[bhanja_trinanjan]

Question to all:

When you say that one headphone has more bass than the other, have you tried playing some organ music (say Bach’s Toccata and Fugue, for instance) and checked which can resolves the lowest notes better with truer pitch?

Bass is not only about impact and ‘knock out’ slam; it’s also about correct tonality. I am not trying to defend K701/or any other can, this is an extremely relevant question that applies to all headphones.

 

[Punnisher]

I think it's wise to compare bass in different ways. Quantity and quality. I generally try to distinguish between these when I'm comparing.

The more quantity, the greater the volume and the more you can feel it. It could also be said that there is a chance more quantity could interfere with the rest of the frequencies.

Quality should be more about resolution. Being able to really hear the vibration of the bass strings or maybe the bass drum head. A short decay, instead of a flabby drawn out decay.

Just a couple things to think about.

 

[Shoreman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow! I will make a point of not trying the SR225s! It is really hard for me to imagine phones with even less bass than K701s!

Just reinforcing the point I believe someone made earlier about this being just one person's impressions. Based on one person's unique setup and equipment. Obviously you can try, or not try, anything you like, but most regard the 225's highly and consider them the most-bang-for-the-buck in the Grado lineup.

 

[silverskull]

well i managed to order a DIY Jaycar Amp from a fellow headfier from aussie.really grateful and i bet its gonna be wonderful

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not possible. I owned K701s for a while, and therefore I know with 100% certainty that AD900s are better in every way (and much better in some ways.)

intoart, I asked you in another thread but received no answer, how long did you actually spend burning your 701s in ? I am a burn-in sceptic, in that I find it hard to believe that the changes can be as radical as some claim, but I am willing to give my 601s at least 200 hours before I reassess their pros and cons : I am keen to hear what your experience was. (FWIW, I get frustrated with the variance in estimates on AKG burn-in : if your cans have 200 hours, someone will inevitably tell you they need 300 ....).

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by estreeter /img/forum/go_quote.gif intoart, I asked you in another thread but received no answer, how long did you actually spend burning your 701s in ? I am a burn-in sceptic, in that I find it hard to believe that the changes can be as radical as some claim, but I am willing to give my 601s at least 200 hours before I reassess their pros and cons : I am keen to hear what your experience was. (FWIW, I get frustrated with the variance in estimates on AKG burn-in : if your cans have 200 hours, someone will inevitably tell you they need 300 ....).

Why? Will burn-in add base that was never there?

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why? Will burn-in add base that was never there?

Yes, now BUZZ OFF.

 

[dynamics]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif See here is the thing, the above statement was made by someone who thinks Cyndi Laupur's voice should have more impact than a kick drum. As far as being true to real life? The 701/2? No way, not even close.

The 702s are a lot more true to life than HD650s will ever be. HD650s are not as detailed as the 702s either. The 702s have a much more speaker like sound than the HD650s ever will. I have owned them both and got rid of the HD650s within less than a week. If you have the right amplifier the 702s have plenty of bass and this is coming from a guy who listens to a lot of bass heavy music.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, now BUZZ OFF.

Acix, lets not dismiss olblueyez so quickly, and ask ourselves exactly what physical process results in me feeling more impact from the bass on the 601s than I did on day one. Is it all in my head ? Possibly, but isnt my appreciation of the music largely 'in my head' ?

I like to believe its a little of both - that there are components in a headphone (or an amp or a pair of speakers) that do need some time to 'loosen up' and that our ears do become accustomed to a new sound - but some of the wilder claims around burn-in are just laughable, IMO. If it takes someone 200-300 hours to accept that 'tight' bass isnt the same as the slam they experience from the subs in their car, then perhaps that phone wasnt the right choice in the first place.

olblueyez, I think its widely accepted the the 601s are inherently 'bassier' than the 701/702, but they will never be fart cannons. I'm always willing to hear other opinions as I dont have the 70* cans to make an accurate comparison - all I know is that metal sounds a lot better through mine now than it did on day one.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamics /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 702s are a lot more true to life than HD650s will ever be. HD650s are not as detailed as the 702s either. The 702s have a much more speaker like sound than the HD650s ever will. I have owned them both and got rid of the HD650s within less than a week. If you have the right amplifier the 702s have plenty of bass and this is coming from a guy who listens to a lot of bass heavy music.

