[soraxd]

[size=14.44444465637207px](3) AKG K701/702, $250-$270. Amazing detail and clarity, bass is adequate and precise. Largely considered the most detailed headphones in the price range, though also considered the hardest to amp. The K702 offers a detachable cable. [/size][size=14.44444465637207px]- [/size][size=14.44444465637207px]Head-Fi's Headphone Buying Guide[/size]

 
 
Hello everyone!
 
im looking to buy my first pair of high end phones, and right now im looking at the AKG K701 and AKG K702. heres my thinking, from what ive read, it sounds like these are headphones are more 'stand alone' as in they arent  as much meant for amping. since im not going to be collecting headphones, paying $250 for a pair, and then another $200 for an amp to make them sound good, id rather just apply that 200 to getting a more expensive headphone.. (hope that logic made sense), so hopefully these will sound good ampless?
 
 
 
what im curious about, is why does AKG list their AKG K 701 for so much more than their AKG K 702?  isnt the 702 better? yet the 701 is both more expensive, and looks much better than the 702. thats the other thing, the 701 look so nice, but the 702s have an uglier color scheme.. i want the 702s looking like the 701s =/ .  and why are the 701s 10% more expensive than the 702s? just cause they look so much better?
 
thank you very much!
 
                           AKG K701

 AKG K702                                                                       ​

​

 
 
 
 
 

 

[kookoo]

AKG charges more for the K702 because they can and also because it has a removable cable.
 
I don't understand what you mean when you say save the $200 on something more expensive. Just about all headphones in that price range and above will require some kind of amplification. the K701 @ 62 ohms would still need some amplification.
 
If you want ampless, you're better off choosing portable headphones, something like the Audio Technica ES700

 

[soraxd]

Quote:

AKG charges more for the K702 because they can and also because it has a removable cable.
 
I don't understand what you mean when you say save the $200 on something more expensive. Just about all headphones in that price range and above will require some kind of amplification. the K701 @ 62 ohms would still need some amplification.
 
If you want ampless, you're better off choosing portable headphones, something like the Audio Technica ES700

the 701's are more expensive, thats what i dont get. and "portable" headphones.. lol wow well that just shows how little i know.. so the k701/k702s arent portable? what makes one pair of headphones portable and anothers not?

 

[draydox]

A portable pair of headphones are easier to drive and have a lower ohms rating. Since they'd be used with an ipod or a phone or something like that. But, keep in mind that a computer's onboard audio is usually similar in ohms output. So using a portable pair of cans may be better for you if you arn't going to amp them. (Although I guess other things apply to being portable like not being massive 

)

 

[kookoo]

Quote:

the 701's are more expensive, thats what i dont get. and "portable" headphones.. lol wow well that just shows how little i know.. so the k701/k702s arent portable? what makes one pair of headphones portable and anothers not?

Everywhere I looked, the K702 is more expensive, are you sure you're not looking at a refurbished model?
Portable headphones are those where its ergonomics all cater towards portability : physical size like shorter cable length, smaller ear cups, lower impedence so that portable media players don't have a hard time driving the headphones and running out of power too soon.
 
If you really want the K701 sound but no amp, then i suggest looking at the K550 and/or K551, they have low impedence, about the price you're looking at, they are closed and sound (almost) the same. The K550 has a slightly harsher treble than the K701. K551 = K550 but shorter cable and with mic for phones.
 
Based on your previous posts in other threads, you don't seem to know what kind of sound you want, Sennheisers and AKGs sound very different from each other.

 

[FWFFFCLTWJAKX]

Buy renkforce cd340.  Those are about 98% as good as k701 and cost 15 euros. Also those are about as amp picky and current hungry as akg's so you get an idea how well your system would drive akg's.
 

 

[soraxd]

Quote:

Everywhere I looked, the K702 is more expensive, are you sure you're not looking at a refurbished model?
 

here are the new 701's from AKG for $281
http://www.amazon.com/electronics/dp/B000EBBJ6Y
 
and here are the new 702s from AKG for $255
http://www.amazon.com/electronics/dp/B000EBBJ6Y
 
 
well im glad i know about the whole portable, and non portable thing.. i guess ill need to do more looking around. its a shame though, i loooooved the look of the 701s! 

 

[Chromako]

I think we are forgetting this little detail... The K701/K702's really NEED good amping as they are hard to control. I can't emphasise this enough. 
 
Where'd you get the suggestion that they don't need amping? (no need to answer that). It's not just the impedance rating of the headphones, as amplification is more than raw power. It's about control and damping.

 

[Trunks159]

Id suggest the MDR MA900 instead, as it only costs around $180 and it doesn't need an amp unlike the k701.