[scruffsaudio]

I'd like to chime in on some of the stuff discussed in this thread. I own the Q701s and have owned the 880s.
 
In my opinion yes, the Q701s are shy in the lowest register (I feel they're good down to ~110-100 hz), but they're not as weak as some folks are suggesting.
 
2 things -- the 701s are very well defined and controlled in the lows despite the tapering off they suffer from. This may be a contributing factor to the fact that people are so far apart in their opinions of the performance. A low end that is well-defined although quiet, may actually sound more impressive to some listeners than say, a really big & full low end that lacks much resolution or dynamic range. This is not to say the two are mutually exclusive. It just happens that a lot of headphones in the 150-350 dollar range get it one way or the other, or that the cans that do strike a perfect low-end balance suffer from other quirks/shortcomings.
 
The other thing - as has been said a lot on the net, 701s take like a zillion hours to break in. And all that basically happens in the break in period is the bass wakes up some. At least that's how I perceived it. I bought my pair without having ever heard any of the AKG 60X/70X models, and I was considering sending them back after the first week... thankfully after like a month or more, they strengthened up.
 
All in all I think 701s are deservedly polarizing. You should buy them only if you're specifically looking for the qualities where they shine, which are dynamic response, stereo depth, super-fine resolution, and a mostly unaffected spectrum from the low mids to the top. I mix audio for a living so I really appreciate those qualities for helping me... but IMO they're not the most fun pair in the world if you don't require/desire the precision.

 

[Alondite]

I don't know why everyone keeps talking about the low end...I've singled out the AD900 and Q701 because they are lighter in the low end. I'm more of a treble guy myself; bass is hardly important. If I can hear it, if it's quick and controlled with a bit of punch then it's good enough for me. And as long as they are on par with my GR07s overall I'll be content.

Burn in isn't an issue either. The GR07s take forever to burn in too.

And I don't understand where this concept of  "fun" headphones comes in? What does that even mean? I see anything that's not accurate and precise as being colored and just flat out wrong. I want to hear the music, not the headphones' interpretation of the music.

 

[SKULL]

I recently bought the Q701 and it really impressed me. It does not have a lot of bass but with proper amp and source it will make you happy  

 

[scruffsaudio]

Quote:

I don't know why everyone keeps talking about the low end...I've singled out the AD900 and Q701 because they are lighter in the low end. I'm more of a treble guy myself; bass is hardly important. If I can hear it, if it's quick and controlled with a bit of punch then it's good enough for me. And as long as they are on par with my GR07s overall I'll be content.

Burn in isn't an issue either. The GR07s take forever to burn in too.

And I don't understand where this concept of  "fun" headphones comes in? What does that even mean? I see anything that's not accurate and precise as being colored and just flat out wrong. I want to hear the music, not the headphones' interpretation of the music.

1) Yeah the Q701s are perfect for you then.
 
2)
 
3) "Fun" ... to me that's a set of cans or speakers that aren't aggressive in frequencies where I'm overly sensitive. Obviously this paints me into declaring the cliche but true "fun is different for everyone." Ugh.
 
Seriously though, I often fall right in line with your "if it's colored it's wrong and wrong is so never right" way of looking at phones. But sometimes I'm less concerned with accuracy and would like to listen to my favorite music or a specific song with some artificial enhancements, so long as the enhancements actually enhance. I suppose for some listeners the concept of 'enhancement' immediately disables the possibility of any enhancement taking place. In other words the existence of the attempt makes the intended result utterly impossible.
 
Wait... what?
 
 

 

[Alondite]

Well, since everybody has been talking about the bass, I guess I'll ask a question:

Are they lacking bass, or do they have accurate bass?

 

[ZenErik]

I'd say the Q701s have accurate bass. It's just right to my ears. Can't speak for the AD900s as I have never used them.

 

[Alondite]

So from what I've gathered through first-hand accounts and measurements, the Q701 are objectively better headphones. I guess my last question is: What will sound better coming out of a portable player and an E11?

