[Ze_Blitzkrieg]

Hello all,
 
My friend recently purchases a new pair of the AKG K702's.  Along with this purchase, he ordered an amp (Shanling PH100) as from reading he knew he was going to need one.  So a few days ago, while still waiting on the amp to come from China 

 he apparently made an additional purchase, but would not tell me what.  I head over to his house last night, and come to find out. . .he ordered the HD 600's from Sennheiser.  So here I am with the K702's, my HD 555's, and now the HD 600's all in front of me to test to my hearts desire.
 

 
Quick Overview:
 

Headphones​	Comfort​	Sound Quality​	Sound Stage (Size) ​	Sound Stage (Quality) ​
HD 555​	1st​	3rd​	3rd​	3rd​
AKG K702​	3rd​	2nd​	1st​	2nd​
HD 600​	2nd​	1st​	2nd​	1st​

 
More In Depth:
 
I started off by listening to my HD 555's with the same EQ I use at my house (he has the exact same sound card as I do).  Immediately, I was VERY surprised with having my 555's hooked up to the amp. . .the bass somehow vanished.  Well, it was there, but was left behind by the mids and high's which were amp'd WAY up with this setup.  The sound stage on my 555's seemed to grow a bit also.  Deciding not to ruin my memory of how my headphones sound normally. . .I hooked up the 702's.  These sounded pretty good, with a very, VERY large sound stage.  This was nice, but at the same time, seemed almost too distant on most stuff.  I listened to a few songs before moving on to the HD 600's. . .I was completely taken back.  The clarity and detail was all there just as in the 702's but with a more "intimate" sound to it.  After going back and forth between the 702's and 600's for a bit, I determined that the HD 600's were just simply superior over the 702's.  They had a very good sound stage, but seemed to be more realistic in their distances for all of the sounds (obviously in my opinion. . .and my friend for that matter) compared to the 702's which just seemed very distant with everything we threw at them.  The AKG's were quickly back in their box to be sent back to the company he ordered them from, haha.  In addition to the overall better sound, the HD 600's bass was really great.  I am NOT even close to being a bass head, but good quality bass I believe is a key part of something if it is designed to be there.  Certain songs are mastered with having the bass being a very forward component in the audio, and these headphones really deliver this superbly.  The best way I can think to best describe the bass on the HD 600's. . .is the bass sounds like it is coming from a good quality subwoofer.
 
The comfort was also in the HD 600's favorite.  The K702's are not horrible by any means, but they are just not as good as either of the Sennheiser headphones in my opinion.  I believe that maybe the K601's (correct me if I'm wrong with the model number) might be better as they do not have the "bumps" on the under side of the headband.  I suppose the ultimate bottom line here is that I now know what my future headphones will more than likely be. . .the Sennheiser HD 600's with a good amp.
 
 
*EDIT*
 
I about forgot something. . .aesthetics.  This is not really a major part in deciding the headphones, as ultimately the sound and comfort are the major decision makers in my book, but I like something to look good as well.  I would probably put the HD 600's first, with the K702's and HD 555's about even behind them.
 
Source:  100% Flac Files
System Chain:  Foobar => Shanling PH100 => Headphones

 

[dcpoor]

just wondering, what source was used?

 

[Ze_Blitzkrieg]

Quote:

just wondering, what source was used?

Lossless files (wav) from computer via HT Omega sound card.

Oh, and Bluray's for movie testing.

 

[TheWuss]

Quote:

The AKG's were quickly back in their box to be sent back to the company he ordered them from, haha.

oh boy.  don't let Acix catch wind of this thread.  he'll have a come-apart.  haha.

 
i'll also go with the canned response:  "what!?!  you mean you didn't burn-in the k702 for 400 hours before giving up on them???" 
 
hahahaha.
 

 

[Ze_Blitzkrieg]

Actually my friend let them burn in for about 30 hrs. . .but no where near the 400 hrs.
 
Also, that is the only way we get a chance to sample any headphones. . .there are no stores remotely close that have ANY of these types of headphones for sale, much less where you can sample them.
 
Quote:

oh boy.  don't let Acix catch wind of this thread.  he'll have a come-apart.  haha.

 

[tdockweiler]

Thanks for the review. I also did this same comparison with the AKG 702 and HD-600. Without the HD-555's though, but I did own them at the time.
I must have compared both headphones side by side for four hours. Back and forth.
 
