[DavidMahler]

That's not true, because there's a lot of people probably unaware that they are the same headphone.  AKG seems to intentionally being leaving this up in the air as to confuse the consumer.  I don't think the main buyer for the Q701 is necessarily someone looking to be won-over by the endorsement.  Because they don't imply that it IS an endorsement.  They imply that's a headphone Quincy Jones designed and that the SOUND itself is Quincy Jones' design or his input into the design.  That's not the same as a product endorsement when you're dealing with a product that has been on the market for years.  If they came out with a brand new sounding headphone and lied through their teeth to say that Quincy Jones had input in the sound design, that's something that happens a lot I'm sure, but to take a Big Mac, flip it over and called it a brand new burger and have Wolfgang Puck say that he hand designed the Friggin' Big Mac, when all McDonalds did was use a spatchula....that's the equivalent of what's going on here in lesser more ridiculous terms.

 

[autonomous]

You left out Wolfgang's special sauce and Big McPuck branding!

 

[rhythmdevils]

Of course all kinds of companies do it, but it doesn't make it ok IMO.  Beats may be all about marketing, but they're not nearly this deceptive.  The crowd that would buy a Q701 because of Quincy wouldn't even like them anyways, the whole thing is a joke. 
 
To further David's analogy, it would be more like McDonalds coming out with a healthy menu to boost sales and attract new customers, but instead of offering salads (which is what they've done), they just take the same exact Big Mac, put it in a different wrapper with pictures of farm fields or something on it, and endorsed by Dr. Weill as being his favorite healthy meal designed by him from the ground up, with statements from him saying how it helps give him energy, a healthy heart, and rock hard abs.
 
I would personally find that just as offensive.  I don't care in the end, I still enjoy my real AKG's, but I like knowing which companies are full of sh%^ so I can avoid their products. 

 

[estreeter]

Just to take a slightly different tack, has Sennheiser released anything of note other than the HD800 in the last 2 years ? Some might say 'It was a pretty impressive note !', but where is the 'HD700' range that various Sennheiser sales people have alluded to post-HD800 ? Undoubtedly their idea of an hilarious in-joke, but its not so funny when they seem to want to 'fill in the blanks' with waves of mediocre headphones separated only by 'gnarly' designs aimed at the Skullcandy market.

 

[DavidMahler]

I want to say that I repurchased the 702s and I enjoy them very much for some things as well....my comments are not related to my opinion of the headphone.  I agree with Rhythm Devils....it's the deception which is bothersome.  Originally it was just the fact that AKG closed the door on the community that angered me, but now it's more the deception.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

But does it sound exactly the same or not?

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Just to take a slightly different tack, has Sennheiser released anything of note other than the HD800 in the last 2 years ?

That's only two years.  AKG hasn't had a real flagship since the K1000s.  That's been what, 15 years?

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

But does it sound exactly the same or not?

According to many people (every review of people on this forum who have heard both headphones) the K701 and Q701 are identical in sound.  I would also be convinced of this even simply due to the number and design looking and being exactly the same.  

I am convinced that there are people working at AKG/Harman who aren't even sure if its the same headphone, I bet a few of them will be convinced that they're entirely different.  But it's pretty obvious even without hearing them that they are the same headphones, but certainly all reports of people familiar with both headphones have confirmed that they are sonically and ergonomically identical.  Only difference is color and letter Q on the grill, and obviously the detachable cable which has been a feature of the K702.

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

Quote:

Just to take a slightly different tack, has Sennheiser released anything of note other than the HD800 in the last 2 years ?

That's only two years.  AKG hasn't had a real flagship since the K1000s.  That's been what, 15 years?

Try 21 years :-/

 

[Xymordos]

Whats wrong with AKG trying to popularize their headphones?
Everyone wants the public to know good sound, but when a company tries to do that, you guys just beat it to the ground...
IMO, as long as people are getting better products, a company can do what ever it wants. Putting a celebrity's name on products is not a crime. My god. Imagine a K701 with Dr. Dre's name on it, does the sound just suddenly become fail? At least its still the same sound, with some marketing you can get you're favorite audiophile brands out in the market.
I would rather see Q701s worn around the streets than Beats.
Otherwise, you'll only see Beats on the market, and its only going to be your fault that you're complaining about consumers only buying headphones not good for the value.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

There is nothing wrong with AKG making the Q range. What is a shame is that AKG are not making anymore interesting headphones like the Sextet, Parabolic, Electrostatic/dynamic and ear speakers.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Don't forget their patent for an orthodynamic / planar magnetic headphone, that they never made
 
Quote:

There is nothing wrong with AKG making the Q range. What is a shame is that AKG are not making anymore interesting headphones like the Sextet, Parabolic, Electrostatic/dynamic and ear speakers.