 

[Jodiuh]

Quote:

Q701's...I mix audio for a living so I really appreciate those qualities for helping me... but IMO they're not the most fun pair in the world if you don't require/desire the precision.

For some time now, I've had only the HD580's and DT770 250's. Source is Asus Xonar DX and amp's a Little Dot MKIII. But recently, I got some KRK Rokit RP6G2 studio speakers and go for them every time, lest it's 1:30AM, haha! I don't know if it's because they're better overall w/ regard to sound quality or if it's because they sound more accurate/precise to my ears. But I much prefer them. Is this the way the Q701's sound? Fry's has them, so I can try them out pretty easily.
 
Quote:

And I don't understand where this concept of  "fun" headphones comes in? What does that even mean? I see anything that's not accurate and precise as being colored and just flat out wrong. I want to hear the music, not the headphones' interpretation of the music.

 
I'm in agreement w/ this. Fun for me is analytical! My HD580's just sound...off compared to the KRK's.

 

[korky]

I dont mean too thread hijack but i had a question about the q701s that i thought could be answered here too! (and might help the OP in their decision).
 
I will be using a essence stx for the source, would that make a good match for the q701s? I understand that the essence stx  really shines on higher Ohm dependent headphones, but the q701s are mid range in terms of Ohms. (i think it was around 60 or 70 of the top of my head). So in the end would they make a good match or should i consider different headphones?
 
Thanks

 

[Alondite]

Well I ended up getting the AD900s for now. They just suited my budget better because I didn't need to buy a new amp. I don't find the bass lacking at all. It's light, but it's still there and is tight and well-textured. Mid-range is clearly the focal point, and it is beautiful. They can be a bit bright on some recordings, but generally the treble is nice and smooth. soundstage is pretty good, very open and spacious. This is where I have the issue though, the imaging is not as great as it could be, and I believe that's because of the slower treble. The attack is nice and quick, but they seem to ring too much and it smears the image a bit. 

I am, however, now looking into getting a pair of Q701s...but I've come to another roadblock. That is: Do I want the Q701, or the K702? I've heard from some people that they sound identical, others say that the Q701 has more bass presence and smoother treble, and others than the K702 is more transparent and technically accurate. Can anybody shed some light on this for me? Also will a Fiio E17 at least adequately drive them? I intend to get a Matrix M-Stage eventually, but the Fiio fits my budget better right now.

Thanks again.

 

[Stonez]

My father in law has a pair of AKG Q701's that I've listened to for upwards of 20hrs.  Not a great deal of time but enough to know that these cans definitely have bass presence but it's not up front, bloaty or muddy, just very accurate and most probably anemic to those who are are wanting a warmer, less analytical sound.  He drives his from an old Marantz amp, but I tried mine with my notebook and iPod through an E17 and they sounded absolutely wonderful, with the bass becoming more punchy and the sound stage fuller than direct from the earphone jack.  Driving  them is a definite recommendation!  With my E17 they blew the pants off both my AD700's and my HD25's.
 
If the AD700's can be driven to sound like 900's then I'd go for the Q701's without a second thought IMHO.

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

I am, however, now looking into getting a pair of Q701s...but I've come to another roadblock. That is: Do I want the Q701, or the K702? I've heard from some people that they sound identical, others say that the Q701 has more bass presence and smoother treble, and others than the K702 is more transparent and technically accurate. Can anybody shed some light on this for me? Also will a Fiio E17 at least adequately drive them? I intend to get a Matrix M-Stage eventually, but the Fiio fits my budget better right now.

Thanks again.

 
I wouldn't say the K702 is more transparent and technically accurate.  Instead I would say one is slightly warmer and one is slightly colder.  I prefer the Q701 because I find it to be just right on warmth whereas the K702, while still good, is a little thinner sounding (and too thin for some).  The Q701 to me sounds more natural and does everything the K702 does, but with a better sounding balance. 
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/594927/akg-q701-vs-akg-k702-comparison-review

 

[Alondite]

I really wish I could get a chance to audition them both. I'm sure I'd be fine with either one.