[The Fire Snake]

I am pleased with my M50, but I am curious about the 900.  Can anyone who has heard both give me a comparison?  There is a significant price difference between the 2.  I am wondering if the pro 900 is worth it over the M50.  I listen to mainly tech house, progressive music.  Thanks.

 

[n-phect]

i have both and they sound different in a lot of ways.  IMO they do electronic music some serious justice. It is a love it or hate it kind of phone though, they are very "crisp". One word i wouldn't call them is warm.  I find the bass on the m50 to be tight and controlled and fairly warm (for a comparison).  The bass on the pro 900s are way more tight and controlled, but not warm.  Thats how i hear it.

 

[The Fire Snake]

Thanks for the response.  I love my M50, I have no compliants with them at all.  They sound great with the electronic music I listen to, but I am curious.  Are the 900s worth the extra money?   They are like $200 to $250 more than the M50.  Is there just a very small improvement from the M50?  If it is a tiny improvement, then I might just forget about the 900s.  The only way I can listen to these high end cans is to literally buy them and sell them if I don't like them.  I wish can jam was closer to me

 

[Arnotts]

If you have a decent DAC, you'll hear quite a big difference. To be honest I think you'll like the Ultrasone Pro 750's over the 900's if you want an improvement on a similar sound. The Pro 750's are more balanced than the 900's imo, but I think they sound a lot better than the M50's.
 
Pro 900's are more bass heavy. I prefer that for electronica, but it might not be so good for other genres.

 

[cyberalpha11]

Quote:

i have both and they sound different in a lot of ways.  IMO they do electronic music some serious justice. It is a love it or hate it kind of phone though, they are very "crisp". One word i wouldn't call them is warm.  I find the bass on the m50 to be tight and controlled and fairly warm (for a comparison).  The bass on the pro 900s are way more tight and controlled, but not warm.  Thats how i hear it.

Can you share with us the comparison in term of sound stage, separation, mids & high between
ATH-M50 & Ultrasone Pro900?

In term of build & comfort, which is better?

 

[jupitreas]

PRO900 has more soundstage but it is of the S-Logic variety, which some people like and others don't.
Highs and upper mids are extremely piercing on the PRO900. They can be a bit harsh on the M50 as well, but not nearly as much.
PRO900 has more bass and the bass is really really good. I'd say it is better than the M50's.
Comfort is better on the PRO900 as it has larger, velour earpads. The M50 has sweaty pleather that is difficult to live with. They are both built like tanks and build quality should not be an issue with either. The PRO900 looks more luxurious but the M50 isn't bad looking either.
The M50 is far more portable than the PRO900 as the Ultrasone does not fold into a ball like the M50 does and is generally a bigger headphone.
 
My own opinion is that the bass of the Ultrasone PRO900 is truly a thing to behold; however, the harsh, piercing upper mids and highs really make this a headphone that is difficult to enjoy. The bass is like a novelty that is constantly overshadowed by how harshly female vocals or certain percussion instruments are handled by these headphones. For this reason, IMO they are not worth their price and I'd choose the M50s over them any day. 

 

[cyberalpha11]

PRO900 has more soundstage but it is of the S-Logic variety, which some people like and others don't.
Highs and upper mids are extremely piercing on the PRO900. They can be a bit harsh on the M50 as well, but not nearly as much.
PRO900 has more bass and the bass is really really good. I'd say it is better than the M50's.
Comfort is better on the PRO900 as it has larger, velour earpads. The M50 has sweaty pleather that is difficult to live with. They are both built like tanks and build quality should not be an issue with either. The PRO900 looks more luxurious but the M50 isn't bad looking either.
The M50 is far more portable than the PRO900 as the Ultrasone does not fold into a ball like the M50 does and is generally a bigger headphone.

My own opinion is that the bass of the Ultrasone PRO900 is truly a thing to behold; however, the harsh, piercing upper mids and highs really make this a headphone that is difficult to enjoy. The bass is like a novelty that is constantly overshadowed by how harshly female vocals or certain percussion instruments are handled by these headphones. For this reason, IMO they are not worth their price and I'd choose the M50s over them any day. 

I totally agreed with you that eventhough overall Ultrasone Pro900 ($350) has a slighly better sound quality than ATH-M50 ($130) but the its price is more than 2.5X more expnsive. I would say Ultrasone is extremely overpriced headphone, in my opinion the right price is $180-200.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Pro 900's are more bass heavy. I prefer that for electronica, but it might not be so good for other genres.

This.

The Pro 900s are more genre specific, while the M50s are good for all types of music. The Pro 900 is indeed of a higher quality, but has a stronger V shaped curve than the M50 which is more balanced.

 

[tomatoshoe]

Quote:

PRO900 has more soundstage but it is of the S-Logic variety, which some people like and others don't.
Highs and upper mids are extremely piercing on the PRO900. They can be a bit harsh on the M50 as well, but not nearly as much.
PRO900 has more bass and the bass is really really good. I'd say it is better than the M50's.
Comfort is better on the PRO900 as it has larger, velour earpads. The M50 has sweaty pleather that is difficult to live with. They are both built like tanks and build quality should not be an issue with either. The PRO900 looks more luxurious but the M50 isn't bad looking either.
The M50 is far more portable than the PRO900 as the Ultrasone does not fold into a ball like the M50 does and is generally a bigger headphone.
 
My own opinion is that the bass of the Ultrasone PRO900 is truly a thing to behold; however, the harsh, piercing upper mids and highs really make this a headphone that is difficult to enjoy. The bass is like a novelty that is constantly overshadowed by how harshly female vocals or certain percussion instruments are handled by these headphones. For this reason, IMO they are not worth their price and I'd choose the M50s over them any day. 

The PRO 900 can fold up:
 

 

[jupitreas]

Quote:

The PRO 900 can fold up:
 

This is false marketing I'm afraid, as there is nothing holding the headphones in this position once you get them there. In other words, they open up and untangle, unless you secure them with tape or something. True story, try it.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Wrap the cord around them when they are folded up.

 

[jupitreas]

Quote:

Wrap the cord around them when they are folded up.

Be that as it may, that photograph (which also appears on their website) is clearly completely false advertising. I don't really like the idea of using the cord in that way either and it would still be messy and untangle.

 

[Dutchi MerenGue]

just get the ath pro700mk2's
 
 
they're basically m50's with a dumb amount of bass

 

[ssrock64]

Quote:

just get the ath pro700mk2's
 
 
they're basically m50's with a dumb amount of bass

The OP is looking for a significant upgrade over the ATH-M50, and asked about the PRO900 in that capacity. The PRO700MK2 has more bass, yes, but is in no way a significant upgrade over the M50. In fact, the midrange of the PRO700MK2 is worse than the ATH-M50 and the bass is less detailed.

 

[cyberalpha11]

just get the ath pro700mk2's


they're basically m50's with a dumb amount of bass

I find M50 is more well balance sound as opposed to Pro700MK2 despite the former has less bassy.
Most probably Audio Technica needs to improve the sound quality in the current Pro700MK2 while maintaining its bass ,
and to improve the earpads and its comfort like in M50's design.