That's a great price for the 701s! Congrats. I'm a big fan of them, too.

I think that the 701s are one of the all-time great headphones and incredible bargain to boot. If you like them with your receiver, then a good headphone amp, like my Woo Audio WA6 (single-ended, Class A, tube) will send you to heaven.

I've got a comparison review somewhere in the Headphones Forum.

Very soon I'll most my impressions of my recabled (with Cardas) 701s.

Congrats on your great purchase.

Dave

Hi Dave,
Thanks for the input. I went to the Woo site and checked out the amp. For $575 I think I'll stay on Earth for a while. I'm sure this is a knock out amp and everyone loves them, but Heaven can wait for me. For me, that's a lot of dough for the parts that I saw in the amp at the web site. I realize everything is expensive these days, but I paid less than that for my Cayin TA-30 integrated tube amp, brand new. This unit is also point-to-point wired and very high quality. I'm sure yours is a much nicer unit, but my Denon is one of my key players in my system. It's the perfect tool for what I need. Have you heard the new AKG K240S cans yet?
BB

I'm actually not a big fan of the 701's. I found them to be dry and lifeless. I like the Sennheiser 650's much better. I liked the 501's better too, although not nearly as much as the Sennheisers.

Yeah, lots of people prefer the Senns. To me Senns euphonically dark and colored with an inflated midbass and poor low bass. Still, I'd say they're amongst the most popular high-end phones, along with the AKGs.

Seems like people either like one or the other, but not both.

Dave

In a measured frequency response comparison of the 650s v. the 701s, there is great similarity in the bass and most of the midrange (through 4k).

Where the cans differ is a 5 dB dip at about 5kHz in the Sennheisers.

The 701s have a wide 5dB+ 6-10kHz boost, followed by a huge drop of -25dB at 11-12kHz.

Always interesting is how headphone frequency response is all over the place - much more than decent or better speakers.

I find the 701s too bright and hard, while simultaneously lacking in air. However, the pair I listened to some time back only had about 50 or so hours on them. I am going to borrow them again now that I am sure they have many hundreds (the owner listens while working) and see what I think now.

Yeah Elk, were those frequency plottings raw and unadjusted? I find them impossible to interpret for headphones, particularly IEMs. Apparently what our heads hear as flat is certainly not the case when measure with a mic.

Hard as it is to interpret the unadjusted graphs, I distrust the incredibly flat looking stuff that Hear-Room puts up.

Many report giant gains with the AKGs after 100-hours. That was NOT my experience except that the bass depth grew significantly, going from seemingly nothing to second only to my Ultra Ears Triple.fi 10 Pro IEMs.

Dave

Hi, Dave

I am referring to the graphs that HeadRoom puts together after physically measuring the headphones. Their procedure looks legit to me, but I am far from being an expert.
Headroom Measurement Info

Well, the couple of times I've seen a couple of raw graphs (before HR applies their correction factors) the differences seemed far greater than the end result of the HeadRoom comparative graphs. Still, the whole thing of creating meaningful graphs of cans is voodoo to me. I have little understanding of how they go about arriving at the correction factors. I'd love to see graphs by someone that didn't rest their entire business on selling cans.

Dave

As I understand it, the only correction applied is a calibration correction. This is similar to subtracting the weight of the container when weighing produce to get the accurate weight of the fruit one is buying.

As explained on the Headroom site:

"We use a Head Acoustics Artificial Head Measurement System to perform headphone measurements in compliance with industry standards. Wolfgang, as we call him, has soft outer ears just like you and I. The material is designed to have the same acoustic absorption characteristics as human skin and bone. Wolfie has ear canals, too. At the bottom of each is a calibrated instrumentation microphone. When we place a pair of headphones on this head, the overall acoustic coupling to the microphones is just like it would be on the

I think that the 701s are very amp sensitive. I'm driving mine with a single-ended, Class A Woo Audio tube amp that seems to match up very well. OTOH, my Ultimate Ears Triple.fis don't seem to care what you drive them with, sounding great right out of my iPhone (don't even try that with the 701s, ugggly).

