Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Ultrasone Proline: 2500 and 750...which is truly the better of the two?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ultrasone Proline: 2500 and 750...which is truly the better of the two? - Page 2

post #16 of 42

I a/b-ed the 2500 and 750 with Bryn Terfel last night. Again, the mids on the 750 are definitely more developed and detailed than the 2500. But--and I'm not sure whether this is a psycho-acoustic reaction to the powers of suggestion--Terfel's voice did sound more tenorish with the 750.

That said, I'm still developing a decided preference for the 750: they're less harsh on certain recordings, I think, definitely more punchy and dynamic, and have truer harmonics and timbres than the 2500. In short, I think the 750 are less analytical, but more musical, than the 2500.

I was thinking/hoping, too, that there might be a way to mod the 750 to enrich the lower mids. I'll try stopping up various holes and see what happens.

Will take the 2500 through their paces with the 2200 today. In the order of openness of sound it goes, from most to least open-sounding: HFI 2200, Proline 750, 2500.
post #17 of 42
In my (albeit brief) comparison between the two, I favoured the 750's. The highs on the 2500's were, I think, a little more detailed, with a little bit more extension, but they were slightly too over-emphasised for me, and for my ears were bordering on sybilance. The 750's just have the edge there for me.
post #18 of 42
looking at the design of ultrasones "open" headphones was interesting, theres really no air that makes it to your head. i beleive the open versions are for pressure dispersal behind the driver allowing it to stroke farther, seems thats why the "open" cans seem a bit more bass heavy in graph.

and a design note on the 750's haveing the ported holes. with those holes uncovered and the cups closed, makes for a push and pull through at that certain frequency, much like having a ported subwoofer enclosure and this is what i beleive brings the low end down and gives it that low mid dip. because unlike a sub enclosure the proline 750's ports go right back into the same place.
post #19 of 42
Thread Starter 
Xinoxide is correct in the affect a "ported" design has on low mids. I tested some low mids on a speaker with an 8" woofer and sure enough when the woofer is driven loud the low mids seem to hollow out a bit and lack weight.

But...only when it's driven loud. During softer listening the low mids don't seem to have this problem. So I guess the key to getting a nice sound from the 750s is to drive them at lower levels instead of pushing them hard.

Maybe the 750s would sound different at different volume levels. On my friend's burned-in pair that I tried (the ones that made me buy myself a pair which I later foolishly sold on because I hadn't burned them in properly) the low mids seemed to be ok, maybe 3-4dB down at the most when compared to the upper bass region, with no real dip or emphasis as it was reasonably smooth from the slight drop after the upper bass up to about 2kHz, but I will have to admit the bass was phenomenal, certainly better than on the 750s that I bought myself.

I will have to buy another pair, and burn them in properly. With a list of different songs and a pink noise track between each of the songs. I will play them at a fairly decent level but not too high as these tend to distort. My friend told me they need to be burned in for a certain amount of time at lower levels (say 6dB lower than the usual burn-in level) and then turn the levels up after about 10 hours. Then continue for another 200 or so hours. My friend told me the bass on his 750s got richer and extended deeper, the midrange evened out and the top-end became silky once they were burned in, and I can assure you he was correct, his 750s sounded beautiful, much better than the ones I bought!

post #20 of 42


I hasten to add that my 750 are only about 1/3 of the way to being broken in. The 30-40 hour mark was fairly notable, when I noticed a huge expansion of the soundstage. Am currently breaking in the HFI 2200, too. : ) Where's the Ultrasone smiley???
post #21 of 42
ultrasone drivers are also VERY bassheavy. so i also recommend covering the holes with heavy duty electrical tape. softens the lower lows a tad bit but still doesnt allow for nearly as much low frequency redundant dispersion.

actually, it took me alot of playing around with the holes to get a sound i really liked. these headphones get a 10/10 for versatility in output EQ from me. sort of a manually applied passive low frequency boost/nullification.

also look at the diagram of the outer ear, figure out wich holes are where and what part of the ear picks up what frequencies, the frequency you want most should probably have that hole uncovered, but will still efect dispersion of the rest of the lower end.

i bid you adue. going to a hobby shop to pick up my airbrush.
post #22 of 42

Proline 750 Break-in Update

With upwards of 60 hours now, the soundstage on the 750 is exhibiting more height and circularity (think of tubular segment encircling the head). I've put the 6N1P--admittedly, a more "expansive" tube--into the Darkvoice 336i, together w/the Raytheon 6SN7GTB/short bottle, and am getting a bit of that "overhead" imaging, like that of the 2500.

Again, the 750 deliver a notably bigger, and seemingly unrestrained, head space compared w/the 2500; and now, w/additional break-in, instrument separation is better and front-to-back perception is also enhanced and better differentiated. Again, tone, timbre and dynamics of the 750 are, I feel, more true sounding than the 2500. Again, the weight, articulation, balance and integration/synergy of the frequencies--at least to my ears--are more accurate w/the 750. Sonic images are even more solid and liquidy than before.

