[phkd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif To answer you question the best way is to go to their web site and click on technology and read some of the papers and studies. If you don't bother then you are not interested in the answer.

Well, going to the technology's promoter is usually not the best way to get a fair understanding of it. They tend to hype up what they are trying to sell. I didn't find their descriptions of the technology all that helpful myself. Luckily I have studied this "S-Logic" (which is what Matteman was talking about).

Almost all other headphones position the drivers to be concentric with the listener's ear canal and aim them so that the sound waves will be perpendicular with the ear. This drives most of the sound almost directly to the eardrum (the ear canal is actually curved for your hearing's convenience!), bypassing almost everything (including the outer ear) which we use to localize sound. This gives you the most accurate sound, but greatly shrinks the soundstage and you end up hearing your music as if it were coming from "inside your head." This is also what generates listening fatigue. Just imagine all that direct sound energy bombarding your eardrum. Anyways, I'm sure that this has all been covered on these forums...

Ultrasone's S-Logic is nothing more than relocating the driver so it sits behind your ear and is aimed obliquely to your ear. This allows the sound to interact with your pinna (the outside part of the ear). The pinna gives us a good amount of sound localization information, so by allowing the sound to interact with it, the headphone can trick us into perceiving virtual sources, aka hearing sound from the headphone as if it were coming from outside the headphone. Also, since a lot of the sound is not hitting your eardrum directly, fatigue onset takes a lot longer.

I don't mean to downplay this technology either, it is actually a big deal. As you can imagine, your outer ear will color the sound, so the engineers, i would imagine, had to work hard to still deliver a quality, natural sound from headphones that would be intentionally non-direct and inherently less detailed. I think they succeeded just fine. They also have S-Logic Plus which is a further tweaking of components.

Anyways, I hope this helps, Matteman. It is not a "gimmick" but then again, neither is what bose does. If you consider marketing a gimmick, then yes both Ultrasone and Bose are guilty. Both companies are just trying to include new, untested technologies to sell their headphones. However I would consider a "gimmick" to be something that promises something and doesn't deliver. Bose's and Ultrasone's stuff both do what they promise.

I think that the true resentment here towards Bose comes from the fact that Bose's technologies are aimed at yuppies who are unfamiliar with, or uninterested in, true sound quality. A lot of people actually think that Bose is the best out there, and a lot of people want to be sen wearing their stuff. This gives me (us) the impression that Bose isn't really interested in audiophile-level sound, but rather in overcharging the uneducated and overpaid with technologies that aren't worth their price. They are like an already-rich Robin Hood!

 

[sacd lover]

IMO,the S-logic is a joke. S-logic sounds nothing like any speaker I have ever heard. The offset driver position only muddies and recesses the midrange clarity. The S-logic headphones also have an uneven frequency with a peaky treble and an abundance of sibilance.

I would take a Senn 580/595 600/650 .... or just about any Grado/ Alessandro over the Ultrasones. Audtioning the E9 should be mandatory before dropping that kind of money on a headphone; especially in this case.

 

[panyncor]

Just to be clear, I don't think the Ultrasone technology actually is a gimmick, only that it comes off that way in how it's presented. When I first saw the term "S-Logic," it sounded like some DSP technique that artificially manipulates the sound, and I immediately dismissed them. I later looked at it more closely and reconsidered. My criticism is not of the technology, only the way it's marketed.

As I understand it, my other favorite headphone, the W5000's, also uses angled drivers. I'm sure the implementation is different, but the basic approach seems to be something that works for me.

Having said that, the "differentness" of Edition 9's is sometimes overstated. They sound very good, but the degree of variation from other headphones is no greater than what's normal, in my experience.

 

[phkd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMO,the S-logic is a joke. S-logic sounds nothing like any speaker I have ever heard. The offset driver position only muddies and recesses the midrange clarity. The S-logic headphones also have an uneven frequency with a peaky treble and an abundance of sibilance. I would take a Senn 580/595 600/650 .... or just about any Grado/ Alessandro over the Ultrasones. Audtioning the E9 should be mandatory before dropping that kind of money on a headphone; especially in this case.

There you have it. I was going to say, a lot of people think that the repositioned drivers detrimentally effects the sound. As others mentioned, it yet again, as it always does, goes back to personal preference.

