Ultrasone Pro 900 Worries

theres no point getting a detailed headphone and listening to low quality music, it will sound horrible. ultrasones are quite detailed in the treble, and thats where the low quality will be most obvious. 

 

what is it about the pro-900 you like the idea of?

i own ultrasone 780's and have done for 4 years now, and im not sure i can reccommend them to anyone. the treble is so sharp and sibilant i cant listen to them for more than 2 hours without needing a good long break. the headband as well is ghastly, its like a razor blade for your skull. i find i have to EQ the high end down to make them bearable for any length of time, but the detail they produce and the bass (quality and quantity) is very good.

 

i think getting all that expensive kit and listening to the same low-rate music is a bad idea. you will be disappointed because all your music will sound terrible, and once you have heard compression artifacts in a track it wont matter what you use from then on, you will always hear them on whatever you listen to the track through. once heard cannot be un-heard. 

 

is there any chance you could re-import the music from CD at a higher bit rate? 320kbs or so?

160kbps.. you are already listening to bad quality music right there.

 

Atleast get 320kbps.

You can link me few songs on youtube(about same quality as 160 right ? ) That you listen.

I got some DT990s which are quite high in treble area. Maybe I can help you there. :P

Most of what I listen to sounds fine on the 900s. But if it is a bad recording, especially with a low sampling rate, you will definitely hear the aliasing (digital noise). You can hear a flatulent mouse in the middle of a chamber orchestra with the 900s. They're great in terms of crisp, thumping-bass performance, no doubt. But, you don't need flac files for decent quality.

Are you planning on using them as portables?

The PRO2900s took the word 'harsh' to a whole nother level for me. The 900s have even more treble. Not recommended for anything with less than perfect mastering(brickwalled, MP3, sub-par recording). Pretty much you will be stuck listening to well mastered electronica as Ultrasones sound a bit off for non-electronic sounds including vocals.

I don't have a problem with vocals on the Ultrasones. But, they do require a burn-in period to get rid of the sibilance in certain higher frequencies with lots of harmonics.

i can testify that low quality audio sounds horrible. poorly mixed and mastered audio even at 320kbs sounds horrible out of the pro 900s.

The PRO2900s sent me running back to my portables(AKG K81s). Its not so much bitrate that you have to worry about with them, a 128kbps track will still sound decent if the recording and mastering is up to par, but when you try and listen to a poorly mastered album(90% of the music out there is brickwalled it seems) they become very fatiguing.
As for running them portable, if your amp is up to the task you should be fine. My old Xonar Essence could not run them, but a lot of people report good results with the digitoid zo amps and the 900s. Running them straight from a portable player is a no-no. I tried that with my 2900s and the midrange disappeared near completely, vocals turned to whispers and it just sounded awful.

In my experience, if you end up liking Ultrasone, you'll likely find yourself working your way up to te 900 eventually. If you think that might happen to you, might as well jump on board right away. They really are awe-inspiring if you like quality (and quantity) bass.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

Having had the HFI-780 for a few months, I nearly bought the HFI-580 for more bass, but wound up going straight to the Pro 900s instead.  I think it's totally worth it and to just deal with having to re-acquire or rip some of your music.  It's really hard to say how bad a random recording will sound.  I have the whole gamut of quality, from audio ripped from 240p YouTube videos, to lossless.  Depending on how the song was recorded and the frequency content of the specific song they can be more or less listenable.  I have some 128kpbs MP3s that don't sound too bad, and then I have 320kbps files that sound way too grainy.  I've trained myself to be able to "enjoy" any of it, but I do find myself regularly having to upgrade the poorest files.  Around 160kbps does usually tend to be noticeably poor.  At least on my setup, I try to get 320kbps or better. 

Edited by LithoJazoSphere - 2/9/12 at 5:03am