[b0dhi]

Sigh. When will people stop believing everything HeadRoom says/graphs.

Also, I don't think most people realise that by putting more bass into even a well driven K701, you lose some of the seperation and detail, like with all headphones. If you want lots of fast, defined bass, you'll have to spend more.

 

[tbonner1]

Quote:

you lose some of the seperation and detail, like with all headphones.

This is a good point. Given that our headphones are full range drivers, I wonder if adding bass through tube rolling is has an adverse effect on the that drivers ability to reproduce midrange and treble detail.

This effect is similar to having a high pass filter on your 2 way monitors when you use a subwoofer. When you roll off the bass, the bass/midrange driver reproduces the midrange more clearly.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sigh. When will people stop believing everything HeadRoom says/graphs.

I would rather say when will people start interpreting those graphs properly. Their graphs are not really lying, but they are frequently misread.

 

[Happy Camper]

I think its fair to say that the bass is there graph wise, impact is the issue. The 701s don't hit you with the bass as the senns or ultrasones. The bass accuracy is there though.

 

[spacemanspliff]

AKGs are accurate headphones which generally lack slam. They make up for it in terms of detail and soundstage. The only AKG I ever heard with slam are my K340s which absolutely do reproduce lows damn near at the Darth level. The trade off there is that the highs and soundstage are a bit less than the bass light version. Still nice and funky though thanks to the excellent mods and rewiring of the highs with silver.

 

[mofonyx]

Due to the wide soundstage, I believe that the AKG has bass that has been spread out like jam leading to the impression of the "lack of bass".

 

[GANESHA]

Before I sold mine I cranked the bass up on my amp 5-8 db's which gave the 701's more of a full sound and pretty good bass without much distortion.

 

[tbonner1]

Quote:

I cranked the bass up on my amp 5-8 db's

That is quite a bit just to even the bass output with the midrange and treble.
My take is you should not have to do that with high end headphones.

 

[monolith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif I look at that Headroom graph and I should be hearing tons of bottom, but I don't. Any suggestions?

The graph doesn't say that the 701 should have a lot of bass. Perhaps in terms of sheer volume, but not relative to the performance of the thing over the whole spectrum. The 650 has a pronounced bass hump compared to its highs, while the 701's low highs are more pronounced compared to their bass. It's very clear from the graph that the bass would stand out much less on the 701s compared to the 650.

The brightness of the Beyers is also pretty apparent there, but that's another story. Basically, you should look at the frequency ranges and compare them to others on the same phone, not just say "the bass hump on this one is higher than the bass hump on that one".

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbonner1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is quite a bit just to even the bass output with the midrange and treble. My take is you should not have to do that with high end headphones.

x2. I would think +5 to 8 dB is quite too much extra bass even for the K701. At least judging from the freq. response graph. Depending on the amp you are using, however, that much extra might be necessary to balance things out. And/or you might need that much just to bring it to your preferred sound of course.

 

[GANESHA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbonner1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is quite a bit just to even the bass output with the midrange and treble. My take is you should not have to do that with high end headphones.

I agree. That's why I sold them and listen now to my Beyers.

 

[Superpredator]

200 hours is no where near enough time. Give them until at least 1000.

 

[Fitz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would rather say when will people start interpreting those graphs properly. Their graphs are not really lying, but they are frequently misread.

Indeed. I don't think one should even be looking at those graphs in the first place if one doesn't understand how to properly read them, because for obvious reasons it's going to give them the completely wrong idea about things.

 

[Agent Kang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif 200 hours is no where near enough time. Give them until at least 1000.

Are you speaking from experience or from what you have read here? 1000+hrs of burn in isn't going to morph the k701s into something else. K701s just lack bass. period.

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Kang /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you speaking from experience or from what you have read here? 1000+hrs of burn in isn't going to morph the k701s into something else. K701s just lack bass. period.

I'm speaking from experience, although the 1000+ hours pair was actually a 2000+ hours pair. The other pairs I heard had 300 and 150 hours. I should be posting my review any day now. Really. I promise.

And no, it won't morph them into something else. It will make them sound better though, including a more refined solidness that the <300 hour pairs didn't really possess.