[Ikarios]

My issue with the K701 soundstage is that it sounds spacious, but artificially so. I describe it as a sort of "donut" soundstage - the outer width of the soundstage is great, but so is the inner width (i.e. it starts further than it should). I can't comment on the LCD2 soundstage since when I heard it, I was determined not to like it (my wallet doesn't need me thinking a $1000 headphone sounds good...) but the HD800 soundstage is just as spacious as the K701 without the artificialness. I have to say the HD800 soundstage is the widest I've ever heard, while sounding natural at the same time.

 

[SP Wild]

I found that when I had the HD800 to compare, the soundstage of the K701 and LCD2 had the same overall "out of head" size...but the HD800 had better center and forward projection, whilst the K701 and LCD2 had a more spherical projection around the head. 
 
These three cans all had the most spacious "headstage" of any can outside of the K1000.  So I am extremely bewildered at the majority consensus that the LCD has a tiny soundstage.  There are a few that share my opinion.  A quote from the Six Moon LCD2 review:
 
"I found the Audez'e to stage just as big as the Sennheiser HD800 but with a difference. The Senn's brighter sparklier more crystallized top creates more pronounced image specificity. Ambient cues of reflections, performer halos and transient origins are keener. For Gallo CDT-tweeter + spherical mids holography, the HD800 remains king. This is supported by its lighter less massive low end. It leans out the general presentation for a subjective impression of greater transparency."
 
I guess in order to gauge how an individuals HRTF affects a headphone soundstage, the best solution is to hear it personally, rather than believing conflicting opinions.
 
If the K701 had the exact tonality but with a faster response transducer, I would choose this over the HD800.  This is because I like the K701s darker treble presentation, which is incidently darker than that of the HD650 even...albeit with a much leaner tonality, is a lot easier for my ears than the HD800s bright treble.
 
Both HD800 and K701 are considered "analytical" and many call them both "bright", but to my ears, the K701 has a cool midrange with a dark treble as opposed to the HD800s warm midrange with a bright treble.  The K701 is never sibilant and this is the indication that the treble is in fact not at all bright, but very dark actually, as the HD650 and LCD2 is brighter in the treble.

 

[Ikarios]

Quote:

I found that when I had the HD800 to compare, the soundstage of the K701 and LCD2 had the same overall "out of head" size...but the HD800 had better center and forward projection, whilst the K701 and LCD2 had a more spherical projection around the head. 
 
These three cans all had the most spacious "headstage" of any can outside of the K1000.  So I am extremely bewildered at the majority consensus that the LCD has a tiny soundstage.  There are a few that share my opinion.  A quote from the Six Moon LCD2 review:
 
"I found the Audez'e to stage just as big as the Sennheiser HD800 but with a difference. The Senn's brighter sparklier more crystallized top creates more pronounced image specificity. Ambient cues of reflections, performer halos and transient origins are keener. For Gallo CDT-tweeter + spherical mids holography, the HD800 remains king. This is supported by its lighter less massive low end. It leans out the general presentation for a subjective impression of greater transparency."
 
I guess in order to gauge how an individuals HRTF affects a headphone soundstage, the best solution is to hear it personally, rather than believing conflicting opinions.
 
If the K701 had the exact tonality but with a faster response transducer, I would choose this over the HD800.  This is because I like the K701s darker treble presentation, which is incidently darker than that of the HD650 even...albeit with a much leaner tonality, is a lot easier for my ears than the HD800s bright treble.
 
Both HD800 and K701 are considered "analytical" and many call them both "bright", but to my ears, the K701 has a cool midrange with a dark treble as opposed to the HD800s warm midrange with a bright treble.  The K701 is never sibilant and this is the indication that the treble is in fact not at all bright, but very dark actually, as the HD650 and LCD2 is brighter in the treble.

I was looking at the K701 frequency graphs, since I couldn't explain what I heard with the HD650 and the K701 - the K701, while very treble-leaning, didn't give me any issues with sibilance or treble, whereas the HD650, while having a very smooth overall treble, had an annoying resonance/peak around 10-12kHz that ultimately led to their selling. When I posted about it, most people didn't seem to agree with me. I just chalked it up to odd ear resonances. Anyway, on the frequency graphs, I noticed that the K701 has a very treble-heavy frequency relative to other headphones, but also has a relatively sharp drop-off around 12-14kHz. This might be why cymbals sound just fine with the K701 but bothered me with the HD650 and the DT880. I find that the K701 is one of the hardest headphones to fully explain... when I think about the headphones I've gone through, and other people's impressions, it's a little bit of a shock I still have them and that I don't have other headphones, like the DT880s, HF2/RS1, or the HD650. Very odd indeed.

 

[SP Wild]

Quote:

I was looking at the K701 frequency graphs, since I couldn't explain what I heard with the HD650 and the K701 - the K701, while very treble-leaning, didn't give me any issues with sibilance or treble, whereas the HD650, while having a very smooth overall treble, had an annoying resonance/peak around 10-12kHz that ultimately led to their selling. When I posted about it, most people didn't seem to agree with me. I just chalked it up to odd ear resonances. Anyway, on the frequency graphs, I noticed that the K701 has a very treble-heavy frequency relative to other headphones, but also has a relatively sharp drop-off around 12-14kHz. This might be why cymbals sound just fine with the K701 but bothered me with the HD650 and the DT880. I find that the K701 is one of the hardest headphones to fully explain... when I think about the headphones I've gone through, and other people's impressions, it's a little bit of a shock I still have them and that I don't have other headphones, like the DT880s, HF2/RS1, or the HD650. Very odd indeed.

