Nobody likes the 701, DT48, HD800, etc... Most people like natural sound, not neutral. Headphones like the 701 are more for sound engineers doing work. For general music listening, most will prefer HD650, D7000, etc...
But once you get used to a neutral sound, you wont want to go back to a fun sound. I like my sound dry, predictable, normal, no glamour. Just plain sound but clear. Most people want to have each and every song to sound amazing and have hard hitting bass and wide sound stage, crystal highs, sound good no matter what... Neutral headphones dont do that.
What? That's crazy talk. I personally don't like neutral (and I don't know what "natural" is either) but a lot of people just here like the K701 and the HD800 and the DT48 and use it for general music listening.
Well, I’m sure there must be a certain reason why throughout the last few thousand years of human history make-up has been used to decorate and beautify (female?) faces, to add meaning and significance. At least for me an important part of enjoying music is to recognize its meaning and significance. I prefer looking at glamourous faces, but my preferences and needs of course are different from those of a facial surgeon, which probably chooses to put on his K701 magnifying spectacles.
I think the requirements and the expectations of recording or mixing engineers are quite different from people who like to experience the joy of listening to music.
I haven't met anyone who actually expects the K701 to run off an MP3 DAP. Although I admit, I have tried it.
But with the reputation the K701s have, most people know to use it with an amp.
Also back in the day the K701s were actually "top tier" and people actually regarded it as such, sort of the same way people talk about the HD800 today.
I actually starting to agree with wberghofer (or whoever said that) that $200 is perhaps way too little. People don't whine about HD800 needing an amp because if you buy headphones for $1500 and expect them to run without an amp you are a moron. But somehow it feels ok to buy high end headphones (701) for $250 and expect them to run out of your portable mp3 player.
Well, I’m sure there must be a certain reason why throughout the last few thousand years of human history make-up has been used to decorate and beautify (female?) faces, to add meaning and significance. At least for me an important part of enjoying music is to recognize its meaning and significance. I enjoy looking at glamourous faces, but my preferences and needs of course are different from those of a facial surgeon, which probably chooses to put on his K701 magnifying spectacles.
I think the requirements and the expectations of recording or mixing engineers are quite different from people who like to experience the joy of listening to music.
Are we starting to fall into the trap of thinking that the K701 is a tool designed for recording professionals and mixing engineers? I swear, HeadFi creates teh strangest concepts. Like the AD700 being designed as a gaming headphone. I mean, what the heck?
The AD700 was designed for gaming as much as the K701 was designed for studio professionals. In case you guys didn't get it, NOT AT ALL.
The K701 is in the Personal Audio range of AKG's line. They were not designed with professionals in mind, they were made for consumer home use.
Are we starting to fall into the trap of thinking that the K701 is a tool designed for recording professionals and mixing engineers? I swear, HeadFi creates teh strangest concepts. Like the AD700 being designed as a gaming headphone. I mean, what the heck?
The AD700 was designed for gaming as much as the K701 was designed for studio professionals. In case you guys didn't get it, NOT AT ALL.
The K701 is in the Personal Audio range of AKG's line. They were not designed with professionals in mind, they were made for consumer home use.
Regardless of what they were designed for, the people who buy them determine their use. It is a fact that the AD700 are a wonderful competitive gaming headphone, and it is a fact that the K701 has a cold and analytical sound signature that works well for recording/mixing but is disliked by many, though not all, for music.
I haven't met anyone who actually expects the K701 to run off an MP3 DAP. Although I admit, I have tried it.
But with the reputation the K701s have, most people know to use it with an amp.
Also back in the day the K701s were actually "top tier" and people actually regarded it as such, sort of the same way people talk about the HD800 today.
I'm not saying people dont know that these need an expensive (i guess powerfull is the right word) amp. Just the idea that you need to buy amp that costs probably 2x more than headphones itself makes them seem less attractive. For example, buying Burson 160 ($700) for HD800 ($1500) seems almost like the normal thing to do. But buying it for headphones that you can get for $200? There must be something wrong with these headphones.
