Continued from Part 1:
Audeze LCD2 Rev. 2: When the PMC MB2i speakers were my benchmark, the LCD2 blew me away. Almost the total opposite of the HD800. Much narrower soundstage, dark, warm, cozy. Terrific extended bass. I loved this rich sound, and it mirrored my speakers to the degree that I didn't feel I was sacrificing much when I used the headphones. Another great headphone, but with a sound signature that was familiar, and even more. It was (and still is) appealing and lovable.
But as much as I enjoyed the LCD2, I could not deny that it, too, had an annoying flaw. The high end was certainly there, but so recessed, so minuscule in comparison to its extended and warm, but accurate, bass that, in effect, it also was not neutral. For me, it had, from the get-go, a bass bias. I tried the Schiit Lyr, which gave the LCD2 what it doesn't need, more warmth, while only marginally improving the high end.
It was about this time that I discovered the Axiom M80, which set the new benchmark for the sound signature I wanted, namely the three characteristics detailed above. Against this benchmark, the LCD2 weakness became magnified. So I began a search for headphones that might replicate the M80 sound. Because of how much I already had spent on headphones, I purposely tried not to consider or buy ones that had high price tags. Been there, done that. Didn't work well for me.
KRK KNS8400: Modestly priced, these headphones are made by a company that caters to the pro market. I thought that the KNS8400 might take me closer to my criteria. It did to a degree, but I find the overall sound rather pale, especially in low end. It has good isolation, but as a closed headphone the soundstage is narrow. For me it is not very enjoyable. I found it worked well for listening to podcasts via my smartphone.
Shure SRH 750DJ: I knew that this headphone would have a bass bias when I bought it, but it was such a bargain, I couldn't resist. It too has good isolation, but is decidedly not neutral. I can see why some users might like it, and it is better than I expected. But it is just not even close to what I want. It is gathering dust.
Audio-Technica ATH-M50: Both the specs and reviews were instrumental in persuading me to buy the M50. Many users made the case that it performs well above its pay grade. And, here, again, I have to agree. Lots of isolation, accurate, and comfortable. But it falls short in terms of neutrality. For me it has a bass bias. Nevertheless these are keepers. The are excellent for listening to podcasts because the mid range is quite good, and its fit and comfort are important to me in this application. The M50 deserves it reputation in my opinion, but it is not the headphone I want when listening to music.
AKG K550: I was very much attracted to the K550, which was relatively new when I read about it. At the time, I was looking for a headphone with all the qualities I had been seeking, but I also had a new application: listening to music in a different room, one where my wife sits close by, doing other things. Isolation, both ways, is needed. Tyll Herstens review in InnerFidelity caught my attention, especially when he put the K550 on his "Wall of Fame" and wrote: "For most audio pros, musicians, and audiophiles who are in search of a great all-around sealed headphone, the AKG K550 would be my top recommendation. I love these cans!"
I don't always agree with him, but I respect his opinions, so this was a powerful recommendation for a headphone that otherwise had yet to enjoy many reviews. I was able to buy it at a reasonable discount, and have not been disappointed.
It comes very close to what I was looking for in terms of neutrality, accuracy, and true-to-life sound. But it turns out, for reasons I genuinely do not understand, it performs best when I use it listening to Internet radio on my iPad via a FiiO LOD to one of my O2 amps. On my main system - Bryston BDP-1 Digital Player (FLAC files) to my Bryston BDA-1 DAC to my second O2 - the K550, while closer to the mark than all other headphones I've owned, does not knock it out the ballpark in terms of my criteria.
Nevertheless, the K550 also is a keeper. It gives me the isolation I want and need. It is very comfortable and I don't have the adjustment problems some users, including Tyll Herstens, have had. More to the point, the sound I get using the K550 the way I do is excellent. Being a sealed headphone, it can't give me a wider soundstage, and for the same reason, has a closed-in albeit authentic sound. But it has very good accuracy and neutrality; quite close to the M80 standard I set for myself.
The look of headphones is not an issue for me. I don't wear them outside. Other people don't see me using them. More importantly, I accept that I'm sufficiently ugly that no matter what I'm wearing, nothing is going to help my appearance. However, I have to say that I like the look of the K550. I think it's beautiful, a product Apple would not be ashamed to have designed.
Given how satisfied I am with the K550, it is not surprising that I would look farther up the AKG product line to find my headphone Golden Fleece.
I did a great deal of reading about the K701, K702, and Q701, all of which have the same specs. AKG calls the K versions open, but the Q semi-open. These are not headphones that have won universal praise. Some reviewers admire them greatly. Others, not so much. And even those who praise them do so with qualifications saying they can be overly bright, bass shy, boring, and need the right amp to bring out their best qualities.
One of the constant claims in reviews of these various models of basically the same thing is that they require a tremendous amount of breaking in time, as much a 1000 hours. Tyll Herstens didn't find measurements validating this assertion, but he did not reject it as a possibility.
Looking at all the puts and takes about these models, I was in something of a quandary. In theory, it seemed to me that this AKG should give me all the good things I found in the K550, but being open (or semi-open) headphones they might perform better on my main system. The only model I could demo was the K702, available only in pro audio shops where I live, and which charge a premium price. I tried it, but made the fatal mistake of using only a iPod. Bass shy, shrill high end. But not a valid test. In any case, it was too pricey for me to take a chance it might perform better on my O2: yes, I should have brought it to the demo. Duh!
