There's Something About Ultrasone…
Jan 2, 2007 at 5:14 AM Post #242 of 5,942
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dexdexter /img/forum/go_quote.gif
An interesting review of the Ultrasone 2500 in the context of the Rudistor NX-02 Sistema amplification combo can be found here:

http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2007-01.pdf

The zine downloads as a PDF file. Scroll down to page 4 for the review.



Dex, the site doesn't allow off-site linking. Here is the link to the site:
http://www.affordableaudio.org/

The article is on page 4 of the January 2007 issue.

Terry
 
Jan 2, 2007 at 9:09 AM Post #243 of 5,942
Thanks for the assist, Terry!
280smile.gif
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 5:32 AM Post #244 of 5,942
Terry here, back after hitting the 200 hour mark and beyond a bit on my Ultrasone Proline 750 headphones. This is a rave review, so don't bother reading further if you are looking for a "balanced" treatment that may contain some tipping point item that could tip you away from making a buying decision to get these headphones!

OK, let's start with a little qualification - I LOVE the closed headphone sound, and have since the sixties when I was a teenager. It always amazed me, and I love the "world" they transport you into. I have been an electronic music composer on and off as a hobby since the first Putneys/EMS's attached keyboards to oscillator banks of the Putney VCS-3 (loved that pinned patching system! See my avatar for a pic!), and first and foremost like my electronic music stuff to sound full and rich. The 750's SCORE A BIG ONE in that arena!!! There is so much deep bass they kick my subwoofers in the arse!!! I actually prefer listening to any electronica (psy-trance & ambient are faves) over these vs. speaker systems (and as you can see from my sig, I have very nice speakers, so...) (http://www.hbr1.com - go for the ogg-full versions)

One place these are a pain is for certain recordings that have certain very negative qualities which can be ignored over speakers: those qualities become glaringly aweful through these accurate headphones! I listen to several of the SACDs made from older classical recordings, and I can tell you, I always hated certain Neumanns for their sound, and quite definitely STILL hate them! (The most "colored" sounding mics ever! Why do people drool over any Neumann as if it was made by God Himself??? AB compare, for goodness sake! But I digress...) (http://www.neumannusa.com) (old RCA mics, same story...)

So, I can hear the true sound of a mic, and the true sound of a mix. I can mix over headphones, and find I need to tweak VERY LITTLE to make the recording work with my Polk monitors or any other speaker or headphone afterwards. Now, that is just totally amazing!!!

Now, the burn-in issue: yes, it is real. When I first got these and listened for a while, they had a PRONOUNCED bass and a PRONOUNCED treble: you could almost point your finger at the frequency range humps at both extremes. That worried me a little to a lot... built-in loudness switch, always on. Sounded fun, but... I turned on endless loops of musics of all kinds and left the headphones running for days and days. A couple weeks into this, I was satisfied that these humps (and new forms which had appeared) had completely smoothed themselves away. Now, the bass is smooth, smooth, smooth - I can sweep a square, triangle, sawtooth or sine wave from bottom to top and never hear a "getting pretty loud here" problem, nor a "where'd the balls go?" depletion. Classical to rock to electronica to male and female vocals to jazz live and studio recordings, they all offend not! That is not to say every recording is so stellar - they aren't! If the room treatment is poor, you can tell, and the mud that was recorded is translated with perfect accuracy. If only those poor engineers had had the luxury of working using these headphones! (Well, we would be better off for it!)

So, yes, they needed to be burned in, and burn-in resulted in a very pleasant final outcome. They are totally non-fatiguing and I wear them for hours and hours without even feeling the need for a break.

I will be remixing a few of my older mixes, and even will attempt to "repair" some older recordings made with those offending older Neumanns with some slick EQ and expansion - at least I can REALLY HEAR what the heck is broken with these now to be able to pin it down!

