Equalizing those headphones!

Q: Is it a good idea to use an equalizer to change the way headphones sound?

A: While you can make some tweaks to a headphone's sound profile with EQ, some fundamental characteristics are impossible to alter.

For example, no amount of EQ can make a Grado SR60e sound like a bass monster, similarly no amount of EQ can make a Sony XB500 sound like a Grado.

Neutral headphones are somewhat like tofu -- they can take on a little of the flavor of the amp that drives them, or the DAC that feeds their signal, or EQ in the audio chain, either by using software or hardware. They still taste like tofu, mind you, but flavored.

While you can buy a relatively neutral pair of headphones like the Sennheiser HD600 and tweak the sound with an equalizer, I'm one of those folks who think that if you want a warm fun sound, it's better to get a Philips Fidelio X1 instead of using EQ to tweak a HD600 to make it sound warmer.

And if you want a bright-sounding pair of headphones, check out the Grado SR60e before throwing down money on a HD600 and trying to boost the treble with an equalizer (and you will save a ton of $!)

And while you can use EQ to dial in some of the frequency response you want, you cannot use EQ to dial in your desired level of smoothness, or soundstage, or detail. Plus the more you flog that equalizer, the more the sound gets away from what the artist and recording engineers originally envisaged. That's the main reason why I am so meh to the idea of equalizers.

But to be fair, it's easy to say "I am anti-EQ" if you own a bunch of headphones and can easily pick and choose a pair with the profile you want. But what if you can only afford (or desire) one pair of headphones?

Well in that case, if you are sure you know what kind of sound profile you dig, then the choice is easy (e.g. you want a smooth + forgiving? Then go with the Sennheiser HD650!). But what if you don't know what you want?

Then walk into a B&M store and audition some headphones. But what if you can't?

Then get a relatively neutral pair of headphones like the HD600 or the Beyerdynamic DT880 and experiment with EQ.

Because they are like, you know, tofu.

I don't always have fond memories of all my exes, but I do for this one....

This is a photo of the Senn PX100 (the original one), and it was my beater pair of headphones for a while. I used to throw them in my backpack and they went with me everywhere without a word of complaint. Now they are retired and have been put to pasture, except once in a while I saddle them up and we go for a ride.

They are terrible headphones for travel because they're open, but they are light, comfortable (for on-ears) because of their gentle clamp force, plus as a bonus they are collapsible and they came with their own hard case and have surprisingly good build quality for the price.

But the reason I love them most is because of their sound. The PX100s (and their successor model, the PX100-II) have a rich warm sound profile with surprisingly prominent bass given that they are lightweight, small and open. They are great all-around headphones for a multitude of musical genres from EDM to classical, with a knack of making vocals (especially female vocals) sound cozy and natural. Soundstage is surprisingly decent, too.

They aren't perfect, for sure. They do lack granular levels of detail, the bass bleeds up the frequency spectrum, and treble rolls off significantly, which has led to them being described as "veiled" or "dark" in some reviews.

The reason I stuck with them for so long (and still listen to them once in a while) is because they made listening sessions just so much fun. In fact, I don't think I owned a pair of headphones that were as much fun as the PX100s until I bought my Philips Fidelio X1, which is high praise indeed for the little Senn.

The original PX100s are getting hard to find, but you can still find them used for cheap. I'm confident mine will be a collector's item one day. I haven't modded them in any way apart from changing the pads, and don't plan to.

The PX100II and IIis are outrageously expensive when compared to the original PX100s -- which were priced at something like $30 since they were marketed as direct competition for the PortaPros -- and don't offer a huge amount of value from a price-performance perspective at MSRP, but the PX100 IIi was recently a deal on Woot for $30, a price that actually puts them back into play as direct competition for the PortaPros.

Ah, there's nothing like an ex you still get along with...

My favorite sub-$1000 setup

Q: What's your personal all-time favorite setup under $1000?

This one.

From a price-performance perspective, the  combination of the Pro-ject Box DAC S FL -> Little Dot Mk 3 with NOS Mullard M8100s -> Sennheiser HD650 really shines. This setup projects an analog-ey gooey tube sound and affords a maximally euphoric listening experience for under $900. It makes every genre I am into sound good, and that is saying something. The best aspect of this combination is that almost anyone can afford this setup, and the only folks who will hate it are those who worship the gods of transparency.

To break the components down:

The Box dac DAC S FL is, in my opinion, the best price-performance NOS dac you can buy. It has a very different sound than typical sigma delta DACs. Its analog-ey distortion makes digital files sound like vinyl. Having said that, I would suggest NOT buying an NOS DAC as your very first DAC, though.

The Little Dot Mk 3 is probably the best price-performance OTL tube amp you can buy, especially ebcause your choice for the tube amp selection is determined to a considerable extent by the degree of synergy between amp + headphones.  I would suggest that you NOT get an OTL tube amp (or any tube amp, for that matter) as your first amp.

Mullard NOS M8100 tubes have a super warm profile with gooey tube distortion, and if I had to describe Mullard sound in one word I would say "treacle", to borrow a word from my friends across the pond. They are a wonderful representation of what tube sound is all about. I would suggest NOT getting reissue Mullards, they are not the same as the real deal.

