[GimmeCans]

Hi. Looking for something with a different "flavor" to add to my "stable (Senn HD650 and Ety hf3 IEM's). A friend loaned me his K701's and I wanted to like them, I really did, but while the detail was impressive, to me they just sounded too bright and thin.
 
So at Capitol Audio fest recently, I heard the K702 Anniversary model. The brightness was gone but the detail remained. Very nice.
 
Did some Googling and discovered the K612 and K712. "Scuttlebutt" has it that the 702 "Anniversaries" I heard and the 712 are virtually the exact same headphone. (I have heard the same about the 601 & 612.) AKG's website gives very little explanation of the differences between the 712 and 612 or the reason for the >2:1 price difference. I presume driver matching is tighter in the 712 but wondered if anyone who has heard both could comment on the sound versus the 701. The 612 is more affordable than the 712 for me. To repeat myself, I had a strong negative response to the 701 and an equally strong positive response to the 702 "Annies". Any advice from a "voice of experience" with both would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[NA Blur]

The K612 uses a different driver than the K7xx series.  The headband is not auto-adjusting and the headphone cable is not detachable.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/659251/the-akg-k712-pro-support-and-appreciation-thread/165
 
I have done an extensive review of the K712 Pro pairing it against the HD650, Denon AH-D2000, and AKG Q701:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/products/akg-k712-pro/reviews/9482
 
The K712 Pro is currently my favorite headphone.  It is super comfortable, has a detachable cable, looks great, and sounds amazing.  It is the only headphone that I have heard that sounds truly speaker-like.
 
The K712 Pro removes the brightness and colored midrange of the K701 and Q701 series, adds in a comfortable headband, and some much needed low end punch and air.
 
I await more reviews as I think this is going to be a headphone that many Head-fi members find extremely pleasant and speaker-like.

 

[Brooko]

  The K612 uses a different driver than the K7xx series.  The headband is not auto-adjusting and the headphone cable is not detachable.

Just received my K612 Pro.  Will do a direct comparison to the K702 when I have more time with it - but at first listen they both sound very close tonally - K702 has slightly more 'air' and is slightly brighter.
 
The K612 Prod does have an auto adjusting headband.
 
Initial impressions good for the 612 - if you're a fan of the K701/K702 sound sig.  Plastic in the build not quite as good (a little thinner), and no removable cable - but so far I like them, and the slightly less bright peaks (guessing -3dB around 5-8K) actually make for a very pleasant signature

 

[buson160man]

I feel the k701 gets a bad rap from a lot of people. But those people I feel are not patient enough to make a honest assessment of the k 701s abilities. The 701 is a very neutral sounding headphone that I feel is not bright . The 701 is possessed of a very resolving ability to reproduce the original acoustics of the original event. If someone says it is bright it is the source that is bright and not the headphone.
   But I do have to say that the k 701 is a demanding headphone. It requires a hefty and stout amplifier to get the best out of them.
  If not driven properly they can sound somewhat anemic . The 701s are not easy to drive . But when properly powered with sufficient horsepower they are really amazing headphones .
  The best headphone amp that I have is not actually a headphone amp but the vintage monster receiver the concept 16.5 . Of course this is not exactly your typical headphone amplifier tipping the scale at 67 pounds and 160 watts rms per channel with speakers.
   But with the akg 701s and my lcds2 v2s the beast is a real honey. You just do not get that kind of bass and dynamics with just about any headphone amp that I have heard regardless of price. These old monster vintage receivers can sound mighty impressive if they are restored .
   But getting back to the headphones a friend of mine recently bought a k712 which while it is not broken in sufficiently it does sound a lot like my k 701s. Really not that different. My friend also commented that they both sound like they are cut from the same sonic cloth.
 Another friend of mine has the k702s and it also much the same kind of sound .

 

[Kevin Brown]

This thread could have been started by me.    I have tried the K501/K601/K701/K702 and really, I didn't like any of them.  Where's the low end?  Neutral?  I know a lot of people say that, but I have no idea why.  There's not enough low end with any of those models, imo.  I have an Audyssey Xt32 calibrated home theater, and I know what I'm doing, in that I've also characterized my set up independently with these 2 different approaches:
 
http://www.etfacoustic.com/
 
http://www.roomeqwizard.com/
 
And all those above AKG headphones?  They don't have it.  A low end, I mean.
 
So then I got a pair of Q701's.  They do have more of a low end punch than any of the above, and I've had the Q701's for a few years now.  But I've always felt that they were close, but not quite there.  Flash forward, and a buddy recently recommended the K612's.  I didn't know about them, read up on them some, and I trust my buddy's ears, so I got a pair.  I really like them!  A heckuva lot more balanced.  These immediately usurped the Q701's for me.
 