I see, some good information there, thanks.  This absolutely explains why the HD650 sounded more natural in the treble with a tube amp to my ears...and fatiguing with solid state, the K701 sounding smoother in the treble without the need for tubes.  The K701 treble is the best in the HD650/DT880/RS1 class of cans IMO.  My D7000s, along with the HD800 drive me insane with sibilance and splashy cymbals - the K701 is just perfect in this regards.  IME, the K701 treble was finally beaten by the LCD2s trebles.
 
Did you hear the HD650 treble peak as a kind of very high frequency grain/ringing type noise/energy?  That is what I hear with the Lehmann amp and the HD650...cured by tubes.

 

[Ikarios]

Quote:

I see, some good information there, thanks.  This absolutely explains why the HD650 sounded more natural in the treble with a tube amp to my ears...and fatiguing with solid state, the K701 sounding smoother in the treble without the need for tubes.  The K701 treble is the best in the HD650/DT880/RS1 class of cans IMO.  My D7000s, along with the HD800 drive me insane with sibilance and splashy cymbals - the K701 is just perfect in this regards.  IME, the K701 treble was finally beaten by the LCD2s trebles.
 
Did you hear the HD650 treble peak as a kind of very high frequency grain/ringing type noise/energy?  That is what I hear with the Lehmann amp and the HD650...cured by tubes.

Not really; the peak I heard was more of a piercing note at 10kHz, mostly noticeable in cymbals (unfortunately I listen to a lot of prog. metal, so cymbals are a big selling point for me). When I equalized it down they sounded awesome, but I didn't want to keep equalization as a long-term solution. However the prospects of me finding something better is looking dimmer and dimmer, all I really have left to look forward to from mainstream manufacturers is the AD2000.
 
Oddly (or maybe not oddly, considering the price) the HD800 didn't bother me with regards to sibilance or splashy treble, which is something I, like you, am quite sensitive to. Maybe I just didn't spend enough time with it.

 

[vrln]

I would also pick the K701 over the HD 800 for the same reason. It´s not as good in soundstaging, but close enough. The K701 are treble happy, but without the treble being sibilant. The K701 really don´t get the praise they deserve in my opinion. Fantastic cans available for a low price these days too.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

I would also pick the K701 over the HD 800 for the same reason. It´s not as good in soundstaging, but close enough. The K701 are treble happy, but without the treble being sibilant. The K701 really don´t get the praise they deserve in my opinion. Fantastic cans available for a low price these days too.

I think they either get way too much praise, or not quite enough.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I would also pick the K701 over the HD 800 for the same reason. It´s not as good in soundstaging, but close enough. The K701 are treble happy, but without the treble being sibilant. The K701 really don´t get the praise they deserve in my opinion. Fantastic cans available for a low price these days too.

Have you listened to a K-501 or a K-1000? If so, how do you compare them to the K-701?

 

[vrln]

Unfortunately I haven´t had the opportunity to listen to either. Both are extremely interesting though, especially the K1000. I hope AKG brings it back into production someday. 

 

[BWV988]

At 1/14th to 1/10th the price of new HD 800s, a pair of used K501s are the way to go for those who enjoy acoustic, bass-light music, and don't like the 701/2's mids or headbands. All that's needed, these days, is a little patience.

 

[glasslike]

Ok, my AKG K701 has arrived, will burn in and compare with my HD800.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Ok, my AKG K701 has arrived, will burn in and compare with my HD800.

make sure you put 1500 hrs on the AKG as suggested before making any judgment -so you don't jump to "false" conclusions... LOL
 
Nah, in all seriousness though you can compare them out of the box. They won't change to any notable degree. One of those myths that really dies hard it would seem.
 
Have fun!

 

[FritzS]

Quote:

make sure you put 1500 hrs on the AKG as suggested before making any judgment -so you don't jump to "false" conclusions... LOL
 
Nah, in all seriousness though you can compare them out of the box. They won't change to any notable degree. One of those myths that really dies hard it would seem.
 
Have fun!

I »accompanied« all three AKG headphones - K701, K702, Q701 in the burning in phase. The most changes are in the first 10 .. 20 hours; after 80 ... 100 hours I could not notice verified variances. The only provable way - using three very similar and compaired K701 headphones run one near zero, the second 100 hours, the third 1000 hours and compair them again - all other statements like rather urban legends. The day by day sentiment of hearing are more different.
And we human don't have a very good audio memory too - all other like more imagine.

 

[Acix]

 
Quote:

I »accompanied« all three AKG headphones - K701, K702, Q701 in the burning in phase. The most changes are in the first 10 .. 20 hours; after 80 ... 100 hours I could not notice verified variances. The only provable way - using three very similar and compaired K701 headphones run one near zero, the second 100 hours, the third 1000 hours and compair them again - all other statements like rather urban legends. The day by day sentiment of hearing are more different.
And we human don't have a very good audio memory too - all other like more imagine.

I've got the same burn in experience... but my last change was after 250 hours. 

 

[macbob713]

I've been burning in a new pair of AKG Q701's. Right out of the box they sounded great. After about 25 hours things really settled in. The sound seemed to be slightly fuller, the bass slightly more focused. I have over 200 hundred hours on them now. Do I notice any real change, I don't know. I've been comparing them head to head with the K702 and my HD800. My initial impression is that on every recording the Q701 sounds better than the K702. A little more bass, a little more overall impact, a little warmer mids. Treble nicely balanced. Top notch sound overall. In fact very close on many recordings to my HD800. On some recordings with solo piano, the Q701 sounds better. Better control of the higher frequencies. I will start a new thread on the Q701 soon.