The Sennheiser HD650 has a wonderfully dark and comfortable sound. They are not neutral, sure, but their forgiving nature sets them apart. They excel at representing instruments realistically, add intimacy to vocals, and work for every genre from EDM to classical. Some have described them as "laid back", but they are certainly not boring. Their pairing with OTL tube amps is magical. I would suggest that you NOT get them if you want a neutral or bright sound profile, or if you plan to run them off portable devices.

And did I mention, the best part of this combination is the sub $1k budget? That leaves plenty of change left over to subscribe to Spotify or Tidal.

 And that should make you smile for a long time.

Again, I do want to emphasize, a NOS DAC + tube amp combo probably isn't the best idea if you are new to the world of personal audio and just getting your toes wet with the hobby. You will probably be better off in the long run easing into tube sound / vintage DACs gradually rather than starting with them.

Are certain headphones better for different genres of music?

Q: Are certain headphones better for different genres of music?

A: In general, yes, absolutely. Some headphone sound profiles particularly complement specific genres (for example the Sony XB700 and DnB, or Grados and rock). The general nature of the sound can affect music substantially, for example "fun" headphones color the sound in a way that is very different than "balanced" headphones.

Neutral or analytical headphones like the Sennheiser HD600 or HD800 may be useful for critical listening.

And finally, some headphones just bring out the natural splendor of specific instruments, for example the Sennheiser HD650 really makes stringed instruments shine.

The most underrated headphone you can buy

Q: In your opinion, what is the most underrated headphone you can buy?

A: Personally, I think the most underrated headphone today is the Fostex T50RP. I'll explain why.

First, they are planar magnetic headphones, and at $100 an incredible value at a time when most planars are priced at 8-10x as much (or more). Of course planars used to be super common in the 70s and early 80s, but today they occupy a more high-end niche.

Second, T50s can be modded to become something that is way beyond what the stock T50 is. It's like they are Tony Stark when they are stock -- lovable but with specific idiosyncrasies, and then you mod them and they become Iron Man - incredibly powerful and capable of delivering truly stellar sound.

Now I agree that most headphone mods are hit-or-miss, because they are described by amateurs (often badly), and variations in methods between one modder and another means that no 2 mods sound the same. So if someone does the Kramer mod on their Koss KSC75s and you try to emulate them, you will never get exactly the same sound that Kramer got, because Kramer never detailed where specifically to drill the damned holes to make the modded KSC75 sound the sweetest.

But there are some mods that can clearly be replicated, and everyone doing the mods will have exactly the same effects as the original modder intended. For example the Sennheiser HD555 foam mod (all you do is take out the foam pad, that's the same mod no matter who does it) or the AKG Q701 bass mod (ditto with the little circular tape thingy) but standardized mods aren't just for mid fi headphones, they exist even for endgame setups, for example the Anaxilus mod for the Sennheiser HD800 (which I would argue is almost mandatory if you own a HD800).

The T50 has the advantage that it has been extensively modded, so there is a lot of stuff out there on what various mods do. But until a dude called bluemonkeyflyer posted his mod, these were hit-or-miss (or trade secrets, for those folks who modded T50s for a living). What bluemonkeyflyer did was to quantify everything he did, from posting FR curves associated with each specific alteration, to objective evaluations of alternatives, and specific results. In short, he took the "art" of T50 modding and made it into a "science".

Which means that anyone can mod the T50RP in a consistent fashion. From the materials used to the amounts of stuff you have to use, everything is well described on the Internet. My T50 is the only headphones that I have modded that sound exactly like I want them to -- by using an iterative, step-wise approach to modding them I tuned them to fit my musical tastes like a glove -- but more importantly, so can you.

Keep in mind that commercial headphones like the Mad Dogs and Alpha Dogs are T50 mods, so you know what you can achieve if you mod your T50 well.

Plus, what a wonderful way to spend time, making small sequential changes in how a pair of headphones sound, listening, modding, listening, modding some more, tweaking the SQ to match your desire.

In Kenneth Grahame's "The Wind In The Willows", the Water Rat says: "Believe me, my young friend, there is nothing—absolute nothing—half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats."

Just substitute "in boats" with "with headphones".

The coolest looking headphones

Q: What do you think the coolest looking headphones are?

A: From a "look ma, I'm in a sci-fi movie" perspective, the Sennheiser HD800, which is certainly the most distinctive headphone out there today.

from an "old world cool" perspective, the Audio Technica ATH-ESW9 has always reminded me of the New Yankee Workshop, except for headphones.

From a "wow that craftsmanship is incredible" perspective = the Fostex TH900. Unless you have seen it IRL you will not fully realize how awesome the urushi is.

But for sheer luxury, you have to go with the Ultrasone Edition 10, with its zebrano wood and lambskin it looks like something you would find in an art deco museum in Miami.

What are your top 3 headphones over $1000?

Q: What would you consider to be the top 3 headphones that cost over $1000?

