[Acix]

Quote:

 
How long is generally recommended for burn-in with the K702? Currently doing mine right now and I'm at about 40 hours. I was planning on doing maybe 200-400 hours.

 
I notice the first chance between 80-120hr, the second change was around 250hr, I also recommend to get a better cable for the 702s, or just to build one. Here is more info: http://www.head-fi.org/t/378255/akg-k702-build-your-own-cable

 

[Sound Quest]

Quote:

 
I notice the first chance between 80-120hr, the second change was around 250hr, I also recommend to get a better cable for the 702s, or just to build one. Here is more info: http://www.head-fi.org/t/378255/akg-k702-build-your-own-cable

Does the cable really change the sound? I thought that was just placebo.
 
It's like when you compare a cheap HDMI cable to an expensive one. It makes no difference, regardless of how good your television is.

 

[ianmedium]

Does the cable really change the sound? I thought that was just placebo.

It's like when you compare a cheap HDMI cable to an expensive one. It makes no difference, regardless of how good your television is.

Your talking about a moving diaphragm so I would say it is something that is not just perception . A lot of folks don't believe in burn in but many highly respected audio engineers advise it makes a difference. I would take their would over anyone in the Sound Science forum here any day!

 

[Sound Quest]

Quote:

Your talking about a moving diaphragm so I would say it is something that is not just perception . A lot of folks don't believe in burn in but many highly respected audio engineers advise it makes a difference. I would take their would over anyone in the Sound Science forum here any day!

 
Whats "burn in" got to do with the cable you use?

I believe in burn in as well, it makes sense that the diaphragm needs time to loosen up. However, I don't see how using a different cable can effect the sound quality in anyway, as the signal that goes into the cable, should be the same signal that comes out the other end, regardless.

 

[dcfis]

Well that makes your life a lot easier then. No need to spend that money our worry with it

 

[ianmedium]

Whats "burn in" got to do with the cable you use?


I believe in burn in as well, it makes sense that the diaphragm needs time to loosen up. However, I don't see how using a different cable can effect the sound quality in anyway, as the signal that goes into the cable, should be the same signal that comes out the other end, regardless.

I was not talking about the cable. For what its worth I felt no need to change the cable on this headphone

 

[SonicBoy]

Quote:

Most of the time, if not always, its the source, record quality I mean.
 
THX

I'll co-sign this. The bass reproduction is only as good as the production. The 702's won't give you the 'night club'  or hip-hop experience because it's not really designed to do that.
 
If you want an example of 'good' production and a well engineered recording to test the 702's bass quality...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGYPXB_8h8w

 

[hiyu64]

Quote:

Hi,

Of all the headphones I tried (not only the ones in my review, but many more over the years even Stax 'stats) only the Sennheiser HD-800 ever tricked me to hear music not firmly lodged within me noggin, between my ears. The K701 where no exception. This is why for so long I have hated the headphone experience. You need an Amp with some processing to pull the music out of yer nut, I liked the SPL Phonitor, but it's pricetag is a wee bit rich for me. The iFi iCAN did pretty much as well for less than halve a monkey, so I got it...

Cheers Rich

Yes, the HD800 has been regarded by many as having the widest and very deep soundstage.  You won't be able to reach that full width unless you pair it with a good amp.  Its impedence swings up to 600 Ohms at parts of the audio spectrum.  Since you come from a speaker background, I wasn't surprised you didn't like headphones that have that "in-your-head" soundstage.  Speakers are able to have such wide soundstages partly because there is physical space you can use to separate the speakers to create that soundstage.  Headphones on the other hand clamp to your head and are physically limited.  Thus, headphones manufacturers try to create a virtual soundstage/expand their limited soundstage by using different driver designs, angling their drivers, and using different materials. 
 
Since I come from a headphone background myself and I want to go into speakers, I actually do not like the huge soundstage offered by speakers.  It makes me feel like just one of the crowd in a concert.  One of the faceless fans in that mass of people.  No connection at all between me and the singer.  I like that "in-your-head" soundstage.  It feels like the singer is singing to me, singling me out of the crowd of thousands.  That intimacy is the real strong point of the headphone.  Of course, I don't want it to be too intimate and sound like they're screaming in my head, or having such a small soundstage that all the instruments feel squished together and congested.  I want a small enough soundstage for intimacy, but a large enough soundstage for instrument imaging, clarity, sense of direction, etc.  So...yea I'm still trying to find that sweet spot.

 

[dcfis]

Wow you must hate concerts and live performances.

 

[hiyu64]

Quote:

Wow you must hate concerts and live performances.