OK, some people want just the sound-quality summary. Bass is rounded and smooth, but deep and strong. Bass guitars are clean and defined. You can really tell if they are being recorded via a mic'd bass amp or via direct box. Acoustic bass is genuine, as in REAL. All pluckings are quite expressive and never muddy if the recording is a good one. IF there is sub-bass, it will be very clearly present with these, strong enough that some may wish to EQ the 60 Hz band down a tad for some material. Organ pedal tones, of course, you will want to push UP so that they can SHAKE YOUR SKULL AROUND some! No distortion will result! The upper bass is likewise smooth and never peaky, and the lower mids translate male vocals with full resonance and power. Bowed basses and cellos are a marvel to behold, they are so rich and resonant! The mids and upper mids are right on, and female vocalists seem to float in a heavenly space in front of you while simultaneously inside of you. The crispness of a violin's catgut or nylon strings couple with the full throatedness of its body resonance so it really 'sounds' like a violin, and one marvel to behold is how you can detect the subtle movements that the violinist is making physically on stage as they play. The placement and positioning of instruments and players on the soundstage is remarkable, and has depth and height as well as accuracy left and right, and players easily extend beyond your earspace into the surrounding region. Certain recordings, recorded with XY axis or binaural systems, I imagine, leap into holographic detail that is shockingly amazing! (Some have reported that the Dolby Pro Logic II Music setting does something amazing, but I've not heard that yet... just haven't matched the effect up with the right recording yet, possibly...) Of course, the very high highs are smooth and clean, as had better be the case for the amount of them that I am exposed to in electronic music, but those liking sizzling cymbals and clear snares and triangles will be happy with their reproduction, I assure you!

I listen to a lot of rock as well, and these do rock well! The only recording I have had trouble with has been the Live Joe Satriani double album, which is mixed very strangely, putting Joe into some distant "stage" while the bass and parts of the drums are positioned oddly and without reverb even (the bass sounds like it comes in via a direct box!) However, every other of his records have sounded spectacular, so I don't know what happened there. I listen to the full spectrum of Sixties, Seventies, Eighties rock and blues, and it mostly all works. Again, the problems you will have will be with the producers of those records and their mixes, and I believe some records were mixed using speakers only and never saw the light of day via headphones. (I'll bet that is what happened on the Live Joe Satrianni, as it sounds acceptable through speakers...)(hey, old Yes Relayer is practically a mono mix... nothing to hear here, better move along... back to listening to speakers for a while...) Most modern music in the rock vein is well produced, even if it is compressed more than I like to hear sometimes, and thus "show off" well on any headphones. I am very impressed with the mixes by many producers in the last few years. Any modern digitally mastered recording will give a good showing on these headphones - at least any that I've heard. Well... some new classical cuts are remarkably pedestrian, but that's just those classical recordists' faults... using those colored, very expensive mics again in untreated halls! Buyer beware!

Negatives:
Ok... they are a little hard to push at moderate volumes with an un-amped iPod Nano 2nd gen, I'll grant you that. And they will make you really hate certain producers and microphones. And they are a little hard to take off once you put them on! And you CAN lie down on them on your side on a pillow, so you will sometimes fall asleep with them on!! And that will affect the quality of your dreams... but sometimes otherwise they will simply keep you up all night listening to music!!! And you will remix everything you ever mixed in search of perfection!!!! And THAT way, my friend, is the way that LEADS TO TRUE MADNESS!!!!! So, YOU DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!

blink.gif
ummm... I'm ok now... I think.... No, really....

So, there is your definitely not-audiophile review/impression, coming from one who is just stark-ravingly mad about these headphones. All objectivity is gone now, as I will compare all listening experiences to this bliss from now on. (sigh...)

Terry
750prolinebx3.png


(an extension to this review can be found here: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showpo...&postcount=278)
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 12:04 PM Post #245 of 5,942
Oh what a difference a few small hours can make!
tongue.gif


Congratulations on your persistence, Terry, in getting to that magic 200-hour mark!

And thanks for taking time out to write up that fascinating account from the perspective of professional ears.
wink.gif


While I may not understand the technical specifics of which you are so intimately acquainted, the enthusiasm in your writing shines through undiminished and allows us a glimpse into the mind of a working artist and his craft.

You make me wanna go run and throw on some of my Barton Smith, Perrey & Kingsley, Wendy Carlos, Pierre Henry, Terry Riley, Harry Partch, Stockhausen, etc. and just get lost forever.
750prolinebx3.png


Well done!

Dex
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 2:32 PM Post #246 of 5,942
Interesting review approach, Terry. Thanks for sharing your impressions!

What amp & source are you using?
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 6:40 PM Post #247 of 5,942
Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Interesting review approach, Terry. Thanks for sharing your impressions!

What amp & source are you using?



jpelg,

I use a Yamaha RX-V750 Receiver (always in "Pure Direct" mode, turning off the processing/DSP circuitry, generally speaking, for headphone listening) with a Sony DVP-NS975V SACD/DVD/CD player as a "hardware player" source via either PCM digital or via Monster SACD multi-channel interconnects; mostly, however, I listen straight from my computer recording/mixing software or favorite playback software via the Aardvark 24/96 audio interface (or straight from the synths via the Mackie LM-3204 line mixer if I'm doing a mixdown from sequenced synthesizers).

