heard.. Bettering my 2 favorite headphones by a good margin in that area, the DT48 & K1000.. Too me the SA5000 is soooooooooooooooo accurate in terms of rock drums.. Uh, oh.. I said accurate..

I still don't get how the DT48 can be so detailed & resolving when they have no extended highs, are non bright, & lack treble emphasis.