They also need a lot of break-in according to most users. (In my case they went from good to very good, mainly adding bass, but other report a lot of smoothing of the highes).

Dave

The 701s may well be amp sensitive. However I tried them on both a Single Power tube headphone amp and on a Grace M902 SS DAC/amp. The sound was consistent.

It is the reports of added smoothness in the highs that makes me want to try a well broken-in pair. There are some many positive reports that while I trust me years, I want to give the 701s another shot.

For what it's worth, I first used 701s with Heed CanAmp, solid state. It's a tremendous amp for the money, for anyone considering a separate headphone amp, perfectly complements the 701s, especially. The performance was impressive, but had a little bit of grain. Now I use the 701s through Leben CS600 tube amp, and it really takes the performance to another level. The grain is gone, as is the fatigue... the sound is very good and smooth.

BTW: I also use Sennheiser PXC450 headphones, so I guess I'm one of the rarer people who likes both Senn & AKG? Admittedly I use PXC450s mostly for outdoor usage (with noise-canceling turned off), but I use it sometimes at home out of curiosity. I won't even compare the PXC450 with the 701, because PXCs are closed cans, and open cans have almost always been better tranducers in my experience. That said, the PXC450s sound remarkably similar in character to HD650s. I don't get the soundstaging or the airiness, the detail of the 701s, but the sound is just very pleasant, with the right amount of bloom in the bass that doesn't bleed into muddiness. I like them both, for different occasions. Classical & jazz, for sure, I use the 701s, but electronic music, I like the Senns. For outdoor usage, the PXC450s are among the best options out there for audiophiles, no contest. They fold up neatly like origami into a small black case which I keep in my bag, and are completely circumaural. Tne SQ is excellent. They're overpriced as hell, though (got mine as a gift) and I can't actually recommend them to people with good conscience.

I got my K701 yesterday for 242 bucks plus international shipping. Right out of the box the thing already sounded good. Good balance, I'd say 2-3dB softer bass than I expected, but also with a somewhat anoying 7kHz peak that my Beyer 770 '05 also has. Good details, but I'm sure it needs more hours to burn in right.

I've burned them for ~200 hours by now. The K701 is indeed bright in the mid-treble and not airy, that is no high treble. O little to bright for my taste, everything sounds thin. Now I want to recable, let's see if that improves it.

As you know, this is my impression also.

What amp are you using?

Quote:
The 701s may well be amp sensitive. However I tried them on both a Single Power tube headphone amp and on a Grace M902 SS DAC/amp. The sound was consistent.

In my opinion the K 701s are only 'amp-sensitive' in two senses. Firstly, their relatively low impedance (60-65 ohms) makes them harder to drive than some other cans (e.g. Sennies). They require an amp that can deliver current without breaking sweat otherwise they sound awful. This tends to point towards dedicated headphone amps or quality headphone amp sections in decent preamps or integrateds. Driving these from a PC or an mp3 player is a non-starter but we all knew that, right?

Secondly, they are extremely revealing (depending on your taste maybe even 'analytical') but their tonal balance does err in the direction of bright. If you partner them with a bright sounding source or amp (e.g. a DAC-1) the result can very easily stray over the line into 'hardness' or 'glare'. This is similar to (and therefore easy to confuse with) the sound characteristics they exhibit before they are properly broken in, which in my experience is towards the upper end of the various figures you see quoted, i.e. more like 300 hours than 100.

All-in-all the K 701s are a bit like a Ferrari: highly strung, difficult to get the best out of, but when you do, oh boy! Sennies are more like a 911: easier to drive and more practical for every day use (less sensitive to break-in, user-switchable cables) etc.

Quote:
It is the reports of added smoothness in the highs that makes me want to try a well broken-in pair. There are some many positive reports that while I trust me years, I want to give the 701s another shot.

Again, in my experience they are worth the effort. They bring to mind the great analogy of hi-fi components being like people. You can't say one is more 'right' than the other however you may prefer one to the other or you may love two equally but for different reasons.

