[F107plus5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gswpete /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, there's a difference. A pretty big one if you are familiar with the 580 and 600. I would say the 600 sound sits between the 580 and 650 with the overall signature closer to the 580. It has some of the 650's smoothness without being overly smooth.

I have never heard the HD580, so I am simply relaying on what I gathered from tons of posts I had read going back about as far as I could in this, and other, forums in trying to determine which "classical Senns" were right for my listening requirements.

I got the distinct impression that, right up until the HD580 suddenly became such a terribly good bargain and it's popularity grew anew, that the HD600 was the clear winner...by varying margins depending on the poster....in the HD580/HD600 face-off going back through the years. Frequently the Jubilee was declared the over-all winner of the three, but generally speaking the HD600 was voted on top for the two standard production units.

 

[Canman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F107plus5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have never heard the HD580, so I am simply relaying on what I gathered from tons of posts I had read going back about as far as I could in this, and other, forums in trying to determine which "classical Senns" were right for my listening requirements. I got the distinct impression that, right up until the HD580 suddenly became such a terribly good bargain and it's popularity grew anew, that the HD600 was the clear winner...by varying margins depending on the poster....in the HD580/HD600 face-off going back through the years. Frequently the Jubilee was declared the over-all winner of the three, but generally speaking the HD600 was voted on top for the two standard production units.

The 580 and the 600 really aren't that different until you move up to higher end systems. Namely, the 600 adds some focus and detail. The 580 remains a great bargain if its sound signature is up your alley.

The 600 and the 650 is more different the aforementioned pairing. While the 650 is silkier in the top end, I find the 600 more balanced in its bass response.

And the 600 with the Hornet sounds pretty good!

 

[warpdriver]

Bought K701.
Bought HD600.
Sold HD600.
Bought another K701 (secondary pair)
End of story

 

[grndslm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asr /img/forum/go_quote.gif As long as there's more than one person on the planet, a "best headphone" won't exist.

Reminds me of this saying I heard from a Linux user. . . went something like:

"Ask two people the same question, and you'll get 4 different answers!!"

It's soo very, very true.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well compared with my 650's, I would say the K701 wins easily.

Hearing both with the same rig (Bel Canto Dac2 and Dynahi), to my ears the easy winner was/is the 650 (+Zu). Found the 701 a bit light. Somehow I remember my ears liking the beautiful sound from the K501 -in spite of its weaker bass- better than the K701, but well, sound memories are always fuzzy and misleading, different times, different rigs, different music. (701 vs. 650 was side by side instant comparison with the same rig and music though.)

 

[F107plus5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grndslm /img/forum/go_quote.gif Reminds me of this saying I heard from a Linux user. . . went something like: "Ask two people the same question, and you'll get 4 different answers!!" It's soo very, very true.

That's why it's so much fun to wear out the search key and distill the 4,000 answers from 2,000 listeners and come up with a darned good guess!

It really IS fun!!

 

[skeeder]

These headphones are miles apart. I've owned both. (at the same time too)

THe HD600's have a very bassy sound...amost overbassy to the point things sound out of focus compared to the 701's... Remember the 701's take forever to burn in. My 600's were VERY burned in. but the soundstage of the 701's is AMAZING.

 

[gswpete]

The K701 has a massive soundstage and separation. I see beautiful pieces here and there. But the entire picture never really comes together quite like the 650, 600. Also, the bass lacks impact. This is with roughly 480 hours of burn in.

 

[billinkansas]

These headphones are miles apart. I've owned both. (at the same time too)

X2 - but with exact opposite preferences. I found the K701 to be impressive indeed, but somehow a bit sterile and detached from the music. The HD600 just seems to sound more "real", at least to me.

My new cans of choice, the DX1000, far exceed them both, but I guess they should for the price.

 

[Fitz]

I would take a HD600 over a K701.

 

[sjpetry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would take a HD600 over a K701.

And that's coming form a man who owns 24 AKG cans.

 

[Fitz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjpetry /img/forum/go_quote.gif And that's coming form a man who owns 24 AKG cans.

And two Beyerdynamic and three Stax. I do not limit myself to just AKG. If I see a headphone that I think is better than another, I will say so. There are many AKG headphones I would prefer over the HD600, but I also would prefer the HD600 over the K701.

 

[tubaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elbrickodaviso /img/forum/go_quote.gif What exactly ARE the differences? They are constantly compared to one another, but only about how similar they are. I have K701 but am not satisfied with certain aspects. If the HD600s are at least a little warmer and have some more bass presence without a massive home amp (my amp is the Hornet) I'd be so on board. Input is greatly appreciated!

To me, the HD600 is a little warmer than the K701 and more engaged, involving.
The treble of HD600 isn't as "truthful" as K701's. The K701 has tighter bass compare to the HD600's more generous bass. I also like the overall clarity of the K701's. HD600 is easier to drive than the K701.

 

[daltonlanny]

I agree with tubaman's findings.
The 600 is definitely warmer and more engaging than the 701, IMHO.
The 600's sound even better and more detailed with the Equinox cable.
To my ears the 701's are alittle more detailed than the 600's, but I feel that the 701's are really too analytical and not as enjoyable as the 600's.
I feel that the 600's are actually better balanced than the 701's through the mids and highs. The 701's are better balanced in the bass.
I hear a slight peak in the upper mids/lower treble of the 701's that can be bothersome to me. I feel that they sound like the frequency response graph on Headrooms website, except for the bass, which to me sounds weaker than what the Headroom response graph indicates.
I can easily hear the lower treble peak on the Headroom graph.
This peak makes female vocals sound impressive sometimes, but it can also sound sort of harsh on alot of recordings, and can make them sound thin and sterile compared to the 600's/650's.
I feel that the treble is just as extended on top on the 600's as the 701's.
The 600's are much easier to drive on every headphone jack and amp that I have tried to date.
The two biggest weaknesses of the 600's, IMO, are a slight bass hump and a slight grain in the highs, but they don't really bother me at all.
The 650, using the Equinox, sounds even better than both the 600 and 701, IMHO. The 650/Equinox is just as extended on top, if not more, and sounds even more engaging than the 600/701. The 650/Equinox is smoother, has more life-like instrumental timbre, better bass, no sibilance or grain, and has better staging than either the 600 or the 701.
The 650/Equinox is overall the most impressive headphone system I have heard, or owned up until now, and I have heard and owned many.

 

[tbonner1]

Well written daltonlanny.

Tubes help the 701 smooth out a sound less analytical and, depending on the tubes used, can add their own bass hump to even out the bass.