[Happy Camper]

Of the three, I've backed the 701s. As mentioned, the Senn house sound is too syrupy but I have heard them with a different cable sound really good. The Beyers highs are too harsh. After living with the LCD-2 for a couple weeks none of them can compare.

 

[ph0rk]

Quote:

 
Quote:

 the K-701 as "plasticky," and I agree that the HD-650 is the best of the bunch.
 

 
I have to disagree with you, the K701 needs a nice SS amp, even with the headfive the sound great. The 650 are very muted hps, for me the 650's represent some bad audiofiles fantasy, no sub, no treble, and the mids are in the other room. I'll take almost any other hps over the 650's : )

 

The k701's still sounded plasticky out of an M^3 and a GS-1. If it takes more amp than either of those, then it has more serious problems than I am willing to deal with.
 
Of course, don't listen to me: I'm happy with a headphone jack on a receiver these days. I will say that of those three the only one I occasionally still wish I had is the HD650 - but never enough to buy one again.

 

[lejaz]

K701/2 is at least somewhat tilted towards the bright side(upper mids) compared to everything else I've heard. I still like them for what they do well, which is a lot, but will try the hd600/580 next in search of a more balanced sound with better/fuller midrange....and without that upper mid peakiness/resonance. Glad I found this thread. I will definitely avoid the 880 after reading it has more high end than the 702!

 

[Katun]

Quote:

Well, I hate the K702 and love the HD650, but what does that mean? We could go on with those sorts of posts all day. No one opinion is any more valid than another.
 
A great article though.

X2
 
Preference will always take priority. But then there is "majority" preference!

 

[cheaphifi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Same here, but Erik continue to push his agenda with the "plasticky," issue. He had is 701's and blow they away with his powerful tube amp, if the K701 don't fit his tube amp so they are not good. The 501's are 120ohm and this why they are so great with his tube amp.
 
Erik as Exotic dude, can try the K-702 and compare them to his HD-800, and of course not on quiet volume... he just need to try out some high end studio systems DAC and hps amps like the Phonitor /Auditor, even the Luxman hps amps will be a great combo with the K702.

Try K601, they're 120ohm and are cheaper than K701, and sound is not so far, just different

 

[erasmus]

Quote:

K701/2 is at least somewhat tilted towards the bright side(upper mids) compared to everything else I've heard. I still like them for what they do well, which is a lot, but will try the hd600/580 next in search of a more balanced sound with better/fuller midrange....and without that upper mid peakiness/resonance. Glad I found this thread. I will definitely avoid the 880 after reading it has more high end than the 702!

 
Actually I don't think more high end would necessarily be bad...
What I've noticed with my k701s is a sort of peakiness in the lower highs/upper midrange, and an absence of sparkle at the top end that I really like with my ER-4Ps. If that really noticeable glare was controlled, while simultaneously boosting the actual high highs, then I don't think I would complain.

 

[Jack C]

I like the K702 the best because it is the most detailed.  The article is a great read and a good resource for people who want to learn about these three headphones. The only disagreement I have with the article is on the DT-880 being more dry/steril than the K701/K702 in terms of being detailed, transparent, or revealing. To my ears, the K702 is at a higher level when it comes to revealing music detail compared to the DT-880 and HD650. Both the DT-880 and HD650 are more colorful headphones than the K702.
 
This just goes to show that the only way for someone to be certain about headphones/speakers is to listen to them with their own ears. Reviews and third party opinions gets you into the ball park, but the most important thing is to actually sit down and spend some time to take a listen.
 
Jack

 

[SoSpecial]

 
Quote:

I like the K702 the best because it is the most detailed. 
 
Jack

I'm gonna take this sentence and run with it cause I'll prove to you that your Right, and Wrong at the same time. ;P
 
The best to YOU is the K701, the best to me would be DT880 cause I can drive it, and eventually the HD650 if I actually spent the time to synergise with an amp and DAC.
 
I really didn't like the K701/702, like at all. It doesn't compliment my music or my tastes. Who cares if it's Sterile like a hospital with absolutely no colour and  a false sense of soundstage, none of those things really appealed to me either.
 
So in a way you are right, they are the best for you. But in a way your wrong cause they aren't the best for me.

 

[dcpoor]

he never said it was the best for you. i dunno what you're reading.

 

[SoSpecial]

Quote:

he never said it was the best for you. i dunno what you're reading.

 
Ahh your right I didn't read the first three words correctly, I read it as "The K702 is the best ."

 

[pp312]

Quote:

I like the K702 the best because it is the most detailed.  The article is a great read and a good resource for people who want to learn about these three headphones. The only disagreement I have with the article is on the DT-880 being more dry/steril than the K701/K702 in terms of being detailed, transparent, or revealing. To my ears, the K702 is at a higher level when it comes to revealing music detail compared to the DT-880 and HD650.
 

  
 
 Detail is only relevant if the phone is otherwise satisfactory. I've no doubt that the K702 reveals more than less bright phones, as does the DT880 (which, incidentally, sounded to me like a 650 with +10db treble boost). It has a very open, clinical sound, but that sound didn't remind me of live music in the concert hall, and that's the sound I was after. Live music heard from a typical concert hall distance is not very detailed; it tends to be somewhat amorphous, but with a beautiful, sweet, organic sound that is very hard to reproduce electronically. The 650 makes a reasonable attempt, sufficient for me to sometimes lose myself with a good recording. However, that's my priority, and no doubt others have different priorities, like wanting to feel they're on stage standing next to the musicians. For that the 702 or 880 may be perfect; I don't know. I'm only pointing out that detail is only one aspect of a phone's performance and, to some, by no means the most important aspect.   

