[ardilla]

My take on the AKG K701 vs Q701, other headphones and amplification:
 
http://www.headphoneer.com/the-big-akg-k701-and-q701-review/

 

[headphones1999]

  My take on the AKG K701 vs Q701, other headphones and amplification:
 
http://www.headphoneer.com/the-big-akg-k701-and-q701-review/

awesome awesome review!
 
I read only the conclusions there but i see it repeats on itself over and over, you need good matching amp if you want to hear your Q701 like hey should sound.
people sometimes dont know that and say they hate the 701, "they sound thin", "the bass is awefull" and so on..
 
Though from my experience with the leben+Q701, they sound okay, wasnt so pleased with this combo...
have you ever tried to connect your 701 to directly to speakers output?

 

[ardilla]

  awesome awesome review!
 
I read only the conclusions there but i see it repeats on itself over and over, you need good matching amp if you want to hear your Q701 like hey should sound.
people sometimes dont know that and say they hate the 701, "they sound thin", "the bass is awefull" and so on..
 
Though from my experience with the leben+Q701, they sound okay, wasnt so pleased with this combo...
have you ever tried to connect your 701 to directly to speakers output?

 
Never tried the speakers output, no - did you?
 
I think the Leben is very nice with the AKG, but as I write, the Questyle is clearly better. 

 

[headphones1999]

yes i did, and i was blown away, though it sound like huge big speakers (sometimes annoying because the sound is too much "in your face") the soundstage is very deep, IMO much better then the leben.
if im counting right, you should have 4 cables now, you should cut one and try it

 

[Smugsie]

  My take on the AKG K701 vs Q701, other headphones and amplification:
 
http://www.headphoneer.com/the-big-akg-k701-and-q701-review/

"Concluding, I find the AKG Q701/K701 to render bowed instruments especially in a stunningly delicate fashion. This headphone is made for string and bows. The Shure SRH1840 is also fully capable of delivering beautiful music playback – but it has a rawer tone to it. For other music than classical, the Shure tend to be prefered, because its ability to deliver more body to the bass and mids. But in the big picture, these headphones are quite similar."

Thanks for comparing the 1840 and the Q701. I was considering the 1840 as an upgrade later on down the road but it seems like I'll be happy keeping my current ODAC/O2+Q701 setup. I noticed you also focus on intimacy, mids and bass based on your general reviews. It would be nice if you elaborated more on treble features such as sparkle vs texture for the SRH-1840.
 
Example of my opinion, for the HD600 and AKG Q701 comparison, the HD600 features a well extended sparkly treble whereas the Q701's have a rougher, more present lower treble.

Edit: I also would like to add at some point in time I considered the HD700, X2, and T1 as side/upgrades. You saved quite a bit of my money and curiosity on one page.

 

[ardilla]

  "Concluding, I find the AKG Q701/K701 to render bowed instruments especially in a stunningly delicate fashion. This headphone is made for string and bows. The Shure SRH1840 is also fully capable of delivering beautiful music playback – but it has a rawer tone to it. For other music than classical, the Shure tend to be prefered, because its ability to deliver more body to the bass and mids. But in the big picture, these headphones are quite similar."

Thanks for comparing the 1840 and the Q701. I was considering the 1840 as an upgrade later on down the road but it seems like I'll be happy keeping my current ODAC/O2+Q701 setup. I noticed you also focus on intimacy, mids and bass based on your general reviews. It would be nice if you elaborated more on treble features such as sparkle vs texture for the SRH-1840.
 
Example of my opinion, for the HD600 and AKG Q701 comparison, the HD600 features a well extended sparkly treble whereas the Q701's have a rougher, more present lower treble.

 
Thanks for your feedback. I'll keep that in mind =) 

 

[Me x3]

  "Concluding, I find the AKG Q701/K701 to render bowed instruments especially in a stunningly delicate fashion. This headphone is made for string and bows. The Shure SRH1840 is also fully capable of delivering beautiful music playback – but it has a rawer tone to it. For other music than classical, the Shure tend to be prefered, because its ability to deliver more body to the bass and mids. But in the big picture, these headphones are quite similar."

Thanks for comparing the 1840 and the Q701. I was considering the 1840 as an upgrade later on down the road but it seems like I'll be happy keeping my current ODAC/O2+Q701 setup. I noticed you also focus on intimacy, mids and bass based on your general reviews. It would be nice if you elaborated more on treble features such as sparkle vs texture for the SRH-1840.
 
Example of my opinion, for the HD600 and AKG Q701 comparison, the HD600 features a well extended sparkly treble whereas the Q701's have a rougher, more present lower treble.