A: Personally, I would consider the Sennheiser HD800, the Audeze LCD3 and the Fostex TH900 my top 3 (open, planar, closed). HD800 wins on design, TH900 wins on craftsmanship (urushi!) and LCD3 wins on its materials.

But there is a second tier of headphones that are cheaper and provide almost as much performance, so from a price-performance perspective these headphones make much more sense to aspire to than my top 3.

Two disclaimers: I'm not into electrostatic headphones, so haven't considered them in the ranking.

Second, I'm not going to rank headphones that cost well over $2000, because I wouldn't spend over $2000 on headphones. At that price point (and above) speakers reign supreme, and you will never get the best $2000 headphones to sound as good as above-average $2000 speakers, and the best $3000 speakers will end up blowing the best $3000 headphones away.

In sum, it doesn't make sense from a price performance perspective to spend over $2000 for headphones, since above that price point you are probably better off getting speakers.

Some thoughts about the Little Dot Mk IV SE, and how it compares to the Mk III

How does the Little Dot Mk IV SE differ from the Little Dot Mk III? 

Well, both are OTL (output transformer-less) tube amps, made by Little Dot in China. The Mk IV SE is supposed to be an upgraded version of the Mk III, with a premium price. So what are the differences?

[1] upgraded tubes - instead of stock GE5654s, you get a pair of Mullard M8100s, and also updated 6H30P-i power tubes. It should be noted that my LD Mk III came with stock RCA EF95 tubes (which was a pleasant surprise, because they were 70s vintage. I might have lucked out).

[2] The 1/4 plug on the SE is a Neutrik

[3] The SE has "upgraded" RCA connectors

[4] The SE has pretty gold tube protectors

[5] The SE has a different volume knob

In theory the Mk IV SE is supposed to have a different ALPS pot than the Mk III, but every internal shot I have seen of the SE has the same pot as my Mk III.

David ZheZhe (Little Dot seller) claims the SE has "premium circuit component upgrades in key signal path locations". As to what these upgrades actually are (apart from the ones I noted above), your guess is as good as mine.

So are the differences worth the extra money?

As you start going up the Little Dot product ladder, you begin to slowly start losing the price-performance advantage you have with the Mk III.

You can get M8100s in abundance on ebay for $20-40 for the pair. The upgrade to the Elektro-harmonix 6H30P-i isn't really a deal unless you get a NOS Elektro-harmonix, since the new "reissued" EH 6H30P from the Reflektor plant are, well, reissues.

If you are upgrading power tubes you might as well get a couple of Novosibirsk Gold Grid 6N6P-i from the 70s/80s (before the Wall came down!) for $10-15 for a pair (keep in mind that driver tubes typically last longer than power tubes, and the Gold Grids with the "OTK" quality symbol were engineered to last a while).

Who should get this? 

Those that want to experience OTL tube sound, and don't have the money to get a Woo Audio WA3, a Woo Audio WA2 or an Eddie Current Zana Deux.

Also those who own a Sennheiser HD600 or HD650, the pairing is excellent.

Keep in mind that the Little Dot Mk III is a better bang for your buck than the Mk IV SE. Also keep some money aside for tube rolling.

Who should not get this? 

Folks getting their first amp (get a solid state amp!) or those who run orthodynamic headphones as their primary headphone (bad pairing, as are the Beyerdynamic T90 and T1).

Also folks whose budget will not extend to tube rolling.

And this certainly isn't "endgame" material, if that is your goal.

Folks wanting the ultimate price performance ratio should probably look at the Little Dot Mk III. And those who want a transparent amp without coloration or distortion should not touch this with a 10 foot pole.

Who are the competitors? 

The Bottlehead Crack, of course, although the Crack is a DIY OTL tube amp. And the Valhalla 2 is a serious competitor (gain switch, preamp out) especially if you are looking for a more transparent sound, as is the Woo Audio WA3 (although that costs about 2x the cose of the Mk IV SE).

Some thoughts about the Ultrasone Pro 900

OK, I will start by saying that these headphones are solidly built, and that fit and finish is excellent. Also, Ultrasone has stood by its design philosophy solidly through the years, and you have to commend them for standing by their principles.

But the fact is, either you are going to love the Pro 900 or you are going to hate it, no in-betweens. These headphones are more polarizing than Grados, and for one and only one reason -- S-logic.

S-logic based on this paper that Florian Konig, the founder of Ultrasone, wrote. I read it when I first tried to figure out what the term "S-logic" meant, and I think it is the best (and probably only) detailed explanation you are ever going to get on the topic, unless you count the rather vague statements on the Ultrasone website. The problem is that the paper is translated into English in such a clumsy way (I assume that it was not initially written in English) that many of the concepts are almost impossible to understand. It's like the paper was written by a Tamarian ("Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra, Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel"). If you don't understand what I mean by this, well, you probably never will, it's a Star Trek thing :-)

Basically, as far as I can make out (disclaimer: it's been a while since I have thought about this in detail because it gives me a migraine) the sound gets better if you place the drivers in a "decentric" fashion (i.e. in an inhumanly low position and angled weirdly) then something called "head-related transfer" occurs and then the sound that travels through regular air conduction (via the drivers) and head-related transfer function are both picked up the brain and combined to create a magical 3D sound. You with me? Good, because I'm not sure I am.

