[REB]

I have been spending some quality time with my newly arrived AKG K500’s, which I got for a very reasonable price on German Ebay. My old pair had (still have actually) a hole in one of the drivers… They don’t come up for sale very often, so I knew I had to grab it when I saw the Buy It Now option

.

My main set-up consists of a Zero DAC, Graham Slee Solo amp and a 1985 600 Ohm Beyerdynamic DT990. It’s a perfect set-up, but not enough to keep away upgraditis (if this was an upgrade, that is). And besides, I already had a pair of K500’s before, so I was just replacing and not adding to the collection. The synergy of the Solo with the 990’s is the stuff dreams are made of (mine at least), but as it turns out the K500’s do very well with the Solo as well. The sound sig is very different. The K500’s have the typical airy AKG sound and contrary to my expectations handle every genre well (which is one of the great things of the 990’s for me as well). For classical, I think I prefer the K500’s now. The only big drawback is that they are totally unforgiving of bad or even mediocre recordings. They butcher those and that ain’t pretty. Feed them an old mono recording and they’ll feast on it. As I often listen to such recordings, this precludes the K500’s from becoming my main cans. And there’s some other things as well.

Detail is I think almost on a par with the 990’s, although I have the sneaky suspicion that the 990’s retrieve just a bit more. Instrument separation is better, I’d say. They just sound so airy. And the soundstage is wide. I owned a pair of Proline 2500's and they were supposed to have a wide soundstage. They pale when compared to the K500's.
I’ve heard many complaints about the bass of the K500. To be sure, there is not very much of it, but what is there sounds lean, tight and textured. This is one of the very few cans I’ve heard that don’t increase the bass present in the recording (at least with regard to the music I listen to). Mids are warm, full, complete, great, perfect. Highs in some recordings can be a bit on the shrillish side, which is why I’m going to order K601 pads which should alleviate that particular problem. Overall, the K500’s are a great pair of cans and I’ll give them a lot of headtime.

Now I’ve also heard about the K400 and that it’s supposed to be even better than the K500. K400 owners, is this true? If that’s true, I may have to try and procure a pair… So far the K500 has been nothing less than great. Are the K400’s better than the K500’s in all (or most) respects or are they just a different pair of headphones? Questions, questions… and the answers are probably going to be painful to my wallet.

 

[Tiemen]

I never heard the K500, but I love my K400.
They are really amazing. They can handle any kind of music, with tight bass and enough authority. The clear highs are not shrill. The mids are upfront and warm at the same time.
There's a tonal balance that I never heard before on a headphone. They don't reveal all the details, so they are great with pop and rock, and also bad recordings.

There are more hifish cans for sure, but these are plain fun.
Because you keep on toe-tapping.
And there are a lot of them at Ebay.de and Ebay.at.
The K401 is supposed to be the same.

 

[Cankin]

How does K501 compare to K500, K401 or K400 ??

 

[REB]

I don't really know. I've only heard the K501 for a short time and then to my ears they sounded much like the K500. Others in the forum have stated that there are some differences between the K500 and the K501 that caused them to prefer the one over the other. I hope someone who knows both of them well will chime in.

 

[Tiemen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cankin /img/forum/go_quote.gif How does K501 compare to K500, K401 or K400 ??

I think Fitz wrote this:
"I don't use certain phones for certain music, but sometimes if a recording doesn't sound so good on one pair, I just put on a different pair. For example if I want to use the K501, but the recording is too sibilant, I use the K500 instead, and if the recording has too little bass, I use the K400/K401 instead."

Lini wrote in 2003:
"But with the K400/K500, the K400 seemed better to me, because it sounded more neutral - whereas the K500 seemed a bit too bright. With the K401/K501, my preference turned around: Now the K401 sounded less neutral and a little too bright - so I chose the K501."

And there's this thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/k40...-601-a-255524/

 

[Tiemen]

What I forgot, the K-400 really shines with vinyl. Much better than my other cans.

 

[JSBachFan]

I used to listen to K500 for quite a while and did like all the details.
But one day I tried my K400s again and knew, I will never switch back again. Not much details were gone, but the music made so much more sense and was easy to follow.
K500 is good, but in comparision to K400 a bit boring.
Also had K701 that I thought was totally boring, and also K501 IMO lost against both K500 and K400 for being boring to listen to.
Also had a chance to listen to K550. Maybe they were damaged, but they were the most boring headphones ever.

Non AKG world: Had HD600 for a while and sold them because K400 where better (again the "boring" factor)
Recently I am looking for good closed cans. Tried DT 660 and B&W P7 so far.
P7 was a big disappointment. No soundstage at all. Not really bad because the P7 are also fun to listen to, but because of the somehow completely missing soundstage nothing for me. Especially since I also like classical music.
DT 660 are not at all bad in comparision with K400, but K400 will still be my choice if I don't have to use closed ones.

So far K400 still is the winner (will change my name if it isn't any more)