[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by triode12 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here we go again.... [puts on the theme song from the movie 'The Godfather']

How bad that must sound with the 701's, and a portable no less!!!

Marlon Brando is rolling over in his grave.

 

[jonathanjong]

Gotta love these threads. Time for conceptual analysis.

As far as I can tell, there are two negative claims about K701. First, that they are unenjoyable headphones. Second, they that are inaccurate (relative to live performances) headphones. And then there is one rejoinder, that headphones preference is (or should be) subjective.

The rejoinder works well enough for the first negative claim about K701. Enjoyment is subjective, therefore the sentences "K701 is enjoyable" and "K701 is unenjoyable" are not propositions (in the Wittgensteinian sense) without the qualifying suffix "to me".

The rejoinder doesn't work with the second negative claim. Similarity to live performances is an objective property. However, one may point out the normative claim slipped in here that accuracy to live performances is a positive property (such that inaccuracy is a negative one). Why should anyone accept this claim?

Now, on to the controversial stuff. One might claim, or try to claim, that concern for accuracy to live performance is part of being an audiophile. That it just is part of the definition and canonical practice of the audiophile community. Sure, it sounds snobbish at first, to say that only people who care about "closeness to live performance" can be considered audiophiles, but I'm not convinced that it's any more snobbish than any other criterion or defining property.

So, where are we? The anti-K701 gang might have a good argument iff a) they can make good the claim that K701 is inaccurate relative to live performances, and b) that can made good the normative claim that accuracy relative to live performances is a good thing (or at least "is a good thing among audiophiles.").

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now, on to the controversial stuff. One might claim, or try to claim, that concern for accuracy to live performance is part of being an audiophile. That it just is part of the definition and canonical practice of the audiophile community. Sure, it sounds snobbish at first, to say that only people who care about "closeness to live performance" can be considered audiophiles, but I'm not convinced that it's any more snobbish than any other criterion or defining property.

I agree with most of what you say as well as your approach to the issue, but just focusing for the moment on the above, I don't think it's snobbish or not snobbish. I think it's just wrong to say that "only people who care about 'closeness to live performance' can be considered audiophiles." That's not the definition of an audiophile. An "audiophile" is generally defined as one who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction.

And it seems to me the sound we are talking about reproducing is the sound on the CD, not the sound of a live performance. Which leads me to the following question: How is faithfulness to a live performance relevant when listening to a studio recording? Or do people mean something different when they refer to a "live performance"?

I happen to think that the K701 on my headphone system, with the proper set of tubes, sounds excellent (albeit not "perfect"). I don't think the K701 is krap, and I think such a contention is ridiculous. And I don't think I have deficient hearing because the K701 sounds good to me in my system. I just don't get the judgmental nature of some folks when we're talking about headphones of this quality. They may not be for everybody, but jeez, get off your high horse folks.

And BTW, name the phone that's "perfect," i.e., the phone with which no reasonable person could possibly find fault and that sounds perfect in every system.

 

[zzaa604]

I'm currently using a pair of K701's and they are indeed a bit uncomfortable if you wear them for an over extended period of time. However, listening to them with a good headphone amp for music genres like jazz and classical music is a pure delight. The criticism with these headphones lacking bass is warranted but in no way are these headphones sub par. I guess the only other way I can put it is "different strokes for different folks".

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, it sounds snobbish at first, to say that only people who care about "closeness to live performance" can be considered audiophiles, but I'm not convinced that it's any more snobbish than any other criterion or defining property.

It is not snobbery to want the best possible performance however you care to choose to define it. But it absolutely is snobbery to think that people who do not agree with your own notion of what is meaningful and important reflects poorly on them, and that anyone or anything that does not square with your value system is inherently inferior.

--Jerome

 

[PhilS]

^ Well put.

 

[lutwey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xkRoWx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've stumbled on the AKG K701 on sale for $259 at Amazon, just wondering if anybody know when is this sale suppose to end. $259 sounds very tempting, but I live in Canada so I'm not sure how the shipping and stuff is going to add up.

a bit off topic, eh?

 

[erasmus]

The headband of the k701 needs to be broken in to get rid of discomfort. You can actually just physically knead it for a while... makes a world of difference.

