Like the JustBeats (the other on-ear phones in the roundup), the Marley Exodus produced less bass in these measurements than the over-the-ear models. They did, however, deliver more bass than the JustBeats, along with a broad peak in the response centered at 900 Hz and another broad peak from 4 to 7 kHz. Better performance in the treble range makes the Marleys sound less bassy than the JustBeats — and better balanced performance overall made them a favorite, not only over the JustBeats, but as compared to the over-the-ear headphones we tested as well.
Only Brent picked these as his favorite. Lauren and I picked them second, and Will, third. That consistency and the lack of any significant vices gets the Exodus into our top spot. They're distinctive looking, but not blatantly so. They're tied with the Aviators as the cheapest in this roundup as well.
Unfortunately, they're by far the least comfortable of the headphones here, with Lauren and Brent putting them dead last in that category, and Will and I putting them second to last.
Brent perhaps put it best, saying, "I have not the slightest complaint about the sound of these," following that with "they are excellent," and that these were the only ones that " sounded right on Olive’s “Falling.” He liked the bass-to-treble balance, the tight but reasonably full bass response, the clean and natural mids, and the smooth highs. To him they sounded like a good set of professional headphones. His one objection: "they clamp your head like a frigging vise. I couldn’t wear them for an hour."
Sonically, I felt they had decent openness to them, though not as much as the Quincy's. Bass wasn't bad either, maybe a little muddy but not so much as some of the others. I found them sliding upwards off my head — as if they were trying to escape — and eventually they'd just pop off skyward. At least that would relive the pressure.
Lauren felt these were one of the few she found tolerable, with good highs and mids. She though the bass could be a little better, but it wasn't bad. She, too, felt that they were sliding upwards off her head.
Will thought they were beautiful and expensive looking, with a rather retro aesthetic. He even thought they were comfortable — "for about 10 minutes." He didn't like the sound of these as much as the rest of us did, however, finding them to be a little muddy in the midrange, without much separation between vocals and percussion.
It's frustrating that the best-sounding headphones of this bunch were also the least comfortable. The Exodus look cool, sound great, and aren't too expensive. Maybe your head can fit them better than ours. If so, one love, brother, one love. (come on, you were waiting for it)
Absolutely terrible evaluation. The only acceptable headphone in here is the q701 and you "audio experts" were to thick to plug them into a proper source to realize that.
To anybody reading this, take what they say with a grain of salt.
Hi, Harold. I'm not sure what you'd consider a "proper source," but we used a Samson professional headphone amplifier for the panel tests. Main source device was a Denon DVD-2900 (used as a CD/SACD player) and some of the participants also hooked up their iPods to the headphone amp. In most cases, this testing setup is far superior to what will generally be used with these headphones. If you re-read the article, I think you'll see that our assessment of the Q701 was generally positive.
So I can understand why you feel the Q701 is so superior to all of the other models we tested, can you elaborate on the testing procedures you used when you compared all of these headphones? Did you compare them directly to each other with the same source, or did you hear them all at different times under different conditions?
---Brent Butterworth
Harold, you are a moron. You said what you said because you think that AKG are the only "real" manufacturers of quality headphones in this test. The test was to see which is the best celebrity endorsed headphones which they did perfectly and incredibly in depth seeing as they probably all went into this review expecting all these headphones to be crap.
As to questioning their practice when testing the headphones, i'm not even going to get started on those stupid unfounded comments.
To anybody reading Harolds comments, take what he says as bullshit.
I wonder how much monster and skullcandy paid these guys to put their products up front.
"The" Harold T. Wilkins? Didn't you die in 1960? I wonder which PR firm or manufacturer *this* haroldtwilkins works for...?
Nice round-up, guys. I tried skipping through it but it was too funny so I read the whole thing. Still swear by my KOSS ESP/950s, but they're not very portable...
@haroldtwilkins Thank you for proving my point:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2011/09/23/haters-gonna-hate
Or in this case, Trolls gotta troll.
If calling me a troll helps you keep the illusion in your mind that you are running a magazine worth reading, then by all means.
I acknowledge that the Q701 is a low-tier headphone marketed as a cheap reference in the world of hifi. But putting it in a lineup with utter crap (thats being very polite), ranking it 4th, and then calling somebody who criticizes you a troll? head-fi and the hifi world is laughing at you.
@BrentButterworth
As I said before "a proper source". Your Samson does not fit the bill, in my opinion you may aswell be plugging it into your ipod if that is what your are indeed using.
In doing a quick search of your site, it's obvious professional or hifi gear isn't your priority. But for the love of god if by the slightest chance you get your hands on something halfway decent, recognize it for what it is. No matter how far AKG has fallen in the hifi world, it's a fucking insult to rank it's flagship after beats or skullcandys on the basis that you don't have the proper gear/source to power it. A FUCKING INSULT.
