|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.127.102.116
Here’s a tuff one , but I have to ask. IS there a speaker out there that sounds like The AKG 701 Headphones ? I find them the most engaging piece of audio equipment I have ever owned. I can find NOTHING wrong with them. All I want to do is listen the headphones all the time now. Makes me want to chuck everything else I own.For me they are perfect! Is that speaker out there ??
Follow Ups:
I also have AKG 701s and agree completely with your impressions, so much so that for all practical purposes, all of my "serious" music listening is done with headphones. However, as I'm sure you're aware, no matter how good the headphone is and perhaps will ever be, they cannot replicate the soundstage experience and perhaps the "in-your-gut" experience of a full range, top-notch loudspeaker based system. The big "IF" in the equation, I think, is the speaker-room-listerner interface. Most of us probably do not have the luxury of a professionally designed listening room matched perfectly to the loudspeakers, and most devices designed to "adjust" a listening room to the speakers (or vice versa), such as various room treatments, equalizers, etc. really don't work all that well. In addition, what you actually hear must also take into account where your head is positioned relative to the speakers and room boundaries - hence the so-called "sweetspot". So, you can end up purchasing some speakers that in the lab or similar controlled situation might very well test as well if not better than the AKG701s in the lab (which incidentally do not have anything approaching a "flat" frequency response), but they will never sound the same as the AKG701s. What headphones do for me is that they remove the room-listener-speaker interface effect from the listening environment, letting you hear "into" the actual recording venue. This can work extraordinarily well if the recording was created using microphone placement techniques, etc. that enhance the feeling of space (binaural being probably the best example, but also works well in many "live" non-binaural venues) but can be horrible in many modern multimiked, multi-tracked recordings. Some headphone amp manufacturers use special "crossfeed" circuits to overcome this effect and make headphones sound more like speakers which in my opinion give mixed results - personally I don't like crossfeed at all. So my "bottom line" is -- just go and enjoy your wonderful AKGs and don't worry about trying to find speakers that sound like them. If you still want speakers, audition a bunch of them and base your judgment on what sounds good at face value - not in comparison to your headphones. On the other hand, if as in my case, your listening experience seems to be adequately satisfied by headphones, don't bother with speakers - or just get a good boombox or radio to listen around the house when doing the chores, etc., which is what I do.
One thing I do Is use the headphones AND just the sub, woofer in the room. (the main speakers are off) this gives the feeling of the bass that only a sub. can give and Because the headphones are open air the sound leaks into my ears and fill out the lat octave of bass. A killer combo if I say so my self!
But I am currently torn between the AKG 701's and the Beyerdynamic DT990's. You haven't by any chance had an opportunity to compare these two sets of headphones, have you?
I've owned both. To these ears, the Beyers are a little brighter on top, while being punchier in the bass. It depends on your preferences in these areas. Both the AKG and Beyer are very resolving. I would probably give the midrange edge to the 701s--seems smoother and more fluid to me. IMO, both headphones need a good headamp to bring out their full potential. Honestly, you can't go wrong either way. Both are at the top of the heap of what's currently available new.
I've been hanging around over at head-fi and the opinions over there on this subject are all over the place. I'm leaning towards the Beyers right now, but if I find some 701's for a deal, I'll jump on that, instead.As far as an amp is concerned, I am planning on going with an old Marantz 1060 amp because it has such a great headphone stage (I'm told) and I can probably get one for under $100 off of creaig's list or ebay. Maybe down the road I'll jump into something a little more duty specific, like a Headamp Gilmore Lite or something from Meier Audio when I have more money to throw at this project, but in the meantime, a Marantz is looking like quite the deal.
I'm a huge fan of the late Mr. Genzale. Saw him several times in NYC--and, safe to say, the shows were, um, memorable. :)
I envy your experiences of having seen him live, but he didn't come to Dallas much by the time I started going to shows. :-(
nt
I wonder whether the real limitation might be your listening room. Headphones (obviously) don't suffer from room interactions, but such interactions make a huge difference to how a pair of speakers will sound. IMO, you won't be satisfied with any speakers until you get your listening room right.
Agreed with that. However because I like to listen in the near field Speakers are 8 ft. in front of me. The room is not an issue with me.
Maybe what you like is the crossoverless nature, and time & phase coherency of a single driver. Zu, Omega, and Carolina Audio come to mind.
Single-driver, full-range headphones are just that, truly full range. This is possible because the single driver is so close to your ears, something single-driver speakers simply can't do.Ditto for electrostat headphones like Sennheiser Orpheus or Stax Omega II. They can have amazing output, dynamics, and bass despite their electrostat nature because they are so close to the ears. The same cannot be said for electrostat speakers.
Some full ranges realy do have full range responce like fostex f200a
But the Omega II systems could not provide enough transients for me. Just like many other panel speakers.
I have to disagree on your comment about the transient response of the Omega IIs. It delivers the attack of the note with incredible speed. But, because there is no overhang in the note, there appears to be less "weight" to the note. The punch that most speakers and dynamic phones deliver actually is from the continued oscillation of the diaphragm. When I listen to the tics and pops on lps, I am amazed at how little they disturb me on the Omega IIs because they go by so much faster than with speakers or with my other phone (Grado RS-1).The Omega IIs have other sonic issues, but transient attack is not one of them. They can sound excessively bright and they lack midbass weight (which may, again, make them seem to lack punch), and they sound way too cold and analytic with almost any kind of solid state linestage in front of them (they sounded this way even with my Levinson Ref. No. 32 linestage which is on the dark and dull side for solid state). Coupled to an Audionote M-10 (not mine, alas, but a dealer's) and, to a lesser extent, my Emotive Audio Epifania, and they do some things that I have not heard with other phones or speakers.