Sometimes one's mistakes can unintentionally yield a blessing. In this case, I returned to the Internet and noticed that some users are convinced that the Q701 is slightly modified with a high end less sharp and a better bass than the K701/702. I guessed that, if true, the Q701 just might be my ticket home.
Being a little price sensitive at the moment, the purchasing decision was triggered by finding a two-day special at an online site with the lowest price I had yet seen. My consumer juices told me to go for it.
AKG Q701: The first impression, like most first impressions, was the most important.
Except for its butt-ugly lime green cables, the Q701 looks good. What is more important is that this is the most comfortable headphone I've ever used. I just put it on and it fits perfectly without any adjustment. Not too tight, not too loose. I can wear it for hours on end. So light I forget it's there. Except on warmer days, it does not heat up my ears, or hurt where it comes in contact with the arms of my glasses, both of which are a problem with my Grados.
And right out of the box, the Q701, for me, needed no breaking in whatsoever. Because of what I had read, however, this took me by surprise. It shouldn't have.
First, I've read quite a bit about burning and breaking in. It is another highly contentious subject, with most users, including audiophiles, generally accepting that they are needed. Quite a few of the technical/scientific types can find little, if any, justification for them. But I have done a lot of burning and breaking in in my time, and have noticed differences over time, even with products like the M80, whose designers say these speakers are good-to-go out of the box.
So what is it that changes when I'm breaking or burning in? The technical guys call it a psychoacoustic effect, and I believe it has revealed itself in my own experience. The product isn't performing any differently, I'm just getting used to it. This has often happened to me. The difference is real to me, and as I have made clear in this post, that's the critical determinate for audio users. When users say they had to break in their AKG 701 models for 1000 hours, I believe them. But, with respect, I believe it is possible that these differences came about through 1000 hours not of "breaking in" the headphones, but rather many hours of getting used to them.
The second reason that I should not have been surprised that there was no need for me to break in the Q701 is that in making a search for it I was looking for certain qualities. They were patently present as soon as I took it out of the box and put it on my head. As I get more used to it, over time I may find characteristics I hadn't noticed before. That would be a bonus, perhaps. But I don't need to be running it in a draw for two weeks, as Wes Philips did with the K701 before listening to it for his Stereophile review. The Q701 was ready to go for me since I knew where I wanted them to be and they were there already, without breaking in.
Generally, the Q701 has exactly the kind of sound signature of my Axiom M80 speakers. No, they don't sound like speakers. Headphones, or at least all that I've ever heard, don't work like that. No room acoustics. But the Q701 has the neutrality, accuracy and true-to-life sound I've come to love. Here in a bit of detail is what I have found listening to my usual test cuts:
Take Five, Dave Brubeck: Always the first on my list. With the acoustic bass and the piano playing the same phrase throughout, Take Five is largely about drums and Paul Desmond's alto sax.
Desmond had the sweetest alto sound this side of Johnny Hodges. In more colored reproductions, it is easy for me (a non-musician) to have a little difficulty distinguishing an alto from a tenor sax. When the system is right, as I understand right, the alto has a leaner sound, not Jackie McLean alto lean which is hard-edged, but it doesn't blossom on the soundstage the way tenor and baritone saxophones tend to do. The Q701 gets Desmond in the sweet spot, literally and figuratively.
There is lots of drum work on Take Five, focussing mostly in the left hand corner, but with the cymbal work, naturally, being heard more widely. Lots of slam, which the Q701 effortlessly captures.
And cymbals. I have spent a great deal of money searching for speakers and headphones that produce a kind of crystal-glass-shattering sound when a large cymbal is hit hard, and when other cymbal work comes across in various subtleties: brush, light tapping, etc. The Q701 reproduces cymbals as I want them, especially in capturing their metallic sound.
Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" is an album I use to test part of my accuracy assessment. On the CD version I have is a recording with a notorious hiss easily heard with revealing equipment. It comes through the Q701 loud and clear.
Dreams, Fleetwood Mac: I usually don't listen to the whole cut when testing new gear. I want to hear the first big cymbal crash near the beginning. Breaking glass is what I seek, and get it big time with the M80. In a way, the Q701 is a little better. This is not a knock on the M80 so much as confirmation of why pro audio people, like Quincy Jones, need headphones at times to pick out some detailed sounds. Yes, the Q701 gives me a mighty and properly crystalline crash, but it is more controlled, more musical. Five stars for the Q701 on my much beloved cymbals.
I want high resolution in the high end. But I don't want it to be shrill or harsh. I have an in-built shrill detector. My tinnitus flares with shrill sounds. Some designers who favour high resolution think you just have to live with shrillness as a price for getting high resolution. Others seem to roll off the high end to give a more comfortable treble result. On Kind of Blue's So What, the saxophones can sound very harsh with such equipment. The HD800, for me was unlistenable because of its shrill high end. The LCD2 high end is seriously rolled off, I believe. It isn't shrill on the Q701, but I don't sense there is any loss in the high end to achieve this result. The Q701 designers seem to have found a way give reproduce high end where I feel nothing is missing, but one that does not make me cringe. Wonderful.
In his Stereophile review of the K701, Wes Phillips wrote, "...with track after track, it became apparent to me that with the K701s, AKG has developed headphones that not only did no harm to the top end, but also told the truth about what was going on up there." Amen to that. I can ditto that assessment with respect to the Q701.