 

[lejaz]

You're right...it's the *upper mids* peakiness or resonance(not the treble) that seems so annoying and artificial about the k702. A lot of folks(self included) often use the terms treble or highs when what we really mean is upper mids. Never heard the 880's but wouldn't want anything brighter than the k702, which sounds very balanced aside from that upper mid mess.
 
Quote:

Quote:

K701/2 is at least somewhat tilted towards the bright side(upper mids) compared to everything else I've heard. I still like them for what they do well, which is a lot, but will try the hd600/580 next in search of a more balanced sound with better/fuller midrange....and without that upper mid peakiness/resonance. Glad I found this thread. I will definitely avoid the 880 after reading it has more high end than the 702!

 
Actually I don't think more high end would necessarily be bad...
What I've noticed with my k701s is a sort of peakiness in the lower highs/upper midrange, and an absence of sparkle at the top end that I really like with my ER-4Ps. If that really noticeable glare was controlled, while simultaneously boosting the actual high highs, then I don't think I would complain.

 

[Jack C]

Quote:

Quote:

I like the K702 the best because it is the most detailed.  The article is a great read and a good resource for people who want to learn about these three headphones. The only disagreement I have with the article is on the DT-880 being more dry/steril than the K701/K702 in terms of being detailed, transparent, or revealing. To my ears, the K702 is at a higher level when it comes to revealing music detail compared to the DT-880 and HD650.
 

  
 
 Detail is only relevant if the phone is otherwise satisfactory. I've no doubt that the K702 reveals more than less bright phones, as does the DT880 (which, incidentally, sounded to me like a 650 with +10db treble boost). It has a very open, clinical sound, but that sound didn't remind me of live music in the concert hall, and that's the sound I was after. Live music heard from a typical concert hall distance is not very detailed; it tends to be somewhat amorphous, but with a beautiful, sweet, organic sound that is very hard to reproduce electronically. The 650 makes a reasonable attempt, sufficient for me to sometimes lose myself with a good recording. However, that's my priority, and no doubt others have different priorities, like wanting to feel they're on stage standing next to the musicians. For that the 702 or 880 may be perfect; I don't know. I'm only pointing out that detail is only one aspect of a phone's performance and, to some, by no means the most important aspect.   

I agree that different people will have different priorities in the qualities of audio equipment that they prefer. This is one of the reasons why audio is subject to so much anecdotal discussions and tend to go around in circles.  For me personally, I actually hold the opinion that detail is more important than other aspects of a headphone or speaker. Other aspects of a headphone can often be adjusted through application of EQ, filtering, or other processing. But no matter how much massaging of the signal you do, you can never get a headphone to produce detail that it was not capable of producing to begin with. I am not talking about impression of being revealing through being bright. The K702 is not as bright as the DT880, and certainly much less bright than the DT990, but neither of these headphones produce the level of detail that match the K702 - at least to my ears. The K702 has been well regarded as being neutral sounding headphones, so any detail it offers above and beyond other headphones is not a false impression due to exaggerated treble. 
 
Also, to be quite honest, I think live sound is over rated. Pop/Rock concerts are impressive for volume and dynamic range, but for sheer audio quality, a good studio recording played back on a good audio system provides superior results. Live sound is great for the atmosphere, energy, and artist performance - that's what I attend live concerts for. One exception may be classical and other acoustic instruments meant to be played back in a small intimate setting without any PA amplification. In that case, you can argue that the live concert is "how it is supposed to sound" and everything else is just an approximation. But with modern music, the recording is the benchmark against which other performances are measured against. I play electrical guitar, and frankly most hard rock and metal concerts do a horrible job with reproducing the lead or rhythm guitar - I say this knowing how an electrical guitar is supposed to sound through a high gain tube amp and a competent full stack. I would say the top three priorities of a live concert consist of: performer and audience safety, sound system reliability, and lighting/stage-effects. 
 
I am just voicing my subjective opinion, others will have different opinions. This is a great discussion. 
 
Jack

 

[bhanja_trinanjan]

Quote:

I like the K702 the best because it is the most detailed.  The article is a great read and a good resource for people who want to learn about these three headphones. The only disagreement I have with the article is on the DT-880 being more dry/steril than the K701/K702 in terms of being detailed, transparent, or revealing. To my ears, the K702 is at a higher level when it comes to revealing music detail compared to the DT-880 and HD650. Both the DT-880 and HD650 are more colorful headphones than the K702.
 
This just goes to show that the only way for someone to be certain about headphones/speakers is to listen to them with their own ears. Reviews and third party opinions gets you into the ball park, but the most important thing is to actually sit down and spend some time to take a listen.
 
Jack

 
The K-702 has almost the same low level detail as my much pricier T1. The T1 has fractionally better detail and that too not on all recordings. It is indeed surprising how close the AKG come to the T1 considering their respective prices. Is the T1 better across the board? No... The two headphones simply share a different set of strengths and have weaknesses of their own. So, if T1 > DT880 and T1 > HD650, then K702 > both HD650 & DT880
 

 

[Happy Camper]

Quote:

+1 to the review for describing the K-701 as "plasticky,"
 

Well, going back to the K701 after listening to the LCD-2 I can say I finally know what "plasticky" sounds like.