It wasn't about a lack of over hung of note ( in fact, it was airlier than any of the 'fones I had on hand ). Yes, I expected the lack of weight but the music wasn't simply hanging together.I have to blame both the OII and the 007 amp since two other Stax fones I've listened together ( SR-X mk. III & even the SR 5 ) was much faster and coherent through out even they lacked in sophisitication of the Omega II.
I agree almost all Stax fones demanded a pretty good source, none of them were bright or analytical in a system they were in. ( CDS3/555PS/552/300 plus the Energiser )
I've tried number of cables said to work wtih the Omega system, too but to no avail.
I am sure many people would enjoy the Omega system. Even a US distributor told me that the older Omega had a stronger transient impact than the current model.
This is not to say they are *duds* of the fones, but they were ultimately not for me nor for everyone's taste and it was certainly lacking in a timing department from what I used to.
I actually am not a big fan of Omega II, either. Even via synergistic amps, it's always sounded a bit too round, bloomy, and dull. It's all relative, of course, and in this case I'm talking about OII compared to HE90 "Orpheus."Now, I'm sure you will love HE90 driven by something like Singlepower ES1, which IMO is more resolved and faster than HEV90 Orpheus amp. Life-like transients, extreme resolution combined with extreme naturalness, and just plain thrilling to listen to. God, wish I could afford the combo.
listen to the HE90/Single Power.A home demo of those exotic headphones systems are very hard, tho.
How does HE90 compare to the R10 ( which I still haven't heard to date )?
I have a pair of late-production R10s, and they're the real deal. Many electrostat diehards will still prefer 'stats, but the R10 is one of the few 'phones that has swayed some of them over to dynamics. I was always a headphone believer, but the R10 has cemented my faith in that type of reproduction. Too bad they cost a bloody fortune!
is a beautiful-sounding 'phone, and if one wanted non-electrostat reference, it would be one of the few choices.However, at the stratospheric price R10 goes for these days, I personally would rather just buy something like Senn HE60 "baby Orpheus," and pair it with a great amp.
.
I owned the original Omegas--which, IMO, were clearly better than the IIs--and I couldn't warm up to them. For the type of music I listen to, dynamic cans are the only way to go.I recently got a chance to hear HE90s with an ES1, and the combo was pretty amazing on certain types of music--though I found it lacking on rock. The ES1 is, without a doubt, superior to the HE90 amp. Mikhail does great work.
Maybe it will work in his room, I don't know.Paraphrasing John Lennon, "There ain't no guru who can hear through your ears."
i heard a speaker called PMCand found it to be very engaging.
not headphone sound.
...live music.Loudspeakers.
Headphones.
Like comparing apples and oranges - each is different but can be musically satisfying.
With good headphones you can become aware of musical nuances and instrumental lines you may not have noticed otherwise, but you sacrifice dynamic range, visceral bass impact, soundstage space and imaging.
You may want to try some speakers that sound really good nearfield, say a couple of feet back. i THINK Quads are good in those terms, and there are some minimonitors that are best close up.Now, how do you get any imaging on those phones of yours?
On my sideways nearfield (kind of like a pair of head phones at that point) Maggies, I still get a realistic sound stage. I have listened to a lot of headphones, and only the Ultrasone was realistic. They have a special process to image like a speaker.
No loudspeaker system can deliver the sort of sound that good headphones can because with headphones you are hearing the source. Headphones are a little too pure to be true, but if you like that kind of experience then stay with it for awhile...
I recently ditched a 200k speaker-based rig for (what I think is) a SOTA headphone setup. I couldn't be happier. I'm rediscovering recordings I thought I knew inside-out. And I'm saving boatloads of cash in the process--which always helps. :)I'm glad to hear you're having a good time too.
To answer your question, the '701s are a pretty neutral 'phone. The bass is very well-defined, if not quite the last word in punch. The highs are extended and quite detailed. There are a lot of speakers that match that general description, but you're still talking about a radically different kind of listening. Headphones are not speakers--never will be. The opposite is also true. If you're totally satisfied with headphone listening, as am I, then don't worry about speakers, and invest in making your headphone rig better.
The only down side to this is you can't really crank with headhones if the recording has lots of dynamic range. (too hard on the ears). BTY, what headphone amp do you like ?
Well, my thinking is, too loud is too loud--be it through speakers or through headphones. With speakers, you obviously have more space to dissipate the sound, but I find that I get plenty of dynamics through my 'phones. It's a different PRESENTATION of dynamics, to be sure, but still plenty satisfying to me. There are some great headamp manufacturers out there: Ray Samuels, Singlepower, Heed, HeadAmp, Rudistor. Personally, I use a Ray Samuels, but you can't go wrong with any of the above.
I would add the PS Audio GCHA headphone am to this list. I am using one with the AKG701 and am getting amazing results.
Don't the 701's have to be connected to the speaker binding posts on the back of a power amp rather than run from a headphone socket?
That is certainly true of the AKG1000 headphones which require 5 or so watts to work. The 701's require MUCH less power to operate properly. Any headphone amp that produces a reasonable output should work fine. The GCHA produces 2-3 watts class A and is more than enough to drive the 701's.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: