[raif]

I have been getting in to recording and doing a bunch of reading there lately.  It is weird because in the past, the "pro sound" guys have had a completely different sentiment in regards to sound signature compared to the audiophile world.
 
To give an example, the industry workhorse was(maybe still is?) the Yamaha NS10.  These speakers have a 5db bump right at 2khz and roll off the lower frequencies.  Obviously this isn't an ideal presentation but it is what a majority of our music was mixed/mastered on.
 
Anyways, you'll notice that the Q701 have a similar presentation.  I like the idea that I am listening to the music as the engineer's heard it.
 

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

Guys, my K702s came in.  Right away, I will tell you:  the bass IS different.  They're not the same.  Q701s have more, and sound like a bass boosted version of K702s!
 
.....will continue comparing...

 
 


Quote:

 
Ya, I know some people will probably try and deflate my statements by saying the K's aren't burnt in yet.  But, I didn't notice much change with my Q701s during burn-in.  The bass sounded great out of the box.  These K702s sound obviously colder/thinner/flatter then the Qs, and I doubt burn in fix it. 
 
I just had my bro listen to that song you linked.  He said the K702s sounded normal, but after listening to the Q701s he said they have "almost annoying amounts of bass" in comparison

 
 

Never noticed any changes with my Q701 either. Sounded great out of the box. Mine have at least 300 hours by far. Maybe at least 100 alone in Skyrim!
 
When comparing the K702 to the Q701, make sure you check soundstage accuracy in games. I felt the K702 was unusable for gaming due to it's abnormal soundstage. At least it wasn't as massive as that of the K501. I always felt the Q701's soundstage was smaller, but more accurate. I could care less for a massive soundstage. The soundstage of the K702 often seemed a bit abnormal for some music too and randomly didn't feel too accurate. Strangely enough I noticed a similar thing when removing the foam backing in the cups of an AD300.
 
The Q701 is now closer to the sound of the K601, but nowhere near as warm. K601 is also nowhere near as clear or detailed. K601 might have the edge on female vocals, but I haven't compared them yet. I do think the K601 has a little better sub-bass than the Q701. I can compare them later. If anything, it'd be very minor differences. K601 to me is like a combination of an HD-600 and the old K701

 
In all my old posts it always felt like the K701 actually had a recession in the mids somewhere. I know that sounds weird and it definitely wasn't the upper mids!
 

 

[Austin Morrow]

Quote:

 
 

Never noticed any changes with my Q701 either. Sounded great out of the box. Mine have at least 300 hours by far. Maybe at least 100 alone in Skyrim!
 
When comparing the K702 to the Q701, make sure you check soundstage accuracy in games. I felt the K702 was unusable for gaming due to it's abnormal soundstage. At least it wasn't as massive as that of the K501. I always felt the Q701's soundstage was smaller, but more accurate. I could care less for a massive soundstage. The soundstage of the K702 often seemed a bit abnormal for some music too and randomly didn't feel too accurate. Strangely enough I noticed a similar thing when removing the foam backing in the cups of an AD300.
 
The Q701 is now closer to the sound of the K601, but nowhere near as warm. K601 is also nowhere near as clear or detailed. K601 might have the edge on female vocals, but I haven't compared them yet. I do think the K601 has a little better sub-bass than the Q701. I can compare them later. If anything, it'd be very minor differences. K601 to me is like a combination of an HD-600 and the old K701

 
In all my old posts it always felt like the K701 actually had a recession in the mids somewhere. I know that sounds weird and it definitely wasn't the upper mids!
 

 
In all honestly, I've seriously been considering trading or selling my Q701's due to some of the reasons that you mentioned. For me, the Q701 has a extremely wide soundstage with zero depth and very unrealistic. Something like the HD800 that is huge (but a balance between depth, width, and layering) is what I love, but it sounds realistic, unlike the Q701.
 

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

 
In all honestly, I've seriously been considering trading or selling my Q701's due to some of the reasons that you mentioned. For me, the Q701 has a extremely wide soundstage with zero depth and very unrealistic. Something like the HD800 that is huge (but a balance between depth, width, and layering) is what I love, but it sounds realistic, unlike the Q701.
 

BTW I actually don't find the Q701 to have a massive soundstage at all. With my setup it's large, but very, very accurate. I did however think the K702's soundstage was a bit off and NOT accurate. The differences could be due to many different things such as that foam etc.
Tried the Q701 with a few other amps and got similar results. Strangely enough the only time I felt the Q701's soundstage was too large was when using my ALO SXC (silver plated copper) cable. Not sure why on earth this is. Lately I've been using stock and some $25 Belden cable I had made.
 
Recently I also tried using a docked Ipod Touch (LOD) to an E9 and the soundstage was so abnormal that it almost made the mids feel distant and un-engaging. I switched sources and it was back to it's old self. I don't know why or how this occurred. I always felt my E9 often made some headphones sound like it's soundstage was off and had recessed mids. A bit bizarre and I think others have experienced this.
 