Edit: I also would like to add at some point in time I considered the HD700, X2, and T1 as side/upgrades. You saved quite a bit of my money and curiosity on one page.

X2??? Not even close.
 
T1 is clearly better than Q701, but significatly warmer and a little bit sharper.

 

[peter123]

X2??? Not even close.

T1 is clearly better than Q701, but significatly warmer and a little bit sharper.

You do understand that he stated his personal opinion and that your post is nothing more than a personal opinion as well? The way you express yourself you make it sound as if you're stating a fact.......

 

[Smugsie]

X2??? Not even close.

T1 is clearly better than Q701, but significatly warmer and a little bit sharper.

Well like I said I considered those options in some point in time. His review just simply reinforced my decisions.

If the T1 is warmer and sharper then I definitely cannot choose that as an option. I was thinking about the HD800 because when I demo'd the headphone at a store, I was blown away by the detailing but then I realized most of my female jpop vocalists were quite sibilant.

I turned towards the srh 1840 but then I found out it has a smaller soundstage and that kind of disappoints me considering I like big soundstage for gaming, jazz and classical.

If the HD598 disappointed me then I'm sure I wouldn't like the hd650, and the hd600 requires some decent amperage and cable replacement to lift the treble that cures some of the veil based on what I read off the forums. I did demo my friend's hd600 and it doesn't really strike me as amazing even though I spent a good 3 hours with it.

I might just go back to the headphone shop and be an annoying customer that wont buy anything again

 

[Me x3]

You do understand that he stated his personal opinion and that your post is nothing more than a personal opinion as well? The way you express yourself you make it sound as if you're stating a fact.......

 
Someone might prefer Grado Sr60i over Audeze LCD-X and that's all right, because personal preferences play a huge role when it comes to enjoyment, but that doesn't change the fact that LCD-X is superior to Grado Sr60i in most regards (sound quality)
 
The Fidelio X2 is a great product, don't get me wrong, lovely finish and comfort, but it's plainly unrefined in terms of sound quality next to something like the Q701. More diffuse and smaller soundstage, big boosted mid-bass / less linear bass, less transparent midrange, and Fidelio's unrefined treble (I've owned/tried them all and the CitiScapes which share similar treble quality)
 
Even if someone wants more bass than Q701 offers, I would suggest the well known bass-mod instead of the Fidelio route.
 
Fidelios are consumer orientated headphones, eye-catching and tuned to be fun and forgiving with modern recordings.
 
K701/Q701/K702 are studio reference headphones.
 
On the other hand, the T1 is more transparent and focused than the Q701 retaining a pretty big soundstage and similar midrange although less nasal tone. The bass on the T1 is more layered and extended, and the treble is airier, less sibilant but just a tad sharper. All in all a slightly more v-shaped response.
 
Q701 is closer to the T1 than to the Fidelios X1/X2
 
Fidelios X1/X2 are not that far from the Pioneer SE-A1000 sonically.

 

[peter123]

Someone might prefer Grado Sr60i over Audeze LCD-X and that's all right, because personal preferences play a huge role when it comes to enjoyment, but that doesn't change the fact that LCD-X is superior to Grado Sr60i in most regards (sound quality)

The Fidelio X2 is a great product, don't get me wrong, lovely finish and comfort, but it's plainly unrefined in terms of sound quality next to something like the Q701. More diffuse and smaller soundstage, big boosted mid-bass / less linear bass, less transparent midrange, and Fidelio's unrefined treble (I've owned/tried them all and the CitiScapes which share similar treble quality)

Even if someone wants more bass than Q701 offers, I would suggest the well known bass-mod instead of the Fidelio route.

Fidelios are consumer orientated headphones, eye-catching and tuned to be fun and forgiving with modern recordings.

K701/Q701/K702 are studio reference headphones.

On the other hand, the T1 is more transparent and focused than the Q701 retaining a pretty big soundstage and similar midrange although less nasal tone. The bass on the T1 is more layered and extended, and the treble is airier, less sibilant but just a tad sharper. All in all a slightly more v-shaped response.

Q701 is closer to the T1 than to the Fidelios X1/X2

Fidelios X1/X2 are not that far from the Pioneer SE-A1000 sonically.

I'm not going to comment any more on this than saying that my impressions of the X2 and the Q's are not very similar to yours which in itself is enough for me to not make your statements a fact....

 

[Me x3]

Well like I said I considered those options in some point in time. His review just simply reinforced my decisions.

If the T1 is warmer and sharper then I definitely cannot choose that as an option. I was thinking about the HD800 because when I demo'd the headphone at a store, I was blown away by the detailing but then I realized most of my female jpop vocalists were quite sibilant.