Then you have never heard the 650 in a proper system. With good cables and amp and source there is no "Veil" and no "bloated bass". When all is said and done, both of them in a good system for each, the 650 will sound much more natural than the 701 is capable of. In my opinion. The 650 lends itself to tube amplification and when rolling tubes is an option then the likelihood of finding the perfect sound is so much greater. You ever read people saying "The 650's scales well"? That is because they don't have built in limitations like the 701 has, the better the equipment the better the sound, the only handicap is the surrounding equipment, this is not true with the 701, it lacks bass weight and the mids are shifted up without un-due amounts of coloring in your equipment, thus the reputation for synergy with the Heed. My money is on the horse with 4 good legs.

As for burn-in, when I had mine I noticed that the sound relaxed a bit, softened if you will. To someone else that may seem like more warmth but the over all sound signature IMO of course, changes about as much as an "Insignificant" cable swap. Not a huge difference, but a difference I did perceive.

 

[bhanja_trinanjan]

All the while I listen to my K701, I literally hunt for flaws. I play a track… rush to my home Hifi and play it there… run back and don the K701… Hard as I can try, I still don’t see the devil in the K701. Yes, it does sound different from my Cambridge-Wharfedale combo, and I have covered those differences before… but do the K701s sound bad, boring and sterile? HELL NO! I just wonder why bashing these cans are so fashionable these days!
(No offense meant, please!)

Regarding the synergy of the HD650 with tubes, all I can say is that I am surprised. We normally synergize components with opposite qualities… like a speaker with an aggressive top end with a mellow sounding CD player/amp. The HD650 is certainly a wonderful headphone, Mr. Olblueyez, but it is known to have lots of warmth, something the K701 certainly doesn’t possess to the same measure. So why would you drive the HD650 with a tube, that only adds more warmth? Why not just give it a brute of a SS amp and let it thrill? Olblueyez, I certainly respect your opinion, could you kindly explain this HD650-tube synergy a bit more?

 

[Cankin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then you have never heard the 650 in a proper system. With good cables and amp and source there is no "Veil" and no "bloated bass". When all is said and done, both of them in a good system for each, the 650 will sound much more natural than the 701 is capable of. In my opinion. The 650 lends itself to tube amplification and when rolling tubes is an option then the likelihood of finding the perfect sound is so much greater. You ever read people saying "The 650's scales well"? That is because they don't have built in limitations like the 701 has, the better the equipment the better the sound, the only handicap is the surrounding equipment, this is not true with the 701, it lacks bass weight and the mids are shifted up without un-due amounts of coloring in your equipment, thus the reputation for synergy with the Heed. My money is on the horse with 4 good legs.

Other than headphone jack of a computer, portable amp and iPod,
what were the source and amp you used when you audited K701 ??

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have used the 701 with a headphone jack on a computer, a portable amp, and straight from am iPod.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cankin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Other than headphone jack of a computer, portable amp and iPod, what were the source and amp you used when you audited K701 ??

Equipment in my Signature. Doesnt really matter even if I did like them, I was unable to wear them for longer than 45 min or an hour. Head is too big.

You can defend them until your blue in the face. It wont change any of the facts concerning the 701.

Tell us the difference in the sound between the older Gilmore and the Lite models.

 

[atothex]

Meh to Raptor with low impedance.

OK, K70X don't have bass, but the HD650s don't really have much treble. I do like the 650s better, but that's not the point; K701/2s aren't for everyone, but they do scale well.

FWIW, the best I've heard the HD650s was balanced/recabled from the Woo 22. It's still veiled to me, but that's part of the charm, imo.

 

[intoart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by estreeter /img/forum/go_quote.gif intoart, I asked you in another thread but received no answer, how long did you actually spend burning your 701s in ? I am a burn-in sceptic, in that I find it hard to believe that the changes can be as radical as some claim, but I am willing to give my 601s at least 200 hours before I reassess their pros and cons : I am keen to hear what your experience was. (FWIW, I get frustrated with the variance in estimates on AKG burn-in : if your cans have 200 hours, someone will inevitably tell you they need 300 ....).

Must have missed it earlier. I am not really a believer in burn-in. I just listen to my cans, and they either improve or not, if so it is certainly an utterly trivial difference.
Since I had the K701s a bit over a week before deciding that they sucked (and that HD280s for $80 sounded better!), I would say about 20 hours of burn-in, at most.
For the record, I amped them with a Cambridge 340A (though difference between amps are only significant if one of them is underpowered.)