 

[panyncor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMO,the S-logic is a joke. S-logic sounds nothing like any speaker I have ever heard. The offset driver position only muddies and recesses the midrange clarity. The S-logic headphones also have an uneven frequency with a peaky treble and an abundance of sibilance. I would take a Senn 580/595 600/650 .... or just about any Grado/ Alessandro over the Ultrasones. Audtioning the E9 should be mandatory before dropping that kind of money on a headphone; especially in this case.

I don't hear the same sibilance or muddiness, but I agree that it's not a speaker-like sound.

In my experience, qualities like artificiality and naturalness are among the most person-dependent. One person's "big soundstage" is often another person's "diffuse and unengaging." What we're seeing here is different people perceiving the same sound very differently, which I find fascinating -- even if it's no help for someone trying to make a decision. If audio were completely objective, it wouldn't be as interesting to discuss.

 

[vvs_75]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milezone /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my and many other's oppinions they are better than any grado being produced today. They have the best bass reproduction and PRAT of any headphone with the exception of maybe the l3000. They have a real holographic quality to them and have a stax-like 'black' background. They resolve better than any production headphone I've heard, revealing the most idiosyncratic details (almost electrostatic like w/o the lack of energy). They have a slightly recessed midrange, that some say can be cured with a new cable, and is almost unnoticeable after a LONG burn in. Their only downfall is the lack of soundstage. Despite this issue (inevitable in a small closed headphone), they reproduce locations naturally and very well. And they are without question the most lively and engaging headphones ive heard to date. They reveal the soulfulness of the music. While the build quality is fantastic, they may be over priced given the parts used. Regardless they IMO with out question the best headphones in production today. That being said, they are not all arounders. They do everything well. And rock, modern music, electronica, the best. But will butcher bad classical recordings. Especially if your source and amp don't match well.

Agreed with everything except for the "lack of soundstage" - you need to pair them with right source and they give you soundstage that no other close headphone can give it to you.

Anyway there are only two camps: LOWERS and HATERS. So there is only one way - try them and see for yourself

 

[phkd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panyncor /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't hear the same sibilance or muddiness, but I agree that it's not a speaker-like sound. In my experience, qualities like artificiality and naturalness are among the most person-dependent. One person's "big soundstage" is often another person's "diffuse and unengaging." What we're seeing here is different people perceiving the same sound very differently, which I find fascinating -- even if it's no help for someone trying to make a decision. If audio were completely objective, it wouldn't be as interesting to discuss.

This is a good point. "Soundstage" is easily confused with "distance." Headphones are ironically the poorest and best options for soundstage. Binaural recordings, which cannot be accurately heard on speakers (unless you go through great lengths to eliminate reflection and crosstalk) give you precisely the correct soundstage, using full, 3D space. Normal recordings, which are almost always ultimately mixed with speakers, exhibit a poor soundstage with headphones. With speakers however, the sound is able to bounce around off the room, off your head, your shoulders, your ear, etc, so all the natural queues you adapt to over the course of your life are able to do their thing and help you localize the sound. Keep in mind that with music mixed on speakers, it is reproduced closer to how it was intended to be heard with speakers.

But anyways, my point is that a lot of people think that a distant sound in your headphones = soundstage. not true. that just means that a lot of the direct sound isn't reaching your ear canal. Either the headphones are on improperly, the driver isn't aimed perpendicularly, the driver is relatively far from the ear (as is common with a lot of headphones), etc.. True soundstage is achieved by using head-related transfer functions (HRTFs), so as you can imagine, the majority of a song's soundstage was determined at the recording/mixing level. The best thing a reproduction device (like headphones) can hope for is accurately transmitting the intended localization queues from that earlier stage. With that said, it is true that some headphones do this better than others with non-binaurally recorded sound.

 

[milezone]

