[sokolov91]

Quote:

/img/forum/go_quote.gif

I recently purchased a couple of the remastered Beatles CD's. Anyone who can't hear the bass on Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road with the k702 is clearly deaf! Some very nice of bass on some of the early Miles Davis albums with Paul Chambers and John coltrane too. Cant understand that 'no bass' criticism at all. Maybe it's not enough for someone's taste, but it can certainly be heard loud and clear. Any more bass would overpower the other instruments/voice

 
"no bass" would be an exaggeration of "rolled off bass" (which the AKG 70X is definitely not he sole offender) and this perception varies from person to person.
 
The fact of the matter is the bass response of the 70X is rolled off compared to newer flagships, to say they have "no bass" is false even if the intention was an exaggeration and not a fact.
 
the HD 800 are 3 to 10 dB lounder in the bass. The lower the bass goes, the louder the HD 800 is in respect to the K70X. The bass is more linear, revealing and detailed due to this. Whether or not it is what people like to hear is another story but lots of music is greatly enhanced by the full portrayal of the bass spectrum. This does not mean the headphone is bass heavy... the HD 800 is still a treble tilted can and was designed that way, but it does not have the shortcomings of last gen flagships with regards to imaging (to my ears at any rate) and with bass roll off (fact).
 
So yes you do indeed hear bass on the AKG, maybe even more so than some would like, but it is not a full or accurate portrayal of the spectrum and that is the gripe some people have -which is fully valid and backed by measurements. Subjective preference is the ultimate key to enjoyment but it does not override these facts in the sense that linking the AKG 70X's bass does not in fact make it accurate bass, any less rolled off or ETC. It is just highly enjoyable subjectively. Full, linear bass does not get in the way of the instruments or voices, and adds greatly to male vocals, piano, drums, bass guitar just about any instrument really. People are used to this being missing after 100hz but that is a product of exposure to colouration and nothing else. One of the reasons people (yes not all, spare me) love the LCD-2 and find they sound so natural is because everything from 10hz to 1khz is evenly portrayed. Things sound real this way, but not necessarily hi-fi.
 
And just to be fair I am just nit picking... there is no denying it is a high end headphone worthy of its praise and adoration... I just didn't like it myself and to think it is perfect as with any headphone is false. Also doesn't mean there aren't any better headphones either.

 

[lejaz]

@sokolov91:
Not denying that what you say is true. If there's steep low bass roll off it's not apparent to me because I'm not normally actively paying attention to those super low frequencies. The lack of the very low frequencies didn't seem to bother an acoustic jazz bass player I once had the pleasure of chatting with. My post was in response to all the ridiculous 'no bass' complaints I've read on the forum. To say there's no mid or upper bass is obviously absurd. There's no need to strain to hear it. Whether the 70X is true to the recording, I'm not qualified to say. Listen to Norah Jones and Willie Nelson's live recording of "Wurlitzer Prize" and there a 'bleep' load of bass there. Same on the remastered Abbey Road.  Bass light? not on those recordings anyway.

 

[pearljam5000]

To me the K1000 and the HD800 are the best headphones i have ever heard
i had the K701 and it's not even close!
HD800=Bugatti Veyron
the K701- Hyundai  car

 

[wind016]

Quote:

To me the K1000 and the HD800 are the best headphones i have ever heard
i had the K701 and it's not even close!
HD800=Bugatti Veyron
the K701- Hyundai  car

Hyundais are sick! They have refrigeration units in the backseat and the car practically drives itself =)

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

@sokolov91:
Not denying that what you say is true. If there's steep low bass roll off it's not apparent to me because I'm not normally actively paying attention to those super low frequencies. The lack of the very low frequencies didn't seem to bother an acoustic jazz bass player I once had the pleasure of chatting with. My post was in response to all the ridiculous 'no bass' complaints I've read on the forum. To say there's no mid or upper bass is obviously absurd. There's no need to strain to hear it. Whether the 70X is true to the recording, I'm not qualified to say. Listen to Norah Jones and Willie Nelson's live recording of "Wurlitzer Prize" and there a 'bleep' load of bass there. Same on the remastered Abbey Road.  Bass light? not on those recordings anyway.

Well its not really that rolled of in the grand scheme of things I suppose (many headphones are much worse), but the issue is also that these very low frequencies are increasingly hard to hear to the human ear, and they are easily masked by other frequencies... so even flat to 10hz, the low low bass only severs to complement mid bass in many cases as it simply is not easily perceivable to humans. Take 1khz at 80 dB and 25hz at 80dB and they are going to sound pretty different in terms of loudness.
 