When it comes to cans I am appallingly generous with my affections! I love my Sennies for their imaging, relaxing balance and wonderful bass slam, some days however I find them too 'dark' and lacking life. Maybe they are gorgeous brunette like Natalie Wood or Jane Seymour (or pick your own favourite). The AKGs are amazing for their transparency, dynamics and smoothness, Some days, maybe days where I can't face the whole truth, I find them too hard and tiring. Maybe they are a stunning but temperamental blonde like Anita Ekberg? Yet I find neither of these offer the supreme transparency of my Audio Technica ATH-W1000s, not even close. Now that's what I call air! These are the nymph, the lolita, Natalie Portman? Their bottom-end may be under-dimensioned for some tastes but the rest is a thing of beauty.

The great thing about cans is you don't have to chose one and marry them

Quote:

Secondly, they are extremely revealing (depending on your taste maybe even 'analytical') but their tonal balance does err in the direction of bright. If you partner them with a bright sounding source or amp (e.g. a DAC-1) the result can very easily stray over the line into 'hardness' or 'glare'. This is similar to (and therefore easy to confuse with) the sound characteristics they exhibit before they are properly broken in, which in my experience is towards the upper end of the various figures you see quoted, i.e. more like 300 hours than 100.

I would describe their sound is very neutral; however, that means that they'll reveal the weakness of any source. For those with great sources it can be a heavenly result, but everything in the chain will be important, starting with the CDP and TT. The 701s with a good amp, with good interconnects and great sources will sound stress free, transparent, organic and musical.

I give the same warning to anyone considering Jeff Rowland Design Group pre-amps and integrateds. With high rez source components the highs are sweet, clear and musical, but add in a lesss stellar CDP, for instance, and you'll hear the glare of the digital source very easily.

The Senns and Grados are way more forgiving for those still refining their sources.

Dave

Quote:
I would describe their sound is very neutral

A friend of mine is a professional musician (oboist) and I played him one of his own commercial recordings on the K 701s and the Sennheiser HD650s (both using Moon cables). He definitely preferred the sound of the AKGs saying they were more faithful to his aural memory of the original performance. I believe you are a professional musician too, right?

I guess my comment that they can err on the bright side was based on the fact that I have heard K 701s in several different systems (generally decent ones, Grace m902, MF X-Can v3, Rudistor RPX-100, ...) vary from neutral to erring towards bright but I have never heard them sound even remotely 'dark'. So I don't think your observations in your own system necessarily in conflict with this statement at all.

However most people do not have the luxury of being able to compare a recording with the live event that produced it, nor the sensitivity to timbre or aural memory to critically compare even if they did. So I think for most people it still comes down to preference (blond or brunette?) and system matching with the upstream components.

'Brightness' can also come from the source (material) of course. Fwiw, I am getting the best results with hi rez 'studio masters' downloaded from the Linn records site. In my system the difference between these and the red-book versions is painfully apparent through both pairs of cans!

Struts, I'm not a pro musician, but a very serious amateur trumpeter and guitarist. Still, yes, I believe that musicians have better aural memory than most audiophiles and most musicians seek out equipment that's neutral.

I also agree 100% that your perception of the AKGs will be more consistent with the view of average audiophile's than mine. I think it's unfortunate that the most revealing and accurate equipment suffers in comparison because digital sources, in particular, can add so much glare. Cables can and do add glare also, such that when you stick a super accurate and revealing piece into an average system, many will say, "Yuck, what's so special about that? My XYZs will blow those AKGs into the weeds."

There's a nearby thread where the OP wanted a really high end system and had 2 or 3-thousand to spend on a system in an apartment with thin walls and sensitive neighbors. Headphones came up as an option. In that context, with that budget, the AKG K701s are a very good choice as the foundation for such a system. There's room in that budget for a good digital source, a great amp and great ICs. Such a system would be very hard to beat with speakers costing five-times more.

Dave

Quote:
Such a system would be very hard to beat with speakers costing five-times more.

