Ultrasone PRO900 - Page 26

Yes!
Now, that would be the "ne plus ultra" of comparos....

Completely off-topic...

/awakens from slumber...

Let's try to open up the perceptual basis of accommodation.

In human senses there are no absolutes in terms of qualitative measures and even for quantitative measures most measures are dynamic (e.g. loudness compression).

What this raises in any psychoacoustical qualitative study is the problem of baseline or reference of comparison: what is the sensory reference baseline being compared to, and which by it's nature of prolonged exposure forms the reference of 'naturalism'?

Is it a pure unamplified original acoustic event?
An electroacoustic reproduction of that?
Through which system?
In what space?
For how long exposure?
Competing with what other acoustical experiences?

This is a big can of worms.

Combine this with the recent cultural trend towards hyperrealism, in which people prefer representative percepts that reveal more than the original event allowed, and you got yourself in a vicious circle: more "detail", more "texture", more "bass", more "everything" -> prolonged exposure to "more" -> perceptual (not intellectual!) baseline reference that prefers "more" -> measure of perceptual naturalism coming from this exposure to "more".

A classic anecdotal example of this is the NS-10 mixing engineer, who after changing to a objectively superior loudspeakers complains initially how unnatural they sound. However, after accommodation this is the new baseline and the NS-10 sounds hollow, veiled, lacking in extension and very compressed (one can take a more recent example if one wants, just change the component/person/situation).

Again, what was the 'true' representation? Natural? Right? Good sounding?

The challenge is that this perceptual comparison bias persists even when we are intellectually aware of it - that is, it is not possible to intellectually to compensate for perceptual biases, even when we are fully aware of those biases. Our senses deceive us, but there's very little we can do about it in the short run.

There has been not that much studies of this phenomenon in psychoacoustic literature, but it is well studied in human vision and somatic sensation. However, the same accommodation principles applies equally well to human auditory system as per current psychoacoustic literature.

ObTopicalComment: I don't find Proline particularly natural nor perceptually alluring myself. If this the final truth for me in this matter? Probably not. Am I right in my perception? Who knows and more importantly, why would anybody else even care...

/crawls back to hibernation

...or, the people that actually like Ultrasones and listen to them on a daily basis could perform the evaluation and give us much better feedback than someone who has just had them on loan for a few days. I mean, cmon...how can a few days translate in to six months? Isn't that about how long, or how many hours Ultrasones need to do their supposed break in process? One of you should make the purchase and then let us know in a few months how goes it.

Hardly.

I am planning on picking up a pair some time in the future as I really love the Ultrasone line-up (my Proline 2500s sound very close to listening to studio monitors, which is great when I mix audio in situations which would not permit me to use speakers, in other words, in the wee hours of the night).

I don't know, I think that anyone who had a pair of the PRO900s and a pair of, say, the PRO750s should easily be able to make a reasonable comparison between the two, even if both are new and the reviewer had never heard either phone before.

Considering the substantial premium being asked for the PR900s, if their difference from the PRO750s isn't immediately noticeable as superior, I think that they have failed in their purpose.

Though I agree that those who are familiar with the Pro 750s are able to make a fair assessment between the two phones, the Pro 900s would definitely need to be burned in for at least 200 hours before any assessment can be made. The drivers which Ultrasone uses are relatively stiff and they do change noticeably from burn-in.

Dookiex, I'm glad you said that!

I would say that I agree with you very much regarding the Pro 750's (I know you wrote about the 2500 but their sounds are very similar) but if I did agree with you, a number of people would "gang up" on my post and beat it to a pulp! So, I'm glad you said it instead of me.

for wrting this but some people think this idea is like

I spent a couple of hours with the PRO900 this morning.
The PRO900 have the overall sound signature of the ED9 and do not (IMO) sound like the PRO750 or PRO2500 at all.
I don't like the ED9 (heavy bass, muted highs and not very natural tonality), so, for me they are a no-no.

X900.

I would be happy to compares the 900 vs. 650 vs. 750 (vs. ED9).
I have experience with Ultrasone characteristic sounds for the past two years. I use Ultrasone headphones on a daily basis as a tool for my work. I can consider comparing them to other headphones, as well. But in this case, they should be compared to the PL series, specifically.

The Pro 900 is the last model in the Ultrasone PL series of combinations. They used the Ultrasone S-logic plus as in the PL 650, and they're supposed to have the same titanium driver as in the PL 750. What I can tell from the photos is that they changed the size of the holes in the MU metal and some added dampening material, which reminds me of the (ED 9). Yes, I'm very curious, as well about the Pro 900.

All I need is a free pass from Ultrasone to AES Convention Exhibitors in San Francisco...:

Listen, I'm so familiar with the Pro 750's it's disgusting! (Not the headphones, the fact that I wear and listen to them so much) The only thing that I wear on my head with which I am more familiar than the Pro 750's is my hair!
With the suggestions about someone who is familiar with the Pro 750 to evaulate the Pro 900 in mind, I would be happy to volunteer if Ultrasone wants to send me a pair of them.
Equally qualified for this evaluation and perhaps moreso, in some cases are Covenant, MaloS, Shahrose, jpelg, Sovkiller, wavoman, Dexdexter (there are probably others who I am not thinking of right now).

Question for Kees

Just out of curiosity, what headphones do you favor and why?

I'm very curious about these new ones aswell and might pick one up, just for my listening buddies.

My top ten (at this moment):
AKG K1000: natural tonality, detail and soundstage
Stax Omega 2: Detailed, lush, good bass.
JVC DX1000: best bass, warm, detailed and spacious.
Balanced HD650: body & dynamics & detail
Kenwood KH-K1000: perfect allrounders
Grado GS1000: spacious, beautiful for strings
Grado PS-1: speed & liquid midrange
Deep cup Darths: nice tonality and deep bass.
ATH W10VTG: Beautiful midrange.
AKG K340 (Headphiled): full bodied and spacious at the same time.

Muted highs on the ED9?? Perhaps they vary greatly from number to number, but my specific ED9 has some of the best highs I've ever heard. The highs and the bass are the strong points of the ED9. Did you mean muted mids? If so, I would clearly agree with that, but I've never had one issue with the ED9's highs.

I would definitely add Contrastique to that list.