[some1x]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhanja_trinanjan /img/forum/go_quote.gif And hey! What's an ECSS?

ECSS

 

[wnmnkh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've always found the K701 to be the Toyota Camry/Honda Accord of headphones - nothing terribly wrong with it, but at the same time completely devoid of any life and passion. Maybe it's great for studio monitoring (although I doubt it, due to the wonky midrange), but I also figure it would be good for falling asleep Anyhow, these threads are pointless. Obviously the K701 haters aren't going to change the opinions of those who enjoy them, and vice-versa.

Well, that's the strength of K701.... completely neutral and absolutely no emphasis or colored (in this department K701 even beat HD800 which have warm sound and slight strength in treble.) But it seems a lot of people tend to like "exciting" headphones.

 

[kukrisna]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhanja_trinanjan /img/forum/go_quote.gif For larger orchestras, they do a good job too, but leave you wanting for more at times.

and that's why i sold them...i feel i should contribute my two cents as one who owned this headphone for over a year then sold it...

the things that started to irk me about my K701 were:

- soundstage was wide, but lacked depth
- the highs became shrill and piercing at times (in other words, too much physical pressure from high frequencies)
- the bass was not enough for me...im a music major myself and have seen many top orchestras playing huge symphonies in great concert halls...there's a lot more bass than what the K701 was giving me

now it could be that my setup isn't powerful enough to drive them properly, it could be that the phones were in fact 'neutral' and 'revealing' making some recordings sound bad because of their flaws...but i am still confident in my decision to sell them - and even if the HD600 isn't the most transparent thing in the world, im enjoying the music more, and im enjoying the sound more - they sound 'natural' to me and they make a lot of my music sound good

 

[rogue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, that's the strength of K701.... completely neutral and absolutely no emphasis or colored (in this department K701 even beat HD800 which have warm sound and slight strength in treble.) But it seems a lot of people tend to like "exciting" headphones.

Maybe in the mids and lower-treble, but the K701's notable lack of bass is not neutral, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qipengchen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just curious, would you please tell me which famous or prestigious media studios use AKG K701/2 to mix or monitor the music? I would avoid buying their recordings.

Same here

 

[wnmnkh]

rogue, I have no clue how you are saying that K701 is lacking bass.

K701 have bass about as same as HD800 IMO.

 

[rogue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif rogue, I have no clue how you are saying that K701 is lacking bass. K701 have bass about as same as HD800 IMO.

No way, they're not even close. The K701 has very noticeable drop-off around 60Hz.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue /img/forum/go_quote.gif No way, they're not even close. The K701 has very noticeable drop-off around 60Hz.

The 800 graph looks bed, they boost the lower mids by 5 db, they cut the 3.000
to make the disco smile,

and they boost again on the 14/15.000 to bring you the Senn HD. I just hope they sound better than the graphs.

The K-702 just looks more balanced...

 

[Pyriel0]

Not if you use an amp that has some balls.

 

[olblueyez]

Im sure the 800 sounds like a boomy disco ghetto blaster as compared to the 701.

Looks like the 800 didn't change and the 701 did. So is it ghetto blaster or is it the perfection you talk about when the 701 is balanced? You guys really should talk first to get your stories straight.

Quote:

The 800 graph looks bed, they boost the lower mids by 5 db, they cut the 3.000 to make the disco smile, and they boost again on the 14/15.000 to bring you the Senn HD. I just hope they sound better than the graphs.

Quote:

Not if you use an amp that has some balls.

 

[Fungi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Im sure the 800 sounds like a boomy disco ghetto blaster as compared to the 701. Looks like the 800 didn't change and the 701 did. So is it ghetto blaster or is it the perfection you talk about when the 701 is balanced? You guys really should talk first to get your stories straight.

Those two statements you're combining didn't come from the same person.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fungi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those two statements you're combining didn't come from the same person.

I never said they did, but they did come from the same type of person. Did you not see my comment about getting their stories straight before they post?

Anyway, forget that. So if you balance the 701 then it gets close to the 800 but what about the big spike in the upper mids and then the huge drop off after that. That spike is also part of what takes away from the bass. None of them are flat but at least the 800 hovers closer to zero unlike the 701. The gap is smaller when balanced though.

 

[Fungi]

There is no "story" and just because they like the K701 doesn't mean they're the same kind of person. Do you define yourself by your gear?

 

[JaZZ]

.

 

[Happy Camper]

So now everything is HD800 vs. the world? A $250 headphone vs a $1400 headphone. Are there not enough HD800 vs xxxxx threads that they have to infiltrate every discussion?

 

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by troymadison /img/forum/go_quote.gif They are amazing headphones, they take time to appreciate.

Is 2000+ hours and better than a years time enough? Because I'd really like to start appreciating them.