K702 in the Studio

[greggf]

My impression is that over at the Hoffman place, Tate and others like the Sennheiser HD600? I'm not sure, I haven't paid careful attention........

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only challenge with the K 701 (and I am assuming the K 702 has the same challenge because I have been told by very reliable sources that it sounds the same as the K 701) is the slight weakness of the bass frequencies, IMO. When mixing with the K 701, a mental compensation needs to be made for this slight weakness because if that compensation is not made during the mix, the final mix will turn out slightly to somewhat "bass heavy", IMO. Also, there is a slight "roll-off" in the upper most frequencies of the K 701 which, if I'm in the right mood and not wanting to hear a "stricter" similarity to accuracy, can be quite a pleasant listening experience. Overall, the Ultrasone Pro 750 is a better headphone for production and mixing use when compared to the AKG K 701, IMO, partly because of it's more dependable presentation of the spectrum of frequencies.

Peter, I'm wondering how you can make a comment, in your opinion, about such a specific process based upon what someone told you?? You have none of your own experiences on which to base your advice. It might be helpful if you stick you what you know from your personal experience. Perhaps instead of saying IMO, you could say ISEO (in someone else's opinon). One thing for sure, Peter...you are funny!

Now, back to the topic:

The K702s have better depth in the sound stage and the sound is much more smooth and precise with a higher resolution. It's more easy to focus on the mix without trying to center the voice within the S-Logic environment. As I mentioned before, I was worried about the big low mid and the bass of the K702 frequency response graph that appeared on the Headroom site. The K70X have a lot of bass and low mid if you want to hear bass and low mid, but the sound signature is different than the Ultrasone, it's more natural, transparent and airy and in the huge sound stage, it sits just right and sounds balanced. Now the other problem that I have experienced with the Ultrasone was that the PRO/PL series have a cut on the low mid to create this enhancement in the hi fidelity bass signature of the Pro900/750/650 . If you have the chance to listen to the ED9, you'll hear a different bass there. The difference is that the ED9 has a low mid, which is why they sound more balanced than the PL series, and of course, this is only based upon my experience.

 

[majkel]

So, why the K702's and not the DT880 Pro's or the HD600's? They are all said by the manufacturer's to be the reference headphones for mastering.

 

[vvanrij]

Why is suddenly the K70x now portrayed as the best headphone ever? These things really seem to come and go, then suddenly the HD650 is created by gods own hand, and its the K702's turn just because the 701 got a paint job? I have one and it is indeed pretty neutral, but don't get fooled by dullness being neutral. My stax are definetly more neutral that the K701 and although I think Peter Pinna is the strangest fellow ever, he has a point about the K701's bass, it is there but it has zero impact. Also Acix, I don't seem to hear any middle part of the frequency spectrum (or low-mid) part missing on the Pro 900, I can't speak for the 750 because I have never heard it. It can also be my amp (NAD) because it has a very warm sound of its own, which is just perfect for my SR-X and 900. K701 is very amp depandent, too depandent if you ask me (like the 650).

 

[lejaz]

Acix: Forgive me if I'm a little uninformed, but I'm fairly new to the mixing game. Have you compared the sound signature of the 701's with good studio monitor speakers? I'm assuming you have since this is your line of work. I'm wondering if you hear more of the upper bass with the 701's than with the speakers. If so then, perhaps Peter has a point, because if you are cutting too much in that area to compensate, then the mix will sound thin on the speakers. I'm asking because I don't have a treated room to mix in, and for the moment I'm pretty much relying upon headphones.

 

[Kevin Sinnott]

I too, am a stevehoffman.tv forum member and read that thread with interest. Just to add some background that might be missing from that thread, Steve Hoffman has stated that he does not like headphones and uses them mostly to detect details and, if memory serves, never to mix. Whether this has changed since he made friends with highly modified AKG-701 phones or not, I can't say.

