[morbo667]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runningwater Now I could understand why SA5K is your favorite. And the person who loves SA5k, must love K701 too. I can see the same sound signature between Sa5k and K701. Whatever, HD650 is still my cup of tea Left those white cups on burn-in.

I can see no sound-signature-similarities between K701 and SA5K at all ... actually its pretty easy for me to divide my CDs into two groups: one group for each of the two cans.

The SA5K can deliver lots of aggression and detail at low volumes, and it delivers fast (great for fast pop/rock and metal). K701 (60h burn-in) can't do that.

On the other hand the K701 has resolution and smoothness in the midrange (great for vocals, acoustic instruments and Dire-Straits-like-electric-guitars) and an unbelievable soundstage with an even better seperation (with good recordings you can see the exact position (just one tiny point) of an instrument - with lots of black space around it... its almost scary).

These two cans complement each other pretty well IMO. Well you are right with one thing then: I love them both.

 

[Runningwater]

Yes, Sa5k does have fast bass while the bass of K701 is litter soft. And K701 does have better mid. But I still think they share similar(NOT same) signature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by morbo667 I can see no sound-signature-similarities between K701 and SA5K at all ... actually its pretty easy for me to divide my CDs into two groups: one group for each of the two cans. The SA5K can deliver lots of aggression and detail at low volumes, and it delivers fast (great for fast pop/rock and metal). K701 (60h burn-in) can't do that. On the other hand the K701 has resolution and smoothness in the midrange (great for vocals, acoustic instruments and Dire-Straits-like-electric-guitars) and an unbelievable soundstage with an even better seperation (with good recordings you can see the exact position (just one tiny point) of an instrument - with lots of black space around it... its almost scary). These two cans complement each other pretty well IMO. Well you are right with one thing then: I love them both.

 

[Patu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runningwater Now I could understand why SA5K is your favorite. And the person who loves SA5k, must love K701 too. I can see the same sound signature between Sa5k and K701. Whatever, HD650 is still my cup of tea Left those white cups on burn-in.

Who said SA5k is my favourite? It's very nice yes and I like it a lot for rock music but K701 has its own strengths definitely (if it ever sounds so good what it did first). You can read from that "K701 review" thread what I experienced with them last night. Hope burn in makes them sound smoother again.

 

[mulveling]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patu We can all have our opinions but this one sucks!

...in your opinion.

The ESI Juli@ is good but in a high end rig it can't compete at all with a Meridian G08 or 588. Like Nik, when it comes to my main rig I prefer to keep computers completely out of the equation.

 

[Patu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulveling ...in your opinion. The ESI Juli@ is good but in a high end rig it can't compete at all with a Meridian G08 or 588. Like Nik, when it comes to my main rig I prefer to keep computers completely out of the equation.

I've heard G08 but in a speaker rig so I can't say much about it. Probably a hell of a good cd-player. Doesn't it cost somewhat 4500EUR? About same price than the Wadia I heard and which didn't sound any special to my ears.

But I think it's time to get back to the topic. I just hate it when people underestimate computer as a source.

Sorry if I got you hi end cd-player guys angry. I didn't mean to.

 

[K2Grey]

I would suggest that if one person perceives better sound from his sound card than from a very expensive CD player, then it is quite possible that a good deal of other people will perceive that the sound card sound is in the same world as the sound of very expensive CD players.

 

[kenneth11zz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by morbo667 On the other hand the K701 has resolution and smoothness in the midrange (great for vocals, acoustic instruments and Dire-Straits-like-electric-guitars) and an unbelievable soundstage with an even better seperation (with good recordings you can see the exact position (just one tiny point) of an instrument - with lots of black space around it... its almost scary).

Morbo, base on your experience, how three dimensional or holographic is the K701? How organic, lush and liquid are the sounds? Have you listen to the L3000 before and how do u compare to it?

Here are some quotes form other threads.

KZEE Quoted:
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...5&page=9&pp=20

"The soundstaging is the best I've heard in a headphone... it's large and just sort of envelopes you, and the separation of vocals and instruments is remarkable and I've never heard anything quite like it in a headphone. When listening to CD's that I'm very familiar with there are things buried in the mix that I knew were there, but for some reason the 701's seem to make those sounds pop out at me more than with the other headphones I've had in my system. Good stuff.

Oh yeah, it's 3-D, with all the depth your ears can handle."



Kenneth

 

[JaZZ]

.
Just another report from the German HiFi forum. A new (as usually very bulky) review from michaelxray aka Otwin -- generously translated from German:


This K 601 from chamix has already 350 hours on it, so I treat it as fully broken-in headphone.

Right in the beginning: the difference between K 601 and K 701 is more than clear, but don't understand this in a way that the K 601 be bad -- no, it isn't --, but rather because the K 701 is exceptionally good.

With the K 601, I'm just a spectator in the xth row. In front of me the stage with the orchestra, well structured, but it doesn't allow me a look into the orchestra, whereas with the K 701 I'm in the position of the conductor with insight into the rows of my orchestra, with good scaling. For me as a classical listener this makes a huge difference.

Also the whole largeness which the K 701 easily shows and the implicitness with which it presents the orchestra and details there, emanating dimensionally perceivable, differentiatable and 3-dimensional as existing bodies, all this isn't as clearly reproduced with the K 601. Still its resolution is good enough for the tonal differentiation -- nevertheless it clearly fails when it comes to convey as holistic an experience as the K 701.

An analogy for the performance of the three AKG models K 501, K 601 and K 701: If it were about color TVs, the K 501 would be a good 55-60 cm screen. The K 601 would correspond to a 70 cm screen with very clean picture. Finally the K 701 stands for a 120 cm LCD of finest quality, with optimal contrast and depth of image.