Most people who are in love with the AKG 702 or 701 will without a doubt say they are "Better". They are in some ways, but you can't really say one is better then the other. Each are good in their own ways and it depends on what a person's definition of good sound is. You can't go wrong with either of them.
 
People who say the HD-600 is nowhere near as good or is a downgrade to the 701/702 I think have not heard them side by side. I'm talking about right next to each other at the same time and not weeks or days apart.
 
To my ears the HD-600 is easily and without any doubt better sounding with most stringed instruments, especially acoustic Guitars. They sounded much more natural to me and exactly how i'd expect them to sound like in real life. On the AKG 702 I've found they just didn't sound as natural as they could and you just did not FEEL them. You didn't have that "oomph" so to speak as you did with the HD-600s. Vocals were also a bit thin sounding on the AKG 702's. Listen to something off the "Into the Wild" soundtrack where Eddie Vedder plays the ukulele. On the AKG 702 it sounds like he's playing a plastic toy instrument and on the HD-600 there is a huge difference on how it sounds. The difference is like night and day. I've found that on many songs the AKG 702 fails with this soundtrack and sounds bad.
 
The AKG 702 had a much better sound stage, but it almost seemed phony and artificially bigger then it really should be. I actually liked the soundstage much more on the DT-800, even the 32ohm version!
The 702 has more detail, but what I mean by that is that it's all more up front. On the HD-600 it's not as forward, but I like that. I tried finding extremely tiny details on the AKG 702 that were not present on the HD-600, but it was impossible.
 
I used the AKG 701 for nearly two years without complaints. I could not find out any of it's weaknesses (except a slight lack of bass) until comparing them side by side with the HD-600. Actually I compared the AKG 702 and HD-600 side by side. I honestly don't think the 701 and 702 sound the same, but who knows.
 
For me though the HD-600 had more strengths and sounded better with more music. They are much easier to drive if you could believe that! I also ended up returning the 702's. If I needed several pairs of headphones for a studio I'd have kept both. They go well with each other.

 

[Mochan]

How long has the K702 been burned in? My K701 had a puny soundstage out of the box. About as big as the AD700. The huge soundstage with distant sounds didn't come out until waaay later. So the K702 out of the box has the distand sound? That's very intersting.
 
Regarding the HD600's bass... if you were a basshead you wouldn't like the HD600's bass.  HD600 didnt like the bass much, I preferred the K701, dunno about the K702.

 

[Vergex2]

If you really do have to burn in a headphone for 400-500 hours, I can only say two things:

1) The human mind can be easily tricked into a placebo effect or into getting used to or even enjoying the sound of a headphone after that long. Similar to Stockholm syndrome.
 
2) It just isn't worth my while. I'm not buying headphones just so I can burn them in for weeks if not months before I can fully appreciate them. I'm a person who always listens during the burn in period, but if it takes hundreds of hours, that is too much, I'll have a return, thanks. As much as I love my ES10s, when I do a review of them, they won't get full marks for comfort because it takes a while for them to loosen even if you stretch them out a bit.

 

[Mochan]

Just buy it used then.

 

[Vergex2]

Quote:

Just buy it used then.

I really would, but I just can't bear to really buy IEMs or Headphones used. Amps & DACs etc. are a different story, because I don't touch them every day, but for something like a headphone, that is something a bit more intimate.

 

[Mochan]

That's the beauty of the hobby, there's something for everybody!

 

[danzal]

I have a PH100, and use it to power my HD580s, HD600s, and my K701s.
 
I usually find that the 701s stay on my head for less time than the others, and the 580s for the most time because they're sublimely comfortable, and sound better than my non run-in 600s (they've had ~50 hours through them so far).
 
I think that the K701s are rather comfier than the clampy 600s (yes, I have tweaked the ear cup suspension on both ears), and a little behind the 580s. The PH100 is a very good amp for the money, especially when compared to the Project Head Box and an old RA1 clone I once had.

 

[aimlink]

I too have given the HD600's the nod in terms of personal preference when compared to the K702's.  Here's why:
 
- The HD600's do not suffer from harshness no matter what music I throw at them.
 
- They're tonally accurate and very balanced, a trait that the K702's share, but not in a better way to my ears.
 