Now to be fair, HD800 also utilizes a somewhat eccentric driver placement, and many IEMs add a component of bone conduction, and Ultrasone has a ton of patents for S-logic, and Florian Konig is clearly a very smart man, and his paper offers a reasonable scientific hypothesis to support decentral driver placement, so maybe there is something to it. I should also add that Ultrasone claims that their headphones subject you to less EM radiation than other headphones, and that you are less likely to sustain hearing loss with their headphones. Rather than depend on my biased opinion, read the paper for yourself and decide!

Suffice to say that depending on your perspective, S-Logic technology either improves the sound like the Traveler (whose name was unpronounceable by Humans) improved the warp drive of the USS Enterprise, or kills the sound more thoroughly than a rerun of a Star Trek Voyager episode.

I am of the latter persuasion.

The best headphones for $500 or less?

Q: What would you consider to be the best headphones for $500 or less?

A: HD600/650 depending on your preferences
HD600 from a pure price-performance perspective.
HD650 if you don't want a neutral pair of headphones (most folks don't)

What is a "sound signature"?

Q: What do you mean when you say "headphones have specific sound signatures"?

A: Different headphones have different signatures. For example the Beyer DT880 or Senn HD600 are more "neutral" sound profile, i.e. they are free from coloration,

Coloration refers to deviations from neutrality, for example the Philips Fidelio X1 is very colored. Coloration also often adds a "fun" element to listening.

Some headphones are intrinsically dark -- the term signifies a warm + rich sound profile. Technically, dark headphones have a frequency response which is skewed clockwise across the entire range, so that as the frequency increases, the output diminishes. A good example of this would be the HD650.

Other headphones are very bright, their frequency response is skewed counter-clockwise across the entire range, so that as the frequency increases, the output increases. A good example of this would be the Grado SR60i or e (or pretty much any Grado).

What you need to know about the Sennheiser HD600

If you are in the market for a relatively neutral pair of headphones, then yes the Sennheiser HD600 is a great choice. It excels for critical listening and some genres like classical. Keep in mind that you need an amp to get the most out of it.

If you don't want to play the upgrade game all the way to summit-fi for whatever reason, then the HD600 could conceivably be endgame for you, if you know what you are getting yourself into.

If you listen to a lot of bass-heavy music like EDM or hip hop, you may find the 600 to be surprisingly bass-light. The 600 isn't known for its sub bass, I can assure you. For the price, something like the VModa M100 may be a better bet for you.

If you are a detail whore, you may want to hold out for something like a Sennheiser HD800, a Beyerdynamic T90, or, at this price point, a Beyerdynamic DT880.

If you want a very bright listening experience, you may find the 600 treble to be disappointing. Instead, consider a Grado and some gauze pads (to apply to your ears when they start bleeding, ba dum tish!)

If you are looking for isolation or don't want folks around you to hear the fact that you secretly listen to Barry Manilow while proudly wearing that My Chemical Romance t-shirt, then don't get the HD600, it leaks sound like a sieve, and is as open as it gets.

if you want to listen to music off your phone, don't get the HD600. It has a 300 ohm impedcance and just won't sound as good as it would through, say an OTL amp. Sure, you will get sound through your iPhone, but the bass sounds just too flabby and meh.

And finally, if you are looking for a warm and smooth sound, consider the 600s younger sibling, the HD650.

What you need to know about the Beyerdynamic DT990 Premium (600 ohm version)

The build

The DT990 Premium features impeccable build quality, and superb comfort, especially for extended listening sessions. They look and feel like high-end headphones.


The sound


These are open headphones, and leak sound significantly. All Beyers have a V-shaped frequency response curve. In general, the DT990 has the most V-shaped curve when compared to the DT770 and 880, with prominent bass and a somewhat bright treble.

The 600 ohm version of the 990 Premium follows the same general rules, but its bass is a little less prominent, most likely because of the reduced clamping force. The low end is controlled, and if you amp them appropriately, nice and tight.

Mids are neutral, vocals are well represented without tonal distortions or coloration.

It has the same 9000 Hz spike as the Pro version, and so if you are not a fan of tinkly treble then most likely the 990 premium will disappoint.


FAQs


Q: Does the Dt990 600 ohm premium need an amp?

A: Yes, it will benefit from an amp. You don't need a monster like the Schiit Lyr to power it, though. The most noticeable difference with a good amp will be tighter bass. Some mobile devices like phones and tablets will struggle to run the 600 ohm DT990


Q: Whats the difference between Pro and premium DT 990 versions?

A: Materials (more metal in the Premium version, more plastic in the Pro), and clamping force (less in the Premium).


Beyerdynamic DT880 vs DT990 Premium versions: The 880 is a lot more neutral. The DT880 does not have the sparkly highs that are so forward on the 990s. DT 880 bass is more linear when compared to the rest of the frequency profile.


AKG Q701 vs Beyerdynamic DT990 Premium: If you are a fan of the Beyer sound profile with its V shaped emphasis on the bass as well as the highs, you may find that the bass and treble are both going to be lacking somewhat with the Q701.