I use my hard-to-drive AKG240M phones to monitor directly off my Mackie mixer. It may or may not match my dedicated headphone amps, but it sure has plenty of drive. I can't speak for other mixing boards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Murphy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the interesting read but wow, is this ever a different view from the one over at the Steve Hoffman site where a lot of industry folks hang out. This is what Jamie Tate, another mixing engineer said about the AKGs: I burned mine in for a week without improvement so I left them to simmer for another week or so. Jellyfish's Spilt Milk CD must've played through them a thousand times. When I came back they still had that upper mid boost and lean bass. This was right after the review was published in Stereophile. I had to send them back knowing I would never be happy. An engineer friend and I bought them together (there was a sale online). His complaints were the same as mine and we never agree on things. They changed our mixes way too much to ever be called reference. ... I almost canceled my subscription to Stereo Review but decided to just ignore one of the reviewers who think these things sound good. Sharp upper mid boost, lean bass, harsh overall tonality... don't get it. I tried to listen to some of my stuff on them and it changed the mixes! They sounded totally foreign to me, something that my Sennheiser 600s don't do. Steve Hoffman Site on AKG701/2 I guess even folks in the business can't agree on what something sounds like.

 

[Stephen Murphy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sinnott /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just to add some background that might be missing from that thread, Steve Hoffman has stated that he does not like headphones and uses them mostly to detect details and, if memory serves, never to mix.

Yes, that was my understanding as well although I don't think Mr. Hoffman does any mixing at all since he is a mastering guy. I do remember he was not fond of the stock K701 sound but was given an ALO modded pair and seems to like them.

 

[Kevin Sinnott]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Murphy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, that was my understanding as well although I don't think Mr. Hoffman does any mixing at all since he is a mastering guy. I do remember he was not fond of the stock K701 sound but was given an ALO modded pair and seems to like them.

Yes, Stephen, you are correct. Steve is a mastering engineer and, as such, doesn't necessarily mix, but we both remember him sayiing what he did about the stock AKG 701 headphones, as well as his better opinion once he tried the modified pair. I know he's made some other isolated comments indicating he just doesn't "get" headphone enjoyment and that to him, speaker listening is the best way to listen. Maybe I'm recalling it being said with more emphasis than he stated it. I enjoy headphones, but I place more stock in this forum than Steve's on headphones, but I sure like that forum for the latest on record collecting.

 

[Stephen Murphy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sinnott /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know he's made some other isolated comments indicating he just doesn't "get" headphone enjoyment and that to him, speaker listening is the best way to listen. Maybe I'm recalling it being said with more emphasis than he stated it. I enjoy headphones, but I place more stock in this forum than Steve's on headphones, but I sure like that forum for the latest on record collecting.

You are spot on. He said he hates headphone listening because he doesn't like hearing tape dropouts and tracks being punched in and out. But I guess you can't blame him not wanting to listen to head phones if he has a pro mastering facility with great speakers at his fingertips all day.

My response to the OP was what I had read from Jamie Tate who does spend his time behind a mixing board, and he has been quite vocal about the K701s not being correct-sounding for mixing the way he hears it. Even among pros it all seems to be subjective just like among us consumers.

 

[Peter Pinna]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Peter, I'm wondering how you can make a comment, in your opinion, about such a specific process based upon what someone told you?? You have none of your own experiences on which to base your advice. It might be helpful if you stick you what you know from your personal experience. Perhaps instead of saying IMO, you could say ISEO (in someone else's opinon). One thing for sure, Peter...you are funny! Now, back to the topic: The K702s have better depth in the sound stage and the sound is much more smooth and precise with a higher resolution. It's more easy to focus on the mix without trying to center the voice within the S-Logic environment. As I mentioned before, I was worried about the big low mid and the bass of the K702 frequency response graph that appeared on the Headroom site. The K70X have a lot of bass and low mid if you want to hear bass and low mid, but the sound signature is different than the Ultrasone, it's more natural, transparent and airy and in the huge sound stage, it sits just right and sounds balanced. Now the other problem that I have experienced with the Ultrasone was that the PRO/PL series have a cut on the low mid to create this enhancement in the hi fidelity bass signature of the Pro900/750/650 . If you have the chance to listen to the ED9, you'll hear a different bass there. The difference is that the ED9 has a low mid, which is why they sound more balanced than the PL series, and of course, this is only based upon my experience.

Excuse me?!! I have experience with the AKG K701 and probably much more than you. And in regards to the AKG K 702, I can assure you that I have been informed by a number of extremely reliable sources that the K702 sounds exactly like the 701. Either way, my comment was made about the K701. I clearly stated, (even though my information is from reliable sources) that I assumed the opinion would also apply to the 702. The assumption was because I had no first hand experience with the 702. I made that very clear in my post and for you to point out that my information about the 702 is from other sources is not only redundant, it's idiotic!