- The HD600's do better bass to me.  It's not better in terms of volume, but better in terms of speed and punch.  I've always wondered why the K702's bass was so great with some recordings and lifeless with others.  It has to do with the lack of rendering of that sharp slam when a snare or tommy drum is struck.  The HD600's, 650's and oh my me, the HD800's do this a lot better.  So though you're not listening to more bass volume, drums are rendered better leading to more enjoyment.  It's just more real.  Of course, once the bass within music involves bass strings, cello's or organs, the K702's will shine since there's no need for rendering sharply impactful bass notes.  I've found this to be the case despite good burn-in.  The mids to highs aren't as affected since I need the HD800's to show up the lack of sharpness of string plucking.  I don't mean here, a sharpness that could be harsh.  I'm referring to a sharpness that makes the sound lifelike.  
 
The weakness in the HD600's for me lie with the soundstage and imaging.  The soundstage is the narrowest among all my cans.  In fact, I found the sound quality to headstage match to be off-putting.  I was amazed at the quality sound with, at the same time, the constricted headstage.  The 650's are superior in this regard.  However, with some not so prolonged listening, you tune in and grow accustomed to this to the point where it becomes far less of an issue.  I find the wide soundstage of the K702's to be interesting.  I'm more neutral about it.  Not particularly impressed.
 
As to clarity, I don't find either to render more details than the other.  IMO, the K702's enjoy more clarity of details because some of the upper mids tend to be more forward and hence right there for you to hear the detail.  This is quite different from HD800 clarity that's more away from your ear and yet, almost miraculously, still there to be heard. 

 

[Tigerhawk]

I agree with some of the descriptions of the K702, especially tdockweiler's opinion.  I found the K702 to put instruments too far apart.  It was almost unrealistic sounding at times.  The HD600 just sounds more natural.  It is much more "musical".  The only time I did prefer the K702 maybe equal, or slightly over the HD600 was in a couple instrumental songs that consisted of more instruments than the average song contains.  The spaciousness and detail made for an interesting experience.  I did find the bass in a couple songs to hit very low with the K702, then with other songs it just wasn't there.  Directly going from the K702 to the HD600, it was night and day difference in favor of the HD600, with all rock,metal, pop, techno.  The HD600 not only has more bass quantity, but a much more concentrated and involving sound, which allows you to really get into the music.  The K702 is just too far detached.  Things can sound "thin", even though it was properly amped.  I would not say the K702 presents more detail than the HD600, it just presents the detail in a slightly different way.  I found the K702 highs to be more fatiguing than the HD600.   
 
At first I thought I'd prefer all classical on the K702, but directly comparing I found the HD600 to actually sound more realistic.  IMO, piano and violins sounds are more realistic on the HD600 vs the K702.  I prefer the HD600 for basically all classical. 
 
After adjusting the headband on the HD600, I found it to be extremely comfortable, more so than the K702.  The K702s seems to be too loose at times, and I'm not a huge fan of the automatic headband adjustment system.  Over time, I have a feeling the stretch adjustment cords on the K702 will lose some of their strength and the headphones become looser. 
 
One thing I'd like to mention, is that I experienced no sort of "veil" with the HD600.  I actually found them to be slightly more forward than the K702 for vocal, and of course everything else sounds more forward and involving on the HD600 due to not having the characteristics the K702 has.  The HD600 just sounds amazing overall, such a great all-around headphone.  It's great when you find the sound you are looking for.  I was a fan of the HD555/595 before and enjoyed their sound; they are good in their respectable price range, but overall can not touch the HD600s.  It seems the HD600 has all I need, for now.. lol.

 

[Zombie_X]

Hrm, I personally prefer the K702's but they really don't benefit from burn-in IMHO. The K702 is the superior headphone out of those three in my mind. I like their accuracy and detail as well how neutral they are. And their soundstage is great!
 
The HD600 is colored and has the highs rolled off with bloated bass with a hazy sound.
 
The HD555 is well uh....... ok at best. Nowhere near the other headphones level.
 
***I had two pairs of K701, one was new and one had about 1000 hours on it. Guess what? They sounded the exact same except for the 1000hr one had slightly smoother treble. Everything else stayed the same. I tested them with some Opeth music.
 
I tried burn-in experiments with all my headphones and have come to the conclusion that burn-in does not exist.