 

[autonomous]

DM, about this topic we will probably not agree on. But at least you are civil so I will continue, but I will recuse myself of further fast-food metaphors.
 
[size=large][size=17.0pt]Not far to the south of you is the Borough of Manhattan with an avenue named Madison. AKG/HK are using repackaging to reach a consumer the K-702 does not. I do not see why this upsets you so much since you live a stones distance from marketing mecca and should have a pretty good understanding of marketing speak. [/size][/size]

 I do not see how rhythmdevils would read a less than concise press statement and say that AKG is lying about the business relationship they have with Quincy Jones. 

 
They both gain something from this or it would not have happened. If it gets AKG headphones on some non-headfi heads, I am all for that since I like my K-702's very much. They allow me to listen to music that I enjoy with a fidelity that I appreciate. I am able to hear editing errors in Garage Band that are easily missed though other transducers, and at $260 I consider them a deal. I won't be replacing them for a long time.
 
 
[size=large][size=17.0pt]I am not searching for the next FOM headphones; these suit my taste just fine. Something worth getting upset about happened just a little farther to the south of you down on Wall Street; now that is worth any and all outrage that can be summoned! [/size][/size]

 Those that are on the quest for the audio grail are on the road to...well they are on this road:
 
[size=large][size=17.0pt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jdaZXwPAlg
[/size][/size]
 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler 
 
That's not true, because there's a lot of people probably unaware that they are the same headphone.  AKG seems to intentionally being leaving this up in the air as to confuse the consumer.  I don't think the main buyer for the Q701 is necessarily someone looking to be won-over by the endorsement.  Because they don't imply that it IS an endorsement.  They imply that's a headphone Quincy Jones designed and that the SOUND itself is Quincy Jones' design or his input into the design.  That's not the same as a product endorsement when you're dealing with a product that has been on the market for years.  If they came out with a brand new sounding headphone and lied through their teeth to say that Quincy Jones had input in the sound design, that's something that happens a lot I'm sure, but to take a Big Mac, flip it over and called it a brand new burger and have Wolfgang Puck say that he hand designed the Friggin' Big Mac, when all McDonalds did was use a spatchula....that's the equivalent of what's going on here in lesser more ridiculous terms.

 

[DavidMahler]

I'm going to put it in the most fundamental terms I can think of.
 
There's nothing morally wrong with AKG using a celebrity endorsement
 
There's nothing morally wrong with AKG not using money to fund new improved flagships
 
There's nothing morally wrong with AKG charging more money for a Q701 than the K701
 
BUT......
 
There is something morally wrong with AKG taking a headphone which has been around for over 5 years, having a celebrity endorse the product by re-colorizing it and attaching their name, but publishing an interview which states flat out, the celebrity was involved in the design of the sound.  It is wrong because the headphones have been around and purchasable for years without the celebrity endorsement and therefore, this lie, this false claim, is evidence of market-trickery.  
 
In the case of Beats, which I'm pretty sure Dr Dre did not personally have a handle in designing sound-wise, at least they were unavailable to the public prior to his endorsement.  If Beats wants to extend the truth a little and say that Dr Dre personally had a handle in the development of the headphone's sound, I'm okay with that....it's like a celebrity endorsed fragrance, I doubt Britney Spears develops any of the scents of her products, but she endorses them for the $$$$.  And that's business, that's healthy business, because if the product has any merit at all, it will become exposed and purchased because of the public's allegiance to that celebrity.  

Taking an already made product and lying to the layman is essentially as if Calvin Klein were to take their "Eternity" Fragrance, repackage it with George Clooney endorsing it, and then publishing a statement that George Clooney was involved in developing the scent.  Mind you, no one really cares about 30 dollar colognes, and no one would get as bitter as I and others have.  But I guarantee you if this were to happen to a company more frequently in the spotlight, they'd already be recalling the product or at least issuing an apology for the falsities they used in the advertisement.   You can't just take a Toyota Corolla, put a celebrity racecar driver in the commercial, call it something else without changing anything but the color, and charge almost double the price, while inferring that the celebrity helped invent the engine to the car.  It can't happen without public opinion being tainted and it doesn't happen often, and when it does happen.......the public makes a stink about it and the company's reputation takes a long time to recover.  In the case of AKG, they're not a "public company" like Toyota or McDonalds or Apple etc....so it's not going to happen, but I still think it's pretty darn crappy.

 

[Satellite_6]

Question: morality is subjective, but isn't it obvious that this really deceptive to the consumer?