HiFiman HE400 vs DT990 Premium: The 990 premium has better build quality. HE400s have a flatter frequency curve. You'll notice the mids coming forward compared to the 990. A lot. HE400 bass is tighter and more controlled than the DT990. The bass isn't as prominent as the DT990, but "punchier". HE400 treble is harsher and more sibilant than the 990. Cymbals and hi hats go into "attack mode". The HE400s are heavier and a lot less comfortable than the 990s.


Sennheiser HD598 vs DT990 Premium: 990s have much better build quality. The 598s are much warmer and smoother. Mids are more pronounced with the 698s.

What you need to know about the HiFiMan HE560

On the surface, HiFiMan's new model, the HE 560 is an amalgam of innovative design and great sound quality. It has garnered some great reviews, and expectations have been high.

Certainly the sound quality is excellent, as can be expected from a high-end model priced at $900.

But close up you can clearly see the fit and finish is somewhat disappointing -- the veneer does not come right up to the grille circumference, the universal headband looks really fragile at its tension points on the sides, and the earcup ratchet mechanism cover is cheap looking. Even the pad stitching is irregular.

And when you hold the 560, your biggest fear is that it will break in your hands. Yes the headband is stronger than folks give it credit for, but overall it feels incredibly flimsy, and that's not just my opinion. Of course, some of my fear is a bias -- it is super light, and when it comes to headphones, in our mind we unconsciously equate heaviness with "strength" and lightness with "fragility". But you have to hold one to understand what I mean when I say it feels "incredibly flimsy".

Am I being nitpicky? A little. But for $900 I expect more than this. I want a HiFiMan headphone I can love, that isn't disappointing. HiFiMan is like the dude who runs the whole race like a champ and then falls short at the finish line, their products have huge potential and yet continue to be marred by fatal flaws.

I think the piece that sticks in everyone's throat is the $900 price tag. If this were a $200 or $300 pair of headphones, it would not be an issue at all. After all, the AKG Q701 headband tension mechanism is just as flimsy, and the "wood" on the Sennheiser HD598 is just as fake looking. But at this price point, the general feeling is more that HiFiMan is overcharging for the HE560 than anything else.

Headphones for folks with TMJ problems

Q: I'm looking for headphones for general use.  I am a long time TMJ (temporomandibular joint dysfunction) sufferer and have been hesitant to drop a lot of money on a new headset that will just end up causing me extreme pain after a few hours. What headphones can I use?

A: If you have TMJ then many general headphone recommendations may not work for you because what's comfortable to many may be painful to you.

My suggestion would be that you audition headphones if possible before buying them.

However, some folks with TMJ prefer on-ear headphones or IEMs. You may want to consider the Senn PX100-ii, it is on ear, has very light pressure and is very comfortable (and I am one of those folks who typically find on-ears uncomfortable!)

And an IEM with a behind-the-ear wearing style may also be very comfortable for you if you have TMJ -- consider the Shure SE215.

What sound experience do real audiophiles want?

Q: Do real audiophiles progressively move toward the most neutral experience they can get?

A: Not all audiophiles, it may be better to use the word "some" instead of "real". Rather than call it "neutral" vs "colored" or "objective" vs "subjective" I think of the listening experience more as being "analytical" vs "fun". I'll explain what I mean.

Some times I want to get the source recording, the whole source recording, and nothing but the source recording. While you may think this desire only extends to classical and/or live performances, in reality there are times when I ant to hear music the way the artists/ producers conceptualized it. So for example when Daft Punk won the "best engineered album" award at the Grammys, I wanted to go back and hear RAM exactly as it was on my source file, ni plus ni moins. And the best way to achieve it is with a neutral DAC, a solid state amp that does not sound too bright or too dark, and something like the HD600.

But at other times I want a completely different experience. I want the violins in Mendelssohn's Concerto in E minor Op 64 to come out of the orchestra and smack me across the face, I want Christina Novelli to breathe in my ear when I hear Garth Emery's "Concrete Angel", and I want that in-your-face Southern rock stance when I listen to 38 Special's "Caught Up In You" and perform right alongside them on stage with my air guitar. And frankly, for any of those scenarios (classical, EDM, rock) when you want a more "fun" experience, the analytic set up fails. So an alternative set up with a warmish DAC, a tube amp and a HD650 or Fidelio X1 will give you a very different (and probably more pleasing) experience than the one I outlined in the previous paragraph.

So what headphones like Grados offer is a "fun" experience. And while "fun" is good, there is a totally different "analytical" experience out there waiting to be discovered. Some may enjoy it, some may not. And for everyone who enjoys an "analytical" experience, there is a "fun" experience waiting around the corner to surprise and thrill them. That's why there are so many headphones out there.

I just realized that everything that I said about headphones also applies to your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other. Sometimes you want fun, and sometimes you want analytical.

[Review] AKG Q701: Would You Like To Join The Q Continuum?

Would You Like To Join The Q Continuum?

Picture of my "Stormtrooper" Q701

But First, a Preface: And Now, The Larch.