Absolutely.

Add a pair of nice little self powered speakers and you are also set for music while puttering around.

Speaking of powered speakers, I'm very pleased with the Audioengine 2 on my desk right now. I haven't heard the 5s yet, but they would likely be fine for an entry level system in a relatively small room.

Dave

I was specifically thinking of the Audioengines!

Dave,

I swapped my Bose Companions for some AE2s a few months ago on a bit of a whim. They sound great but I must say they have not exactly been plain sailing.

The first challenge was getting the tonal balance right, since placed either side of the monitor on the desk in front of me and with the tweeters firing roughly at my chest the treble was very rolled off. A couple of small Black Diamond Racing cones under each front corner angled them up just the right amount and experimenting with toe-in/out solved the rest.

The other problem that I've had is they emit the occasional low level 'crackle' when they're idle. I haven't figured out if this is a EMI issue, an earthing or power issue, a soundcard issue (for various quite complicated reasons I am driving them from the built-in soundcard rather than the analogue outs of the MAYA44) or something else entirely. Have you experienced anything similar?

All that said I am in the midst of my mega Sennheiser after-market cable survey right now (now up to six contendahs ) so I have not put much time into trying to troubleshoot this yet. No rest for the wicked.

Quote:
As you know, this is my impression also.

What amp are you using?

Benchmark DAC1 with HiFi-Tuning.com's fuses.
I tried other phones with it (Beyer 770 '05, UE Triple.fi) and my main rig is using it, so I don't think the glare comes from the DAC1. Actually, it has a really neutral-to-warm tonal balance and is very detailed ("analitic", as some say...). The K701 is the bright one here, for sure. Some call it a "British" tonal balance?

Thanks, Matias. Interesting info.

Quote:
I tried other phones with it (Beyer 770 '05, UE Triple.fi) and my main rig is using it, so I don't think the glare comes from the DAC1.

Matias,

I can't argue from experience; believe it or not I have never actually heard a DAC1 (I must be the last person on earth who hasn't!) so all the information I have about it is second-hand at best. I just wanted to pass on what I have heard from experienced listeners who have, and who say the DAC1 exhibits much better synergy with Sennheiser HD600s and 650s than K 701s. In fact I can't off-hand think of a single DAC1 owner I know who uses K 701s as their primary cans which is strange given both products' enormous popularity.

All that said, it sounds a lot to me like your K 701s still aren't really broken in. After learning this the hard way with my first pair I left my second, recabled pair on round-the-clock for the first few weeks, playing something bass-heavy on repeat. Can't wait to see my electricity bill!

They smooth out a lot over time, although I guess it is hard to say exactly how much time since it depends on the programme you use to break them in and the volume you play it at. It's worth the wait though, I would stick with them.

Matias, a couple of things, were the AKGs broken in for at least 100-hours? They really need that, like new loudspeakers, they need to really be run in to loosen the bass and round off the tops. What are your sources? The DAC1 is not really the ultimate DACs by a long shot.

Dave

While the DAC1 is not the pinnacle of Dac-dom, it is excellent. It is definitely not bright. What Matias is hearing is not the DAC.

I listened to 701s on various DACs, vinyl and headphone amps. The basic sound characteristics do not change.

I have yet to hear a pair of 701s that are broken in with hundreds of hours. I would like to as the 701s I have heard are bright and fatiguing, well evidenced by their frequency response. Perhaps they settle in with lots of time.

My guess is that these headphones will remain a bit controversial, adored by those that love them while others find them flawed.

Quote:

My guess is that these headphones will remain a bit controversial, adored by those that love them while others find them flawed.

No doubt about that.

I think it's a shame that so many people miss out on these incredible cans because they never get to hear a properly burned in set. Mine are incredible.

Dave

Quote:
I think it's a shame that so many people miss out on these incredible cans because they never get to hear a properly burned in set. Mine are incredible.

Which is exactly why I want to hear a well burned in pair!

Time to start asking to borrow again after checking to see if they have been well-used.

