bias
100+ Head-Fier
Just a few quick notes about these two and headphones in general.
Hafta say that the HD600 is more tonally accurate than the 702. From top to bottom, the 600 gets it almost, almost right (compared to accurate monitor speakers). The 702 is very good, similar to the 600s except in two main ways: a slightly annoying tippy lower-midrange ring (maybe around 1.3k?? to easily spot this listen to vocals (male) a capella and you can nail down where the 702 becomes a little strident) and also a euphonic quality that sounds just a little "hyped"; a little unnatural. The wood/plastic metaphor is appropriate. The 702's become markedly better, tonally-speaking, as they break-in. (this whole concept is weird to me: why designers are voicing transducers without considering break-in time...headphone design technicians in da house...please chime in...we know you're out there!) So, as you can tell I prefer the 600's (timbre-wise). However, I mostly listen to the 702's when wearing headphones. Why? Soundstage and imaging. Headphones in the best of worlds are so unnatural sounding. The conceit is even more apparent in cans that feel closed in and narrow. Yes... i'm listening to music all right, but the music is appearing in my head not in a physical space removed from myself. Obviously most multitrack pop music and, of course, electronically generated music represent contrivances that must be take in stride even on speaker systems. But acoustic music, like jazz or orchestra or even well-produced popular music (read: at least an attempt on the part of the engineers and producers to portray the song as if it is occurring in a particular place at a particular time) can be then articulated to the listener convincingly...at least through loudspeakers. I agree it's great to hear all those incredible musical details that even the best speakers miss (especially at low volumes) and I'll edit music and SFX all day long with the 600's (or a similar closed-back in a noisy room) but the suspension of disbelief that must be applied is too great for me when using the hd-600's and I turn to the 702's when listening to music just for the sake of it. Of course no headphone comes close to approaching the life-likeness of speakers; we can all agree on that; but some headphones do get it better and AKG, so far, has been more aware of this and their designs show it (k1000 in particular). The Holy Grail for headphones? How bout a 702 soundstage with a timbre resembling the hd-600? I'm assuming the hd-800 is the answer here and if the reports of the HD-800's abilities are true, it shows that Sennheiser techs listened carefully to AKG cans when designing their newest showstopper.
Hafta say that the HD600 is more tonally accurate than the 702. From top to bottom, the 600 gets it almost, almost right (compared to accurate monitor speakers). The 702 is very good, similar to the 600s except in two main ways: a slightly annoying tippy lower-midrange ring (maybe around 1.3k?? to easily spot this listen to vocals (male) a capella and you can nail down where the 702 becomes a little strident) and also a euphonic quality that sounds just a little "hyped"; a little unnatural. The wood/plastic metaphor is appropriate. The 702's become markedly better, tonally-speaking, as they break-in. (this whole concept is weird to me: why designers are voicing transducers without considering break-in time...headphone design technicians in da house...please chime in...we know you're out there!) So, as you can tell I prefer the 600's (timbre-wise). However, I mostly listen to the 702's when wearing headphones. Why? Soundstage and imaging. Headphones in the best of worlds are so unnatural sounding. The conceit is even more apparent in cans that feel closed in and narrow. Yes... i'm listening to music all right, but the music is appearing in my head not in a physical space removed from myself. Obviously most multitrack pop music and, of course, electronically generated music represent contrivances that must be take in stride even on speaker systems. But acoustic music, like jazz or orchestra or even well-produced popular music (read: at least an attempt on the part of the engineers and producers to portray the song as if it is occurring in a particular place at a particular time) can be then articulated to the listener convincingly...at least through loudspeakers. I agree it's great to hear all those incredible musical details that even the best speakers miss (especially at low volumes) and I'll edit music and SFX all day long with the 600's (or a similar closed-back in a noisy room) but the suspension of disbelief that must be applied is too great for me when using the hd-600's and I turn to the 702's when listening to music just for the sake of it. Of course no headphone comes close to approaching the life-likeness of speakers; we can all agree on that; but some headphones do get it better and AKG, so far, has been more aware of this and their designs show it (k1000 in particular). The Holy Grail for headphones? How bout a 702 soundstage with a timbre resembling the hd-600? I'm assuming the hd-800 is the answer here and if the reports of the HD-800's abilities are true, it shows that Sennheiser techs listened carefully to AKG cans when designing their newest showstopper.
