[Mad Lust Envy]

Highly doubt the 65th would be WAY better than the HE400, or even slightly better. If they retain most of the sound signature of the Q701 with slightly more bass, that's definitely not enough to stack up next to the HE-400, but who knows? Hyperbole is pretty abundant on Head-fi. I absolutely love the Q701, but HE-400s they are not.

That being said, I want those 65ths.

 

[electropop]

What's so great about the HE-400 except the seemingly distortionless bass? That uneven presentation in the higher registers was what turned me off the most... 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Have you even heard it? If you haven't (and especially if you haven't used the velours), then you definitely can't talk. The HE-400 isn't what we all know it as without the velours.

What's good about it? Warmth, musicality, tone, the holographic, non-headphone like imaging. The Q701 is sterile next to the HE-400. The only thing the Q701 did better was soundstage size. Not even a competition.

The HE400 has an odd signature in that it is both dark and bright. It's a full bodied warmth, paired with a sparkly treble, that with velours isn't grating. Just full of life. It was literally what the HD650 was missing on the top end to make them complete all arounders.

The Q701 is definitely more 'flat', but considerably less engaging, and noticeably thinner sounding, and that's not even about the bass. The HE400's bass is a delicacy.

 

[electropop]

Whatever floats your boat
 
Can't remember whether they were with the velour or pleather. I'm thinking velour, but could be wrong. 
 
Dark and bright maybe, but missing tons of information in the upper mid-range. That steep rising peak at the top made it annoying. Not nearly as coherent, versatile or effortless as the 65. Bass was the only agreeable thing about it to my ears..

 

[Salvatore]

Quote:

Highly doubt the 65th would be even slightly better. Hyperbole is pretty abundant on Head-fi.

 
Well for me they are. I have heard them both and hence entitled to give my honest opinion. The hyperbole thing was a bit uncalled for. Aren't we all entitled to give our impressions. Its up to the reader how much they want to take on what they read. Comfortability wise the HE400s are no match for 65s, and that alone is a huge deal breaker for me. I didn't find anything special in their sound either. This could be due to the fact that the HE500s were right next to them and sounded way better.

 

[preproman]

Quote:

 
Well for me they are. I have heard them both and hence entitled to give my honest opinion. The hyperbole thing was a bit uncalled for. Aren't we all entitled to give our impressions. Its up to the reader how much they want to take on what they read. Comfortability wise the HE400s are no match for 65s, and that alone is a huge deal breaker for me. I didn't find anything special in their sound either. This could be due to the fact that the HE500s were right next to them and sounded way better.

 
 
Don't worry - it's tons of that hyperbole stuff surrounding the HE-400s.  If there was ever any hyperbole to be had, the HE-400s has it.

 

[Salvatore]

Quote:

Don't worry - it's tons of that hyperbole stuff surrounding the HE-400s.  If there was ever any hyperbole to be had, the HE-400s has it.

 
Yeah I guess everyone who gets excited about new products or listening experiences could be guilty of this.

 

[MLee]

I used to have a pair of HE-500s and because I sold them I can't do a direct A/B with my 65s but I do feel I have some basis for a preference. Note I didn't say which was better but I do know which I prefer, and that would be the 65s. I guess that's against the grain of most reviewers as the praise for the HE-500s is almost universal, but for me there were some things that didn't sound "Right" to me. One example is Robert Plant's voice. The guitars and drums of Led Zeppelin sounded fine if you like the fullness or lush sound of the orthos, but his voice was not right. To me the vocals and music as a whole are more realistic and correct with the 65s. I've had years of listening to music, starting with tubes and vinyl, and saw Zeppelin live back in the day, so I'm pretty sure I have a basis for my statement. One other point, my ears have a few years on them and they aren't what they used to be, so maybe the sound of the 65s or AKG's models in general work better for me.

I'm with Salvatore, I'd take my 65s over the HE-500s as he would over the 400s.

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

I went to the local hifi store this morning....

 
I wish I had one of those

 
Thanks for the impressions.

 

[Blackmore]

Thank you Salvatore, great read, which still make me think that 65s are more closer to K702 than the rest, but thats the guess of course. Extra loudness with the same volume is pretty the same what I am expeirience with Q/K701 when I switch to K702, which like I wrote are slightly laid back in comparison.
There are factors to be aware of and we already know them: new pads, new headband and not enough burn in hours on 65s, but also the cable and maybe other "small" changes we dont know. When the burn in part will complete, 300 hours at least, we will know almost for sure how Anniversary's sounds like, but for now we make our own conclusions, but I am really appreciate your input and hoping you will be posting soon again and DONT worry if your mind/ears will tell you something else or simply extra later, its NORMAL, just share with us please.
 
THX

 

[HiFiGuy528]

Quote:

 
Ask hifiguy. According to his profile he has them both.

 
yes, I have both in my collection.  
 
 

Does anyone here own both the k702 and the sennheiser hd800? Im thinking about buying the k702 to have it at my other apartment since its a pain in the ass traveling with the hd800.
 
I like wide soundstage and thats what the k702 has just like the hd800 so I'm just looking for a headphone thats cheap but still has good soundstage. So being used to the hd800 will I still get satisfying sound out of the k702? Anyone that owns them both and can have their say about it?
thanks.
 

 
The Sony MA900 has very good soundstage, better than K702, but not as high fidelity as the HD800.  The Sony MA900 sells for $199 right now and it's worth owning.

 

[Blackmore]

If anyone may interested, these guys accepting offers, so, maybe another USD50 off plus free shipping?
http://www.estudiostar.com/akg-k702-anniversary-edition-headphone.html

 

[Acix]

Quote:

I'm with Salvatore, I'd take my 65s over the HE-500s as he would over the 400s.

 
 
I had a chance to compare one of the first Hifiman hps to the K-702 in 2009 on the Audtor amp. I just dont remember if it was the 500 model..but I was not impressed at all, good upper mids, to much treble energy, and not so much bass, or sound stage. 
 
Also was hard to drive them even with the Auditor, and this seems very odd to me.

 

 
 

 

 

[HiFiGuy528]

[size=medium]The more I listen to the K702AV the more I feel that it may be the BEST K702 release to-date.  The material changes are subtle but packs a punch upon careful evaluation.  Stay tuned for more impressions and review.[/size]

 

[Baten]

Quote:

If you don't mind the bumps and love the sound of your K/Q701/2's, these are probably not worth upgrading.

 
After a couple of weeks I don't feel the bumps on my Q701, and I don't mind them just a little bright. At 225-240$ for the Q's, I feel there's no real reason to justify the current prize of the 65th. As someone said before the AKG's do sound just a little thin (in comparison to some of the flagship headphones), but the positives (clarity, soundstage and a balanced signature with great highs and sufficient lows) far outweigh some nitpicks.