Dubstep is the only genre of music I know of that actually revolves around borderline subsonic frequencies which is why many people get by without noticing or minding. For any genre of music I personally find it necessary and that is why I couldn't buy a Stax set up. Doesn't offer me the kind of neutral low end experience I must have from a headphone, even if they do other things superbly. To me without it bass drums, certain voices, and some genres are just unsatisfying.
 
I would agree the no bass comments are over exaggerated, but personally I can understand it to a degree as I found the balance to be tilted toward the highs but lack the super low end to balance it out somewhat increased the effect. but I won't go into it more as it has been a long time since I heard them (owned them for 6 months)
 
So the  K70X does an admiral job, just there is room to improve for those who want it with other headphones. For 250$ the K70X offers a hell of a lot if you like them.

 

[Pioneer31]

Quote:

@sokolov91:
Not denying that what you say is true. If there's steep low bass roll off it's not apparent to me because I'm not normally actively paying attention to those super low frequencies. The lack of the very low frequencies didn't seem to bother an acoustic jazz bass player I once had the pleasure of chatting with. My post was in response to all the ridiculous 'no bass' complaints I've read on the forum. To say there's no mid or upper bass is obviously absurd. There's no need to strain to hear it. Whether the 70X is true to the recording, I'm not qualified to say. Listen to Norah Jones and Willie Nelson's live recording of "Wurlitzer Prize" and there a 'bleep' load of bass there. Same on the remastered Abbey Road.  Bass light? not on those recordings anyway.

I do not accept the accusation of my AKG's bass description as being "ridiculous". On my setup there is a HUGE diference in bass output between the AKG 601's and HD595's, so unless you're suggesting that the 595's are the muddiest, most bassy heavy and coloured low fi product around?
 
Even if you upgrade to the most expensive headphone amp in the world (and my integrated isn't that bad), the relative differences will still be there. On my setup the AKG's are the odd one out, they stand apart from every other pair I've had (Grado, Senns, Ultrasone, Shure), which tends to suggest that they're the ones that "have it wrong"?
 
I'm guessing that you're listening to recently mastered CD's. Most recent CD's sound bloated to me. I think they're mastered for this generation who have mini hifi systems with tiny speakers.  I'm sure the AKG will convey some bass when fed with bloat.
 
Pick up a recording from the 90's or late 80's and the AKG protrays little bass (because in those days they 'beef up' the sound as much)

 

[lejaz]

My apology if I misread you, but someone (I thought it was you) wrote that they had 'no bass'. This issue is really a matter of subjective taste, IMO. Listen to "Fly Me to the Moon" and "Luck Be a Lady" from Sinatra Live at the Sands from 1966 (I think). Try "So What" and "Two Bass HIt" by Miles Davis from around 1960. Don't hear any bass? Then you definitely need a hearing check up. I'm sure you'd hear more with other phones. The RP21 I used to own had more, but still, I can't see that there's "little bass"  with the 702 on those recordings..I guess 'little' is a relative term....and shouldn't be taken as an absolute. What's 'little' for you is 'perfect' for someone else.

 
 
Quote:

I do not accept the accusation of my AKG's bass description as being "ridiculous". On my setup there is a HUGE diference in bass output between the AKG 601's and HD595's, so unless you're suggesting that the 595's are the muddiest, most bassy heavy and coloured low fi product around?
 
Even if you upgrade to the most expensive headphone amp in the world (and my integrated isn't that bad), the relative differences will still be there. On my setup the AKG's are the odd one out, they stand apart from every other pair I've had (Grado, Senns, Ultrasone, Shure), which tends to suggest that they're the ones that "have it wrong"?
 
I'm guessing that you're listening to recently mastered CD's. Most recent CD's sound bloated to me. I think they're mastered for this generation who have mini hifi systems with tiny speakers.  I'm sure the AKG will convey some bass when fed with bloat.
 
Pick up a recording from the 90's or late 80's and the AKG protrays little bass (because in those days they 'beef up' the sound as much)

 

[ex0du5]

Thanks for the reponse.
 
I have two issues here: first off, the HE-6 are a little out of my price bracket since I would have to buy a $500 amp to power them.
 
Second, I'm not so sure it's the dark signature I didn't like about the HD600. I think it was mainly the lack of instrument separation and general lack of detail compared to the AKG K702. They sounded very muddy and muffles when compares to the K702. I'm being told however that the LCD-2 shares none of these qualities with the HD600, so who knows. Then again...maybe it was the signature. I absolutely love my dad's B&W 800 Diamonds, which have a warm sonic signature and excellent midrange...I'm not expecting any headphones to come even close to these, but I'm half envisioning the LCD-2s to have a similar sonic signature. My problem is, I have no way of auditioning high end headphones in Ottawa.

 
Quote:

 

If you don't like the HD600 / HD650, there's a good chance you won't like the LCD-2 either.  I've tried the HD650 and the LCD-2, and I wasn't particularly fond of either of them for their warm / dark nature.  If you like the brighter, airier presentation of the K702, the HD800, T1 or maybe even the HE-6 would probably make more sense for a headphone upgrade path.
 

