Big Bird, just a guess but I think the bumps are there because it's not like a concerted outcry from fans around the world that hate the dang things would be enough to change the designers' minds on including them. Being an American living in Europe, I can tell you that some AKG engineer wouldn't let a little thing like whopping discomfort get in the way of tradition.
ThurstonX, I hear you. My bald head started developing two scarily permanent looking indentations from the things, which made me look eerily Sleestak. Took several weeks to go away when I sold the cans during my move overseas.
Jasonb, there is one way the headphones actually can get better - Katy Perry wearing her Roar video outfit and feeing you grapes while you listen to it.
chicolom, you've brought up several interesting points which I'd love to ask you about:
How is the illusion of soundstage created in a headphone? Like, how does the human ear perceive it? I guess knowing that would answer how the bass port mod affects it one way or another. For me, bigger IS better, when it comes to soundstage. I chose the K702 over several other high-end headphones not only for the sound signature, but the soundstage was something I just couldn't give up. I couldn't "go back" in a sense to lesser soundstages.
I guess it could be too big, but I can't see how. What was it you didn't like about the massive presentation of the K501?
I'm a little worried about your other notes, though, that the you feel the mod may push the mids and vocals more into the background. To me, the K702 barely presents the vocals forward enough to be acceptable. The K701 didn't, for example, which is why I don't use one. I'm worried the bass port mod could make the Q701 sound more like the K701, and thus ruin the whole sound for me. (Though yes, I know it's reversible so I'll try it anyway).
Also, I'm super intrigued by your comparisons to the K712.
The big reason I love this AKG K/Q7xx series so much is the dry, airy sound of all three models. All the instruments are well separated, without muddying, and it's like watching them alone in a theater on a massive stage, all spread out with lots of room to express themselves. I often picture myself in the Hollywood Bowl or something, by myself, with a 5-person band just spread way out across the stage, each musician in their own little quadrant with a minimal setup. Or, like when I saw Rush with their minimal Roll the Bones setup at Irvine Meadows. I loved playing that way when I was in a band, and the freedom it made you feel just to play at the top of your game. In no headphone does Trance sound as immersive and clean - you can really hear every single detail, without the instruments smacking into each other like a freeway traffic pileup, as Trance sounds in so, so many other headphones.
Anyway... my point: when you say the K712 have a warmer, thicker, darker sound, does this in any way sacrifice all that I just said above? For example, I felt the M-Stage was a perfectly capable amp for the K702 I ran them with last year, but the darkness and warmth of the sound stole too much from the strong points of the K702, so I dumped the amp. It took away it's expressiveness in too many ways, made them darker, warmer, cloudier, but without the detail and clarity of a great tube amp (which also honeys them up a bit, of course).
Finally, with all the other issues you mentioned separating the Q701 from the flagship nature of the K712: do you really, honestly feel the differences are enough to warrant paying twice as much (or more) for the K712? I can get the Q701 for $200, used on Amazon, in new condition with a warranty through Amazon who backs those warranties up flawlessly. I'd hate to spend double that price for a headphone that's basically the same, with only marginal improvements.