[adanac061]

The foam dougnut passed sound .
It covers the three inner ports on the old k501 (asr's pic"), but not the four outer ports.

The foam dougnut should not be underestimated,
It can make or break a headphone ... for instance i forgot to mention in the extreme tweak thread that i Always use the doughnut with the k501 without it, .. the extreme tweak has NO bass, literally, it all seeps out the back.
With the doughnut it rocks...

 

[Rob80b]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krele /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have AKG501 and I was thinking about burning some cash for K701. If anybody went the same path, I would like to hear if it was worth it.

Back to the thread. For me I was hoping that the K701’s were going to improve on the K501’s one deficiency, that being the lower bass.
Once curling up with them at the Toronto meet (http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...t=toronto+meet) I was quite disappointed, I felt the sound signature was no-where near that of the K501’s, the 701’s appeared to have a darker signature losing that air and openness that I so much appreciate. I tried them with many different sources and amps but I really expected more from them as a potential upgrade over the K501’s, maybe I needed more time with them.

 

[wualta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanac061 The foam dougnut passed sound . It covers the three inner ports on the old k501 (asr's pic"), but not the four outer ports.

So the donut fits under the edge of the earpads and, perhaps, helps them seal the vents? If this is correct, does it perform this function in the K701?

 

[nothing101]

is the 701 really only better depending on your tastes compared to a $100 headphone

 

[Fitz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothing101 /img/forum/go_quote.gif is the 701 really only better depending on your tastes compared to a $100 headphone

What does price have to do with anything?

 

[nothing101]

sure expensive doesnt always mean good but generally if a headphone that is meant to be GOOD FOR ITS MONEY is equal to one that costs nearly a third of the price you start to wonder....

 

[cotdt]

K701 is more resolving! with a good source and amp, there's no question!

 

[Fitz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif K701 is more resolving! with a good source and amp, there's no question!

But by your own admission the K701 needs EQ in the midrange.

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz /img/forum/go_quote.gif But by your own admission the K701 needs EQ in the midrange.

Yes, but no headphone is perfect. I feel that the K701 with correctly applied EQ comes very close, and I've heard dozens of different headphones to compare it to (although I've never heard the really expensive ones). The K701 has the best resolution of all the ones I've heard. And nothing is wrong with EQ. Look at Ultrasone, they have a circuit inside the headphone that EQs the response. I'd rather do that in digital than in analog which can degrade the sound. At least the K701 is not like a Grado, which even EQ cannot save.

 

[Fitz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but no headphone is perfect. I feel that the K701 with correctly applied EQ comes very close, and I've heard dozens of different headphones to compare it to (although I've never heard the really expensive ones). The K701 has the best resolution of all the ones I've heard. And nothing is wrong with EQ. Look at Ultrasone, they have a circuit inside the headphone that EQs the response. I'd rather do that in digital than in analog which can degrade the sound. At least the K701 is not like a Grado, which even EQ cannot save.

I'm flattered that you felt it necessary to enlighten me about EQ (should I tell him that I already use it quite regularly?), but you completely missed the point.

BTW, which EQ adjustments have you tried on the K501, in your process of determining that the K701 is better objectively rather than subjectively?

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm flattered that you felt it necessary to enlighten me about EQ (should I tell him that I already use it quite regularly?), but you completely missed the point. BTW, which EQ adjustments have you tried on the K501, in your process of determining that the K701 is better objectively rather than subjectively?

i can't make out what point you were trying to make. i tried to pump the bass on the K501s, but still didn't get much bass, and it was somewhat distorted too. so i dumped them.

 

[Fitz]

I can't find the "pump the bass" setting on my DEQ2496 or in any music players on my PC. Is there a translation table that'll give me something I can try on a 31-band or parametric EQ?

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't find the "pump the bass" setting on my DEQ2496 or in any music players on my PC. Is there a translation table that'll give me something I can try on a 31-band or parametric EQ?

i used +3 dB below 100Hz...

 

[udeupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know, and I'm sure I'll get pummeled for saying that. But the K-501 just sounds more "real" across the board to me.

It is true, but the bass on K701 is much fuller than K501, everyone who ever listened them before would have the same comment. Well, maybe beside you?

Grando sounds really good, but they look really bad... well... just my thought.

 

[jrosenth]

I think the 701 does have more bass than the 501 - although using 701 pads with the 501 helps a bit - and the bass on the 501 depends upon its production.

That said, I'd take the 501 over the 701