[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif No not really. If anyone ever tells you that cables improve the audio signal, they are simply lying. The best cable is a cable that doesn't exist. Cables just degrade the signal to varying degrees. Higher quality allows for less distortion, not an improved audio signal. And that's the reason why your statement demonstrated that cables make a difference.

The question is how high of a cable do you need to prevent these levels of degradation.

Quote:

Note cables in iems are still cables. And if you really didn't brush off the sony comment -you would have addressed it rather than state that it wasn't the norm (which is brushing it off). And if sony deserves to get slapped, I'll drive you to Ety myself so that you can slap them upside the head for ruining one of my favorite iems.

I did address it. None the less it still isn't the norm which makes it of less importance overall. I agree on smacking the Ety devs upside the head too, but IEMs do have other design constraints.

Quote:

Not really, its still in how the cable is designed, in other words taking into account capacitances and inductance of the cable as part of the circuit (see question below).

Yet if it has no impact on the audible band then what's the point?

Quote:

Huge amounts -it is two out of the 3 fundamental characteristics out there that can readily affect the circuit. A few micro farads here and there can result in a horrible cutoff frequency for the bass or highs. Furthermore, it warrants an entire industry to use starquad cables....

I believe we aren't talking about a circuit though, but audio cables including ICs and stock cables leading up to headphones.

EDIT:

Either way this has gone so far off topic it just isn't worth it anymore. I think the OP has enough ideas on how to fix his problem.

 

[lejaz]

I think this thread has become a thread about the benefit or non-benefit of re-cabling.

But to get back to the OP, I was looking at the most recent frequency graph of the k601 and it's about as flat as they come. No big boost in the treble, and pretty flat everywhere else. Might be the best solution for the OP, though possibly not enough bass. I'm considering them myself for my next upgrade.

 

[jegarn]

I'm sorry if I make you confused now.

What I liked with the AKG was the soundstage. The treble was a little bit to much, the mids wasn't jaw dropping either. The bass is good, but I'd like a little more impact.

The 325 and 650 felt flat efter the 701.
The bass of the 650 felt more like speakers. compared to my MS1, portapro, TF10. I'm not sure if it's bad/to much, it was definitely different compared to what I'm used to.

The 325 felt like they had a better balance, for me, then the others. Compared to the MS1 via my X-can thay sounded dull which turn me of a little and confused me.

the 701 was so clear it mabe the others sound mushy

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jegarn /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I liked with the AKG was the soundstage. The treble was a little bit to much, the mids wasn't jaw dropping either. The bass is good, but I'd like a little more impact.

This definitely sounds like the K601.