[sokolov91]

Quote:

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.

Cool.
 
Both headphone are hi-fi so it is really just a matter of what someone likes best ultimately. Hard to think the AKG have more bass but many the Q701 is a bit more than just milking an old product.

 

[sokolov91]

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.

 
Quote:

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

Not trying to fight boys but A) all three headphones can be expected to sound slightly different... they are made by hand overall which makes it hard to know for sure if what you are hearing is a result of the burn in (which as far as we know does not exist outside the mind) or a result of the different headphones. Like if you had no idea which one had which hours on it, I doubt people could pin point which one sounded "clearer" or "openened up" and that people would pick any one of the three. So yeah, it would be extremely hard to actually have a causal relationship and not assumptions.
 
The only burn in I have really experienced on the K702 was the bumps on the headband burning into my skull and pulling at my hair a bit LOL. I think the fact many people actively listen for burn in from session to session has a big thing to do with it as well.
 
If only they had had a bit more slack I probably would have kept them. But I think for any headphone it is safe to say, if you do not like them out of the box, burn in won't be some sort of magical fix.

 

[macbob713]

What I was trying to say, regardless of burn in, is that the 3 phones sound different. The HD800 has a well known sound signature which obviously will vary by source and amp. Ditto the 702. The Q 701 is not well known and has been written off by many here on Head-Fi as just a marketing ploy. Of course it's marketing, every company who can afford a good marketing effort will do so, regardless of industry.
However, I think the Q701 should be judged on it's merits, by people who have actually spent some serious time with it on their rigs, rather than be dismissed out of hand as a repaint of the 701/2. I have listened to it extensivley on jazz, classical and some well recorded rock music,(Led Zepplin's Motherlode yesterday), and I can clearly hear the difference on every CD from the 702 and the HD800, which I interchange from track to track. The Q 701 sounds different than it's sibling.
I'm not attributing any of this to burn in, but by design of the manufacturers. AKG did more than "repaint" the 701, it tweaked the sound signature while retaining the same phones.   I tested it with my wife and brother, eyes closed, and interchanged the 702 and the Q701 repeatedly. Every time they both favored the sound on the new Q model.

 

[Ikarios]

Quote:

What I was trying to say, regardless of burn in, is that the 3 phones sound different. The HD800 has a well known sound signature which obviously will vary by source and amp. Ditto the 702. The Q 701 is not well known and has been written off by many here on Head-Fi as just a marketing ploy. Of course it's marketing, every company who can afford a good marketing effort will do so, regardless of industry.
However, I think the Q701 should be judged on it's merits, by people who have actually spent some serious time with it on their rigs, rather than be dismissed out of hand as a repaint of the 701/2. I have listened to it extensivley on jazz, classical and some well recorded rock music,(Led Zepplin's Motherlode yesterday), and I can clearly hear the difference on every CD from the 702 and the HD800, which I interchange from track to track. The Q 701 sounds different than it's sibling.
I'm not attributing any of this to burn in, but by design of the manufacturers. AKG did more than "repaint" the 701, it tweaked the sound signature while retaining the same phones.   I tested it with my wife and brother, eyes closed, and interchanged the 702 and the Q701 repeatedly. Every time they both favored the sound on the new Q model.

This is getting a bit off topic, but can you compare the baffles of the Q701 and your K702? I have a feeling if there's any difference, it will be there, as I've been reading K501 impressions and I'm really noticing how impressions can change based on what version the reviewer might have (though this is speculation).

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

What I was trying to say, regardless of burn in, is that the 3 phones sound different. The HD800 has a well known sound signature which obviously will vary by source and amp. Ditto the 702. The Q 701 is not well known and has been written off by many here on Head-Fi as just a marketing ploy. Of course it's marketing, every company who can afford a good marketing effort will do so, regardless of industry.
However, I think the Q701 should be judged on it's merits, by people who have actually spent some serious time with it on their rigs, rather than be dismissed out of hand as a repaint of the 701/2. I have listened to it extensivley on jazz, classical and some well recorded rock music,(Led Zepplin's Motherlode yesterday), and I can clearly hear the difference on every CD from the 702 and the HD800, which I interchange from track to track. The Q 701 sounds different than it's sibling.
I'm not attributing any of this to burn in, but by design of the manufacturers. AKG did more than "repaint" the 701, it tweaked the sound signature while retaining the same phones.   I tested it with my wife and brother, eyes closed, and interchanged the 702 and the Q701 repeatedly. Every time they both favored the sound on the new Q model.

well that is certainly more promising than what I had thought was the case.

