Ultrasone PRO900 - Page 13

The problem is not the presentation, as i already said i really like what s-logic does and it's perfect for relaxed listening. I adjusted to it in 5 minutes, i guess it greatly depends on personal listening experience.
But the fatigue free presentation of the ultrasones just doesn't match with the bass which annoys me very quickly. If it would be boosted by 3-4dB that would be no problem at all. I didnt measure but the proline 750s approach something like 6-10dB bassboost and that's not fun anymore. But everybody has a different treshhold with bass ofcourse.
I just wish they would reduce it a bit so these come under my treshhold because i'd really like to have a pair again.

Ultrasone PRO900

I don't know if it boosts with 6 or 10 dB but is definitely boosts with at least 1-3 dB. You can try the PL 650. It's the most flat response from Ultrasone that I've tried and owned. But please keep in mind that the boost on the bass is kind of standard and looks like it's been like that since the early nineties (when the manufacturers tried to shape the audiophile standards.) It looks like you have enough headphones to check this theory out.

If the problem is not the presentation, is the sound itself, please do not waste more time, move on to another brand....or why not using a filter to cut the lower freq that annoys you so much and period...

That is your opinion, but that as a side note and IMO, is not a very accurate observation, not sure what kind of sound are you used to, but it must be very thin sounding, if you consider than they are 10dB boosted that is almost three times as they should be, that is simply impossible for any manufacturer to boost that much in the headphone designed for professional use, sorry...

Why not just moving to a different sounding brand, and leave Ultrasone alone with the boosted bass for the ones who find it right, as myself, and hundreds of happy users of them, and period...It will be more practical trust me...They will not modify it...

Also keep in mind that to pretend than a manufacturer will modify a headphone performance just based in a few exceptions, while the rest of the users, even professionals of the field consider it fine they way it is (see the endorsement page they have from them) it is a little naive to call it the least IMO...

Logic: Reply to kwkarth

[QUOTE=kwkarth;4700911]
Yes, it can be done, I do it all the time. Live sound, heard live is the standard by which I judge. My recording chain has been vetted, and characterized, of course. Pretty simple concept really, I'm not sure why people are having trouble understanding the concept.

With all due respect, kwkarth, I fail to understand your logic here. The logic I'm using is so simple and basic that I'm thinking that we may be having a misunderstanding.
In an attempt to better explain my logic I will start with an acoustic non-amplified audio source. Then, beyond that, there is the idea of listening to this non-amplified acoustic audio source through headphones. What's missing? Microphones and some type of electronic sound reproduction device. And, when you introduce microphones and some type of electronic reproduction device, that acoustic audio source as it is listened to via microphones to electronic reproduction device to headphones or speakers no longer is acoustic in nature but has become electronically reproduced. And, because of this the original acoustic sound (that one would hear if they were in the same room with the acoustic audio source) has been electronically altered (when listened to via headphones or speakers). It may very well be the case that this electronic reproduction sounds extremely similar to the original acoustic sound, but, none the less, it has been altered. If you left the acoustic audio source unaltered (in other words, left it as acoustic only and not playing through some type of electronic sound reproduction device), how would it be possible to hear that acoustic audio source through a pair of headphones? Exactly what type of magic would be involved to cause the sound to play via the headphones or speakers? In order to play the audio source via headphones or speakers, that original acoustic audio source would have to be reproduced through microphones and an electronic sound reproduction device which would alter the sound of the original acoustic audio.
I'm not saying it isn't possible to have the opinion that the sound of an instrument as it is played acoustically "live" can't sound similar to the sound of that same instrument having been electronically reproduced and then heard via speakers or a pair of headphones. Indeed, the opposite is true, an electronically reproduced instrument playing via a pair of headphones or speakers can sound very similar to the sound of that same instrument played acoustically "live". However, there will always be a distinction between the sound of an acoustic "live" instrument and an electronically reproduced instrument. Therefore, the more accurate subjective listening comparison is one that compares electronically reproduced audio to electronically reproduced audio such as the comparison sited in my previous post where the audio coming from headphones is compared to that same audio coming from "flat" monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room.

Hello everyone,
My ultrasone edition 9 modified/recabled by alo will arrive tomorrow, so I hope it will be some time until the ed10s enter the scene.
I am really interested in some comparisons between the ed9 and the new pro9000.
Greetings, Anouk,

I think i showed you some posts ago what sound i'm used to. But as i said my response doesnt look that flat, i have some dips and bumps (3-4dB). It sounds anything but thin. If with thin you mean something like the W5000, then it's definately NOT like that, not even close. I highly recommend you to find a good professional mastering studio in your area and ask them to have a short audition of their speaker system. I think that should help you to put the Ultrasone bass into perspective.