Maybe specific amp/dac combos somehow artificially enlarge the Q701's soundstage? I had this issue with the K702 on my old Asgard. It was a little bit better when I got the Micro Amp, but still bad. Since day one I've had no issue with my Q701's soundstage. It's even my gaming headphone.
 
Also..if you think the Q701's soundstage is unrealistic, don't try the K501

It's MASSIVE!
 
Have you heard the K601? That may be more to your liking. With the K501, Q701 and K601 it's all about preferences. Q701 is "technically" the best.

 

[soundlikes]

Quote:

Hi
Has anybody tried the Q701 with the audioengine D1
I'd love to hear your impressions, for me this could be nice start, I hear it's a good USB DAC with toslink also and has a good headphone amp.
If anybody has any information about coupling with the Q please chime in

 
I got both burning in right now. So far I can tell you that the D1 can drive these cans but without major authority, basically it wont get it to very uncomfortable volume levels. With my modded BravoV2 it has a lot more potential but I haven't compared enough yet to tell how much on the SQ difference.   

 

[Austin Morrow]

Quote:

BTW I actually don't find the Q701 to have a massive soundstage at all. With my setup it's large, but very, very accurate. I did however think the K702's soundstage was a bit off and NOT accurate. The differences could be due to many different things such as that foam etc.
Tried the Q701 with a few other amps and got similar results. Strangely enough the only time I felt the Q701's soundstage was too large was when using my ALO SXC (silver plated copper) cable. Not sure why on earth this is. Lately I've been using stock and some $25 Belden cable I had made.
 
Recently I also tried using a docked Ipod Touch (LOD) to an E9 and the soundstage was so abnormal that it almost made the mids feel distant and un-engaging. I switched sources and it was back to it's old self. I don't know why or how this occurred. I always felt my E9 often made some headphones sound like it's soundstage was off and had recessed mids. A bit bizarre and I think others have experienced this.
 
Maybe specific amp/dac combos somehow artificially enlarge the Q701's soundstage? I had this issue with the K702 on my old Asgard. It was a little bit better when I got the Micro Amp, but still bad. Since day one I've had no issue with my Q701's soundstage. It's even my gaming headphone.
 
Also..if you think the Q701's soundstage is unrealistic, don't try the K501

It's MASSIVE!
 
Have you heard the K601? That may be more to your liking. With the K501, Q701 and K601 it's all about preferences. Q701 is "technically" the best.

My Q701 recalled with silver plated copper and the HA-160DS sounds too big for me. And overall, I just don't like the direction that the Q701 sound has going. Not for me. The HD650, the liquid smooth sound signature (albeit laid back and dark) is something I've become addicted to.

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

My Q701 recalled with silver plated copper and the HA-160DS sounds too big for me. And overall, I just don't like the direction that the Q701 sound has going. Not for me. The HD650, the liquid smooth sound signature (albeit laid back and dark) is something I've become addicted to.

Have you tried the Q701 with the stock cable and another amp to see if you get different results? It seems everyone loves the HA-160DS with the K702. I guess if you don't like the Q701 signature, not much will change that. I'm not a fan of very warm headphones. I had the HD-650 multiple times and even bought a new amp for it. I like it, but it just came down to how it didn't match my preferences. I do like the HD-600, but prefer listening to the HD-598. People say the HD-650 isn't dark, but it still didn't have enough treble for me (not even the HD-600 does). My pair also had too much bass, which seems to make no sense at all. What's funny about my HD-650 is that every single amp/dac combo changed it's sound. I actually liked it with the E9 more than my Asgard. What the heck

Now of course the HD-600 was far better with the Asgard.
 
You should try the K601 at a meet if you ever get a chance (if you haven't already). To me, it's close to being a dark headphone, but with music the K601 is able to fool me sometimes. The K601's soundstage is also a bit more closed in than the Q701 and better for specific genres than the Q701 I think.
 
The K501 is much more laid back than the K601 and Q701/K702 I think, but not as warm as the K601. Probably the most balanced sounding AKG headphone I've heard. I could fall asleep with it on. Of course I can't suggest it since it's soundstage is so massive.
 
 
 

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

 
When comparing the K702 to the Q701, make sure you check soundstage accuracy in games. I felt the K702 was unusable for gaming due to it's abnormal soundstage.

 
 
So far I'd have to conclude that the soundstage is about the same.
 
I think technically they are the same size, but the K702s are thinner and lighter sounding which can sometimes give the impression of a larger soundstage or more depth.  When I check closely though, they seem the same size.  The weightier sound of the Q's makes close objects sound closer.
 
I'm also not getting any weird positioning issues with the K702, they sound similar to the Q's in imaging.  Again, the thin Vs. full sound comes into play and can affect imaging.  I noticed with music the imaging can feel a little better with the Q's, just because the instruments had more body and weight.  They sound like they're in the same positioning spot with both, they're just more grounded with the Q's.  The K702s make the objects sound a little thin/empty/hollow in comparison.
 
