[vid]

The Golden Ears samples of K 701 and HD 540 Gold measure somewhat similarly, and that website rates those two phones quite equal in subjective grading.
 
My K 701 and HD 530 measured even more similarly than those of Golden Ears, and, not surprisingly, the phones sounded quite similar. The K 701 had more treble. I preferred the HD 530, but it wasn't by a huge margin.
 
To find the K 701 and HD 540 to have no similarities is a bit odd.

 

[p a t r i c k]

  The Golden Ears samples of K 701 and HD 540 Gold measure somewhat similarly, and that website rates those two phones quite equal in subjective grading.
 
My K 701 and HD 530 measured even more similarly than those of Golden Ears, and, not surprisingly, the phones sounded quite similar. The K 701 had more treble. I preferred the HD 530, but it wasn't by a huge margin.
 
To find the K 701 and HD 540 to have no similarities is a bit odd.

 
I have K 702s and the Sennheiser HD 540 Reference Golds. Earlier I wrote I had the K 701s however my K 702s are the K 701s with a detachable cables and very dark blue in colour.
 
The sound of the Sennheiser HD 540 Ref Golds is certainly very different indeed from the K 702s. I don't think that conflicts with them having similar measurements. I do believe that measurements are extremely valuable but it is absolutely possible for audio equipment to have very similar measurements but sound very different.
 
My experience of the K 702s and the Sennheiser HD 540 Ref Golds is that these really are extremely different headphones. The K 702s have a vastly superior soundstage and are very much more detailed, they are quite transparent sounding. However the HD 540s have a much smaller soundstage, they are not as detailed, but they do have a rather nice integrated sound to them.
 
I will say that I prefer my K 702s by miles to the HD 540s.
 
I bought my HD540s in 1991. I was living in London at the time in a tiny flat at the top of a victorian town house. There was no insulation in my floor and if I played music with loudspeaker the person living underneath me could hear every note. Well I didn't want to inflict that on someone so I purchased the Sennheiser HD 540s along with a rather good class A solid state amplifier marketed by a British company called Moth. That company had nothing to do with the American Moth company who make valve amplifiers.
 
The Sennheiser HD 540s were my main method of listening to music for a lot of years. The sources I used with them were a Michell GyroDec/Rega RB 300/Goldring 1042 into a valve pre-amp by Audio Innovations into the class A solid state amp I have mentioned or a Meridian 206B CD player into the class A solid state amp.
 
Those Sennheiser HD 540s have become a classic Hi Fi item. However the quality of headphones in general has improved enormously since the 80s. Today the HD 540s are  rather nice headphones, but not exceptional.
 
The AKG K 701/2s and the headphones that are derived from them represent a big leap forward in sound quality for headphones, that is my opinion. I think that manufacturers have much better technology available to them now for creating much better drivers in dynamic headphones and this is why we have superb dynamic headphones like the K 7xx headphones.

 

[daltonlanny]

Well, I have the AKG K701 and a pair of Sennheiser HD540 Reference Gold headphones. I bought my HD540 headphones new in 1991 and the K701s I bought a couple of years ago.

The easy answer from me to your question is that there are no similarities imho between these two headphones.

The K701s produce a very wide soundstage and place instruments within it superbly. The tone of the instruments is superb. The K701s have very well defined bass but they will not produce thick heavy bass.

The HD540's are very nice headphones but for me not in the same league as the K701s. I will say that the HD540s produce a more integrated sound. I like using them with chamber music. The HD540s are very well behaved and to me sound very controlled. However they will convey tremendous energy and there is always a very good sense of rhythm from them.

It may sound odd, but I actually prefer the "old" Sennheiser HD 540 Reference II over the AKG Q701.
I extensively compared both, and believe it or not the 540 II is superior to my ears.
The Q701 is a great headphone...Clarity, detail, wide imaging, spacious, but at the same time, it sounds somewhat diffuse, and distant, with a "hole in the middle". It also has a somewhat thin sound to me, can sound somewhat piercing, and has annoying peaks to my ears at around 2k and 7k.
I feel the 540 II is better balanced, more integrated, more dynamic, and has better timbre than the Q701.

I also feel that the 540 II has better treble extension in the top octave.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[rocksteady65]

It may sound odd, but I actually prefer the "old" Sennheiser HD 540 Reference II over the AKG Q701.
I extensively compared both, and believe it or not the 540 II is superior to my ears.
The Q701 is a great headphone...Clarity, detail, wide imaging, spacious, but at the same time, it sounds somewhat diffuse, and distant, with a "hole in the middle". It also has a somewhat thin sound to me, can sound somewhat piercing, and has annoying peaks to my ears at around 2k and 7k.
I feel the 540 II is better balanced, more integrated, more dynamic, and has better timbre than the Q701.

I also feel that the 540 II has better treble extension in the top octave.
Just my 2 cents.