 

[dalethorn]

Well its not really that rolled of in the grand scheme of things I suppose (many headphones are much worse), but the issue is also that these very low frequencies are increasingly hard to hear to the human ear, and they are easily masked by other frequencies... so even flat to 10hz, the low low bass only severs to complement mid bass in many cases as it simply is not easily perceivable to humans. Take 1khz at 80 dB and 25hz at 80dB and they are going to sound pretty different in terms of loudness.

I don't "hear" bass tones of 30 hz and below, but I can easily tell what frequency I'm getting and how pure it is by the feel. Headphones aren't much different from loudspeakers when it comes to low frequencies. For example, if you listen to loudspeakers in a room with large openings in it, the deep bass frequencies mostly escape and the feeling of power you would experience (for example) in a church with a large pipe organ, or even when a large bass drum passes close by in a parade, is mostly not there. And even if the room doesn't have large openings or very thin walls, you can lose the bass effect if you don't have large enough room dimensions to allow the waves to propagate properly. I think you need a nearly 20 foot dimension for 30 hz. I don't know how the room length aspect relates to headphones, but I can sure feel the low frequencies on my HD-800, and all I have to do is move the earcups away from my head a tiny amount and they're gone. In the 1970's Richard Heyser of JPL wrote an interesting paper for the Audio Engineering Society relating the effect of earthquakes to standing on a very large woofer cone. Having been in a few myself, most earthquakes feel just like an undamped woofer, and the frequencies are impossible to hear since they're below 10 hz. But you can sure feel them.

 

[Sophonax]

 
Quote:

Thanks for the reponse.
 
I have two issues here: first off, the HE-6 are a little out of my price bracket since I would have to buy a $500 amp to power them.
 
Second, I'm not so sure it's the dark signature I didn't like about the HD600. I think it was mainly the lack of instrument separation and general lack of detail compared to the AKG K702. They sounded very muddy and muffles when compares to the K702. I'm being told however that the LCD-2 shares none of these qualities with the HD600, so who knows. Then again...maybe it was the signature. I absolutely love my dad's B&W 800 Diamonds, which have a warm sonic signature and excellent midrange...I'm not expecting any headphones to come even close to these, but I'm half envisioning the LCD-2s to have a similar sonic signature. My problem is, I have no way of auditioning high end headphones in Ottawa.
 

Well the LCD-2s are definitely not muddy or muffled, so maybe you'd like them.  They are extremely detailed, but because of their dark tonal balance, they present detail in a very different way from the likes of the K702, T1, or HD800.
 
As for instrument separation, that's kind of an odd point with the LCD-2.  I don't think the LCD-2 has much in the way of a soundstage.  As a result, their incredible detail allows them to separate instruments well, but they don't seem to put a lot of space between the instruments, if that makes sense.
 
The LCD-2s are certainly very unique, and I think they might be something of a love 'em or hate 'em headphone...makes it kind of a rough decision for someone who can't try them before buying.  At worst, if you got them and didn't like them, you could probably sell them and get most of your money back.
 

 

[vrln]

Agreed. Definately a very polarising sound signature. Most here seem to love it though, but there are exceptions to the rule. I ended up selling them. The soundstaging in particular (I could live with the recessed highs as there is no sibilance) is something I couldn´t stand. Most of what it does right makes no sense when the canvas the headphone paints on is two dimensional and IEM-like (actually I prefer the soundstaging in many IEM´s). The sound never manages to leave your head. The resale value is so high right now they are basically free to try out though. They sell within 24 hours usually.

 

[ex0du5]

Seriously that small of a soundstage? I'm reading reviews that say they are near the HD 800 in terms of soundstage. I'm so confused.
 
They're not exactly free to try in Canada, since I would have to pay $150-200 taxes/duty on them.

 

[Sophonax]

 
Quote:

Seriously that small of a soundstage? I'm reading reviews that say they are near the HD 800 in terms of soundstage. I'm so confused.
 
They're not exactly free to try in Canada, since I would have to pay $150-200 taxes/duty on them.

Some people have claimed to hear a good soundstage from the LCD-2, but I was not one of them.  IMO, comparing the soundstage of the LCD-2 to that of the HD800 is like comparing an office cubicle to a concert hall -- the HD800's stage is WAY bigger.
 

 

[Sophonax]

 
Quote:

what about the k701 vs lcd2 soundstage?

The K701 has a pretty large soundstage too -- I'd say it has about the same perceived width as the HD800, but less depth than the HD800.  In any case, the K701 also sounds much more spacious than the LCD-2.

 

[vrln]

Agreed, no contest really.