I too am interested in the differences between the K701 and Q701 if you have a link or something. A "fixed" K70X would be an extreme value indeed.

 

[macbob713]

Tech Radar and HI-FI CHOICE published reviews and you can google them. Very few other reviews to date.

 

[rhythmdevils]

No offense, but I find it hard to believe that there were conscious changes made to the Q701 given AKG's history of repainting headphones and giving them new names without changing anything inside, and even when they have made changes, it is to reduce costs, to the detriment of SQ.  AKG's own website admits that the change from K240 Sextett to Monitor was because they found a cheaper way of achieving a similar thing.  They simply fail to mention that it didn't work as well.  This has happened over and over again for the last 30 years.  There is also the fact that AKG's own advertising and statements say it is the same headphone on the inside, but just repainted and they only strongly hint that it is better.  With the skilled marketing team of Harman at the wheel, they would certainly be making outrageous, over the top claims of better SQ or putting "HD"'s everywhere if they even changed so much as a screw. 
 
I'm not going to say that you are hearing things, but it's kind of hard to believe. 

 

[macbob713]

I appreciate your comment and opinion, but you have not heard the Q701. Your post is just based on speculation and what appears to be bias against AKG. Many,many people on Head-Fi tend to post opinions and make statements, both pro and con, on products they have never heard.  Everyone has that right, but I would hope that most people would give more weight to someone's opinion who has personal experience with the item being discussed. If you heard them and trashed them, that I can understand. Everyone hears things the way they hear them. Everyone has certain sound signatures they prefer over others. But just speculating and trashing things seems silly to me.

 

[rhythmdevils]

What are the differences you're hearing?

I dont dislike AKG i have owned a lot of their headphones and currently own 2. I do however have a severe bias against Harman.

 

[TheKisho]

 
Quote:

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.

While I loved the AKG K701's the mids drove me nuts (and a few sounds it tried it just got wrong).  The AKG K501's is definitely the way to go for those who want better mids.  There are differences between the K701 and the K501 but they are closer than a K240DF and are cheaper than the K1000.  (There is still enough of what I loved from the K701's to settle on these headphones [K501]).  I still miss the awesome look of those white K701's with that red-ish headband.

 

 

P.S.  Still wouldn't mind having a quick listen to the HD800 just out of curiosity, as I came from the Sennheiser camp to start with.

 

[FritzS]

Quote:

 

While I loved the AKG K701's the mids drove me nuts (and a few sounds it tried it just got wrong).  The AKG K501's is definitely the way to go for those who want better mids.  There are differences between the K701 and the K501 but they are closer than a K240DF and are cheaper than the K1000.  (There is still enough of what I loved from the K701's to settle on these headphones [K501]).  I still miss the awesome look of those white K701's with that red-ish headband.

 

 

P.S.  Still wouldn't mind having a quick listen to the HD800 just out of curiosity, as I came from the Sennheiser camp to start with.

K501 sounds very relaxed to me, very nice mids, but with more rolloff on both ends as the K/Q70x series
K501 and solo woman voices

 

[TheKisho]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FritzS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
K501 sounds very relaxed to me, very nice mids, but with more rolloff on both ends as the K/Q70x series

Top ends didn't seem rolled off compared to the K701's.  But than again I can only really hear to 14-16kHz.

 

[rhythmdevils]

The K501 isn't rolled of in the high end, just the low end. 

 

[FritzS]

 
Quote:

Top ends didn't seem rolled off compared to the K701's.  But than again I can only really hear to 14-16kHz.

I think the rolloff have influence in the hearable region - the higher the rolloff, the lighter the diaphragm.
 
For me, the K501 sounds silkier, more distinguished in highs - in positive sense
 
have anyone the frequency plot on the K501 compaired to K701/702?

 

[rhythmdevils]

It has less treble than the K701 IME, but that doesn't mean it is rolled off because the K701 is a bright headphone.  Also the K501 extends really far, it's not missing any frequencies in the treble.  The K501 itself is a bright headphone.  Just not as bright as the K701.