The scene: AKG HQ. A bunch of AKG executives are sitting around a table deciding on a strategy to counter the whipping Beats is giving them in the marketplace.

"We have got to come up with a viable model that can take on Beats. What can we market?"

"Well our headphones are stylish."

"Ummm...most people think AKG makes headphones for people with neckbeards and black turtlenecks who listen to Dave Brubeck!"

"OK let's color them white and green, like those gaming headophones, so that nobody can see that our basic design hasn't changed since 1880."

"How about marketing our headphones as "heavy on the bass"? That seems to be working for Beats."

"Ummm...our headphones have less bass than Mel Gibson has acting offers!"

"OK. Maybe what we need is a celebrity endorser. Can we get LeBron?"

"Ummm...he signed with Beats."

"I know, how about Dave Brubeck?"

"Ummm...he's dead, Jim. How about Quincy Jones?"

"Oh wow, the Q. He may be almost 90, but he is a living legend. Who hasn't heard of him?"

The answer: almost anyone under 30. If you are in the said demographic, at this point of time please review this video to familiarize yourself with the Q Experience before proceeding to read this review.


And thus the Q701 was born: the bastard child of the union of the K701 and Quincy Jones and radioactive green slimy ooze from Mars.


OK now on to the review

First, a disclaimer. I like the Q701, and it is my go-to headphones for gaming.


What the Q701 is


The Q701 is an open model with lots of detail, some (but not substantial) bass presence, and veers towards brightness. It has a huge soundstage for headphones, and so has the fortunate side effect of being particularly good for gaming, because

[1] the soundstage, obviously
[2] it is comfortable especially around the ears (see below about headband) and
[3] it does not have too much bass which kills gaming for me -- modern games have so many explosions that i get a headache gaming with bass-heavy headphones -- but it is not so bass-shy that I can't listen to music when gaming. Like Goldilocks, I don't wan't too much or too little bass when gaming, and IMO the Q701 is just right.


What the Q701 isn't


It's not a great choice for EDM, because of its profile. If you are looking for isolation, move on. It isn't as warm as many other headphones. The headband has bumps that can be painful for some. If you are looking for a new Q701 made in Austria, good luck finding one. While it works fine without an amp, to squeeze maximum performance you will need to consider amping it. It does not pair well with some amps. Also, if you are thinking that the Q701 with its huge soundstage will give you a speaker-like experience, dream on. It won't. No headphones can. And finally, this headphone is not for portable use.


The Look


The Q701 comes in three flavors. I'm going to call the black version "vanilla, except for the weirdly coordinated green cable", the white "Look ma, I'm a Stormtrooper!" and the green "I'll take these to a LAN party so that I can fit in with all those fools with Razers". Of the three, my favorite is white, because I can wear it and say "Let me see your identification......We don't need to see his identification......These aren't the droids we're looking for......Move along......move along."

Even though the Q701 looks large, hefty and substantial, when you hold it, it feels weirdly delicate. That's partly because of the headband design -- the two curved metal rods frame the headband, and have considerable flex. AKG claims the Q701 arches are unbreakable, but I would not want to test that assertion.

The universal self-adjusting stretch headband is attached to the frame by a flimsy-looking plastic clip mechanism, and tensioned by two rubber bands on each side, which looks (and feels) more delicate than industrial.The earcups are huge, and mostly plastic. The large velour earcups are circular in shape, deeply recessed for ears, but do not feature memory foam. The Q701 cable connects at the left earcup with a sturdy mini XLR connector.

And yes, the inside of the universal headband has eight (count 'em. eight) bumps, which are either a good thing or AKG's attempt to waterboard its customers, depending on your viewpoint.

In summary, from a distance, the Q701 looks rugged, but up close it feels somewhat frail. The materials themselves are of good quality, but it almost feels like the Q701 has brittle bones and you have to baby it to prevent something from snapping. Think of the Q701 as being akin to a boxer with osteoporosis, and you will understand what I mean.


The Feel


This is a very light (235 gm) pair of headphones. The fit and finish is excellent. The velour is plush, the plastic is shiny, the green stitching on the headband is an interesting touch. The cable is long but of good quality, the connectors are top notch. The mini XLR connection is solid and tight. The plug and contacts are gold plated.

AKG claims their patented "Varimotion" diaphgrams (which feature a multi-layer construction technique) are their best yet. The voice coils are wound with flat wires.

Let me address up front what many folks consider to be the Achilles heel of the Q701 -- the headband bumps. Regarding comfort: I find the Q701 comfortable and don't have an issue with the bumps, but some folks just hate the Q701 headband bumps digging into their skulls. People go as far as to chop the bumps off with a blade and wrap with something like a Beyerdynamic replacement pad around the amputated headband to get comfortable. I think that the only way you will know if you have a sensitive scalp is to try the Q701 and see what happens.

Also, I keep reading questions online where folks are concerned where the Q701 is made. AKG shifted production of the Q701 from Austria to China a couple of years ago. If it does not say "Made in Austria" right on the headphones it is made in China. I don't think there is any difference, although I have seen people work themselves up into a frenzy about this very topic. There are pictures of Q701 showing "smooth" plastic in the made in Austria model vs "blemished" plastic made in China. My personal opinion is that QC is QC no matter which country products are made in. If AKG values their reputation, hopefully they picked a factory in China with quality standards that meet or exceed what they had in in their facilities in Austria.