Let's get a few things "straight". First of all, the Pro 750 was designed originally for studio production. While the K 701 is an excellent sounding headphone, all things considered, the Pro 750's overall sound is much closer to the sound of "flat" studio monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room as compared to the K 701. For one thing, you can "talk about" graphs until "the cows come home" and it won't change my opinion and the opinion of several others with whom I've communicated about this particular subject that the K 701 has a somewhat weak sounding bass. (Actually, you are the only person with whom I've ever communicated about this particular topic who didn't have the opinion that the K 701 has a somewhat weak sounding bass.) The bass of the Pro 750, as only one frequency comparison, is much more accurate sounding (when compared to "flat" studio monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room), IMO, when compared with the K701.

It is not my intention to belittle anyone including you, Acix. However, you referred to me as "funny". I'll tell you what's "funny"! What's "funny" are some of the uninformed comments you've made in posts here on Head-Fi, IMO. I wrote "uninformed" because, in most but not all of those posts, it is blatantly obvious that you do not have a complete understanding of not only the topic of the threads but also, to some degree, the very subjects of your own comments IMO.

I strongly suggest to you that you continue your education and advance much more in your apprenticeship before making any more comments and evaluations that are obviously, IMO, way beyond your actual knowledge and practical experience of these particular subjects.

 

[troymadison]

I think that the OP and I have very similar taste in headphones...
I am loving the QP250 and K701 myself!

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna /img/forum/go_quote.gif I strongly suggest to you that you continue your education and advance much more in your apprenticeship before making any more comments and evaluations that are obviously, IMO, way beyond your actual knowledge and practical experience of these particular subjects.

If you read the thread from the beginning, you'll see that I didn't make any mention of the Ultrasone whatsoever, and you are actually the reason I didn't mention them. But you know, opinions are like....well, let's just say that everyone has one.

I've had Ultrasone headphones since 2004, so I have 4 years of experience of working every day with Ultrasone, as well as several others. I was actually on my way to buy the Pro 900, which are a slight upgrade from the 750, especially in the high end. When I listened to them, I found that I was very disappointed in the sound, particulary in the same boost on the bass that the 750 has. I was lucky that in the same day, I was at the AES convention and I got a chance to hear the 702 and other AKG models. Right away I decided to go with those, as they were a much better fit for my purposes and I feel that they've really inspired me to perfect my work in the studio. Yes, you're right, I continue my education with the K702 and this is why I'm here to share my experience with them, not to personally challenge you and your PL 750.

 

[soundlogic]

Last week, I found myself listening to more headphone equipment than one could shake a stick at with fellow Head-Fier: TheSatelliteGuy. Check his profile and you'll see what I mean. Anyway, I brought my new AKG 702's over to listen to his many amps...portable and desktop. He just so happened to have a well broken in pair of 701's. My 702's had just attained 500 hrs. of break-in before bringing them over. Besides the obvious color difference, and cable connection difference, the 702's cable has a slightly thicker appearance as well. We plugged both sets of cans into a Maxxed Headroom desktop amp with dac. Source was a Marantz 9600. Since there is two inputs on the Headroom amp, we were able to plug both sets in and listen back and fourth between them. The difference was not subtle. The 702's were more coherent across the board with more bass and a less strident top-end. When I compared his Senn's HD 650 with Cardas upgrade cable...the 702's now seemed bass-shy in comparison, but at the same time the 650's were veiled and less detailed compared to the 702's.
Overall, I preferred the 702's...and I will probably buy a pair of Sens 650's and maybe some Zu after-market cables to bring out the highs a little more.

 

[Peter Pinna]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you read the thread from the beginning, you'll see that I didn't make any mention of the Ultrasone whatsoever, and you are actually the reason I didn't mention them. But you know, opinions are like....well, let's just say that everyone has one. I've had Ultrasone headphones since 2004, so I have 4 years of experience of working every day with Ultrasone, as well as several others. I was actually on my way to buy the Pro 900, which are a slight upgrade from the 750, especially in the high end. When I listened to them, I found that I was very disappointed in the sound, particulary in the same boost on the bass that the 750 has. I was lucky that in the same day, I was at the AES convention and I got a chance to hear the 702 and other AKG models. Right away I decided to go with those, as they were a much better fit for my purposes and I feel that they've really inspired me to perfect my work in the studio. Yes, you're right, I continue my education with the K702 and this is why I'm here to share my experience with them, not to personally challenge you and your PL 750.