Presumably, I'm still only about 1/4 of the way there w/the 750. I can't wait to hear what improvements lie ahead! : )
post #23 of 42
Originally Posted by benjamind View Post
Pataburd, what was your impression of the frequencies between 200 and 400hz on the 750s? I know from my experience there was a noticeable dip where the upper bass and low mids were. It made male voices seem thinner.
With about 60+ hours on the Proline 750, the midrange has really begun to both open up and settle down. Just finished an extended session on the Darkvoice 336i w/1x Mullard 6080 & 1x Raytheon 6SN7GTB (tall bottle), rounding out the hours with The King's Singers. If you want to revel in the full gamut of pure, male vocalizations, listen to the "Annie Laurie: Folksongs of the British Isles" cd (EMI). No dip here, just exceptionally coherent baritone and bass, rich and seamless male vocals across the board.

I've developed a decided preference for the 750. They simply sound more real and musical than the 2500. The latter are great 'phones, don't misunderstand me there, but I do find myself keeping the 750 clamped on for much longer periods of time. The 750 render a bigger, more natural and, yes (IMHO), a more speaker-like headstage. More detailed, fleshed out, nimble and intimate. The 750 deliver sound with its feet on the ground, but like a graceful dancer moving with just the right pressure, placement and forthrightness.

For the record, that's the 750 "2" and the 2500 "0," based on two critical sessions (w/the Darkvoice). God willing, I hope to put the two Prolines toe-to-toe (or is it earlobe-to-earlobe?) with the Bada PH-12 sometime next week. : )

post #24 of 42
It's funny how we all hear differently, Pat!

I look at some of your posts here, and am in total agreement with everything you're saying, only I'd substitute 2500s in place of 750s and vice-versa.

But again, the differences for me are very slight indeed and I only think about them if comparing the PROlines directly against each other. Whether I'm listening to tunes with the 750s while Mrs. Dex is watching TV, or enjoying the 2500s when no one else is around, it's all good!

So, at the same time, I can totally understand how the 750s can be preferable to some folks and I'm thrilled that they seem to be working out for you so well!
post #25 of 42
The 2500 is greater than a 750 by a matter of 1750!....Anyway, I think it is largely a matter of user preference. I have always prefered an open headphone so I went with the 2500.
post #26 of 42
Originally Posted by flashnolan View Post
The 2500 is greater than a 750 by a matter of 1750!
Ah, finally a definitive answer!

Great avatar, fn!
post #27 of 42
No, they just assigned the 2500 a greater number to compensate for its correspondingly opposite sonic standing alongside the 750. : )
post #28 of 42

(a) Proline 750 v. (b) AKG K701 v. (c) Sennheiser HD650

After allowing time for adequate break-in, I intend, by the grace of God, to a/b, a/c, and b/c these fine headphones in the not-too-distant future. I will volunteer at this juncture, however, that, based on preliminary comparisons (w/all three units in stock cable mode), my preference for the 750 has only solidified. : ) (Preliminary ranking, from most-to-least favorite=750, K701, HD650.)

In the most ideal of all approaches, I would like to have all three of these headphones re-cabled with the RAL Silver Reference, do a second round of comparisons, then, should the 750 again emerge victorious, take that as a queue to make the final approach for the Edition 9. As we speak, Brad Vojtech at RAL is making a detachable RAL-SR for the Proline (using a salvaged screw-in mini jack from a stock iPod cable).

The RAL/HD650 is in-house. It really wakes up/vitalizes the HD650! Sound is greatly expanded, super-refined and effortlessly detailed with the RAL-SR, capitalizing on what the stock/650 already do very well, but rendering vast improvement.

The stock/750, with between 150-200 hours of head time, have opened up and smoothed out dramatically compared to how they sounded in the first 100 hours, but without losing that unique immediacy and freshness that endears me (inasmuch as one can be "endeared" to an inanimate object) so much to them. : )
post #29 of 42
Has anyone tried the 750's with the RSA Hornet? How was the fit? Clampy? Any presure/touch on the ears? I'm thinking I might give them a try since the Denon AH-D2000's didn't fit me quite right. (They were a touch too large for my head even in their smallest position and lacked much of any clamping force at all.)

Anyone think I'll enjoy the Ultrasone Proline 750 with my Hornet?
post #30 of 42

Never tried the Hornet, so I can't comment there.

The Proline are fairly clampy headphones, though not as much as the HD650, IMO. If, in addition to your head being narrow, the vertical drop to your ears is fairly short, the Proline may "wing out" and not properly bottom around the ear.

The Proline's earpads are not as circumferentially ample as, say, the K701. My ears, on the fringe between medium and large, nestle snuggly, and just within the 750's earpads' somewhat minimal compass.

If we are treating exclusively of fit, irrespective of sonic signature, the HD650 may best fit your bill. (Sonically, the HD650 are fundamentally distinct from the Proline 750, though.)

Keep us posted!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Ultrasone Proline: 2500 and 750...which is truly the better of the two?