Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › STAX Omega II vs. Ultrasone Edition 7
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

STAX Omega II vs. Ultrasone Edition 7 - Page 2

post #16 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC1
So if the Proline 2500 is 90% of the Edition 7s, then they are equal to or maybe even a little better than O2s according to the scoring system?
Good question. I think it will be interesting when superman's ears gives a verbal explanation of what he was hearing.

The other question that Alex asked about how long the O2's staters were charged is also an interesting point, although (to be honest), I've never found this to be as big of an issue as a lot of people seem to think it is. The HE90's don't hardly need any time to charge, whereas the O2's do, but not the hours on end that some people suggest. One hour is enough in my experience, and after 2 hours I don't hear any further improvements.
post #17 of 105
Thread Starter 
x
post #18 of 105
Thread Starter 
x
post #19 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by superman's ears
The sound signature of both is very different. So, it doesn't help to say Proline 2500 is an Omega II but much cheaper. The Omega II make faults in the presentation of the music that Proline 2500 and Edition 7 don't make. Omega II, Orpheus, R10, K1000, and others, they all make this faults. The reason is that they design the presentation, but the both Ultrasone don't do that.
Sorry don't mean to be difficult, just trying to get to what you are hearing.

But if the Ultrasones have no sound signature both true to "live" how can they both have a different sound rating? Isn't "live" only one sound signature.

Am I misinterpreting your thoughts?

Edit: Re-worded for clarity
post #20 of 105
...and Ultrasone sales go through the roof.

Just don't let people see the 3/5 value rating from HeadRoom...

But now I really do want to try them.
post #21 of 105
Every day I'm more and more tempted by Ultrasone headphones. I just wish they had some reasonably priced cans you could sample their sound with and not take such a big hit to your wallet if you don't like it.
post #22 of 105
Thread Starter 
x
post #23 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by superman's ears
EDIT, word correction for better understanding:


Example:
You are in a concert and the violine is playing. With the Orpheus (or the others mentioned above) this violine sounds different.

The both Ultrasone headphones don't do that. It's the first time that I thought "The TONE signature of this headphone is the same TONE signature that I hear in reality when I visit a concert.

Through the Orpheus the piano sounds not the same like listening direct with your ears to the piano on the stage. Same R10, Omega II and all the others.

The TONE signature of both Ultrasone headphones is the TONE signature of real life TONES.
With respect sir, how can you be so sure of the accurate tonal presentation of the original instruments unless you were there during the actual recording of that particular CD? By which I mean to say. How can you assert that the Ultrazone has the more truthful presentation of the original sound unless you actually heard that original sound in the first person?

I may be missing a point (and yes I condensed your quoted lines) but it seems to me that you are missing a crucial step in the rationale of your argument in favour of the sonic character of the Ultrazone headphone.
post #24 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wmcmanus
I'm not really familiar with the V3, so I guess I assumed it was more expensive (i.e., closer to the price of the 007t). But this just adds to the credibility of my argument. The other poster seemed to be saying it wasn't a fair fight because the 007t was not a good enough amp, yet it's a much more expensive amp than the V3.

Of course, we all know that headphone/amp synergy is more important than price and I've always felt that the O2/007t combo is excellent. Granted, there are better electrostat amps out there, but they're much more expensive.

If the Edition 7s really sounded that good (a bunch of 10 and 9.5 scores) on a considerably less expensive amp, this suggests to me that I should have hung on to my pair a bit longer than I did. They really were starting to come into their own after a recable job and a long break in period, but I sold them when I got a chance ot do so at a reasonable price.

Now I'm coming full circle by trying the PROline 2500 and PROline 750, both of which arrived today in Florida, and I'll be up there next weekend to start breaking them in.
Wayne the Edition 9 is coming at a more humble price than the 7, and will offer almost the same performance if not the same...So if you decided to give them a second spin, the damage will be a lot less if you manage to get a used pair...or even a new one...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Duggeh
With respect sir, how can you be so sure of the accurate tonal presentation of the original instruments unless you were there during the actual recording of that particular CD? By which I mean to say. How can you assert that the Ultrasone has the more truthful presentation of the original sound unless you actually heard that original sound in the first person?

I may be missing a point (and yes I condensed your quoted lines) but it seems to me that you are missing a crucial step in the rationale of your argument in favor of the sonic character of the Ultrasone headphone.
I always state that same argument, while people talk about headphones, accuracy, neutrality, etc...A recording is not a live event, and it tends to sound different, we all know that (or at least some of us do) but IMO, if using a given headphone you feel that it sounds more faithful to the live sound, IMO that is the one you should stick with, of course preferences apart, and differences in hearing apart, and also try different recordings, to see if the you feel the same way every time, as recording tend to be different from album to album, depending on human or recording process used....but if in the majority of the recordings you feel that the instruments sound more lifelike, I would stick with it and forget about what others say, your hearing is unique, as the experience you will have in that regard...

