[elwappo99]

Quote:

What I find that on some records the k702s actually sound very good, never mind the required burn-in time. It really varies from record to record and it makes me wonder if that's just a bad mastering job (boost the bass and treble and compress it all) and my headphones are just presenting that. You can hear deep in some, make out all the instruments and pinpoint them precisely but in some you have this mush and screech and I skip the track immediately.

 
Sounds like that might be case. Got any really clear examples?

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

What I find that on some records the k702s actually sound very good, never mind the required burn-in time. It really varies from record to record and it makes me wonder if that's just a bad mastering job (boost the bass and treble and compress it all) and my headphones are just presenting that. You can hear deep in some, make out all the instruments and pinpoint them precisely but in some you have this mush and screech and I skip the track immediately.

Yeah the K70X line are famous for giving you a warts n'all presentation. They don't do any favours to bad recordings. But can sound amazing with good ones. They are my 2nd fave headphone just below the HD800's and above the LCD2's and HE500's! 
 
I noticed the normal K702's are harsher in the treble than the last bunch of K701's and Q701's. There was defo change in sound when they released the Q's. 
 
I haven't heard the Anniversary's but I really liked my last set of K701's. The soundstage wasn't quite as wide as the 702's but they were really balanced with a hint of warmth. So if you really like the AKG's but struggle with the treble a little, I would recommend either the Q's or 8 bump 701's. 

 

[casperry]

Quote:

 
Sounds like that might be case. Got any really clear examples?

 

 
Watch some videos on youtube about loudness wars, most mainstream songs nowadays have more compressed dynamic range than in the past to make them sound better on small speakers and earbuds but the audio quality is very much degraded when played back on good equipment.
 

 

[elwappo99]

Quote:

 
Watch some videos on youtube about loudness wars, most mainstream songs nowadays have more compressed dynamic range than in the past to make them sound better on small speakers and earbuds but the audio quality is very much degraded when played back on good equipment.
 

 
Oh, I was kind of hoping for specific examples of tracks that aren't sounding so great, so we can verify if there's something wonky or if its recording based. 

 

[casperry]

My understanding was that the k702s were identical to the k701s, except for the navy blue colour and a detachable cable. Perhaps they have used slightly more rigid construction in the 702 version as this is a studio headphone and that may somewhat affect the sound as spec wise everything seem to be identical. Anyway I like how they sound with most songs with the matrix amp. One thing I miss though is that with the little dot mk3 amp I had, the vocals and instruments had this eerie feeling of being alive, especially vocals, I don't get this feeling with this combo. Perhaps it's the k702 or the combination of them and a solid state amp I have now as the ld3 was used with the hd600,650s and little know beyerdynamic dt150s.

 

[casperry]

Quote:

 
Oh, I was kind of hoping for specific examples of tracks that aren't sounding so great, so we can verify if there's something wonky or if its recording based. 

 
My apologies for that, the reason why I didn't provide any specific songs was that I'm sure that my amp and headphones are working properly and only some records sound bad and it is down to how they simply sound. The initial harshness and spiky treble is gone unless it is too much in the record itself.

 

[elwappo99]

Quote:

Yeah the K70X line are famous for giving you a warts n'all presentation. They don't do any favours to bad recordings. But can sound amazing with good ones. They are my 2nd fave headphone just below the HD800's and above the LCD2's and HE500's! 
 
I noticed the normal K702's are harsher in the treble than the last bunch of K701's and Q701's. There was defo change in sound when they released the Q's. 
 
I haven't heard the Anniversary's but I really liked my last set of K701's. The soundstage wasn't quite as wide as the 702's but they were really balanced with a hint of warmth. So if you really like the AKG's but struggle with the treble a little, I would recommend either the Q's or 8 bump 701's. 

 
 
The history of the line is a little bit strange to track. Basically the sound of the K701 has changed over time.  The driver itself has changed and added a bit more bass as the years go on. In addition the more recent versions have had angled pads, which also help. The K702 and Q701 are identical in sound to the K701, just the variations in driver and pad angles have changed to match the K701. 
 