 

[Brewmaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wish I had a dollar for every sucker who was talked into buying the 701 by all of the fanboys who have never heard a real headphone. What a peice of junk. BTW, anyone who says the 701 is neutral or natural sounding is certifiable. I often wonder if these people have EVER been to a live event? Its 2009 and AKG cant even make a headphone that fits a wide variety of heads, how the hell could they possibly make it sound natural, they cant even make it fit your head. WTH. Hopefully someone will pop in and tell us how they sound great using his meier head5.

They fit my head just fine (big head).

Not as comfortable as HD 590's, but better than HD580/600/650.

 

[Brewmaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wish I had a dollar for every sucker who was talked into buying the 701 by all of the fanboys who have never heard a real headphone. What a peice of junk. BTW, anyone who says the 701 is neutral or natural sounding is certifiable. I often wonder if these people have EVER been to a live event? Its 2009 and AKG cant even make a headphone that fits a wide variety of heads, how the hell could they possibly make it sound natural, they cant even make it fit your head. WTH. Hopefully someone will pop in and tell us how they sound great using his meier head5.

Well, I've been to many live events, and have owned many decent headphones and IEM's (still a long way to go, I know). I think the 701's have their limits, but I really can't understand how anyone would say they are junk. To me they better the comparably priced Senns. Other than low frequencies, they do a much better job of representing the sound of a live performance.

Perhaps there is enough difference in people's ear geometry and sound processing that people can hear such different things from the same hardware.

The only product I had this type of experience with was the Shure E4C IEM's. I just attributed my hatred of them to my ear shape. I can't say the were bad, they just were bad for me.

 

[denydog]

How can I be so late to a good K701 bashing thread?

In my defense, I see a couple of our most notorious bashers were a little off the pace as well.

I bought my K701's at the first of the year for $242 with an additional $15 or so for shipping. I can't deny that the low relative price of these were one factor in choosing the them.

I find the bass response of the AKG K701's to be just fine, but I prefer a strong and accurate midrange above all, which I think these deliver. Emphasized bass, and extreme highs are not as important to me in the overall scheme of things. (I can't really hear much over 10 Khz btw) A stronger bass volume is great, but not if it comes with any compromise of the clarity of the rest of the range.

Specific to my experience, the speakers I use in my main system have been criticized as being light on bass as well, though I think they also sound very satisfying. I also purchased the AKG K701's in tandem with a Grace m902 headphone amp due to its reputation as being on the warm sounding side. I felt this would mate well with the "analytical" nature of the k701'S, and I haven't been the least disappointed. I've stated before how I don't feel an elevation of the bass in these is needed or desired, and I listen to a lot of rock music.

I would protest the many K701 basher's that are constantly trying to save us from ourselves, but I find it very entertaining. Some may say the 701's sound is boring, but the controversy surrounding them is definitely not!

 

[Solid Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif Before seriously considering K701s, you should really read the "Most disappointing headphone purchase" thread. They are the most commonly mentioned phones on that thread, and for good reason!

I think every headphone that exists was mentioned in that thread.

Using it as a reference is just silly to a certain point

 

[jonathanjong]

On snobbery:

First, I'll concede to PhilS's point about fidelity to CDs v. fidelity to live performances. My point was that arguably, by definition, audiophiles care about closeness to X (where X might be the recording, live performance, etc.).

The two controversial aspects here are the "arguably" in that sentence, and what the "X" is. I don't know if it is the case that audiophiles care about fidelity to X by definition. This is the problem with all communities who don't have deliberately defined identities, borders, etc. That said, outsiders seem to think that audiophiles care about high fidelity reproduction, where fidelity is closeness to some X. PhilS is probably right that X is the recording, I think.

 

[Nada]

Addressing the original question about where to buy K701 - why dont you buy off this forum second hand from someone who doesnt like them. You could make two people very happy. Break them in really well, power them up nicely, up the bass on your graphic equalizer and maybe recable them and you might discover something very interesting.

 

[kg21]

Is 259 for the k701 really a sale? They aren't bad headphones in the right setup for the right person, but what Uncle Erik makes the most sense to me. (the part about k701 being the "flagship") Say I were to buy used so the prices are pretty close (k701, dt880, hd600, hd650, ms2i, sr325,d2000/d5000, etc.) the k701 would be last every time.