Did the K701 haters try the Q701?

[installgentoo]

I'm just curious as to whether those who were extremely critical of the K701 tried the Q701 and noticed a difference (for the better or for the worse).

 

[fatcat28037]

They're the same except for the Q's ugly green accent.

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

They're the same except for the Q's ugly green accent.

 
That's the impression of 95% of all the clueless people out there. If they actually gave them a listen they'll know this is not true.
Glad I did. The same people probably think the 598 is the same as the 555.
 
If they were the same i'd have not lasted more than 3 months with the Q701. Now it's been nearly 10 without any complaints.

 

[roBernd]

Well there are some differences like the slight increase in body (which is good) BUT... there still is that unnatural 2K spike plus the 7-10k emphasize -> not a good can.
 
EDIT:
I forgot to add this: why for heaven's sake didn't they replace the headband whitch a more K601-ish headband?

 

[NimbleTurtle]

Quote:

Well there are some differences like the slight increase in body (which is good) BUT... there still is that unnatural 2K spike plus the 7-10k emphasize -> not a good can.
 
EDIT:
I forgot to add this: why for heaven's sake didn't they replace the headband whitch a more K601-ish headband?

That is the single biggest improvement they could've made when they made the Q701s... 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

I'm just curious as to whether those who were extremely critical of the K701 tried the Q701 and noticed a difference (for the better or for the worse).

I have owned both (old 7 bump K701, and recent white Q701). The Q701 is a warmer, fuller, more enjoyable headphone. Easily. The K701 was sterile, cold, analytical, and had some pretty nasty upper mids. The Q701 was a very well balanced all rounder, not really needing anything except maybe needing just a bit of sub bass. Mid bass was well in line with the mids.

Because of how sterile sounding the K701 was, the soundstage appeared bigger than the Q701 due to less fullness enveloping the sound. They were similar, just that the roundness of the notes on the Q701 filled up the sound more, so the 'air' wasn't as vast as the K701.

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

I have owned both (old 7 bump K701, and recent white Q701). The Q701 is a warmer, fuller, more enjoyable headphone. Easily. The K701 was sterile, cold, analytical, and had some pretty nasty upper mids. The Q701 was a very well balanced all rounder, not really needing anything except maybe needing just a bit of sub bass. Mid bass was well in line with the mids.
Because of how sterile sounding the K701 was, the soundstage appeared bigger than the Q701 due to less fullness enveloping the sound. They were similar, just that the roundness of the notes on the Q701 filled up the sound more, so the 'air' wasn't as vast as the K701.

 
You pretty much hear the Q701 the same way as I do. Spot on mostly with my impressions.
Actually the upper mids didn't bother me, but there was this weird peak in the treble somewhere on the K702 that did. It was such an annoyance that kept me from keeping the K702. I've been through 2-3 K702s and both had this on ANY amp and source.
 
I got the Q701 expecting to return/sell it and was pretty surprised at the difference. I didn't even need golden ears to tell the difference.
 
The K702's soundstage also seemed to make some background details go distant. How this is possible I don't know. Overall the Q701's soundstage seems much more accurate than the K702.
 
Strangely I had the K701 back in 2006 or 2007 and it didn't have that treble peak. I think it was due to me being clueless and it being driven from a portable amp. I was using the Total Airhead, which can drive it well enough.
 
BTW I definitely felt the K702 had almost a recession in the mids somewhere. The Q701 is almost always nice and full sounding in the mids. It's not due to an amp coloration. The mids are not as "thick" as the HD-600, but closer to the HD-598 (I know we hear this one differently).
 
I still can see how people who prefer the Sennheiser sound might dislike the Q701. The Q701 would be good for those who normally hate the Sennheiser stuff and haven't heard the HD-598

 
I definitely prefer the Q701 over the 598, but both are keepers.

 

[fatcat28037]

They look pretty much the same to me.
 

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

They look pretty much the same to me.
 

 
Wow! Totally agree. That red line is basically overlapping that blue line so much I can barely see it!
Wait..I think there's two lines right?
 
You should see the DT-880 vs HD-600. Their graphs show they are identical. Graphs don't lie and they're always 100% accurate.
 
My DJ100 also looks like the DT-1350's graphs. I bet they sound the same too. So why not get the $50 headphone instead?

 

[streetdragon]

Quote:

They look pretty much the same to me.
 

 
Quote:

 
Wow! Totally agree. That red line is basically overlapping that blue line so much I can barely see it!
Wait..I think there's two lines right?
 
You should see the DT-880 vs HD-600. Their graphs show they are 100% identical. Graphs don't lie and they're always 100% accurate.
 
My DJ100 also looks like the DT-1350's graphs. I bet they sound the same too. So why not get the $50 headphone instead?

the Q701 will sound smoother than the K701 due to the Q701 having more bass and less upper midrange. this tiny differences can mean a lot in actual listening 

for example the HD558 and HD598 look almost identical but they sound different.
the shure srh940 looks pretty much same as the HD598/HD558 except the 8khz-9khz spike but in real life they sound worlds apart
so its not wise to say that 2 headphones sound the same just because their graphs almost overlap

 

[tdockweiler]

Surprised the SRH-940 and HD-598 graphs are so similar.
 
The SRH-940 reminded me of a weird mix of the HD-598 and a K702

 
Well except for the soundstage of course.
 
Never found the SRH-940 to sound cold, thin or too analytical. Not a very warm headphone, but the pair I heard didn't have any issues with it's mids.

 

[viralcow]

It looks like a lot of the hate comes from what roBernd mentioned, the 2k and 10k spikes which make K701 "flawed" compared to the likes of the HD600. Since the Q701 also has them, I don't think it would make any difference whether they've improved from the K701s, they would still be considered as flawed.

 

[roBernd]

Quote:

Surprised the SRH-940 and HD-598 graphs are so similar.

 
look at the treble, ... explains everything.
 
Plus... the headroom graphs tend to look strange... at best
and some look like made by and economist... like these 3 in comparison. (obviously this isn't the case...)

 

[lejaz]

Quote:

It looks like a lot of the hate comes from what roBernd mentioned, the 2k and 10k spikes which make K701 "flawed" compared to the likes of the HD600. Since the Q701 also has them, I don't think it would make any difference whether they've improved from the K701s, they would still be considered as flawed.

There's a lot that no graph will show....like the weight and fullness in the midrange. The hd580/600 have so much fuller mids than the k702, and sound entirely different... yet they all look quite flat in the midrange....other than a small peak of around 2dB in the upper mids in the headroom graphs. Graphs don't tell the whole story by a long shot. I never heard the huge upper mids peak on the 702 that shows up in one of the other graphs...Golden ears, perhaps?  No one should buy a headphone based upon the graph alone.....even assuming they're relatively accurate, which some obviously aren't.

 

[GL1TCH3D]

Having tried the K701 at SSI , even run by a tube amp, I still thought it was too cold for me.
Then I tried the Q701 with the E17 amp (relatively warm) and I loved it (until I got my HD800)