 
 
The only time I've noticed a headphone with soundstage that was too large, was when I removed the foam on my AD700s so they were completely open air.  The soundstage width was almost too wide - inaccurately wide.  Someone 10 feet away in game would sound 15-20 feet away.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Dammit Chico... making me want a nice pair of white Q701s. :mad:

How's the midrange vs the K702?

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

Dammit Chico... making me want a nice pair of white Q701s.

How's the midrange vs the K702?

 
The Q's have more body to their mids, and I think they might be slightly warmer than the K's mids (or just a byproduct of the fuller sound). 
 
The upper mids on the K's sound slightly cold and thin.  Sounds a little lighter and hollower, like the PC360 did.
 
I can see how people would call the K702s super AD700s (although with better bass and less treble).  But the Q701s are like super K702s - same soundstage but with a fuller punchier sound

 
Really, the only reason I can see someone preferring the K702 is if they want a thinner sound overall that gives the impression of more treble/air, say for competitive gaming.  But it's a less enjoyable sound IMO.
 
 
 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Watching Tyll's review on Youtube implies they sound identical (as well as IF's graphs), but headroom's graphs, you and a few others think otherwise.

Not sure what to think. I wish you had the DT880s on hand to compare, but oh well...

Its almost like AKG revised the Qs recently to differentiate it a bit vs the Ks...

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

Watching Tyll's review on Youtube implies they sound identical (as well as IF's graphs), but headroom's graphs, you and a few others think otherwise.
Not sure what to think. I wish you had the DT880s on hand to compare, but oh well...
Its almost like AKG revised the Qs recently to differentiate it a bit vs the Ks...

 
I know, I've read Tyll's review too, and I was just thinking "how he could have thought they sounded identical?".  Unless it's an issue of burn-in....  : \
 
I would like to hear the DT880s again too, although I know their earcups are an issue for me so I know couldn't justify owning them

  I did like their signature though....although I'm thinking the DT880 soundstage is a bit smaller than the Qs, since Q's are basically the same as the K's in size.  I have a feeling I would probably send the DT880s back based on sound alone not beating the Q's, like I did with the DT990s....
 
Anyways, I can tell you that the two pairs I have here are clearly different.  It's not placebo.  You don't have to listen "closely" to hear it, it's pretty obvious after you switch between them the first few times.  I was actually expecting them to sound closer than they do.  The sound I'm hearing confirms what the headroom graph is showing. 
 
I'm not sure how AKG "tuned" the Q's to sound like this, but it worked.  It does fix some of the issues I've seen people mention having with the K's.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Still loving the Q701' for Metal.  
 
You can actually understand what the singers are screaming with these things, and you an pick minute details out of the chaos.  Amazing cans, and they are an absolute steal for $250.  By far the best at that price you can obtain. 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Well Chico, I hope you're happy... just placed an order for the White Qs... :mad:

I don't mind the lack of bass or lack of prowess with EDM or hip hop (compared to the OTHER can), as that's what my D7Ks are for. I do however need a mid rich, full sounding, open can for non-bass heavy genres, TV shows, anime, and these seem to fit the bill. I'd have went with the DT880 Pros, but I'm all Beyer'd out, and don't want as sharp a treble for my secondary cans.

Come on Qs... you better live up to the hype. The K701 had some glaring flaws. Hopefully the warmer, fuller sound will be enough.

I'd have saved up for the HE500, but I REALLY don't want a heavy pair of cans. The HE-4 was quite heavy, and for the type of relaxed listening, it's not what I'm looking for.

 

[Austin Morrow]

Quote:

 
I know, I've read Tyll's review too, and I was just thinking "how he could have thought they sounded identical?".  Unless it's an issue of burn-in....  : \
 
I would like to hear the DT880s again too, although I know their earcups are an issue for me so I know couldn't justify owning them

  I did like their signature though....although I'm thinking the DT880 soundstage is a bit smaller than the Qs, since Q's are basically the same as the K's in size.  I have a feeling I would probably send the DT880s back based on sound alone not beating the Q's, like I did with the DT990s....
 
Anyways, I can tell you that the two pairs I have here are clearly different.  It's not placebo.  You don't have to listen "closely" to hear it, it's pretty obvious after you switch between them the first few times.  I was actually expecting them to sound closer than they do.  The sound I'm hearing confirms what the headroom graph is showing. 
 
I'm not sure how AKG "tuned" the Q's to sound like this, but it worked.  It does fix some of the issues I've seen people mention having with the K's.

Just my two cents. I've heard the K701 numerous times with and without multiple hours of burn in. The well burned in one sounded different from the Q701. My Q701 arrived with nearly 300 hours on it, so I'm thinking burn in accounts for the difference.