 
You're not odd! I couldn't agree more and to be honest I would even go as far as describing the K701/702, as sibilant, grainy, overdamped in the bass and generally unpleasant to listen to. Just my Two cents! 

 

[o0CosmoMemory0o]

I recently compared my HD540II directly with a HD800. The HD800 seemed to convey a larger listening space around my ears than the HD540II. Apart from this though, there is nothing that the HD800 did that my HD540II couldn't also do.

They were neck and neck. HD540 sonic performance is far from outdated. It's a true high fidelity monitor headphone and as long as the user has the patience to bring out its potential, they will experience music as few people are able to do.

 

[rocksteady65]

I recently compared my HD540II directly with a HD800. The HD800 seemed to convey a larger listening space around my ears than the HD540II. Apart from this though, there is nothing that the HD800 did that my HD540II couldn't also do.

They were neck and neck. HD540 sonic performance is far from outdated. It's a true high fidelity monitor headphone and as long as the user has the patience to bring out its potential, they will experience music as few people are able to do.

Well put. I couldn't agree more! The merits of any given component should not and cannot be measured by its age but rather by its actual performance. It seems to me that there are many out there that fail to grasp this basic realisation.

 

[Hairspray]

It may sound odd, but I actually prefer the "old" Sennheiser HD 540 Reference II over the AKG Q701.
I extensively compared both, and believe it or not the 540 II is superior to my ears.
The Q701 is a great headphone...Clarity, detail, wide imaging, spacious, but at the same time, it sounds somewhat diffuse, and distant, with a "hole in the middle". It also has a somewhat thin sound to me, can sound somewhat piercing, and has annoying peaks to my ears at around 2k and 7k.
I feel the 540 II is better balanced, more integrated, more dynamic, and has better timbre than the Q701.

I also feel that the 540 II has better treble extension in the top octave.
Just my 2 cents.

I totally agree (except for low bass response).
I love my modded Q701 but its timbre is... well... you know what... compared to 540.
...

 

[Hairspray]

  [...] The Reference I sounds somewhat thinner and more distant [...]

 
don't get me wrong, but, you do realise that "thin", "distant", etc. are often used by newbies to describe neutrality?
540 Ref I isn't a "musical" headphone (like the 650 and other "couch" headphones) but 540 Ref I sounds "realistic" (due to its superior timbre and imaging).
realism doesn't necessarily sound musical...
comparing headphones isn't wine or cigars tasting.
in fact, most live performances are a nightmare to my ears
...

 

[Hairspray]

   
Being the owner of two Reference I's , I couldn't possibly agree. The REF. II may be slightly different, but better? I don't think so. In fact many will prefer the REF. I...

 
IMO, Ref I and Ref II are apples and oranges.
Their signatures and presentations are clearly different to me.
 
anyhow, wouldn't it be a good thing to clearly distinguish "signature" from "presentation" when comparing headphones?
...

 

[o0CosmoMemory0o]

I wouldn't even call it signature; I don't think it's coloured at all. Not sure how others could feel that these two headphones sound nothing alike; they share the same physical design...

 

[moriez]

 

  [...] The Reference I sounds somewhat thinner and more distant [...]

 
don't get me wrong, but, you do realise that "thin", "distant", etc. are often used by newbies to describe neutrality?

 
A somewhat unthoughtful way of of sharing your knowledge there Hairspray. No need for name calling even if it wasn't directed at him

 
 

  comparing headphones isn't wine or cigars tasting.

 
It's not? Why is it different?
 
 

  anyhow, wouldn't it be a good thing to clearly distinguish "signature" from "presentation" when comparing headphones?

 
Sounds like something I'd like to know. Could you clarify the two?

 

[o0CosmoMemory0o]

I personally believe that daltonlanny has only heard an inferior Ref I driver pair up until now hence his confusion at why others here are praising it so avidly. My initial impressions of the Ref I were also not great. Once I heard the third pair, I could then confer with its praise. Whether you wish to believe it or not, there is manufacturing inconsistency with the Ref I batches. I have rational ears and I could clearly hear the reduced purity and a loss of spatial rendering when compared with the Reference II. My third Ref I however is neck and neck with the Ref II. Any difference between them are subtle at best and will probably disappear with further use.

 

[rocksteady65]

I wouldn't even call it signature; I don't think it's coloured at all. Not sure how others could feel that these two headphones sound nothing alike; they share the same physical design...

Precisely! My point all along. 

 

[Bostonears]

listening to my. HD540 I it's well, great and... great ! Need to do some AB comparisons with my II version.
Question, other than measuring is there a way to know whether these HP are 300/600 Ohms?

300 vs. 600 is stamped into the driver frame of the HD540. It's small and hard to see, but if you pull off the earpads and the thin foam, you can see this:
 

 

[o0CosmoMemory0o]

Somewhat confused at why rocksteady65 has been banned. This thread and its members are beginning to out-stay their welcome?? O_o