@GeoffMorrison
"These malcontents have a passion for posting vitriol wherever their sensibilities about good and bad companies/products/technologies are impugned."
You don't see the irony in the fact that you took the time to post that? You are the ultimate hypocrite writing this on a professional audio/visual magazine that writes subpar articles about subpar products.
Harold, my Samson headphone amp has considerably greater output capability than an iPod. It has a 16-volt, 1.2-amp power supply, vastly more dynamic range and headroom, far more current, flatter frequency response, etc. You don't cite what you would consider an appropriately "hi-fi" headphone amp, or any technical reason why a professional multi-output headphone amp like the Samson is inadequate for this test. In fact, a multi-output professional amp is ideal for this test because it allows quick comparisons at roughly matched levels, something that is impossible with any audiophile headphone amp.
Since you didn't answer my question about how you compared the headphones, I have to assume you've never heard any of the headphones we tested here except maybe the Q701. This puts you in the category of people who judge components by their brand. If that's what you choose to do, OK, but please don't attack us for judging components by their actual performance.
Also, please don't use that kind of language on this site.
@haroldtwilkins How dare you, HOW DARE YOU say I took time to post that. I took time to write that. Michael Berk took time to post it.
Barely better then the white monstrosities that come with the Ipods? For the price of these things they better be a lot better then that. How about telling us what the good ones are.
@BrentButterworth
Your Samson (you didn't provide the model) has a whopping max 100 ohm impedance, this is very inadequate to power the k/q70x series. What you are using, as I said, is marginally better than listening straight out of an ipod - with the advantage of hosting 4 stereo channels at a time for comparison. If you are truly a hifi magazine then you would not be using this setup. However for all I know you arn't a hifi magazine. If you are not then so be it, acknowledge that you arn't and I'll end my rant.
Brand biased? I am not a fan of the recent akg line because it has an unnatural soundstage which makes vocals sound off. But the beats pro and skullcandy aviators are an absolute joke in comparison. An absolute joke. I can hardly conceive mentioning them in the same sentence let alone in the same review.
I have not heard the other headphone's hence why I didn't comment on them. Also I believe if you scroll up I was not the first to cuss in these comments.
@GeoffMorrison
The truth hurts.
Harold, as a freelancer I don't speak for Sound + Vision, but I'll happily acknowledge that as I see it, Sound + Vision isn't intended to fit what your concept of a "hi-fi" magazine would seem to be. But there's good news: You're free to read something else. I don't understand why you seem to feel every audio publication should be crafted to suit your tastes and prejudices. And as someone who's worked on these publications for 20+ years, I have learned that trying to cater to the belligerent is a poor business decision. I doubt any manager in any business would disagree.
If you read the article again, you'll see that the panelists liked the Q701 but preferred the headphones that had more bass. The Q701s might have sounded a bit better with a $1,000 headphone amp, but the difference would be subtle. They're not sealed headphones. They're not going to have much bass no matter what you plug them into.
We did this test not from the perspective of a Head-Fi reader, but from the perspective of a typical consumer who wants a good set of headphones. The manufacturer knew what types of headphones we'd be comparing it with and didn't have a problem with it.
I cannot respect the opinions of anyone who passes judgment on products without actually hearing them. Nor can I respect your hostile demeanor. I've granted you far more of my attention than you deserve, but that must now come to an end.
Hey, when are you guys going to review Monster's Turbine line? They're the most underrated IEMs.
@GeoffMorrison Don't worry about crabby haroldtwilkins. He's just upset because you're bringing sexy back. ;)
I appreciate the time you guys spent on putting this comparison together. Flashy marketing campaigns easily hypnotize so it’s easy to lose sight of the product itself. I would love to see a comparison of top of the line headphones.
You said what you said because you think that AKG are the only "real" manufacturers of quality headphones in this test. The test was to see which is the best celebrity endorsed headphones which they did perfectly and incredibly in depth seeing as they probably all went into this review expecting all these headphones to be crap.
porn | porno day | kelebek
@Gotcha Damn right I am. No Turbines are in the queue at the moment, but we should probably add them. In the mean time, check out these actually good headphones:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/headphone-roundup-hi-fi-go
@koufax Check out the above link
@Mono ditto
It seems that Harold is in his own reality and that reality finds himself with very few friends.
Why not consider the fact that the best headphones consist of 3 basic criteria.
1) what you can afford.
2) what sounds the best for your needs.
3) and what looks and feels good to you.
I have several pair of the Breats by Dre headphones. The pros, the solos, and the diddy beats. They all sound great connected to my laptop and/or iPhone because that's the only time I need headphones!
Who listens to headphones while you are at the house? That's what those high priced speakers are for!