Are we starting to fall into the trap of thinking that the K701 is a tool designed for recording professionals and mixing engineers? I swear, HeadFi creates teh strangest concepts. Like the AD700 being designed as a gaming headphone. I mean, what the heck?
The AD700 was designed for gaming as much as the K701 was designed for studio professionals. In case you guys didn't get it, NOT AT ALL.
The K701 is in the Personal Audio range of AKG's line. They were not designed with professionals in mind, they were made for consumer home use.
Regardless of what they were designed for, the people who buy them determine their use. It is a fact that the AD700 are a wonderful competitive gaming headphone, and it is a fact that the K701 has a cold and analytical sound signature that works well for recording/mixing but is disliked by many, though not all, for music.
Fair enough. The thing is, we have people who actually say that these cans were made for so-and-so, when actually it just so happened that they are good for so-and-so. they use the former as an argument as to the actual merits and use of the headphone. And I find this erroneous.
As for the amping cost, I suppose, but I've argued many times that the K701 can be driven by decent costing amps just fine. Ive had good results with the K701 with amps from $100 (E9) to $200 ((MP5, Toucan) $400 (Mustang, LD MKIII).
Doesn't have to be a Burson. I think a lot of people just exaggerate the needs of the K701.
Well, I’m sure there must be a certain reason why throughout the last few thousand years of human history make-up has been used to decorate and beautify (female?) faces, to add meaning and significance. At least for me an important part of enjoying music is to recognize its meaning and significance. I prefer looking at glamourous faces, but my preferences and needs of course are different from those of a facial surgeon, which probably chooses to put on his K701 magnifying spectacles.
I think the requirements and the expectations of recording or mixing engineers are quite different from people who like to experience the joy of listening to music.
The headphones you are probably thinking of that give you a "glamorous face" are really just looking at it with colored glasses. K701 is looking at the face with almost clear glasses to a lengthy extent, so you see how glamorous it actually is, if at all. Colored glasses can't "fix" a face that is not glamorous.
Then K701's "vividness" of sound, I'm not sure how to put it, gives it a more "home use" feel as it is an aspect I hear more often in headphones not specifically meant for studio monitoring, like Grados for an example. A lack of this "vividness" (no, I'm not talking about clarity) makes a headphone sound a little lifeless to me, which is often the case with studio monitors, it seems to me. Perhaps it is some sort of coloration? I really don't know.
Then there is also a coloration to the sound that I can't quite put my finger on. I don't hear it in my other headphones.
As far as I know the K702 still are open-back headphones. Really would like to know from reliable sources how big the share of AKG K271 is compared to the share of K701 being used in studios.
"The K 702 are the new reference for open-back dynamic AKG headphones."
- From the AKG site.
I've got a pair on my head now, and yes, they are open. And incidentally, I plan to keep mine - I'm just glad someone didn't like them and I got them second hand in almost unused condition.
My mistake, I thought that was the difference between the two
Still, it's interesting that the K702 are in AKG's "professional headphones" classification, while the K701 fall under their "personal audio" classification.
"The K 702 are the new reference for open-back dynamic AKG headphones."
- From the AKG site.
I've got a pair on my head now, and yes, they are open. And incidentally, I plan to keep mine - I'm just glad someone didn't like them and I got them second hand in almost unused condition.
They're very different beasts - the RS1i phones are very noticeably more aggressive in the upper mids, and also definitely brighter. The soundstage is also miniscule in comparison, but (and I don't want to open a can of worms here and derail the thread) the RS1s just have a certain magic for rock / metal and even some acoustic music that the 702s just don't have. The AKGs are much better at soundstaging, and being more neutral, I find them more pleasant for orchestral /choral and even electronic music. Technically, I'm sure the AKGs are a better headphone, and considering the price difference too, you'd be a fool to buy the RS1s. But, I love ridiculous metal, and ridiculous metal calls for ridiculous headphones.
Quote:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
