[Il Mostro]

Quote:

If it were me I would go for some Q701's.  The treble is not quite as harsh as the K701 and the bass is just a tad lifted.  

I guess that "Q" logo has some magical properties.  

 

[NA Blur]

I would not say magical, rather measurable.  I see a 2dB increase from 800 Hz back.
http://www.headphone.com/headphones/akg-q701-quincy-jones.php

 
Quote:

I guess that "Q" logo has some magical properties.  

 

 

[Arleus]

 
Quote:

I would not say magical, rather measurable.  I see a 2dB increase from 800 Hz back.
 

 


 

The differences look less severe than that in Tyll's measurements from Inner Fidelity. Here's the K701 sample B graph overlaid on the Q701 graph.
 

 
Edit: I think the main differences we're seeing between the two sets of graphs is the point that they're fixed about, if that makes sense. If you shifted the headphone.com lines against each other until the bass and midrange matched up, like on the Inner Fidelity graphs, I'm sure they'd look very similar. It's the funny bumps in the FRF at 1-2k that seem to be making the difference... at least in the measurements. I can't comment on the sound, since I have the K702, not the K or Q 701s. Pants to AKG and their re-releases!
 
 

 

[coasteray]

Quote:

Zlashed,
 
if you want some really durable, affordable, and super awesome headphones for rock and gaming, and movies, you really can't beat the Audio Technica M50.  Check it out.  Amazon offers a 30-day return on them if you keep them and the box in new condition.  And I've never known anyone whose gotten them and not loved them.  They are a little tinny when you get them but that goes away after about 100 hours or so.  It's like having your own dance club in your head, they are intimate, solid, and good for isolation as well.  The normal model has a curled cord while the M50S has a straight cord which I like better.
 
I think the K702 is good for these things too, but only if you like the weaker, more expansive sound of the 702 like I do.  They are certainly great for effects.  But the M50 is a slamming headphone hands down, and very affordable for using for those purposes.  Generally, when I watch movies or whatever I eat dinner, so I want a headphone that can get a little dirty or slopped around a bit at my computer desk.  The M50 is solid and cheap(er), so it fits the bill better than most cans.
 
Have fun!

 
Sorry, but I couldn't help but resurrect this thread again!!   The topic is just too engrossing for me.  I appreciate your comments about the Audio-Technica ATH-M50 cans.  I own them, and I totally agree with you on their quality.  They do quite well for all kinds of music, but they certainly do well for rock.  Good deep bass without being excessive or boomy.  I would heartily recommend them to anyone.  They usually well for about $150 on Amazon.  Good price.
 
I have been debating about buying another headphone.  I was contemplating the AKG K701, and then the K702, then found information about the Q701.  I'll have to study this out, but I like what I've heard about the K702 and Q701 for far.  Also interesting about your comments comparing the K701/K702 against the Beyerdynamics DT880.  Thanks for that.
 
My other set of phones for classical, acoustic, early, Celtic, orchestral soundtrack, and other "non-rock" music is the Sennheiser HD598.  I am currently trying to figure out where in the headphone universe they fit in within all the discussions I see online about the Sennheiser HD650/HD800, Beyerdynamic DT880, and AKG K701/702/Q701.   There are other more expensive phones than these, but to be fair to the HD598 (normally $250), I don't want to include other phones that are beyond mortal ability to buy.  Yeah, I know, the HD650 and HD800 are about $500 and $1500 respectively, but since they are Senns, well, I've included them  here. 
 
Anyway, I really like the nice soundstage and overall sound of the 598's, but I don't know how they would compare to these others.  I have only had a chance to hear the HD650's, and really liked them.  The highs seemed to be subtle, though still there, the bass was very nice and full, and mids very nice.  I think there is a more satisfying front-to-back spaciousness with them compared to my 598's.  Overall, the 650's are very smooth, which is what they are known for.  I've never had a chance to hear the DT880 or the AKG models. 
 
I would like to know if you've had any experience with how the 598's sound compared to the others I've mentioned.  Perhaps someone else reading this post can also shed some light on the subject.  The reason I want to know is that if my 598's are close enough to these others, then I'll probably not bother buying one of the others.  However, I would like more of the front-to-back spaciousness and a tad more bass reach.  Other than that, I can't really complain about my 598's, but if I'm missing something that another set of cans will give me, I'd sure like to know.  Also, I need to confess that I've not yet been able to afford a headphone amp, and I'm mostly convinced that may improve my 598's enough at least for the bass issue.  I'm presently running them through a Pioneer SX-312R receiver.  Yeah, it's not a big audiophile piece of equipment, but it does pretty nicely for both my M50's and 598's, so far.  So if I can get an amp, then maybe another set of phones is coming next.  Just need a nudge toward phones that will be a good step up from the 598's, especially in that front-to-back sound.
 
Thanks.

 

[branqazwsx]

The 880's are a lot more comfortable because the AKG's create a "hotspot" on the top of your head. But paired with a good amp prefer the sound of the AKG's because of the sound stage and detail retrieval. 

 

[Kouzelna]

Sorry to be so late to reply, in the middle of a big move.
 