The Q701 comes with two cables -- one long, the other that stretches from here to, well, China. Maybe if they bundled the headphone with a 1.5m and 3m cable I would use both, but the 6m cable is ridiculously long and pretty much unusable. Ah well, maybe I can knit a sweater with it.


The Sound


First, the biggest criticism leveled against the Q701: that it has a "plasticky" sound. I would not characterize the main characteristic of the Q701 sound as "plasticky", although I appreciate where folks are coming from with this criticism, having heard the K701 also.

Some folks complain that tHE Q701 is fatiguing, but certainly I don't have an issue with extended sessions.

The Q701 has a clean, neutral-to-modestly bright profile. Bass is present, but by no means prominent. Vocals are crisp and natural; mids are smooth. The treble is a little artificial-sounding, and somewhat brittle. Clarity is outstanding. Detail is truly excellent. Soundstage is very wide. Frequency response is relatively flat.

Maximum input power is rated at 200mW. Sensitivity is 105 dB SPLV. With its impedance of 62 ohms, you can power the Q701 in theory off your phone or tablet or motherboard, but this is one headphone that likes to be amped.

If I had to decribe Q701 sound in a single word, I would pick "spacious". It really is.


In conclusion


I'm going to call my white Q701 "The Stormtrooper In Drag" because it looks like a stormtrooper, but doesn't sound like one. It is a great midfi audiophile headphone choice for folks who want a more neutral-to-bright tone without dominant bass, and for folks who prize detail uber alles. It's also a great choice for folks who listen to a lot of live performances, because of the vast soundstage it projects. But where the Q701 really shines is as a pair of gaming headphones, which I am sure neither AKG or Quincy Jones foresaw when they released this model.

In case you are wondering where the "Stormtrooper In Drag" reference comes from, it is from a Gary Numan song.


Some head to head comparisons: the Cliff Notes version


Q701 vs ATHM50: The Q701 has much less bass than the M50, and more visible mids. Highs are not as artificial as the M50. Soundstage is obviously better than the closed M50. By a mile.

Q701 vs Beyerdynamic DT990: If you are a fan of the Beyer sound profile with its V shaped emphasis on the bass as well as the highs, you may find that the bass and treble are both going to be lacking somewhat with the Q701.

Q701 vs Sennheiser HD598 with respect to music: The 598 is a little warmer, and has a little more emphasized bass, despite its 100 Hz impedance spike. The real difference is in the treble: HD598 has much smoother treble, without the slightly artificial tone that the Q701 brings to the table.

Q701 vs Sennheiser HD598 with respect to gaming: With respect to gaming, particularly FPS gaming, while situational positioning is an advantage, it is not the biggest factor associated with playing FPS games well. What I mean is that if you suck at FPS games in general, improved soundstage is not going to make you into a superstar all of a sudden. For example, if you cannot support your buddies appropriately, or you have no clue what "cover" means, the Q701 will not make you either more popular with your buddies or suddenly render you invincible. What positional advantage does do in FPS gaming is give you a small advantage in using an extra sense to determine where people (or objects) are. To be honest you cannot go wrong with either the HD598 or the Q701. If you are an average gamer, either will give you a good positional sense. If you are an uber competitive gamer, then maybe the Q701 will give you an extra few % of positional advantage, and if you believe that you really need that small extra boost to get to your desired level of gaming, then yes Q701 is a better choice.

Q701 vs Philips Fidelio X1: They are very different headphones. Both are open, and the similarities pretty much stop there. The X1 is much more colored, has more (and IMO better) bass, is very warm in comparison to the Q701, but has less detail. If you like warmth and colored "fun" sound the X1 clearly wins.

Q701 vs K701: The two share the same basic design but having heard both side by side, they sound different. Specifically, K701 has less bass and sounds more, well, plasticky than the Q701. I'm not a fan of K701 sound.

Q701 vs Beyerdynamic DT880 versus Sennheiser HD650 3-way shootout: The HD650 sits on one end of midline neutrality with its dark nature, the DT880 sits closer to the middle, and the Q701 is just on the bright side of the 880 furthest from the 650. Personally I think that when it comes to detail the Q701 trumps the 650 by a nose.

Q701 vs HD600: AKG claims that the Q701 is the "the most accurate and responsive reference headphones we‘ve ever produced". If you are looking for a neutral pair of headphones, the HD600 might even be at endgame-level for you, so it makes sense to bypass the 701 and just jump on the HD600. The Q701 is more comfortable than the HD600 (less clamp, lighter) unless you have issues with the headband bumps. The 701 also has a more spacious soundstage and a little more detail than the 600, which is worth considering.


