[Ahzari]

 
Quote:

^^^
 
Just straight comfies.  Someone sometime let me borrow comfies that had the centers cut out, but I didn't like them, but I can't remember why.
 
Also had the big salad bowl G-cushions.  These are easily the most comfortable Grado pads out there, but they really sucked the life out of the midrange for me.  But there are a lot of people that like them with different Grado models.
 
In the end, I think all Grado owners should try each and every pad combination out there, because some of them really change the tonality, and it's like getting a completely different headphone for not much additional money.
 

thanks for the input - good to know.
 

 

[Dubstep Girl]

 
Quote:

 
lol what does that mean.. at first? long term wear becomes fatiguing? I was actually wondering how you felt about the Grados / 701s with the WA6SE, does it warm it up enough to dissolve some of that treble harshness (I've read both cans have a tendency to be sibilant - to some, and tube amps may help). Thanks Dubstep Girl, your setup is actually pretty similar to mine.

 
at first = i find the grado more musical and fun to listen to because of their coloration. i appreciate the k701s slowly as i get used to their neutral signature and open soundstage  the k701 at first listen can sometimes sound a bit dull depending on the music and mood.
 
i never found the k701 to be sibiliant or harsh in the treble. 
 
the tubes do help with the grado harshness, mostly on the sr325. the rs1i can have weird sounding highs but they are never harsh or fatiguing. 
 
 

 

[Ahzari]

So ended up getting the Q701. A really excellent headphone, and definitely not sibilant, the treble was surprisingly smooth straight out of the box. Have done a little burn-in. Not sure if they are keepers only because I don't feel like they add anything to my current lineup, I was hoping they would but as far as detail retrieval and instrument separation I feel the Signature Pros do a better job (all around), and their soundstage is only slightly better than my D7000s (which always amaze me in that area for a semi-closed phone); I'll give them a little more time. Considering just selling the SP and D7K so I can afford the Fostex TH900 - who knows ).
 
Thanks for the help Dubstep Girl and Kevin Brown.

 

[LizardKing1]

The thing about expectation bias that bugs me is the extent that it's considered. I've seen people say sighted listening tests had absolutely no value. None, zero. I mean I understand bias exists and our ears are imperfect and all that, but it's ridiculous to immediately cross out any sighted observation a void. Think about it, this would mean a person who sees a headphone's graph has a better say about how it sound that someone who actually listened to it. I really believe in objectivism, but assuming a person's opinion is completely subjective is naive. Saying the XB500 has more bass than the SRH940 has measures of both subjectivism and objectivism.

 

[lejaz]

I don't think anyone implied that there's no objectivity at all in our auditory perception. It's, as you say, a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity....hopefully with more weight on the objective side. Where bias is most obvious is when someone is comparing two pieces of gear which 'objectively' sound identical, like two cables for instance. In cases like that, if we expect the much more expensive cable to sound 'better', our minds will often trick our brains into actually hearing a difference where there isn't any. A DBT will often prove that there actually is no objective difference in audio quality....at least none that's perceivable to anyone taking the test.  It could be two amps which couldn't be distinguished from one another in a DBT as well, or perhaps the k70X vs. the Q70X

 

[VALIENTE]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
at first = i find the grado more musical and fun to listen to because of their coloration. i appreciate the k701s slowly as i get used to their neutral signature and open soundstage  the k701 at first listen can sometimes sound a bit dull depending on the music and mood.
 
i never found the k701 to be sibiliant or harsh in the treble. 
 
the tubes do help with the grado harshness, mostly on the sr325. the rs1i can have weird sounding highs but they are never harsh or fatiguing. 

 
When I compare my Grado SR60 and my K701, these two headphones are really distinct. Grado is really colored when compared to AKG. Dull means boring, deadly, uninteresting, unexciting. I think K701 is interesting and exciting. I really appreciate it's very natural and realistic sound. Currently, I am appreciating its soundstage presence and also the vocals presented by the singers. Simply awesome and exciting to hear the next lyrics to be mentioned by the singer. The emotions of the vocals are amazing when compared to the Grado. In the end, I simply enjoy K701. 

 

[Chris J]

 
Quote:

I don't think anyone implied that there's no objectivity at all in our auditory perception. It's, as you say, a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity....hopefully with more weight on the objective side. Where bias is most obvious is when someone is comparing two pieces of gear which 'objectively' sound identical, like two cables for instance. In cases like that, if we expect the much more expensive cable to sound 'better', our minds will often trick our brains into actually hearing a difference where there isn't any. A DBT will often prove that there actually is no objective difference in audio quality....at least none that's perceivable to anyone taking the test.  It could be two amps which couldn't be distinguished from one another in a DBT as well, or perhaps the k70X vs. the Q70X

 
I basically agree.
However, how many times have you heard a highly regarded headphone and asked yourself what all the fuss was about?
There are instances where you expect to hear a great sounding piece of equipment and when you finally listen to it you think "what is the big deal?"

 

[lejaz]

 
Quote:

 
 
I basically agree.
However, how many times have you heard a highly regarded headphone and asked yourself what all the fuss was about?
There are instances where you expect to hear a great sounding piece of equipment and when you finally listen to it you think "what is the big deal?"

Absolutely. I'm sure there are times when our objective perception over-rides our tendency towards bias. When something is really obvious then it's pretty easy to be objective. When there's subtle differences....or none at all... between an expensive piece of gear and a less expensive one,.then we're more likely to be influenced by reviews, price bias, appearance, manufacturer reputation, etc. 

