[FSonicSmith]

For six months now I have been listening to my music with Audio Technica ATH-AD700s (fantastic value and so nice from practically day 1), Denon AH-D2000s (boomy bass and lacking in midrange til broken in for 200 hours, then very smooth and punchy) and the subject of this querry, the much venerated and questioned AKG K701s.
I have two headphone amps-a tubed amp at home (LD IVse with NOS tubes) and a very good computer amp at work-the much praised Xonar Essence ST, and I have also used all three sets of headphones extensively with my Apple MBPro feeding USB output to my beloved RSA Emmeline Predator.
The AKG K701s have never failed to disappoint me. Airy, whispy, spacious, veiled, slow, muddy, thick, boring-these are the adjectives that come to mind, some of them positive, many of the negative, but the overall sound quality is not up to the reputation of these cans.
With any product, there is product variation. Products that should be exactly the same due to CNC machining to precise standards can still vary measureably. And then there is quality control. I can't help but suspect at this point that AKG has larger than average QC problems/variability. This combined with the rather extreme sound of the design-light and whispy is again the best descriptor overall that I can come up with-would seem to lead to the love it or hate it nature of these phones.
I wonder if anyone has had the opportunity to listen to many sets of K701s (lets say 5 or more) on the same rig and whether anyone else agrees that QC is at play here.

 

[crossmd]

What makes you think this? How many other 701s have you listened to? I'm pretty sure that your conjecture here is unfounded, but rather just based on the assumption that they must, considering the size of the company. I guarantee, that burn in on the 701s will probably be more of a difference than QC will ever be.

Also, I'm curious as to how you came up with the conclusion that they're slow, muddy, or thick. These are definitely new to me in regards to the 701.

 

[FSonicSmith]

Quote:

What makes you think this? How many other 701s have you listened to? I'm pretty sure that your conjecture here is unfounded, but rather just based on the assumption that they must, considering the size of the company. I guarantee, that burn in on the 701s will probably be more of a difference than QC will ever be. Also, I'm curious as to how you came up with the conclusion that they're slow, muddy, or thick. These are definitely new to me in regards to the 701.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is more disagreement about the K701's quality than any other set of cans worth note out there. How do I come up with "slow, muddy, and thick"? Another question that does not require a rocket scientist. I have listened to them. Hell, I am listening to them right now.

 

[Cankin]

I believe there are variations but the question is, are those differences in SQ cause by the production variations can be heard by human ears.

Another point, when reading impression, reviews or any other posts about gears, do look into what experience and what expectation does that reviewer have.

 

[Pyriel0]

Get a good amp and good source for a good headphone instead of talking down to people responding to your thread. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you don't know what your talking about calling them "slow, muddy, and thick".

 

[dcpoor]

Quote:

slow, muddy, thick

either your k701's are completely broken or there's a big problem with your setup.

 

[nhancakes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyriel0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Get a good amp and good source for a good headphone instead of talking down to people responding to your thread. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you don't know what your talking about calling them "slow, muddy, and thick".

it would seem that he has some pretty good amps. how much more should he be spending on amps?

 

[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSonicSmith /img/forum/go_quote.gif It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is more disagreement about the K701's quality than any other set of cans worth note out there.

The disagreement comes from

a) the difficulty in powering the K701
b) the fact that K701 has a very analytical, bass light sound that is never going to be popular for everyone, unless you listen to a lot of classical music
c) People not realizing (b) and expecting some kind of bargain reference class headphone
d) Senn fanboys that overrun the forum and go about defaming the K701 cause it's considered the HD650's closest rival

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it has nothing to do with quality control.

 

[Pyriel0]

It isn't really the cost, its just putting in the few minutes to run through the amp section and see what works well and what doesn't with any particular headphone. I had a shanling ph100 before this amp and it was great with the K701 for $220 used on here. The Heed Canamp is also recommended a lot and generally regarded as a good match for the K701 while not being too expensive. There are a few others but I don't remember them. I haven't looked at K701 stuff in awhile.

I don't count the sound card as an amp either. I can hook my headphones directly to my dac's output and listen but using an actual amp makes them sound quite a bit better.

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcpoor /img/forum/go_quote.gif either your k701's are completely broken or there's a big problem with your setup.

I agree. I've never heard anyone say that the K701 is thick, muddy, slow, and veiled.

On a side note, during the last meet, three of us HD650 owners compared our HD650 on the same setup and all three of our cans sounded different. Most noticeably, mine sounded the worse which can be described as veiled, slow, and muddy.

 

[b0dhi]

Judging by L/R matching, the K701 are among the best in terms of consistency. That doesn't mean you'll like the sound.

 

[Pistachio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyriel0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Get a good amp and good source for a good headphone instead of talking down to people responding to your thread. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you don't know what your talking about calling them "slow, muddy, and thick".

This.

Your amps are not good enough. The ST is not what anyone would call a "very good" headphone amp. It is an excellent budget DAC with an entry-level amp. The K701 is notoriously hard to drive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see you aren't driving them correctly.

 

[rds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistachio /img/forum/go_quote.gif This. Your amps are not good enough. The ST is not what anyone would call a "very good" headphone amp. It is an excellent budget DAC with an entry-level amp. The K701 is notoriously hard to drive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see you aren't driving them correctly.

x2

Neither of those amps are anywhere close to "very good".