Perhaps it is not necessarily bad soundstage I just find when I have them on there is a real sense being enclosed (some people enjoy) and a sort of lack of space. That aside I agree that certain instrument reproduction is unnatural (certainly not bass), but definitely some string instruments, and some piano recordings (Koln is absolutely amazing with these). There is a sort of plastic quality to these sounds at times. Markl said it best in a short review, in that you realize this characteristic at first and within 5 minutes of listening the flaw is totally forgotten and you are in a state of musical bliss. The right amp can also help alleviate this problem. Regarding the issue of marketing I wish s-logic didn't exist (or wasn't acknowledged). These phones are advertised in the same way Bose is, for the non-audiophile crowd who seeks technology over sound quality. The reader of Forbs who sees an article titled "The Best Headphone Ever" and immediately picks up a pair. I think for marketing alone Grado, Audio Technica and Sennheiser do the best job (aside from Stax). I sometimes find myself jumping to superficial conclusions about the ed9's simply due to their terrible marketing. Yet at the end of the day I am always reminded how truly amazing these phones are. Their reproduction of sound (coloration of instruments) is no more flawed than any production phones today with the exception of some Sennheisers, K701 and the K501.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phkd /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, going to the technology's promoter is usually not the best way to get a fair understanding of it. They tend to hype up what they are trying to sell. I didn't find their descriptions of the technology all that helpful myself. Luckily I have studied this "S-Logic" (which is what Matteman was talking about). Almost all other headphones position the drivers to be concentric with the listener's ear canal and aim them so that the sound waves will be perpendicular with the ear. This drives most of the sound almost directly to the eardrum (the ear canal is actually curved for your hearing's convenience!), bypassing almost everything (including the outer ear) which we use to localize sound. This gives you the most accurate sound, but greatly shrinks the soundstage and you end up hearing your music as if it were coming from "inside your head." This is also what generates listening fatigue. Just imagine all that direct sound energy bombarding your eardrum. Anyways, I'm sure that this has all been covered on these forums... Ultrasone's S-Logic is nothing more than relocating the driver so it sits behind your ear and is aimed obliquely to your ear. This allows the sound to interact with your pinna (the outside part of the ear). The pinna gives us a good amount of sound localization information, so by allowing the sound to interact with it, the headphone can trick us into perceiving virtual sources, aka hearing sound from the headphone as if it were coming from outside the headphone. Also, since a lot of the sound is not hitting your eardrum directly, fatigue onset takes a lot longer. I don't mean to downplay this technology either, it is actually a big deal. As you can imagine, your outer ear will color the sound, so the engineers, i would imagine, had to work hard to still deliver a quality, natural sound from headphones that would be intentionally non-direct and inherently less detailed. I think they succeeded just fine. They also have S-Logic Plus which is a further tweaking of components. Anyways, I hope this helps, Matteman. It is not a "gimmick" but then again, neither is what bose does. If you consider marketing a gimmick, then yes both Ultrasone and Bose are guilty. Both companies are just trying to include new, untested technologies to sell their headphones. However I would consider a "gimmick" to be something that promises something and doesn't deliver. Bose's and Ultrasone's stuff both do what they promise. I think that the true resentment here towards Bose comes from the fact that Bose's technologies are aimed at yuppies who are unfamiliar with, or uninterested in, true sound quality. A lot of people actually think that Bose is the best out there, and a lot of people want to be sen wearing their stuff. This gives me (us) the impression that Bose isn't really interested in audiophile-level sound, but rather in overcharging the uneducated and overpaid with technologies that aren't worth their price. They are like an already-rich Robin Hood!

AD2000 drivers are located off-center, on W5000 they are off-center and angled. Some, like Denon in D2000/D5000, place driver on center but cover back of it with the plastic on the pad, achieving off center sound location and angle cup with driver in relation to pinna using uneven thickness pad.
Seems like S-Logic principle is not something revolutionary new or not already used by other manufacturers.

And btw, same effect can be achieved with "centered drivers" phones
Meier Audio

 

[milezone]

I agree with your conclusions to an extent. Unless you are an audio engineer or a physicist, who cares about S-Logic (what does that even mean)? I don't really want to know. And it's unfortunate that Ultrasone tarnished such an amazing headphone by stamping it with that stupid badge.

 

[phkd]

I totally see your point, milezone, haha and im sorry for all the extra information... for what it's worth, im a former engineer who is back in school.

and yea, Andrew WOT, i didn't mean to imply that Ultrasone is the only company to experiment with driver placement. Their specific placement and necessary equalization is probably unique, however. And while I appreciate the link and the information therein is valuable, that article isn't offering evidence of ear-concentric drivers being able to swish sound around in your pinnae, it is explaining that how you can move the headphones around, physically, on your head, you will get different frequency response out of them. Sure, you can argue that this is the same thing as off-centered placement, but headphones made to have ear-concentric drivers are designed to sit a certain way. if you move these drivers significantly, you probably have new problems that outweigh any benefits in soundstage you potentially gained.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phkd /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, you can argue that this is the same thing as off-centered placement, but headphones made to have ear-concentric drivers are designed to sit a certain way. if you move these drivers significantly, you probably have new problems that outweigh any benefits in soundstage you potentially gained.