So then I researched some more, and I have to wonder: how do the K712's sound vs the K612's?  To be honest, it's really hard for me to believe that the K712's are that much better than the K612's.  But ...  I'm a curious guy too.
 
??
 
[One postscript: I think I now understand why some people say that the K701's/etc are neutral, and why others don't.  Room gain.  I do believe now that the K701's pretty faithfully reproduce the signal that's given to them.  The problem is that those of us who listen primarily to loudspeaker systems, are used to a certain amount of room gain that isn't accommodated for by these particular AKG models.  But I think the K612 (and K712) get us closer.  See post 2: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/1261-room-gain.html .]

 

[Shaffer]

This thread could have been started by me.    I have tried the K501/K601/K701/K702 and really, I didn't like any of them.  Where's the low end?  Neutral?  I know a lot of people say that, but I have no idea why.  There's not enough low end with any of those models, imo.  I have an Audyssey Xt32 calibrated home theater, and I know what I'm doing, in that I've also characterized my set up independently with these 2 different approaches:

http://www.etfacoustic.com/

http://www.roomeqwizard.com/

And all those above AKG headphones?  They don't have it.  A low end, I mean.

So then I got a pair of Q701's.  They do have more of a low end punch than any of the above, and I've had the Q701's for a few years now.  But I've always felt that they were close, but not quite there.  Flash forward, and a buddy recently recommended the K612's.  I didn't know about them, read up on them some, and I trust my buddy's ears, so I got a pair.  I really like them!  A heckuva lot more balanced.  These immediately usurped the Q701's for me.

So then I researched some more, and I have to wonder: how do the K712's sound vs the K612's?  To be honest, it's really hard for me to believe that the K712's are that much better than the K612's.  But ...  I'm a curious guy too.

??

[One postscript: I think I now understand why some people say that the K701's/etc are neutral, and why others don't.  Room gain.  I do believe now that the K701's pretty faithfully reproduce the signal that's given to them.  The problem is that those of us who listen primarily to loudspeaker systems, are used to a certain amount of room gain that isn't accommodated for by these particular AKG models.  But I think the K612 (and K712) get us closer.  See post 2: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/1261-room-gain.html .]

Try the bass mod on your Q701, if you still have them. It might be what you're looking for.

In all truth, I cannot comprehend how room gain can apply to headphones in any way, shape, or form. FWIW, I run a true full-range system in a dedicated, treated room.

As for EQ'ing a room based on software, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax better discussed in another thread. Let's just say that one's brain is able to differentiate between the sound of the room and the sound of the system, measuring applications cannot.

 

[Kevin Brown]

Room gain doesn't have anything to do with headphones, but it has everything to do with the soundfield in a real room from speakers.
 
You're listening to a Rachmaninoff CD, or Deep Purple, or Sonic Youth, doesn't matter.  In a room with speakers, there is a certain amount of natural room gain, due to the interaction of the speaker's low frequency output, and the room boundaries.  You get used to that.  Now, listen to the same content on headphones.  Bam, where did the low end go?  Headphone don't have room gain, so that's possibly why models like all those AKG's sound like they have a minimal bottom end.

 

[Shaffer]

Room gain doesn't have anything to do with headphones, but it has everything to do with the soundfield in a real room from speakers.

You're listening to a Rachmaninoff CD, or Deep Purple, or Sonic Youth, doesn't matter.  In a room with speakers, there is a certain amount of natural room gain, due to the interaction of the speaker's low frequency output, and the room boundaries.  You get used to that.  Now, listen to the same content on headphones.  Bam, where did the low end go?  Headphone don't have room gain, so that's possibly why models like all those AKG's sound like they have a minimal bottom end.

I understand exactly what you're saying. FWIW, my Dunlavys are designed to take advantage of room gain. Headphones are a bit different, as their design is based on cochlear models. The K701/2, as an example, are not bass-heavy, though they do extend quite deeply. That factor is heavily dependent on the amplifier they're paired with, which need to be a brute of a component. Still, that may not be enough to suit one's expectations, and that's where the bass mod comes in. Other cans offer a different sonic perspective, as you noted. Different strokes....

 

[nastynice]

Regarding the difference between K601 vs K612, this is what I was told by AKG
 
Thank you for contacting AKG Technical Support!

 

The K601 and K612 share the same capsule; giving them the same frequency response. The only difference between them will be the cosmetic appearance.

 

Kind regards,

Which is a little odd because there seems to be a consensus (not a HEAVY one, but still, a consistent one) that the K612 has more bass presence.  I'm a little confused, but I think I trust the experience of people over theoretically how something should sound.  bad move?

