[udeupa]

I agreed that K501's bass would distorted if you set EQ too extreme. However, K501 is the only one that would do this compare with my other cans, kind of disappointed. Though K501 is very enjoyable if you do not care too much bass. I don't think K701 is totally out take by K501, I think they are different. If you want to upgrade it (means sold K501, and get K701), I would say it is not a good idea. If you want to own both, I think you can find both are lovely.

 

[adhoc]

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.

No, you're right.

 

[adhoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

1. Digital EQ is not neccessarily superior to analog EQ. That is a ridiculous statement that tell me one thing - you have no idea how a digital EQ works. A digital EQ will, by virtue of the way it works, reduce the total resolution of a digital stream. In other words, you aren't getting your full 16bits worth of music.

2. "Best resolution", or +3dB at a high-ish frequency? That's a matter of opinon (not fact) my friend.

3. Just because Ultrasone has chosen to place an analog EQ inside their headphones, doesn't make it right.

4. An unneccessary cheap shot at the Grados. If it makes someone else happy, why the heck should you care? Unless of course you are so insecure about your headphones/rig that you feel the need to denigrate other people's headphone choices.

 

[Kevin Sinnott]

I confess I've never heard the k701, but comparisons seem difficult when

a) the k501 is a multiple-version product with key in-line auible differences.
and
b) the k501 has been modified quite a bit, even with k701 earpad replacements.

After tracking down my model, the so-called version I, I ended up wrapping the earpads with velcro and wrapping a layer of tape over that. I finally have what I consider a balanced bass with the great original sound picture.

It is so good, but very different from stock.

It seems the k701 has mostly been modified by the expensive cable replacement, and it is a single-issue product.

 

[pataburd]

I've been doing some cursory a/b-ing between the K501 and K701. To me, the midrange on the K501 is better integrated and more cohesive. The K701 offer more tonal "bloom" and resolution, though, IMHO. I kinda like the K501's hyper-expansive sound stage, especially with string accompaniment on Henry Mancini arrangements--it carries me away! : )

 

[gdeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferraro25 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not worth it unless you want to ruin the sound of cymbals, exaggerate sibilance, and lose important tonal information on most instruments. I actually like the K701 over the K501 due to certain preferences, but I would say that the K501 is actually a better headphone overall due to it having less problems. The main thing I don't like about the K501 is that I find its head-stage to be too big for a lot of tracks. It seems to force its "distant" sound on every recording.

i agree with the "distant" comment regarding the 501's but, it's fine with me. i don't agree w/ the sentiment that the 501's are better though; the 701's sound better, imo. check my profile for my ranking numbers between the 2 headphones.

still, unless the OP has the money lying around, i wouldn't necessarily say it's worth it to upgrade. i still use my 501's quite a bit and wouldn't give them up.

 

[stuge(original)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypasswordis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Woah, where are these K501 pushers coming from?

and creating confusion in the mind of the people like me