Struts, I am pretty sure the DAC1 isn't the bright one here. Believe me, the DAC1 is REALLY good. Especially powered with 240V (higher efficiency then 117V), using HiFi-Tuning fuses (deeper bass, more detailed) and proper digital and power cables. I consider my DAC1 to be "maxed out".

I have also tested the K701 with a modded M

Interesting observations, Matias. Nice setup you have there.

In my experience all headphone families have a similar sound. Consider, for example, the frequency responses of various headphones: Build a Graph

The AKGs you mention have large treble peaks that correspond with what you are hearing.

IME, my 701s and my Triple.fi 10 Pros have the same tonal balance, EXCEPT the T.fis have more bass impact (extension is actually the same). The imaging of the 701s is way superior. BTW, white noise doesn't seem to break in the 701s, I used 150-hours of bass-heavy music.

Sources are very important as is the amp with the 701s. (The T.fis sound incredible with my iPhone). Listen to the 701s through the Woo Audio WA6 and the Playback Designs MPS-5 CD/SACD player will drop your jaw. My Audio Technica w5000s seem woefully colored in comparisons. All the Senns I've tried add overly rich, thick lower mid coloration.

I think everyone here knows I'm a serious musician (not pro like Elk, but a regular performer in many genres), if that matters.

I know it's VERY hard and/or expensive to build a really open, organic digital front end. Unfortunately, great amps, great speakers and great cans lay bare the problems with average digital sources. The easiest way to check this is to listen through a decent turntable system and notice the smooth crystalline highs with no haze or harshness. This is possible in digital, but hard to achieve.

Dave

Those fuses & Furutech plugs look serious like a heart attack. I used to use Heed CanAmp with AKG-701, and had the same impression as many others did, that they were a bit 'bright.' Now I run them w/ Leben CS600, and I don't find the treble bright anymore... I'm still keen to try Cardas recabling like Dave did with his, though...

Quote:
Struts, I am pretty sure the DAC1 isn't the bright one here. Believe me, the DAC1 is REALLY good. Especially powered with 240V (higher efficiency then 117V), using HiFi-Tuning fuses (deeper bass, more detailed) and proper digital and power cables. I consider my DAC1 to be "maxed out".

Matias,

I believe you, as I said I was just passing along what I'd heard from other users. Given all the above I still think insufficient break-in could be at least part of the issue with your pair. I am now breaking in my second, recabled pair which initially felt like a long journey back to square one in that regard at least.

I don't know how the stock cable is implemented on the AKGs, it will be interesting to hear if there is one return wire or two. With the single entry design I strongly suspect the former but please report back when you have dissected the cable! Btw, Moon Audio uses the Furutech plugs on their rewires, so I have that plug on both my Black (K 701) and Silver (HD650) Dragons. It is a very nice plug, and feels every bit as bullet-proof as it looks.

I have the same experience with Ultimate Ears as you and Dave. I have a pair of UE 10 Pros (the customs not the triple.fis) and they better my conventional cans on just about every parameter. I don't usually use them at my desk as they are too fiddly to insert and remove all the time, plus the isolation is so good that I wouldn't hear the phone ring!

Finally, I think you meant the opposite of what you said about impedance; the triple.fis are easy to drive despite their low impedance not because of it. Lower impedance transducers demand more of the driving amplifier as they suck more current, however the triple.fis have such high sensitivity that this is not an issue. My UE 10s are subjectively easy to drive despite their extremely low impedance (avg 13 ohms dipping down to 9 ohms), requiring as much as 20dB-or-so less gain on my headphone amp than the K 701s to drive to similar levels.

Oops, you're right about the impedance. Sorry for the bad english. As for the Furutech plugs, I'm ordering them the next few days. Let's hear.

Yesterday I was listening to my K701s after a couple of weeks. Still bright, but the bass was somewhat more present in some songs I remember listening. I think that's because of the fuses, not the burn-in.

By the way, where can I find another one of those plastic terminations, so that I can insert a cable on the other side too when I recable?