 

[Kevin Brown]

 
Quote:

 
 
I basically agree.
However, how many times have you heard a highly regarded headphone and asked yourself what all the fuss was about?
There are instances where you expect to hear a great sounding piece of equipment and when you finally listen to it you think "what is the big deal?"

 
Bingo.  When I first got my K701's, I thought there was actually something wrong them.  But there wasn't.  I was just hearing their "treble emphasis".
 
 

 

[Chris J]

 
Quote:

 
 
Bingo.  When I first got my K701's, I thought there was actually something wrong them.  But there wasn't.  I was just hearing their "treble emphasis".
 
 

 
That is funny!
 
I had heard so many comments on how bright and trebly the Q701s were that I was quite shocked that they actually had any bass when I first heard them.   Of course my expectation bias was that I would hear a headphone that was all treble and no bass.  
(I have a pair of 'phones with a lot of treble and almost no bass:  the Sennheiser HD424s).

 

[LizardKing1]

 
Quote:

 
That is funny!
 
I had heard so many comments on how bright and trebly the Q701s were that I was quite shocked that they actually had any bass when I first heard them.   Of course my expectation bias was that I would hear a headphone that was all treble and no bass.  
(I have a pair of 'phones with a lot of treble and almost no bass:  the Sennheiser HD424s).

 
Same thing here. But I always heard that about the K701 and thought they were exactly the same, either way I was expecting something really bright. Oh how delightfully wrong I was 

 

[lowrider007]

I currently own a pair of AKG K240 MKIIs and I am thinking of moving onto the Q701s, I'm looking for a wider sound stage, better mid/vocals, faster more impactful bass, and overall better resolution, I don't want anything harsh/thin sounding though, from reading this thread I should probably stay away from the K702s?, I was initially going to grab a pair of those due to being on a tight budget but think I may steer clear of them now, I'll be honest, there is an old part of me likes warmth, but I want to wean myself off it and move onto something cleaner and faster, a bit of history, a few years ago coming from a cheap set of warm floor standing speakers to a set of B&W speakers was a big shock for me, it took me months to get used to it, I don't think I'd ever heard mid range frequencies before, but I learned to love them, at the time I owned a pair of koss porta pro's, I started to feel that they sounded too warm and veiled, I wanted more detail, I grabbed the k240's and they have done me well but I like I said I want something better, these days I find myself edging up on the mids on my mixer but I'd rather not use eq's tbh.
 
Fav genres of music, Trance, classical, opera, jazz.
 
I'm currently using a DJ mixer for a headphone amp, it is integrated into my set up and is very useful tool, will this be sufficient?, it's probably not the best solution in terms of audio quality but it seems to have a lot of power, I'd rather not bypass it, I could run a headphone amp off master or rec output of the mixer if needs be.
 
 

 

[Eisenhower]

 
Quote:

Really I cannot explain why Q701 and K702 can sound some what different even though they have very similar frequency response curves.
 
One explanation may be due to the 3rd, 5th and higher harmonics at various frequencies produced by these two CANs are not the same on account of the material they used, such as the foam, the inner cables etc.
 
As to the sound stage the two CANs are quite similar but I can confirm that I can also observe what was mentioned by tdockweiler even though one can only tell the difference at AB testing.
 
As I mentioned earlier I also own a pair of Senn HD650 and I use this CAN and my K702 for listening to different types of music.  Though Q701 suits my taste better nevertheless I can live with my present K702.

 
They sound different to you because our ears are imperfect measurement devices, and when doing sighted listening tests one experiences "expectation bias". Maybe you heard what tdockweiler heard because you were subcontiously listening for it. This video (at ~5:30) shows how this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
 
Honestly this whole controversy is fubar at this point. Engineers could come in and say that the k702 are the same as the q701 and people here would not believe them.

 

[tdockweiler]

Oh god..not this guy again..the one who hasn't actually heard either of them..
This is getting so old and has already been beaten to death hundreds of times.
 
It will be nice when someone can figure out what causes the differences..and it's not my brain.
You'd have to be a complete moron to think a brain could cause such a difference. It's not even subtle.
I could understand this if it was comparing the K702 to the K701...
 
 
 

 

[Eisenhower]

 
Quote:

The graph at Inner Fidelity actually show more bass for the Q701.  I don't understand anyone who says otherwise:
 

 
Look at the vertical distance between the two cans at say 800 Hz or 4kHz or the entire range of 10kHz to 20kHz vs say 80 Hz or 20 Hz.  The response of the Q701 is "flared up" as you go from higher freqs down to lower.  The Q701 plainly has more "oomph" down low.  Some people might say that I'm splitting hairs here, but this is what I see.

 
Some people here, and in the other Q701 (aka K702..) appreciation thread, claimed that because there are *slight* differences in the measurements between them, that they are not the same headphones. This of course ignores the fact that no two drivers are ever identical because manufacturing techniques are not flawless.
 
I wonder if those people would like to comment on the slight differences between the left and right channels on the same headphone clearly seen here? Would you conclude that the k701 right channel has more lower mid oomph? You shouldn't, because as frenchbat noted, all measurements have uncertainty associated with them. None of these sites include error bars with their measurements, so they give the impression that the data is totally precise.