[stevieo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L Hey, stop that, knocking my modded K340 and K1000! I don't want to buy another headphone this year. But... I can put in the order on 1/1/06 to mark the new year. What amp is driving the K701 so well, and do you think the same (powerful) amp can drive K340 and K1000 well? I may as well throw the K701 to my Dynahi and see what happens..

sorry. i was not expecting much from the K701. i bought it to try & put up for sale. i was really surprised how true to music they are.

amps;

the wheatfield ha-2 is body moving. i have it configured for the K340 & the K701 was a natural with the same tube set. the earmax anniversary is a favorite too & more a cerebral listening experience & i suspect the earmax pro is not too far behind. the audiovalve rkv is pretty good. the singlepower pp6sn7 was not retubed for the K701. i am sure if i played with the tubes i could get it there.

 

[stevieo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheechoz I have been listening to these K701's all day! The DMB, is the band, and one of the things that I have noticed, listening to all their CD's, is that they are very well recorded. I have heard many different sets of cans, with the DMB, and if a can is particularly bright, these CD's will show their weaknesses. The other day a member had commented that the K701's were to bright for his/her tastes. This just goes to show you, what will happen, when a can is properly broken in! If I am saying anything about the K701's, bright they are most deffinitely not! More like dead on accurate, is the words I would use to describe the highs. AKG, deffinitely set their sights on Sennheiser, with these cans, because they are so similar to the HD600/650, yet add a flavor that's all their own.

cheechoz,

i agree with you. the K701 is not bright at all after proper burn. initially, i felt it leaned towards brightness. that is no longer true, imo. the highs are very accurate. try miles davis' trumpet high notes for example. they are accurate without being bright. the K701 has more clarity & frequency balance & accuracy than the HD650 & none of the mud, imho. this is not to say i don't love my HD650. also, the K701 has been surprisingly good with all music types, imo, if the recording was good to begin with. i do think the K701 benefits from the warmth of tube amps. i have tried it with some solid state amps & it has sounded thin, sterile & possibly bright. but i think this is diminishing as i put more time on the cans. i found the same thing true of the K501 in this respect.

 

[dmb367]

.

 

[saint.panda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ward You know, I sometimes think we, those of us who care about music, carry about an ideal of what sound reproduction should be. It's one of those "I'll know it when I hear it." certainties. We argue about the relative merits of equipment less because of any absolute standard on which we agree, than because we have conflicting aural templates against which we compare what we hear. The point of this abstruse proposition is that the K701s may be the closest approximation I've yet encountered to my own acoustical ideal. They leave no itch unscratched -- for me. That doesn't mean the AKG is the ultimate headphone; only that it delivers what I want to hear when I listen to the music I appreciate. And that makes it pointless for me to argue the merits of the K701 or to defend it against its detractors. What matters is simply what I hear, not what is audible to anyone else. (How's that for a pontifical pronouncement?) BW

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen the essence of your post put forth in such an eloquent and illuminating manner. I realize this is completely off-topic but let me just quickly say that, from my non-native English speaking point of view, your comments on the K701, also in that huge K701 thread, are a real pleasure to read and (at least for me) a true showing of how to combine skillful writing with audio-related content. I mean, it's not new that audiophiles like to use bigger words to compensate for the lesser they hear, but in your postings the message and its carrier don't feel disjointed and it is as if the words are chosen to tell a message in a concise but also witty way and to flow nicely within the context. The fact that a one-week crash course in English is not sufficient to understand your postings somehow seems to me more like a side-effect rather than intention -- as is so often the case. Would you mind me using "conflicting aural templates" sometime? And there's no trend towards the self-promoting ego that underlies so many audiophile writings even if masked skillfully in a joke, a "humble" stance, lots of technical mumbo-jumbo or whatever. My entire post here should prove the latter point.

I can't wait to hear the K701 myself. Sorry for the interruption and back to K701 appreciation.

 

[redshifter]

saint.panda
you write better english than many native speakers. you must know you do.

 

[Azure]

How do they compare to your CD3k's, cheechoz?

 

[TheSloth]

Yep, they're pretty darn amazing. No FOTM here, just some right on the mark totally accurate cans. They really do need their burn-in, and I think a lot of premature impressions have been made on pairs that really hadn't reached their best.

When I get back to NY in Jan, I'll be sending them to grandenigma for some XLR plugs...

 

[Elephas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ward *snip* And that makes it pointless for me to argue the merits of the K701 or to defend it against its detractors. What matters is simply what I hear, not what is audible to anyone else. *snip*

Yes, it can be pointless to argue with someone who seems to hear very differently. Yes, what ultimately matters is what we ourselves hear.

However, there are many qualities that merit discussion, such as headstage/soundstage, bass type and quantity, forward or laid-back, treble sibilance or not, imaging, depth and solidity, etc. Words are inadequate to describe the sound we hear, but they are the only method we have.

My point? I hope to read more posts by Bill Ward about the K701, especially arguments about its merits and defenses against its weaknesses.

 

[cheechoz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure How do they compare to your CD3k's, cheechoz?

Two very different sets of cans! For lively, fast paced music, it's hard to beat the CD3000, IMO. They are also easily driven, whereas the K701, takes some juice. I prefer to use each for different musical types. Foot tapping tunes, is where the 3K shines, do to the more colored presentation they expel. Well recorded music is a joy to listen to, through the K701, because it has great musical seperation qualities. Both are very special head fillers!

 

[Dimitris]

Has anyone tried them with an SR-71?I am asking cause this is my amp and i dont want to be upgrading to something else in case i want to get these.

 

[cheechoz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris Has anyone tried them with an SR-71?I am asking cause this is my amp and i dont want to be upgrading to something else in case i want to get these.

I had the SR-71, and trust me, it will do just fine, but how can you stand changing the batteries all the time?

 

[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ward You know, I sometimes think we, those of us who care about music, carry about an ideal of what sound reproduction should be. It's one of those "I'll know it when I hear it." certainties. We argue about the relative merits of equipment less because of any absolute standard on which we agree, than because we have conflicting aural templates against which we compare what we hear. The point of this abstruse proposition is that the K701s may be the closest approximation I've yet encountered to my own acoustical ideal. They leave no itch unscratched -- for me. That doesn't mean the AKG is the ultimate headphone; only that it delivers what I want to hear when I listen to the music I appreciate. And that makes it pointless for me to argue the merits of the K701 or to defend it against its detractors. What matters is simply what I hear, not what is audible to anyone else. (How's that for a pontifical pronouncement?) BW

Yep, abstruse in form but straightforward and simple in fact.

And what you're giving account of is just the same way I've been made to feel myself by this K701 hype here that seems to take no prisoners really.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borat Ohh. Take that philodox and aerius!

Take what? He's guessing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieo i hate to admit this, but it is probably a better headphone than the my beloveds, K340 & K1000.

Ack! Kill me now.

Are your K340's modded?

PS. The Wheatfield HA2 is a lovely match with AKG's is it not?

 

[tkam]

Ahh well I'm joining the fun, should get my k701's tomorrow or friday. The only real question besides whether I like them or not is how soon I make them balanced

.

 

[cheechoz]

I'm finding the K701, more on par with the HD600, rather then the HD650, because no way is the K701 as dark as the 650. Yet, the highs are in no way colored, IMHO. This can's highs are very close to being, ideally neutral, in my eye's.