Now one thing is sure, you will never know how the recording is supposed to sound like, unless you make it....
post #25 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duggeh
With respect sir, how can you be so sure of the accurate tonal presentation of the original instruments unless you were there during the actual recording of that particular CD? By which I mean to say. How can you assert that the Ultrazone has the more truthful presentation of the original sound unless you actually heard that original sound in the first person?
Sorry but this is a chestnut. Even IF you were at the original recording you'd be listening in a very different position to the microphones which in turn have a sonic signature of their own. And if you listened to the recording at home after the event there is the little problem of audio memory.

Which is not to say that regularly hearing real instruments isn't useful to one's ability to evaluate sound. But then lots of people can hear a Steinway and just think it sounds like a regular py-ann-er......
post #26 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller
Wayne the Edition 9 is coming at a more humble price than the 7, and will offer almost the same performance if not the same...So if you decided to give them a second spin, the damage will be a lot less if you manage to get a used pair...or even a new one...
As irrational as it is, I do see the rationality in your argument. At "only" $1,500, the Edition 9 will be a steal as compared to the $3,000 Edition 7. Stated in a different way, the Edition 9 will only cost 3 times more than they should in terms of their value proposition relative to other dynamic cans, rather than costing 6 times more than they should. But I won't get the fancy wooden box this time.

Ehh, we'll see what happens once I've had a chance to give the PROline 2500 and 750 a decent workout.
post #27 of 105
It's my understanding that the Edition 7 and Edition 9 use the same 40mm titanium driver as the 750 and the 2500. So, what is the difference between these headphones? And yes, I know that the 750 is closed, I just want to know if the "premium" headphones are only different cosmetically or if there's something more.

Personally, I find the 2500 very interesting. It'll probably be my next headphone.

Also, Ultrasone is a Head-Fi sponsor. I wonder if they could be persuaded to issue a Head-Fi limited edition. They'd get a lot of free ink here if they did.
post #28 of 105
Having just recently joined Team Ultrasone myself (PROline 2500), I can entirely understand how their "premium" (read: overpriced) limited editions and marketing aspects (S-Logic and that low-radiation malarky) might be off-putting here, where they have far from achieved the long-held acceptance and gravitas of, say, Sennheiser, Grado, or AKG. And I'm sure that the iCans do little to enhance their cause as well.

So their obvious attempts to buck the establishment leave them open for easy criticism. And plenty of folks here seem more than happy to oblige.

On the other hand, Ultrasone's more international success in the pro / studio realm have clearly emboldened them reach out for broader recognition, so their more gimmicky ploys might be better received outside of the more sophisticated waters here at Head-Fi (as we all, no doubt, would love to think of them ).

Kind of a shame in a way because all indications are that Ultrasone produce a number of simply bloody good cans that are more than able to stand on their own when separated from their marketing hype.

But while we may think of ourselves here as the head-savvy, it is a really big world on the outside, so I can't begrudge Ultrasone their attempts to pick their spots and blow their own trumpet, as it were. A girl's gotta eat, ya know.

After all, if they are able to thrive, their innovations will continue, and we all reap the benefits whether we buy into them or not.

Cheers, Dex
post #29 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik
It's my understanding that the Edition 7 and Edition 9 use the same 40mm titanium driver as the 750 and the 2500. So, what is the difference between these headphones? And yes, I know that the 750 is closed, I just want to know if the "premium" headphones are only different cosmetically or if there's something more.

Personally, I find the 2500 very interesting. It'll probably be my next headphone.

Also, Ultrasone is a Head-Fi sponsor. I wonder if they could be persuaded to issue a Head-Fi limited edition. They'd get a lot of free ink here if they did.
There is a lot more things involved in a headphone design that just the driver, the PROLines share also the same driver and both sound differently, cups internal design, dimensioning, driver positioning, distance between pads and outer hear, etc...Also a better driver matching and selection...all those factors could lead to a different flavor, of course I do not expect the difference in sound to be day and night...According ot them the sound is a lot more refined, that was what I heard, also I heard the Edition 7 briefly and the sound in comparison with the 2500 is a little more euphonic, and of course there is also the closed cans Vs open difference...

Also the fact of sharing drivers for a headphone company is not new to us, we all know that Grado, Sennheiser, and Sony did that in the past, and the list could go on, but I have no more proved references for sure, and these heapdhones that share same drivers not necesarily had sounded alike or exactly alike...simply becasue the enclosures are not 100% alike
post #30 of 105
It is curious to me also that these USone limited editions are available only as closed-back. Perhaps they have thus far been unable to improve upon the 2500s?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › STAX Omega II vs. Ultrasone Edition 7