Originally Posted by fjf
I do not try to do crap-posting, and I enjoy seeing the enthusiasm in our fellows very often; after all this is a hobby and we do it for fun. But this ultrasone fever reminds me of the AKG K701 when it appeared. They seemed to be the best thing after the invention of the wheel and penicillin. A while later, this has settled down to a reasonable degree. I think the same will happen here. But I can be wrong, of course
Sorry but I definitely wonder this myself.
So far Sovkiller says the 2500 is nowhere near the SQ of the ED9.
Supermansears says the 2500 is up with the top 3 headphones in the world at $200+.
The only real reason given that the ED 7 was significantly better than the O2 was "tone (something)" I assume he means timbre.
In the 2500 thread most people are saying the 2500 competes with the usual 880/HD650/K701, some saying those 3 are preferred to the 2500.
A German hifi magazine rates the ED9 below the GS-1000 (priced at 1/3 less).
Mulvelin (spelling?) said that so far the ED9 doesn't have that extra bit of sizzle (or something like that) that the tops cans have, and he's owned a good amount of those.
Way too many inconsistencies for me to assume that all other headphones are a mute point and Ultrasones get it all right. I too think the HE-90, O2 have that electrostat sound which is amazing in some areas, but artificial sounding in other areas. But they are up with the top headphones (the HE-90 to me is the top if broken down into parts) and excel above any dynamics in certain areas.
I have some 2500s on the way and would very much be more than happy to eat my skeptical words
till then I remain