I almost posted in the Edition 12 thread, but on second thought I think I'll stay out of it. Such threads have a tendency to go downhill quickly in my experience.
The Edition 10 still occupies a rather unique place in the headphone pantheon for me. My first posts here on head-fi were in the Edition 10 announcement thread, and at the time I had my first set of Edition 8s which sounded the best of the three Edition 8 sets I owned. Additionally my approach at the time was more firmly entrenched in the collector's camp, so for me Ultrasone occupied a position somewhat similar to the one FAD has now: the off-beat solicitor of emotion and peddler of objet d'art. Whereas FAD manages the tightrope walk between genius and madness however, Ultrasone fell off ages ago. Their brand of lunacy is straight up hamfisted, seat-of-the-pants frequent flier stuff; the necessary unpredictability factor isn't on the micro-level as it is with FAD but rather the macro-level. I mean I've had three different Edition 8s, and each one of them has sounded noticeably different. Similarly the Edition 9s without serial numbers are supposed to sound better than later numbered ones. Along these lines I suspect there's quite a bit of difference among Edition 10s as well.
Fairly early on after their initial release, impressions seemed to be incredibly mixed. People seemed to be having difficulty wrapping their heads around what they were hearing, something that arose, I suspect, from cognitive dissonance. Cue the bloody nose from Booker DeWitt. Really though this affords me the perfect opportunity to mention something that has been on my mind for a while: the question of just how much our impressions are influenced by those of others. There's a natural inclination I think to "check," to get a handle on what the general consensus of a product seems to be before putting ourselves out on the line. I don't think there's any malicious intent of course; rather, it stems from an often subtle urge to just see. Take a quick gander. Just enough to make sure we're on the right track, whatever that may be. People will loudly proclaim they trust their ears, but in true "methinks they doth protest too much" fashion, one wonders just how certain folks really are. I think some come to realize after a certain amount of experience that their hearing is often times unpredictable. Or rather, that surrounding variables---both external and internal---are often times unpredictable. We should trust our ears. But then we shouldn't trust our ears.
What the hell does this have to do with the Edition 10? Well, in the case of newer products---particularly those with a lot of variation from one unit to the next---there often seems to be a period of confusion as people try to square what they're hearing and the results of just checkng. Just look at the whole LCD-3 affair. Eventually, a predominant attitude takes hold and becomes something of a baseline. In the case of the Edition 10, certain reviews from well respected members of the community sealed its fate on the forums. A few comedic expressions later, others who were on the fence suddenly start to hear the flaws as all the more apparent and glaring. Thing is this genuinely happens over time: a lot of people, myself included, need time to come to grips with the way something performs. We can often come to love something at the end of that initial week (as I did with the TH900) or in some cases after more than a year (like the LCD-2 rev. 1 when it just clicked for me). Alternatively we can realize something isn't that great or gradually come to loathe it. Far be it for me to deny opinions legitimately change.
In this case however, it seems to happen more uniformly and across a broader range. There's no doubt in my mind that many of the Edition 10s sounded atrocious. However I also think some units sounded much less problematic than many of the oft-cited reports would indicate. My own for instance didn't have problems with confused, amorphous bass. Nor were the highs more sibilant than the Edition 8 which some found to be the case; even the best of the Edition 8s I've owned sounded noticeably more sibilant to me. In short, my Edition 10 sounds pretty good. I've also found it's the sort of device that does best without much in the way of accentuation. In true Ultrasone tradition it doesn't scale much, and in fact it actually doesn't scale particularly well, sounding rather terrible on a lot of amps with more overt coloration. Really, it sounds about as good as it ever will out of a simple DAP's jack. Absurd for a product this expensive, you say? That's Ultrasone for you.
Those who have similar experiences often refrain from posting them in the open because of the climate: it's just not worth the frustration of trying to defend and justify one's findings. There's a not-so-subtle way of responding to these divergent impressions, a popular method of comportment that involves doubling one's own efforts in posting records of the opposing view. Of course someone is entitled to his or her opinion, but just to reiterate, I happen to disagree with what you're saying. I strongly disagree. Did I mention that? Even though I've been saying it a lot, I have to repeat it again after your post. In fact I have to repeat it after every conflicting report. Also did I mention [insert popular source] happens to agree? Here are some measurements of one of the crappy sets to back me up here. By the way, what was your setup like? This is a very legitimate question, but I'm phrasing it in a way that implied from the outset that you must not know what you're doing.
That last bit is particularly problematic for some folks who want to maintain their forum reputation and are worried about losing the "respect" of their peers. As a result, they simply avoid sharing. Meanwhile a precedent is established from the other types of impressions getting perpetuated through the influence of "checking," the parroting of this precedent, and so on and so forth. There's usually a legitimate kernel to it, too. In the case of the Edition 10 many of the units did suck. Similarly certain amps that get labeled as "wires with gain" do excel in areas of transparency and resolution. Over time however it gets distorted like a game of telephone. All Ultrasone suck. An amp is totally true to the source. These things become memes, recited at the drop of a hat, and any context evaporates. Folks who haven't even heard the gear in question end up reciting it just to fit into the crowd and get their own helping of butt-pats and e-props.
So yeah, back to the Edition 10. I think that's what we were talking about right? My own experience with it was never that bad, though I'd still count it as a failure. The experiences of others who heard it as sibilant and amorphous aren't to be dismissed, and in most cases I think they're very real. I've certainly experienced more than my fair share of bad sounding Ultrasones. The PRO 2900 may very well be the worst sounding headphone I've ever heard so far. Additionally, quality control and poor consistency standards are just unacceptable for products like this. There are definite problems with the Edition 10---even on my pair which I claim doesn't sound that bad---and these issues snowball when it comes to something so expensive.
The Edition 12 will hopefully carry Ultrasone's new found prowess that was evidenced by the Signature PRO. Then again, there's evidence against this in the form of the IQ earphones which were a step backward from what I can tell. I know plenty of others feel the Edition 10 is immensely tacky in appearance, a sort of art deco air-freshener plugin meets wall sconce. Personally speaking however, I've always been rather partial to its design. The pictures that were scanned are in black and white, so I'm wonder what changes have been made to the materials: the leather, the wood used, the metal plating. Just a cursory glance at the renders suggest a different type of accent piece on the cups, perhaps a new type of wood or a contrasting metal.