It's been too long since I owned the 598 myself, so I can't comment too much, except to say that - at least when I had them many years ago - there was a huge diff between them and the 600/650 cans.  The bigger ones were a dramatic step up, although the 598 was no slouch.  I was just taken aback by how much those were an improvement, because I loved my 598.  Keep in mind that I am not a big fan of the 600/650 sound, however.  I like the openness and treble of the AKG much, much better.
 
A headphone amp is a HUGE DRAMATIC improvement on about any headphone.  All of my headphones sound dramatically different either amped or unamped, so it's worth the money as I think anyone on this forum will agree.  And generally you do get huge improvement in bass, though on a 598 I don't know what that improvement will be.  But it will certainly likely be better.
 
I have generally been able to find 650 used for about $300 or $350.  But before you commit, make sure you hear the DT880 / 600 ohm, and one of the AKG series (702 is my fav, though I haven't yet heard the Q yet).  They are all in the same family but all with very different sounds, so hear them all and buy the one you love before you plop down the cash.  Any of them to my mind would be a vast step up on an already great sounding 598.  But be sure you hear them all amped.  The AKG especially is hopeless unamped.
 
Have fun!

 

[Chris J]

If yer interested I can give you some impressions of Q701s versus DT880s...............................

 

[Kouzelna]

Chris J, have you also heard the K702 and done a comparison with the Q?  I'd be interested.

 

[Chris J]

Chris J, have you also heard the K702 and done a comparison with the Q?  I'd be interested.

I was at a Head Fi meet a few weeks back and ran into a guy with a pair of K701s or 2s, we traded 'phones for several minutes or more.
We both agreed that the differences were very slight, I thought the Qs were very slightly warmer, but nothing very significant. Hard to remember now if anything else sounded different, but for the most part they were very, very similar. I'm not sure if I could reliably tell them apart in a blind test!
Really the differences were almost insignificant.
We were both surprised by this.
I seem to remember we both used my Matrix M for the comparison.

BTW another guy tried my Qs and took them off after 30 seconds and said they were too bright.
LOL

 

[Kouzelna]

Heh heh heh, bright... I think he meant, "Bitchen!"
 
Good to know.  My K702 was vastly different than my K701 as you probably read in another thread.  Significant improvement along all the lines I complained about with my K701.  I got them by accident, after a lengthy and disappointing search for a replacement/upgrade to my K701.  My complaints as I recall were closer midrange, better bass, a better headphone fit and more comfortable pads.  The K702 was all these things in a K701, i.e. retaining that K701 sound.  I love 'em!
 
Someone else, somewhere, said the Q was an improvement even over that: better bass, I think is what they said.  But if you think it's similar to the 701, then I'll just take your word for it.
 
Matrix was a great amp to use for the comparison, I think.  Mine worked great with my 702 as you know.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

Heh heh heh, bright... I think he meant, "Bitchen!"
 
Good to know.  My K702 was vastly different than my K701 as you probably read in another thread.  Significant improvement along all the lines I complained about with my K701.  I got them by accident, after a lengthy and disappointing search for a replacement/upgrade to my K701.  My complaints as I recall were closer midrange, better bass, a better headphone fit and more comfortable pads.  The K702 was all these things in a K701, i.e. retaining that K701 sound.  I love 'em!
 
Someone else, somewhere, said the Q was an improvement even over that: better bass, I think is what they said.  But if you think it's similar to the 701, then I'll just take your word for it.
 
Matrix was a great amp to use for the comparison, I think.  Mine worked great with my 702 as you know.

 
No, he definitely meant too bright!
LOL!  Oh well....
 
I guess you have read all the same stuff as I have, it seems they must have made some running changes to the K701 and K702 and Q701 as time went on, but that is just my guess.

My Qs were purchased last summer, I forgot to ask him how new his Ks were.
I thought the Qs sounded a little bit better, but then it was so slight, plus I would be biased to what I listen to all the time.
I think we also used his headphone amp a bit, but I can't remember what he had. There was a lot of stuff at the meet.
What can I say?  I'm starting to repeat myself. I'm starting to repeat myself. I'm starting to repeat myself.
"The Truth Is Out There"?
 
I suspect that the Q701s were reverse engineered from alien technology by scientists at Roswell, NM.
Don't tell anyone.

 

[Kouzelna]

Great.  Now you told everyone!

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

Great.  Now you told everyone!

No I didn't.
You did.

 

[Kouzelna]

That's because it's no longer me speaking.  It's super-extraterrestrial intelligence, using my brain as a conduit and forcing me to act.  "What's that?  Goto all the Heavy Metal Festivals in Eastern Europe this Summer?  Bring my IEMs and portable headphone amp?  Yes master.  I must obey."

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

That's because it's no longer me speaking.  It's super-extraterrestrial intelligence, using my brain as a conduit and forcing me to act.  "What's that?  Goto all the Heavy Metal Festivals in Eastern Europe this Summer?  Bring my IEMs and portable headphone amp?  Yes master.  I must obey."

See if you can get a government grant, tell them you are doing cultural research or something.
I have heard that Finland is the Heavy Metal capital of the Universe?