May be, may be not, but I and many other users here wear all phones like that. I personally never noticed any degradation in SQ or changes in phone signature.
And I would probably even buy that special frequency tuning for offset drivers, if that worked for me. But alas, the only effect of S-Logic I experienced was muffled and distant mids, it might be not S-Logic related though, but that's the only thing that was unusual comparing to mere centered driver counterparts.

 

[arnaud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milezone /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my and many other's oppinions they are better than any grado being produced today. They have the best bass reproduction and PRAT of any headphone with the exception of maybe the l3000. They have a real holographic quality to them and have a stax-like 'black' background. They resolve better than any production headphone I've heard, revealing the most idiosyncratic details (almost electrostatic like w/o the lack of energy). They have a slightly recessed midrange, that some say can be cured with a new cable, and is almost unnoticeable after a LONG burn in. Their only downfall is the lack of soundstage. Despite this issue (inevitable in a small closed headphone), they reproduce locations naturally and very well. And they are without question the most lively and engaging headphones ive heard to date. They reveal the soulfulness of the music. While the build quality is fantastic, they may be over priced given the parts used. Regardless they IMO with out question the best headphones in production today. That being said, they are not all arounders. They do everything well. And rock, modern music, electronica, the best. But will butcher bad classical recordings. Especially if your source and amp don't match well.

I could not agree more with this, it is exactly how I feel about these headphones and this is what made me pay full price for them after listening to it. About the soundstage, you did clarify in a latter post, the complain is more about "closed in" effect due to the non-open nature of the headphone. That's how I feel it too, when switching to HD650 or even more the AKG K701, I do feel the soundstage increase, but it actually does not make it any more real, focused or precise. Just more spacious, airy. And when going back to the Ed9 I actually do like the fact intruments are truly layered in width AND depth, especially with the vynil rig (you do need a good quality source).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMO,the S-logic is a joke. S-logic sounds nothing like any speaker I have ever heard. The offset driver position only muddies and recesses the midrange clarity. The S-logic headphones also have an uneven frequency with a peaky treble and an abundance of sibilance.

It's good you mention IMO, about the joke. I do not pretend to know what I am talking about, but it is a well known fact that we use reflections from outer ear to localize sounds. The off centered driver + steel plate in front of the driver to push sound around the outer ear is unique to ultrasone and does absolutely help to make them reproduce such a realistic soundstage.

About muddying up the mids, I think I must be lucky to have the right set of ears because I do not hear this in the slightest and am picky about the midrange (AKG 240S, HD600, now HD650). Still I do agree the midrange does sound different than other cans (recessed I don't know, drier yes possibly). But I stop noticing it after couple of minutes, like others have mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would take a Senn 580/595 600/650 .... or just about any Grado/ Alessandro over the Ultrasones. Audtioning the E9 should be mandatory before dropping that kind of money on a headphone; especially in this case.

I agree the listening test is mendatory. You obsviously favor wide / airy soundstage over a precise one, hence you're disqualifying the Ed9 as speaker like in their presentation. It's the total opposite for me, I do feel the Ed9 have the most speaker like presentation in their effortless ability to reproduce the true depth of the soundstage, which is something I have sort of given up on with the HD650 and K701...

I can't stand the modern Grados precisely for the colored rendering of the midrange, it sounds artificial to my ears, only the PS-1 sounds reasonable to me (and possibly the older Grados HP-2 and the like which I never got a chance to see or hear...).

 

[thread]

I've been using my new UE11's pretty exclusively for the last few days. I just tried out my E9/RPX33 again and was pleasantly refreshed with the increase in smoothness and soundstage. I was considering possibly downsizing the E9 rig with the arrival of the UE11, but I'm afraid I might not be able to let it go. I am in headphone heaven between these two.

 

[Quint]

Value is a relative term. Personally, I think the ED9s are the best can currently in production; in fact, I believe they belong in the rarified air of some of the best ‘dynamic phones ever produced (I’m probably in the minority in that belief). Whether they’re worth north of $1,000 is up to the prospective purchaser (audition is mandatory, as with any audio component). I was thinking of purchasing a used pair of L3000s, but after comparing them directly against the ED9s, I passed. The Ultrasones sounded considerably more open and resolved, and the bass was every bit as good.

Overall, I’m incredibly glad I took a chance on them. My R10s are still the go-to can for mellower music and jazz, but for most rock, the ED9s are my preferred choice. Between the two of them, they cover every genre I listen to—and do so very, very well. Of course, my B-52 may have a wee bit to do with it.