I turned towards the srh 1840 but then I found out it has a smaller soundstage and that kind of disappoints me considering I like big soundstage for gaming, jazz and classical.

If the HD598 disappointed me then I'm sure I wouldn't like the hd650, and the hd600 requires some decent amperage and cable replacement to lift the treble that cures some of the veil based on what I read off the forums. I did demo my friend's hd600 and it doesn't really strike me as amazing even though I spent a good 3 hours with it.

I might just go back to the headphone shop and be an annoying customer that wont buy anything again

 
DT880 and HD800 are brighter than Q701 around the 6kHz region so they are typically more analytical and prone to sibilance. 
Although the Qs are still bright there...
 
The T1 (late v1) is softer in that region ( - 5dB @ 6kHz ) and thus it's less prone to sibilance, and more forgiving with certain recordings.
It's still sharp and lively like most quality Beyers due to the slight rise around the 8kHz region so it might still rule out some recordings.
Feel free to share a few links with your preferred music via PM or in the T1 v1 thread (to avoid derailing this thread).
I can try them on my T1 and share a comment about the pairing.

 

[Me x3]

I'm not going to comment any more on this than saying that my impressions of the X2 and the Q's are not very similar to yours which in itself is enough for me to not make your statements a fact....

Why not sharing your thoughts? They can be useful.
Maybe you're focusing on different things, maybe you are listening to very different music than I do, different levels, different priorities, you know...
 
Stricly speaking there's no possible fact here, but sort of consensus among experienced people is possible.
I think Fidelios X1/X2 are indeed nice warm sounding headphones, just a tad more open and lively than the Senns HD6x0, I've enjoyed them with movies very much.
 
My caveats against them are their technical capabilities and they are too coloured for my preferences. I listen mostly to classical and opera an didn't find them great there, except for the soundstage which is quite good. Then I've also tried them with some symphonic metal and they always were behind the more controlled and natural sounding HD650 and behind the more uncoloured and airier DT880 in my view.
 
Recordings, preferences and listening levels alsways play key roles in these debates.
But despite them all, I think there's a hint of objectivity that arises from subjective consensus and technical/scientific characteristics (third party measurements, for instance)

 

[Smugsie]

   
DT880 and HD800 are brighter than Q701 around the 6kHz region so they are typically more analytical and prone to sibilance. 
Although the Qs are still bright there...
 
The T1 (late v1) is softer in that region ( - 5dB @ 6kHz ) and thus it's less prone to sibilance, and more forgiving with certain recordings.
It's still sharp and lively like most quality Beyers due to the slight rise around the 8kHz region so it might still rule out some recordings.
Feel free to share a few links with your preferred music via PM or in the T1 v1 thread (to avoid derailing this thread).
I can try them on my T1 and share a comment about the pairing.

Thank you so much for offering your services to me. Just turn down your volume a bit on the 'active' folders. It's not screamo, don't worry.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gB2WIUZIXmMU1pcnJVaXFuREE/view?usp=sharing

I believe some songs here have quite the sibilance, but the AKG Q701's are a soft sibilance and I've actually gotten quite used to it and don't mind it at all.
If I can find a headphone that does all these 4 songs right, it's a keeper. However, you might find that the AKG Q701's do all these songs terribly because we definitely have some music differences here and there. But it couldn't hurt to try, thanks again.
 
I think the best headphone is a neutral headphone, that's why I praise the ER4S to high heaven and grumble a lot that there isn't an open/closed headphone solution like it. So I went to the SRH-1840 and my finger's really itchy to press that buy button. I think I'll wait until I graduate though, if the AKG K701's can last 10+ years, I'm sure the SRH-1840 can too.

 

[peter123]

Why not sharing your thoughts? They can be useful.
Maybe you're focusing on different things, maybe you are listening to very different music than I do, different levels, different priorities, you know...

LOL, yes I never game or listen to opera and very rarely enjoy classical music so I think it's safe to say that our usage differs

I posted my thoughts on the X2 with comparisons to the Q's almost a year ago:
http://www.head-fi.org/products/philips-fidelio-x2/reviews/13286

Since then I've realized that the depth and layering are better (to my ears) than on the Q's. I also find the X2 to be more picky about source and amp than the Q's. My recently acquired Burson Conductor V2+ is really the first source/amp that I thoroughly enjoy with both of them. It was originally a review loaner but I got so impressed by its performance that I ended up purchasing it.

I really love both of these headphones and got no more problem with the bass of the X2 (and I'm certainly no bass head) than I do with the hollowness of the Q's (when not paired with a good matching source).

As always ymmw and that's kind of my point here........