At least with an Oehlbach cable the HD 600 performs better in the bass than the K 601, has greater impact and is drier -- it's more believable, substantial and visceral. There's a tie in the midrange. There's a certain dryness again with the HD 600, allowing for a good differentiation of single piano notes because of their tight appearance, but there's a tad subtlety missing. With certain kinds of music/recordings this characteristic is pleasing, but the K 601 performs better and is more balanced with «classic(al)» criteria.

In the treble the K 601 is in front. I can tweak the HD 600 as much as I want, it won't reach the same clarity. The treble is the finest what the K 601 has to offer: clean and energetic, even reminding of electrostatic performance -- although not as much as the K 701. All in all I prefer the K 601 to the HD 600 with classical orchestral music exactly because of its clean treble, whereas a baritone is clearly better reproduced by the HD 600.

The HD 650 on the other hand is superior to the K 601. With it, all processes coalesce to a full-fledged performance. The HD 650 does his work more easily and more expressively from the inside, also more believably. Not necessary to go into detail; I would decide for the HD 650. Also a Grado SR-325i has more substance. Although I must say that the K 601's treble is a tough competition for the SR-325i. But all in all there's no question: the SR-325i is better.

For me the K 601 is a noteworthy update of the K 501, with even more coherent treble -- smoother, cleaner -- and better proportion between midrange and bass response. Not unsimilar, but stronger, more expressive. But down to very low frequencies the volume decreases rapidly. It still sounds clean, but not full enough. This happens far lower than with the K 501, though, and is therefore absolutely acceptable. Anyway, for lovers of electronic music it's possibly not enough. For ballads such as from Supertramp or Mike Oldfield it's absolutely adequate.

The K 601 has a slightly tighter characteristic than its bigger brother, although not clearly more upfront or harsher -- just a nice sound enabling to enjoy various genres. Luckily even tutti passages are reproduced without noticeable effort, even though it might not show the same ease as the K 701.
.

 

[Andrea]

Again, thanks to the translator.

The K601 could be my HD595 replacement, perhaps. Or not? I think that only my own ears could put a final word in my wondering if that magic the HD595 can create with its midrange expressiveness is in the K601's power as well.


The K701, instead, doesn't seem like my HD650 replacement. I sense it. Somehow.

 

[mattigol]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ as usually very bulky

You can say that again.

 

[amartignano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Just another report from the German HiFi forum. A new (as usually very bulky) review from michaelxray aka Otwin -- generously translated from German: This K 601 from chamix has already 350 hours on it, so I treat it as fully broken-in headphone. etc...

WOW! Finally, impressions about the K601 vs K701 vs HD600/650. That's what I want!

Very interested in the K601 (k701 is now too expensive for me).

I'm just looking for someone who compares K601 to Beyer DT880, anyone knows?

Thanks!

Andrea

 

[morbo667]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenneth11zz Morbo, base on your experience, how three dimensional or holographic is the K701? How organic, lush and liquid are the sounds? Have you listen to the L3000 before and how do u compare to it?

I don't want to talk 3rd Dimension yet because its too early. I have only listened to the headphone for about 10 hours in the evening after work and I think I need more quality time with the K701 to evaluate 3rd Dimension.

What I can tell already is, that the K701 has by far the best twodimensional soundstage among my cans (SA5K, HD600, K701 - and these are the only ones I've heard enough to seriously evaluate ... sorry have not heard the L3000 yet). The SA5K builds a nice, but quite small image (compared to the other 2). Its width is smaller than the HD600, but the height is almost the same - which means, that both have pretty low height.
Thats the big advantage of the K701. The image-width is as big as the HD600's, but the height is unbelievable. Its like the other two can had only one dimension and the K701 added a second. Well ... you can imagine how much more space the K701 has to work with ... which results in a great instrument-seperation.
I noticed a tendency though, that the more an instrument is placed at the side of the picture, the lower (on the height dimension - not frequency

) and closer to you it gets.

So the overall image of the K701 (about 80h ... and of course IMO and in my setup) is a huge TV, which was bend around you a bit and the right and left top corners have been cut off.

 

[kenneth11zz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by morbo667 What I can tell already is, that the K701 has by far the best twodimensional soundstage among my cans (SA5K, HD600, K701 - and these are the only ones I've heard enough to seriously evaluate ... sorry have not heard the L3000 yet). The SA5K builds a nice, but quite small image (compared to the other 2). Its width is smaller than the HD600, but the height is almost the same - which means, that both have pretty low height. Thats the big advantage of the K701. The image-width is as big as the HD600's, but the height is unbelievable. Its like the other two can had only one dimension and the K701 added a second. Well ... you can imagine how much more space the K701 has to work with ... which results in a great instrument-seperation.

That's very very impressive if others also have a similar impressions as yours after theirs s fully burn-ins. Definitely the K701 is aiming for tier 2 or at least higher than tier 3 cans. Other reviewers already quoted saying the K701 has a very balanced freqency and tones and a good overall soundstage.

Let's hope it gets better after a full burn-ins from you and others. Keep us informed.

By the way, what amp are you using for the K701? Have you tried using it unamp?

Kenneth

 

[kenneth11zz]

Can someone give us a little comparison impression for tier 2 cans such as the AKG K1000 and ATH-L3000?

I wanted to know how much difference it make in terms of the price and sound. I have narrow down my choice to K701, used ATH-L3000 or the new ATH-W5000.

Kenneth

 

[ZOKROX]

The HD600 is considered relatively flat. How "flat" is the K701 compared to the HD600? Would the K701 be useful for mixing?