It's interesting that you wrote "your PL 750" as if I created them.
What this boils down to is that you think the AKG K 701's bass sounds just right and that the Pro 750 has too much bass. By contrast, my opinion is that the Pro 750's bass is right and the K 701's bass is weak.
I have no comment on the Pro 900 because I have not heard them.
If it wasn't for the idea that a number of sound professionals I know have mentioned to me that (in essence) they also thought the K 701's have a weak bass and there have been several comments here on Head-Fi to this effect, I would "say" that "it's your opinion versus mine and there's a 50% chance that you are right". However, from what I can tell (as I wrote in my previous post, every sound pro with whom I've communicated about this particular topic has had the same opinion as me) there seems to be something of a consensus in the recording industry that the K 701 has a weak sounding bass. (In my previous post I used the word "somewhat" to describe the degree of weakness. I chose this descriptive word because it seemed to be what you might call an "average" of the degree descriptions I've heard which have "ranged" from "slight" to "very". "Somewhat" seemed to be "right in the center",so to speak, of the descriptions I've heard of the degree of weakness.) In spite of this, probably because of it's excellent sounding mid and upper mid frequencies, the K 701 continues to be utilized in recording studios.
There was one interesting comment from a mixing engineer I know who "converted" from the K 701 to the Pro 750. I am paraphrasing here but his comment was something to the effect of 'I still check my mixes done with the Pro 750 afterward just to make absolutely sure with the monitor speakers and out of habit but there doesn't seem to be as much of a need for this as there was with the AKG K 701.'
I want to make it clear that I do not have anything against the sound of the K 701. Actually, I have found myself enjoying their sound. To my ears, the Pro 750 sounds more accurate when compared to "flat" studio monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room in comparison to the K 701's compared to the same monitor speakers under the same conditions. But, I don't mean to take anything away from the pleasant sounds produced by the K 701. It's just a matter of preference and I prefer the Pro 750.

In your posts about Ultrasone headphones, in the one's I've read, you mentioned utilizing the Pro 650. I don't recall your having mentioned utilizing the Pro 750 before for your studio use. Perhaps I missed those posts but if you are comparing the K 701 to the Pro 650, this is an entirely different matter and I would, in this case, agree that the K 701 is probably better for studio use. But, again, it becomes a matter of preference.
The Pro 650 has a somewhat exaggerated upper mid frequency, IMO. While this exaggeration is small it is just enough to bother me in situations where the sound of accuracy (compared to studio monitors...) is important (recording productions). For personal listening, this slightly exaggerated upper mid frequency makes for a "dynamic" listening experience but, it isn't, in my opinion, conducive to a more accurate similarity to studio monitor speakers and the other aforementioned conditions.
When comparing the Pro 650 to the K 701 for studio use, I would choose the K 701 because, to my ears, the K 701's upper mids have a greater similarity to the sound produced by studio monitor speakers etc... There is the issue of the K 701's "roll off" on the upper most and lower bass frequencies but I would rather "deal" with compensating for those sonic alterations than an alteration of the upper mids as is found in the Pro 650, IMO.

I don't want the Pro 650 fans to become hostile here. Like the K 701 and the Pro 750, the Pro 650 has it's own individual sonic "attractiveness". And, there may be some of you who prefer the Pro 650 to the 750 for studio use. As I wrote previously it's a matter of preference. For me, the Pro 750 wins the top awards for studio use out of these three.

Edit: BTW, I am a huge "fan" of AKG microphones and have used them almost exclusively in stage productions in which I've been involved.

 

[LnxPrgr3]

A related question -- what headphone is flat enough to use for mastering, while having to compensate for nothing?
Here's graphs for some headphones I've seen touted as "reference class:"

These graphs all seem to show flaws that would require some compensation. The K701 has a hump between 6kHz and 10kHz. The Senns have deep cuts near 6kHz and 18kHz. Both have a hump in the mid bass/low mids. The Denons are relatively weak around 2kHz, and the D5000 appears to tilt strongly toward the bass. I've not heard all of these, but from reviews I've read on here, it seems some people perceive these characteristics.

I do realize headphones shouldn't measure flat, but do any of these deviations mirror what the air between you and "flat" monitor speakers would cause? Even if these headphones sound wonderful to a lot of people, couldn't these deviations affect your judgement on a project if you're not careful?