[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also important to know is that alot of studio's use 'exciters', little plugins or hardware chains at the end to boost the treble and bass a little, to compensate for people's bad speakers/earphones.

It was more common in the 80's and the 90's. This days, with good Mastering tools you don't really need the 'exciters' any more.

 

[vvanrij]

Believe me, there is no trance/dance/house/hardstyle/hardcore or any other 'electronical dance music style' tracks created without a exciter. Its as common as a reverb and delay nowadays.

 

[member1982]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also important to know is that alot of studio's use 'exciters', little plugins or hardware chains at the end to boost the treble and bass a little, to compensate for people's bad speakers/earphones.

Yeah i found bad headphones and speakers can really sparkle under those EQs. But still loses out on detailing and among others.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif Believe me, there is no trance/dance/house/hardstyle/hardcore or any other 'electronical dance music style' tracks created without a exciter. Its as common as a reverb and delay nowadays.

Exciter is EQ + Sonic/stereo image...

 

[donunus]

reading this thread and all other ultrasone threads really make me think that not all ultrasones with the same model numbers are created equal. the difference in opinions on these are so radical its unbelievable people are talking about the same cans.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif reading this thread and all other ultrasone threads really make me think that not all ultrasones with the same model numbers are created equal. the difference in opinions on these are so radical its unbelievable people are talking about the same cans.

Maybe it's time for you to try some Ultrasone. So, which model you bid on??

I can put you on my lottery list...http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/ok-...o-time-410002/

 

[kool bubba ice]

How is the new and improved S logic plus on the 900? These are the Ultras I'm gaming for.

 

[donunus]

kool bubba ice, seems were getting both some ultrasones and ad700s at the same time

acix,
I'm getting oqvists pro750. I'm assuming its not a fluke since oqvist seems to have been enjoying it for a long time before getting his 900s

If I find it crappy then I will finally believe that its purely a difference in tastes instead of product quality control.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif kool bubba ice, seems were getting both some ultrasones and ad700s at the same time acix, I'm getting oqvists pro750. I'm assuming its not a fluke since oqvist seems to have been enjoying it for a long time before getting his 900s If I find it crappy then I will finally believe that its purely a difference in tastes instead of product quality control.

Sounds like a good party to me...enjoy

 

[oqvist]

Kool bubba Ice well the difference I find is that the PRO 900 stock is less forward than the 750. Seem to extend a bit further to the sides (may just be the better bass extension that is my bet anyway) but otherwise it´s really hard to pinpoint the differences. They do behave very similar with instrument placements and such but there is differences if you listen to the demo cd.

How much of this is the new drilled holes and driver placement and how much is the frequency response on the drivers is impossible to say of course. Covering the holes they do get more forward I feel more like remember the 750s...
For me it really doesn´t matter that much I would need much more time A and B-ing these cans to come with a definite answer. But at least there is some difference so not all marketing.

As for your 750 yup I would say it´s a good sample for sure so QC and burn in is not a factor at least

.

 

[lantice]

Relly helpful. Thanks for the review

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif kool bubba ice, seems were getting both some ultrasones and ad700s at the same time acix, I'm getting oqvists pro750. I'm assuming its not a fluke since oqvist seems to have been enjoying it for a long time before getting his 900s If I find it crappy then I will finally believe that its purely a difference in tastes instead of product quality control.

I have to wait till I get my tax return.

 

[silverrain]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna /img/forum/go_quote.gif Acix, Here I am, your worst nightmare! I'm just kidding. Ladies and gentlemen, Acix and I have an "agree to disagree" arrangement pertaining to one particular subject: The bass frequencies of the AKG K 701 as compared to those of the Ultrasone Pro 750. His opinion, as I understand it, is that the bass frequencies of the AKG K 701 are "just right" and the Ultrasone Pro 750's bass frequencies are slightly exaggerated. My opinion is that the AKG K701 has sllightly weak bass frequencies and the Pro 750's bass frequencies sound "right on". So, there you are.

Owning both, I must agree with this.
I sold the K701, but will never part with my 750.

 

[nsx_23]

I had K601, sold them and got Pro 550s, which I loved for a while.

Now have Pro 900s, and they sound fantastic through my mini3 + 5G Video combo. A proper desktop DAC (Desktop pimeta is in for repairs) is in the works as we speak

What I love about the 900 is that its still as lively and punchy as the 550, but with much greater overall refinement. Also, from memory, when compared to the HD650 it didn't sound as harsh in some hard-rock tracks by artists like Audioslave.

Can't wait to hear the full potential of these babies.

 

[silverrain]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna /img/forum/go_quote.gif the idea that the Pro 750's bass frequencies would sound to "heavy" on "Electronic" and other what you might call "techno" types of music. And, I understand that you also think that the K701's bass frequencies sound accurate for this type of music. I disagree that the sound of the Pro 750's bass frequencies are too "heavy" for this type of music and I also disagree that the sound of the K701's bass frequencies are accurate for this type of music. IMO, the sound of the K701's bass frequencies for this type of music is "weaker" then it should be as is the case with some other types of music as well.

I keep reading this stuff, so I finally must comment again -- Peter is right, here -- the music mentioned, is RECORDED bass-heavy -- the 750 just lets you hear it as it was recorded.

The 701 is weaker on bass, so it sounds less "bassy" to the listener on bassy recordings. DUH! Simple logic. Cause and effect.

So, the bottom-line is, the 750 is the more neutral can, and lets you hear a recording the way it was recorded.
If bass-shy, or bass-heavy -- you will hear it the way it was recorded.

The 750 simply does NOT "add" any bass to what is already there.
What a fallacy.

The 750 is one of my reference "go-to" cans, when giving a new CD a first-listen, and I want to hear it the way it was meant to be heard, before I use any of my many other cans with it.

I no longer include my list of cans in my signature, because I do not have time to answer all the PM's it was generating. (...Since you have both, how does can A sound compared to can B?...) Sorry.
Rest assured, I have (and have had in the past) many good cans to base my above 750 opinion on.