The Mackie's and the Aardvark's own built-in "headphone-out" amplifiers are pretty stellar, and I use them often instead of the Yamaha heaphone-out, the favorite lately being from computer direct out of the Aardvark phone's jack ...but otherwise use the Yamaha by tapping the Aardvark's PCM digital outs to the Yamaha, or occasionally take the Aardvark's analog outs to the Mackie monitor-in jacks for doing quick A/B comparisons of original Mackie-mixer out vs. the computer's mix & DSP applications created in Cubase 5, Samplitude, Audacity or n-Tracks. I'm very fortunate to have an Aardvark, as they are no longer in business. Super clean mic preamps and a strong workhorse... even if its drivers do hate to be approached by anything but ASIO (a restart is needed if I use Winamp into it via DirectSound, if I want to change DirectSound's settings!)

I never use iTunes as a playback software because of Quicktime's difficulty with accessing the Aardvark unit, except to create playlists used by Winamp, typically, and I have used iTunes as a ripper. I have my CD collection (and the 16-bit CD layer of my hybrid SACD's) in the computer as Apple Lossless (extracted by iTunes) as well, (but will probably shift over to EAC from what glowing praise I've heard of that program.)

"Source" is becoming a complicated issue, isn't it?!! Mics, synths, mixers, soundcards, interconnects, mixing and recording software, playback software, A/D and D/A converters, drivers, amplification, CD vs SACD vs WAV vs MP3/AAC/OGG vs DVD audio, ripping software, DSP software/hardware: just to get something to my speakers and headphones! Even more important to me is the human element - who mixed/produced the recording! Compression, reverbs, stereo placement, recording & mastering techniques, mic selection and mic'ing techniques, hall and recording space issues, ambient noise, and then the instruments themselves, their amplification (if mic'd amps), and finally, are the musicians and vocalists having a good day!? (heh) So, you have to consider both the recording and the playback end of it all.

What I like about these headphones is that they are accurate enough that I can evaluate any and all of these source issues with confidence, the final result being a mix I can rely upon to sound good over other people's output devices, be they speakers or headphones or car stereos, high-end or low-end or middle-of-the-road. I can also evaluate whether I like decisions made by other recordists and mixdown producers, and the quality of the medium the recording is being reproduced on my equipment via - that is, I can appreciate the clarity differences between 16-bit sources at 44.1 vs 24/48 or 24/96 DVD or SACD recordings or those coming from primary sources like analog tape, synth and mixer outputs, microphone preamps, or even from software synthesizers emanating sounds-as-bits directly from within my computer. And naturally I can enjoy and appreciate the difference good amplification and preamplification makes in getting the sound out to the headphones. Those differences are nice things to be able to hear!

Thankfully, these Proline 750s are also just plain fun to listen to, and the S-Logic thing often surprises me in fun ways as well. My field recordings (made with the Sony PCM-1 DAT and Sonic Studios DSM-6S/M stereo HTRF mics) are just crazy to listen to with these headphones! You keep wanting to touch things! (But don't you just want to slap some of those cellists and percussionists who seem to insist that the sound of them turning their sheet music or knocking their instruments, bows or sticks against the music stands is a necessary part of the performance?!!!) (Don't lie - you guys - the noises are always coming from your sections!! Sheesh!!!)

Terry
750prolinebx3.png
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 7:38 PM Post #248 of 5,942
Thanks for the detailed response, terry. The main reason I asked was wrt the amp more so than the source(s) you use. Typically, receiver headphone-outs have a higher-impedance output than most of today's standalone headphone amps. Often the result of using such setups with headphones optimized for amps with low-impedance outputs is a perceived increase in bass response & overall warmer tone. The price paid is less control over certain frequencies - bass response in particular. Given that several have said the Proline 750's are on the bright side, perhaps this warming effect is happening with your setups resulting in a less-bright, more-pleasing sound?

Notice I said "typically", "many", "assume", etc. because I don't know anything about your particular amps. I only mention these as things to consider when evaluating a headphone system. If there's anything I've learned over the years here is that synergy is everything. Obviously what is happening in your system is a good thing.

Btw, I have a pair of Proline 750's on order. I really need a good closed can. It'll be here the beginning of next week. This should make Dex happy
wink.gif
. We'll see...

Also, I happen to agree with you completely about what goes into the recording is far more important than the gear with which we listen. Unfortunately that part is completely out of our control.
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 7:59 PM Post #249 of 5,942
Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Btw, I have a pair of Proline 750's on order. I really need a good closed can. It'll be here the beginning of next week. This should make Dex happy
wink.gif
. We'll see...