I never said I hated live performances.  I was only trying to bridge the gap between head-fi and speaker-fi. The two are polar opposites in terms of soundstage, which is one of the easiest things to notice between hearing music from speakers versus headphones.  Also, since you brought up concerts and live performances.  At this time, I'd actually rather listen to well-recorded music than listen to it live.  See, the good thing with listening to a well-recorded song time and time again is consistency (in the recording, the room size is always the same, the microphone is always the same distance from the singer, the temperature/humidity etc are controlled, the singer's condition is always the same, etc.)  Well-recorded music will give you that same quality if you use the same listening set up, not factoring in your own mood etc at the time.  Well-recorded music is much more constant.  On the other hand, Live music is filled with variables: temperature&humidity, size of the concert hall, inside vs outside, condition of the singer, geographic location, not to mention the fans themselves factor into that overall live sound. If you go to a band's concert in Los Angeles and you follow their tour to Toronto, Do you get the exact same experience each time? No!  That's the beauty of live music, it changes, it's organic, it can both sound better than a studio recording sometimes and sound worse than a studio recording sometimes at least subjectively.  The studio recording may be inorganic or dull at times, but it has consistency.      

 

[Sound Quest]

I personally enjoy both live and studio recordings.
 
Both have their pro's and con's.
 
Studio recordings are great for their consistency, but can sometimes just get a little boring/dull sounding.
 
Live recordings can be big fun to listen to, but a lot of it comes down to the how well the mixing engineer did his job. Sometimes the crowd noise is too loud, sometimes it's too quiet. Other times its too inconsistent throughout the recording (although, sometimes a little inconsistency here and there can add to the overall excitement).

 

[Blackmore]

Oh boy, I love Rachelle, thanks for posting this. This one is also trilling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of6l1JTLjok
 
K702 are one of a kind and while HD800 are really nice sounding headphones, man, do they have trouble with their midbass? They just cant complete with AKG balance, sorry, especially when it comes down to natural and not so called Sennheiser kind of sound. What I am trying to say, is simply that I dont like feel to obvious, when headphones are telling me how the sound must be, I just like to hear what on the recording, thats all and AKG does it, at least to me.
 
THX
Quote:

I'll co-sign this. The bass reproduction is only as good as the production. The 702's won't give you the 'night club'  or hip-hop experience because it's not really designed to do that.
 
If you want an example of 'good' production and a well engineered recording to test the 702's bass quality...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGYPXB_8h8w

 

[elvergun]

Quote:

Hi,
 

I have tested the previous version (K701) and the HD600 here:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/648968/a-headphone-group-review-for-speaker-listeners-testing-eight-headphones-from-80-to-1-200

You may notice that without XBass I found both HD600 and K701 bass shy, so much so that it bugged me and I would not consider these headphones for my own use unless there is a way to correct this deficiency. So yes, they lack bass, as does the HD600.

You may also notice that for both headphones I felt the XBass setting on my iFi iCAN head-amp needed for a balanced sound was the same. My main system uses floor standing 3-Way speakers with a 10" bass, to give some reference of what bass I am used to. They have a solid, deep bass, but without being buddy, imprecise or overly resonant. 

I would say after the correction the K701 was bass champion. I loved the way they get down and boogie and give scale and impact to music.The HiFiman HE-500 were rather close though and that WITHOUT XBass.

BTW, I hunted down that headphone graph comparison site you used. It is very good. I have here the Shure SRH-1440, HiFiman HE-500, Sennheiser HD600 and AKG K701 (all of which I reviewed).
 
 

 

If you read the reviews and my reactions to the bass of each of them, these graphs clearly tell the truth, for bass at least.
 
I can make less sense higher up, but I think I can see why the Shure bothered me sounding edgy and why I felt the HE-500 was too laid back for truthful sound.

Nice site, i will add these graphs and some comments to my reviews. Good thread, i am really learning stuff.

Cheerio Rich

 
I purchased the iCan to pair it with my K702s.
 
The K702 is wonderful with jazz and classical music, but they are indeed lacking bass for stuff like rock and reggae.    I listen to rock with the bass boost engaged...for jazz and classical I leave the boost in the off position. 
 
I tried the K702 with the bass boost on my E7, but it sounds artificial, like if I was applying some EQ.   The iCan is just a wonderful little amp. 

 

[Sk1n5]

I've done the "bass mod" to my 702s(removing the sticker from the back of the driver). That alone was a noticable difference in sub bass. Since I also own the K550s I took the pad off of my 702s just to compare. A little foam disc fell out. Being in my inebriated state I figured sure why not. Put the pad back on and amazingly enough this the first time I've listened to my 702s un EQed. I'll let you guys know what I think of the sound once I'm sober as well.

Edit: I am definitely a bass head. Figured I should point that out.

 

[c64]

No smoke without fire wouldn't be a bass mod if the bass were fine it's not beats basshead noobs doing the bass mod.