Get it? It's what works for YOU and what the consumers are willing to pay. And if it all wraps together nicely with some style and flash then its hit.
So Harold, let's show some appreciation to the guys who put this test together and took the time to be as diligent as possible in their recording, and just be cool man!
....Or read another magazine.
-
While I respect that this is all subjective, I think you are sooo off base (as opposed to bass) regarding the Ludacris Soul SL300s. These are not intended to serve as audiophile headphones. I use for light activity (walking, work around the house) and LOVE them. While I agree the treble can be a little harsh, the overall range, particularly the low end, makes listening to any contemporary music exciting. There is a definite "wow factor" with their sound. While they may not be the best for Mozart, I challenge all of you to listen to the Kelis' single Bossy and say they aren't the best of the bunch for at least certain types of music. P.S. I would have been more interested in an apples to apples comparison using the Dr. Dre Beats Studio which is more comparable instead of the Pro. Also, I've tried the Monster in ears and agree they are one of the best sounding as long as I physically hold in the ear buds. I can never get a good fit and they lose sound quality as soon as they start to slip out.
tried beats solo from my friends, and bunch of other beats model at best buy. i dont see anything special. maybe its just me. but i wouldnt pay 300+ for beats xD.
tried beats solo from my friends, and bunch of other beats model at best buy. i dont see anything special. maybe its just me. but i wouldnt pay 300+ for beats xD.
Can you explain why your frequency graph for the Q701s doesn't look like the one at headroom, located here:
http://www.headphone.com/headphones/akg-q701-quincy-jones.php
I recently bought them and I'm blown away by the quality of the sound, including the bass. I'm hearing bass in songs that I never really noticed on my normal speakers with an 8" sub. If you look at the frequency response on that site, they're only -3dB at 20Hz, which seems quite good for headphones in my opinion. I have to agree with "Harold"'s sentiment that you had them underpowered.
@apollo33: I don't know why my frequency response chart for the Q701s looks different from the one you linked to. The positioning of the headphones isn't a big variable with models like this, provided they're reasonably well-centered on the ear. I used the compensation curves included with the G.R.A.S. microphones; these didn't produce anomalous results otherwise. I can say, though, that the measurements corresponded quite well with what the panelists heard.
The term "underpowered" as you used it here is vague. There's no question that the amplifier we used had far more than sufficient power to drive any of these headphones. Harold did make a potentially valid criticism that this amplifier's output impedance was too high for these headphones, which is why I've switched to a Rane HC 6S amplifier (output Z specified and confirmed at 0.5 ohms) for panel tests and a Musical Fidelity V-Can (output Z specified and confirmed at 5 ohms) for measurement. Our headphone reviews now show the effect on frequency response when driven with a 5 ohm vs. 75 ohm amp, so you can see what happens when the device is used with, say, a smartphone.
More in the following post…..
Continued from above....
However, I recently wrote an article where I compared the performance of several headphones using the V-Can and a Dell Inspiron Mini 10 netbook (output Z measured at 75 ohms). In every case, the effect of using an amplifier with a higher output impedance was to boost the bass, not attenuate it. You can see the results here:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2011/11/14/output-impedance-show-a...
I had the chance to question the panelists thoroughly about each headphone. They generally thought the Q701 was OK, but they weren’t bowled over by it. Harold didn’t present any data that disproves our conclusion. He presented his own opinion. Now we have yours, too. I thank you for adding it and hope you’ll do that with our other headphone reviews, too, whether you agree with us or not. Headphones are highly subjective. The more opinions we get, the better.
I also hope that those who read this will check out the Q701 for themselves, compare it to some other headphones, and see whom they agree with.
Just to comment on the Mile sDavis in-ear set: I got these too. I found the sound quality to be utterly amazing. Better than anything I experienced before. Certainly better than standard apple buds as was indicated in the review by one of the reviewers. However, they do depend on a good fit, which is not only critical for a good sound from these buds, it's also next to impossible to achieve! Despite the 20 or so different size shape and material buds included, none of them fit me well. The standard ones seems to be the least troublesome, and give the best sound, but they depend on the phones sticking out straight from my ear, and unfortunately whilst moving and being human and all, they do move and into a less sonic optimal position, which affects passive noise reduction and the sound experience.
Another major drawback that disallows these bing used when actually moving, is that the wires are ultra microphonic and amplify the slightest tap on the wires, ruining the sound.
I found online many people found better experiences when using ear buds from other companies like sony, or as indicated by one of the reviewers here.
All in all I think when they fit perfectly they are the best ear phones I experienced, but considering their poor fit with the resulting sound reduction, I'd say they are not worth the money you pay for them. (though admittedly, the packaging with 3 different cases, and a CD does make the package attractive...)