I wouldn't be surprised if they would make you yourself happy.
Although I have found some drawbacks on these headphones, I still think you could do a LOT worse.
I experienced it like Hirsch said: after a while they get comfortable like an old pair of sneakers. They really grow on you.
Hope you're going to enjoy them. Be shure to let us know!
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 9:25 PM Post #250 of 5,942
Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Thanks for the detailed response, terry. The main reason I asked was wrt the amp more so than the source(s) you use. Typically, receiver headphone-outs have a higher-impedance output than most of today's standalone headphone amps. Often the result of using such setups with headphones optimized for amps with low-impedance outputs is a perceived increase in bass response & overall warmer tone. The price paid is less control over certain frequencies - bass response in particular. Given that several have said the Proline 750's are on the bright side, perhaps this warming effect is happening with your setups resulting in a less-bright, more-pleasing sound?

Notice I said "typically", "many", "assume", etc. because I don't know anything about your particular amps. I only mention these as things to consider when evaluating a headphone system. If there's anything I've learned over the years here is that synergy is everything. Obviously what is happening in your system is a good thing.

Btw, I have a pair of Proline 750's on order. I really need a good closed can. It'll be here the beginning of next week. This should make Dex happy
wink.gif
. We'll see...

Also, I happen to agree with you completely about what goes into the recording is far more important than the gear with which we listen. Unfortunately that part is completely out of our control.



Glad you will be trying these out. I checked a couple spec sheets, and found the Yamaha states 150 mV / 100 ohms, and the Mackie simply states all outputs to be at 120 ohms (but is direct-coupled to its outputs from what I can tell from their diagrams.) The Aardvark says nothing of the headphone impedance in its specs, but I can tell you that the output is high enough to drive speakers with - loudly!!! Anyway, that is a point of interest, since the Mackie is a standard by which thousands of recordings are mixed (via headphones out), and from what you are saying, that should be skewing the decisions made by mastering engineers and recordists.

One thing I wasn't clear about - is it the higher impedance amps that exhibit this "warming effect" or is it the lower impedance ones that do?
(You say, "in such setups" but just wanted to be clear I am applying the reference to the right noun!) I am curious especially because so many people are using these with mixing consoles and not, to my knowledge, via headphone amps. Most of us recording types assume the headphones are optimized for the mixing consoles and vice-versa! I hope that is the case with these, as they are being adopted very strongly by the recording and broadcasting community.

Terry
750prolinebx3.png
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 9:26 PM Post #251 of 5,942
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I wouldn't be surprised if they would make you yourself happy.
Although I have found some drawbacks on these headphones, I still think you could do a LOT worse.
I experienced it like Hirsch said: after a while they get comfortable like an old pair of sneakers. They really grow on you.
Hope you're going to enjoy them. Be shure to let us know!



Kees,

Hirsch's quote is a good analogy!

Terry
750prolinebx3.png
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 9:42 PM Post #252 of 5,942
Amps with the higher-impedance outputs would typically make newer headphones (those usually optimized for zero or low-impedance outputs) sound warmer. It's difficult to tell what an amp's output impedance is though. Those specs you mention appear to be in reference to the headphone load, not the amps output impedance.

Thanks for the words of encouragement guys. Again, we'll see (er...hear!).
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 9:47 PM Post #253 of 5,942
Looking forward for your impressions. Glad you are still giving Ultrasones a chance, cuz im still gathering all impressions and reviews i can get from that piece of headphone.
icon10.gif
 
Jan 12, 2007 at 10:11 PM Post #254 of 5,942
Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Btw, I have a pair of Proline 750's on order. I really need a good closed can. It'll be here the beginning of next week. This should make Dex happy
wink.gif
. We'll see...



Happy? I'm, I'm, I'm,----------------speechless!
gagged.gif



















Seriously, James, I'm impressed, but I trust that there's a 30 day return period?
wink.gif


Let the burn-in begin! (well, soon enough, anyway)
750prolinebx3.png
 
Jan 13, 2007 at 6:56 AM Post #255 of 5,942
Well, mostly because of this thread I bought a pair of Proline 2500's hoping they would complement my 650's.

************Updated impressions-see near bottom of this post******************

Interesting phones.

I've got the 200 hours break in so I think my impressions will be valid.

Basically these phones are very, very dependent on recording quality and production values. Maybe even the mood you're in, not to mention the style of music you're listening to. :xf_cool:

I've used these with my Mapletree Ear+HD Purist with good results. Also with the headphone output of an old (but recapped) Kenwood 7300 amp (one of the best of the late 70's classic era), again w/good results. With the headphone outs of a Musiland MD10 DAC, results weren't so good (though the headphone outs here are definitely designed for low impedance phones). With the headphone outs of a Behringer SRC2496 (what I would call an upper mid-fi quality headamp) the results were ok.