 
 
Quote:

 
My apologies for that, the reason why I didn't provide any specific songs was that I'm sure that my amp and headphones are working properly and only some records sound bad and it is down to how they simply sound. The initial harshness and spiky treble is gone unless it is too much in the record itself.

 
Well, I'm glad you got it all figured out! I've actually got a pair of K702 playing through my Mstage right now. Really like this combo!

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

 
 
The history of the line is a little bit strange to track. Basically the sound of the K701 has changed over time.  The driver itself has changed and added a bit more bass as the years go on. In addition the more recent versions have had angled pads, which also help. The K702 and Q701 are identical in sound to the K701, just the variations in driver and pad angles have changed to match the K701. 
 
 
 
 
 

This is a hotly debated topic and one that will probably go on longer than head-fi haha But I've owned them for a while and could clearly hear the difference my friend. They toned down the treble and boosted the lower end a notch., This caused the soundstage to suffer slightly. The 701's changed to match the Q's, not the other way round. The original K702's stayed the same because they are the studio model and remained more neutral.  
 
Anyways, lets not stray too much from topic  
 
The M-stage is always my first recommendation for the AKG's. Its a great match.

 

[elwappo99]

Quote:

This is a hotly debated topic and one that will probably go on longer than head-fi haha But I've owned them for a while and could clearly hear the difference my friend. They toned down the treble and boosted the lower end a notch., This caused the soundstage to suffer slightly. The 701's changed to match the Q's, not the other way round. The original K702's stayed the same because they are the studio model and remained more neutral.  
 

 
 
Maybe I wasn't very clear. At any given manufacturing point, the K701, K702, and Q701 all sound the same. If you were to take a K701 at initial release in 2006, it would sound different from the K701 that was manufactured in lets say 2012. 
 
At this point, any currently produced K701 or K702 will sound identical and be produced identically to the Q701.

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

 
 
Maybe I wasn't very clear. At any given manufacturing point, the K701, K702, and Q701 all sound the same. If you were to take a K701 at initial release in 2006, it would sound different from the K701 that was manufactured in lets say 2012. 
 
At this point, any currently produced K701 or K702 will sound identical and be produced identically to the Q701.

The K701's are discontinued. But the last batches had the same tonality as the Q's. The K702's may well have been changed since I had mine (bout 2 year ago) to match the Q's now. But they were not the same when I owned both. 
 
Also, none of the different models sound "indentical". Different housings and pad material all contribute to subtle, yet clear differences when examined carefully.   

 

[elwappo99]

Quote:

The K701's are discontinued. But the last batches had the same tonality as the Q's. The K702's may well have been changed since I had mine (bout 2 year ago) to match the Q's now. But they were not the same when I owned both. 
 
Also, none of the different models sound "indentical". Different housings and pad material all contribute to subtle, yet clear differences when examined carefully.   

 
Pad material was always the same. Housings are also the same, unless you wanted to argue the mini xlr housing caused some kind of appreciable changes in sound. 

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

 
Pad material was always the same. Housings are also the same, unless you wanted to argue the mini xlr housing caused some kind of appreciable changes in sound. 

No argument  
 
K701's pads are different. Softer. Grills are different, housings are more luxurious, where as the 702's are more robust and tougher. And yes, having a cable soldered direct to the driver is always better. 

 

[bracko]

There are very good appreciation threads for the different x70x headphones by AKG. This kind of discussions maybe more appropriate there.

 

[BournePerfect]

Quote:

The M-stage is always my first recommendation for the AKG's. Its a great match.

 
Yep-it's the combo that got me started down this addictive road-and a very fine example of synergy, and great sound at a bargain price! I'd recommend it always as an insane startup rig for anyone starting this hobby.
 
-Daniel

 

[Remior]

Hi all.
 
In few days I will recieve my Matrix M Stage (HPA-1)  USB to power my  Senn HD650.
I think it's a very good amp for beging with and I will use it at first on stock mode and later I will make any modification on the opamps.
 
This post it's soo huge to read with no time and for that reason I ask if there any particular recomendations to DAC's opamp and amplifier opamp (besides the expensive Opa627).
 
Thanks to all.
David.