The Mods


2 mods you may want to look at before you decide to buy: [1] the Q701 bass mod, and [2] the headband mod (to fix the bumps issue)

With respect to the bass mod, the two common methods are to remove the small reflex adhesive tape dots on the drivers, and using a reflector/attenuator (like microfiber) to try and make the Q701 a "semi open" headphone. But adding a microfiber layer behind the driver reduces the soundstage, which is probably why you bought the Q701 in the first place. Also, the little round bandaid reflectors are actually there for a reason -- without them the Q701 bass becomes too smeared. Since the design is so open, the reflex really improves low end resonance characteristics. Sure if you peel them off you get a little more bass, but the overall sound worsens. So the bottom line is: don't do the 701 bass mod, it does not improve sound quality. If you want tons of bass, you shouldn't buy an AKG. Also don't try to close off the open Q701 with microfiber/ electrical tape, etc. You kill the soundstage, which IMO is the Q701's biggest feature.

With respect to the headband mod, keep in mind that mutilating the headband kills resale value. Some folks have made custom universal headbands or transplanted the K701 headbands (which are expensive!). Wrapping Beyerdynamic replacement headband around the Q701 headband works, but you will have to cut the stock headband to size to allow the Beyer clips to fasten. You could also fill the valleys in the headband with adhesive foam tape.

If the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation were headphones

If the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation were headphones:

• Picard is obviously a Sennheiser HD600, because he is neutral
• Guinan is a Beyerdynamic T90, because she is great for critical listening
• Geordi is a Sennheiser HD800, because he is overengineered
• Deanna Troi is a Grado, because she is too bright and gets on your nerves after a while
• Tasha Yar is a Sennheiser Amperior because she, like the Amperior, was discontinued abruptly
• the Tamarian aliens from the episode "Darmok" are Ultrasones because noone can undertand what they are saying
• Q is obviously a AKG Q701, obviously

What makes really expensive headphones so expensive?

Q: What makes really expensive headphones so expensive?

A: Essentially there are 4 aspects to the cost of any product [1] R&D [2] materials [3] manufacturing and [4] marketing. These costs may be either fixed (eg payroll) or variable (eg sourcing raw materials).

R&D is variable, so calculating the cost of R&D for an individual headphone model is difficult. Newer models still haven't seen a return on ROI costs, while older models (for example HD600) have probably recouped their R&D costs, and then some. R&D costs may be hard to figure out accurately because one technology may be used in multiple products, or may be responsible for the development of other innovations, for example the design of the HD580 enclosure and drivers directly influenced the design of the HD600 and 650 enclosures and drivers. Another great example is the Q701 -- it is in essence a K701 with modest changes. Most of the R&D cost was for the K701, and the Q701 reaped much of the benefit.

Material costs vary over time, often wildly, and are subject to supply and demand constraints. For example the price of copper, used in headphone voice coils and wires, has changed dramatically over the last few decades, and copper futures are still often volatile.

Production costs also vary, for example Q701s were made in Austria, but AKG wanted to save costs and moved production to China. But moving production to China does not necessarily make things cheaper, for example some Audio Gd amps probably cost more to make than equivalent Schiit amps, even though Schiit makes its stuff in the US and Audio Gd in China.

Many companies OEM some or all of production, which again affects costs depending on who they OEM to. And it's not just a case of folks using cheap Chinese OEMs -- some Denons for example were OEMd by Fostex, for example. And keep in mind that OEM companies typically conduct their own R&D, have their own design costs, have to retool equipment for specific products, etc, which changes cost calculations.

And finally marketing: some companies spend more on marketing (e.g. Apple, Nike, Beats) and make huge profits, while others spend very little on traditional marketing and still manage to do very well for themselves. One way to get around substantial marketing costs is to engage in direct marketing (eg Emotiva, Schiit) or to depend on word of mouth (like HiFiMan depends on HeadFi).

But eventually, keep in mind that companies will try to make as much profit as they can, so the price may be determined by what the market can support. For audiophile products, there may be a substantial markup in price just because companies know they can get away with it. A classical example of this is the Grado RA1, which has been substantially marked up when you take into account its design and materials/manufacturing cost.

Well we're movin' on up to the east side. To a deluxe apartment in the sky.

Q: I have a Sennheiser HD600. What do I upgrade to?

A: Until some years ago, the HD600 was the flagship model from Sennheiser. They are a great neutral headphones, and are good for a huge range of music. The problem is, when you have something as versatile as the HD600, do you really need to upgrade your headphones?

Obviously, no. I could argue that if you want a neutral setup, you could be perfectly satisfied for ever with the HD600. But if you have the disposable income and want to expand your headphones collection, I would argue that you need to consider one of 3 options:

1) Save up for a higher tier of headphones - consider the Audeze LCD3 or the HD 800. Both have different profiles, and both offer significant advantages over the HD 600 that makes their high price possibly worth it. But this would make the least sense from a price-performance perspective.

2) Get a headphone that has a very different profile than the HD600 -- something that gives you bass-rich oomph like the Beyerdynamic DT990 or the Philips Fidelio X1, or something that is treble-forward like a Grado. Each has a characteristic sound profile that will offer a very different listening experience for certain types of music that accentuates their tonal features (e.g. try 2pac on DT990 or Steely Dan on a Grado)

3) Get an IEM to complement your HD600s. That's like opening a whole new Pandora's Box.