You have to get it direct from AKG is what I've been told.

Dave

Audiophile siblings,

I just had to report that I have just spent a thoroughly enjoyable evening listening to Klemperer's Fidelio through the K 701s (recabled with dual entry Black Dragon). Pure bliss! Just top-to-bottom seamlessness and with a beautiful dry, tuneful and superbly extended bass. Not a hint of 'hard' or 'bright' or 'glare'. In fact I can't remember the Choir of the prisoners or the Florestan aria ever sounding more intense or profound.

These are GREAT cans folks. Hang in there!

Wonderful!

Ah, my man Struts, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. Thanks for the report.

I got my 701s out for a couple of hours on Sunday to see if I could hear the problems that keep getting mentioned. I listened at high levels, equivalent to maybe 90dB average through the speakers, with all kinds of material, from Richard Thompson to Michael Tilson Thomas.

Oh man, what a beautiful show. There wasn't a touch of hardness and the bass was solid and extended (rolled off ever so slightly compared to my speakers, in the very bottom octave). The highs were clear, transparent and full of glorious overtones.

I think that the tonal balance of these cans is perfect after break-in, then the recabling removes any congestion traces. We're having a head-fi meet in Denver late this month, so maybe I can compare my Cardas to some Black Dragon recabs.

Dave

Excellent!

Do you guys think it is better to

- wait the debut of the K702, and if it's about the same price (~250usd), sell my K701 and build a custom cable for the K702 with XLR connector; or

- forget the K702, try to get the spare parts of the K701 and recable it by opening and soldering?

...or, option 3, wait for the introduction of the K 702 and swoop on a pair of pre-owned, recabled (and broken in!) K 701s.

I was going to recable my K701s but when I looked into the cost to send them back to the US etc. it made more sense economically to sell them and buy a new pair of recabled K 701s. I suspect it would be the same for you.

I await the first user reports on the K 702s with interest. Cable swapping will definitely be easier with the mini DIN plug, although in this case one is of course only swapping the portion of the cable that goes to the plug. The flying lead over the head is not replaced in this scenario (as with any single-entry swap-out). How much difference this makes is of course the subject of heated debate among the 'Audio Taliban' over at head-fi.

Option 3 is too expensive. Noone would buy and used and de-modded 701.

I think that the recabled ones sold over the Internet are too expensive. I'd rather buy the cable and plug and do it myself.

Right now I'm with option 1: sit and wait to see the prices of the K702. I'm not dying for a recable or something.

Today I made my mind: I'm selling the K701. Way too bright and unconfortable for me.
I will try to listen to some non-modded HD650s before buying them. Comfort is good, this I know from when I tested a modded one.

Sounds like you've thought about it long and hard Matias. The HD650s are great cans too, and a really good match with the DAC 1 according to everything I've heard and read. Another nice aspect is that it is much easier to upgrade the cable with those mini plugs.

Hope you get a good price for your K 701s!

Cabling will NOT change the basic character of any cans. It's only a refinement. I'm amazed at the buzz over at head-fi.org about "balanced" vs. unbalance and people spending shitloads of money on special amps and cables when a good set of cans and a good amp are way more important.

To achieve really great, musical headphone performance, I say clean up your sources first and get the best that you can affore, buy a great set of cans with the character you prefer and then buy a great headphone amp. Screwing with cables is the last step.

Dave

Quote:
Cabling will NOT change the basic character of any cans. It's only a refinement. I'm amazed at the buzz over at head-fi.org about "balanced" vs. unbalance and people spending shitloads of money on special amps and cables when a good set of cans and a good amp are way more important.

To achieve really great, musical headphone performance, I say clean up your sources first and get the best that you can affore, buy a great set of cans with the character you prefer and then buy a great headphone amp. Screwing with cables is the last step.

Dave

I completely agree. Cables should be the last thing that one does. First get the headphones and headphone amps that one is happy with and then use changing the cabling as a way to refine the sound.

Thanks Dave for bringing things back down to earth.