There's ofcourse nothing wrong with enjoying so much bass.


No offence but your arguments are getting extremly weak. George Massenburg is endorsing the ATH-M50, stating that it's superior to every headphone he used before in the studio. So what does that mean? NOTHING. It's marketing.

For me this is the end of this small offtopic debate in this thread. Let's wait for some Pro 900 reports.

This thread is getting very much side-tracked, imho.

People gotta do something while they're waiting around...

I think it's about time we hear from Jude and his opinions about the Pro 900.

relax people, lets wait another few hundred hours before demanding for the impressions Remember the ultrasone burn in is evil

I know. I know. But, it's also interesting to know it's initial SQ so that we can find out what exactly happens during the burn-in period.

While we're all waiting, I thought I would attempt to wade through Pete's post here...

I think you're on to something here!

This is where we got off into the weeds I think. See in my post above that I mentioned having vetted and characterized my recording chain? That takes care of the "electronic" part of the equation. The playback chain is all that's left, which of course, is where the headphones come in.

Huh?
This is where you've totally lost me again. I don't think I understand what you're trying to get at here. Can you help me follow you better?

Man, I really can't figure out what you're getting at.

Imagine this scenario... I'm in a room with a piano and a pianist. He sits down to play, and the sound is heard by me in the room at the same time I'm recording everything going on. Later, when I play that recording back through the headphones, it either sounds like the original, live experience or it doesn't. That simple. I know my recording gear, and how it alters the sound of real life. I know my DAC and my playback amp, and how they affect the sound, the only variable left is the headphones.

Now, if your headphones are as well balanced as some studio monitors (Yamaha, for example) with a flat frequency response, the studio work can be sweeter. I use two sets of headphones to get these sweeter results. One is the PL 650 and the other is the Pioneer S10. I can get very good results in the high end with the 650s. And the Pioneers are great, balanced headphones. They just complete the picture.

I wonder if the PL 900 would fulfill my needs? But again, this is for work application and as an audiophile, they could be just fine.

Exactly! Mix down is another important step in the production chain we've not discussed and it is critically important to have tools (monitors and cans) whose sound you know and can trust. The first thing I did to my PL-650s when I got them was to fix the anomalies so I could trust/use them for monitoring.

Reply to kwkarth

kwkarth,
In the present time, because our ears are so accustomed to hearing amplification, it is difficult for people involved in recording to think "acoustically".
Using your example of the pianist playing the piano, I want you to imagine also that this pianist is also singing as he plays the piano. The singing will add a strong acoustic image.
So, you are sitting there, in the same room, listening to the pianist play and sing. His performance is not amplified. The only way that you are hearing him is acoustically. His performance is not playing through any speakers or headphones.
While you were listening to him, his performance was being recorded. Once again, his performance is not being amplified via an electronic reproduction device and speakers.
Then, after the pianist finishes his performance, you listen to the playback of the recording of his performance.
The playback of that recording is heard through speakers and plays out into the room. Among other reasons, because the playback of that recording is not the sound as it was originally heard coming directly from the pianist, because the playback of that recording is heard through speakers, instead of directly from the pianist, because the sound of the speakers affects the acoustics of the recording as it is heard in the room (no matter what quality level these speakers and sound reproduction device may be), the electronically reproduced recording of the pianist playing and singing will sound different than the original acoustic performance at the time that it was heard originally in it's original acoustic "presence". Perhaps that difference, in certain situations where there would be specific (difficult to "adjust") acoustical allowances, would be difficult to hear by some people, but, there is a difference between the sound of the original acoustic performance (as it was heard at the time it was originally performed) vs. the sound of that same performance electronically reproduced, none the less.
Therefore, it isn't truly practical to compare the sound of the performance as it is electronically reproduced and then played through headphones to the sound of the performance as it was originally performed and heard only acoustically. The better comparison would be between the playback of the recording of the pianist's performance via "flat" high quality monitors in an acoustically controlled room to the playback of that same recording heard through headphones. By A/Bing the recording as it is heard via the monitors vs. the recording as it is heard via the headphones will give, IMO, a much better audio comparison and analysis of the perceived accuracy (not graphed accuracy) of the headphones.
I hope that made sense to you.