 

[Kevin Brown]

  Regarding the difference between K601 vs K612, this is what I was told by AKG
 
Thank you for contacting AKG Technical Support!

 

The K601 and K612 share the same capsule; giving them the same frequency response. The only difference between them will be the cosmetic appearance.

 

Kind regards,

Which is a little odd because there seems to be a consensus (not a HEAVY one, but still, a consistent one) that the K612 has more bass presence.  I'm a little confused, but I think I trust the experience of people over theoretically how something should sound.  bad move?

 
I can tell you from personal experience , that there is a significant difference in sound between the 600 and 612.  The 612 does have more low end.  At one time, I had all of the 501/601/701/Q701, and at that time, I settled on the Q701.  But right now, I like the K612's a lot more than the Q701's.

 

[nastynice]

Yea, that seems to be the consensus. I wonder why Akg would say that to me, damn near had me snag a pair of 601 cuz I like their look better. Not worth the drop in bass tho, I LOVE me some bass, tho I know open back aren't gonna be bass head status.

Might as well just ask in here since I'm talking anyway, wanna double check, no midbass hump for 612 right? I hate midbass hump with a passion

 

[buson160man]

  This thread could have been started by me.    I have tried the K501/K601/K701/K702 and really, I didn't like any of them.  Where's the low end?  Neutral?  I know a lot of people say that, but I have no idea why.  There's not enough low end with any of those models, imo.  I have an Audyssey Xt32 calibrated home theater, and I know what I'm doing, in that I've also characterized my set up independently with these 2 different approaches:
 
http://www.etfacoustic.com/
 
http://www.roomeqwizard.com/
 
And all those above AKG headphones?  They don't have it.  A low end, I mean.
 
So then I got a pair of Q701's.  They do have more of a low end punch than any of the above, and I've had the Q701's for a few years now.  But I've always felt that they were close, but not quite there.  Flash forward, and a buddy recently recommended the K612's.  I didn't know about them, read up on them some, and I trust my buddy's ears, so I got a pair.  I really like them!  A heckuva lot more balanced.  These immediately usurped the Q701's for me.
 
So then I researched some more, and I have to wonder: how do the K712's sound vs the K612's?  To be honest, it's really hard for me to believe that the K712's are that much better than the K612's.  But ...  I'm a curious guy too.
 
??
 
[One postscript: I think I now understand why some people say that the K701's/etc are neutral, and why others don't.  Room gain.  I do believe now that the K701's pretty faithfully reproduce the signal that's given to them.  The problem is that those of us who listen primarily to loudspeaker systems, are used to a certain amount of room gain that isn't accommodated for by these particular AKG models.  But I think the K612 (and K712) get us closer.  See post 2: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/1261-room-gain.html .]

   Where is the low end? You are probably using a underpowered amp. As I had stated in the previous post the k 701 need a stout amplifier to get the best out of them. Another thing is what do you call bass a lot of people like boomy bass the akg 700 models are pretty tight sounding and is the antithesis of boomy ill defined bass.

 

[Kevin Brown]

I have a WA7: 
 

A power-house to drive even the most demanding full-sized headphones.
 
http://www.wooaudio.com/products/wa7fireflies.html

 
And I've also used the K701's I had with a CKKIII:
 
http://www.amb.org/audio/ck2/
 
Either one of those has plenty enough power for the AKG's.  Still no low end.
 
You must not have read what I wrote, so I shall repeat it.  I have an Audyssey XT32 calibrated home theater system, that's been cross checked with both REW and ETF5.  I know what bass bloat sounds like, and my home theater exhibits none, and yet, the K701's have no low end.  They present a midrange/treble emphasized sound, that just is not balanced compared to what myself and others deem acceptable.
 
The Q701's are somewhat improved in that regard.  And the K612's, are even closer to what I prefer in terms of freq spectra balance.
 
And I now have a pair of K712's on the way, that I'm anxious to compare to the K612's and the Q701's.  I will report back. 

 

[cjc]

Really have been enjoying my K612 Pro's.
Anybody compare the K712 Pro's? Are they really a big step forward or just a side step?

 

[tomb]

Can't say that I've heard the 612's.  However, I own the K701 (original Austrian-made, low serial number) and the K712.  I also had an Austrian-made Q701 for quite a while.  There wasn't enough difference in the Q and K to persuade me to keep it.  The K712 is a different animal, though.  I think they nailed it on that one.  Yes, it's still not a bass-slammer and the soundstage perspective is 10th-row center, not onstage and next to the mikes as with my Grados.  Still, it's a very enjoyable listening experience.