All were run through the SRC2496 upsampled to 24 bit, 96khz, then through a Musiland MD10 DAC. Also run through DACs of a DEQ2496 and the SRC2496 (both Behringer's FYI) with similar (though perhaps a bit different sounding) results. Perhaps a high end DAC would make a difference, I dunno, I'll leave that judgement to others.

Basically, I've found these phones... different!

And contradictory.

The highs are very resolving (I've been able to make out lyrics never heard before). But that doesn't mean the highs are sweet; yet I wouldn't call them grainy.

The mids are pleasing, yet don't have that shimmery sweetness of the Sennheiser 650's.

Plus on some guitar solos, for example, Eric Johnson doing 'Desert Rose' on the Clapton Crossroads Guitar DVD, which in my mind is one of the finest guitar solos of all time, the 2500's just can't compare to the 650 in sound quality. The 2500's just sound weaker and not as sweetly strong as the 650's do. Yet on the same DVD (highly recommended BTW, EXCELLENT sound quality and production values) Johnny Lang and Robert Cray sound just fine indeed.

On the other hand, on Vladimir Horowitz's 'A Reminiscence' album which is a compilation of some of his best performances, the 2500 blows the 650's away. The 2500's make Horowitz's piano just reverberate, enough so, that that recording brings goosebumps. Hopefully, you have all experienced this and know exactly what I mean. For powerful sounding piano work (even on quiet passages), the 2500's excel; the 650 is simply too polite, IMHO.

Yet on other piano recordings this effect isn't quite there. Go figure.

Lets try a metaphor, the 650's are a Steinway in a heavily draped room, the 2500's a barrelhouse piano with everyone 3 sheets to the wind and singing along. Yet, the piano would still sound perfect if the little Irish tenor sang a sentimental 'Oh, Danny Boy'. :xf_cool:

Low's. Not muddy, yet not refined. On the right recording, very powerful and moving, especially at low volumes. The 2500's go very low indeed. On other recordings, simply a little bit wooly, almost like SR60's, but not that bad, of course.

In presentation, cymbals and high hats of the 2500 are upfront yet not obtrusive, and the same with the bass. The 650's are, again IMO, smoother overall and more balanced overall, yet at the expense of being too layed back for my tastes, but, again, not on every recording.

Vocals are good on both. Van Morrison is terrific on the 2500's, not quite as good on the 650's. OTOH, Diana Krall is better on the 650's.

To me the most accurate way to portay the 2500's is that they make most recordings sound like live recordings. The 650's are definitely more studio sounding if that makes sense. Probably because the S-Logic makes the phones more open, yet not quite reverberent, sounding.

BTW the 2500's distort at exceptionally loud levels, the 650's take almost anything without a whimper. But don't let this bother you, it's at ear damaging levels.

If I were to again use a metaphor, I would say the 2500's are like Vince Young, all the tools are there, but with a lack of seasoned judgement and control, yet with good results. The 2500's get it done in a very entertaining way. Yet I can't wait for the next generation in the Ultrasone line, much as I can't wait for the next generation of Sennheiser 650's.

The 650's are Peyton Manning, very knowledgeable, surgical precision, again with excellent results, perhaps a little too cerebral.

Neither have won the super bowl, yet I'd take them both given the opportunity.

BUT, and it's a pretty big but, I'm still looking for Tom Brady.

UPDATE:********Well after 400 hours I've found the highs have smoothed out completely, the bass is extremely tight and extended, voices are very realistic. And most amazing of all, I find myself now reaching for the 2500's 90% of the time. The Senn 650's are still very, very good, but I no longer find them to be "real" sounding. The 2500's, now that I've become more attuned to them, throw a much higher, wider and deeper soundstage. The only other phones I've found close (though I certainly don't claim to have heard them all) are the L3000's which are now nigh impossible to find, or afford for that matter.

I think a lot of my feelings are due to a certain synergy with my equipment (see sig) plus my preference for listening to real, live music, be it at a friends house, club or symphony/opera hall (no stadiums, please!). The 2500's are simply unbeatable when it comes to reproducing ambiance IMO.*****END UPDATE

To sum up, I'd say the 650 and 2500 complement each other. Every time I think wow, this is great, I can sell the 650/2500 (take your pick), I come across a recording that doesn't sound quite right, and the other phone does that recording justice. I've almost begun to mark my cd's 2500 or 650.

I would also say for you sound professionals out there that the 2500's work very well for sound work. And that's a pretty good endorsement, though it has more to do with presentation than refinement. In contrast, I wouldn't use the 650's to do a mix, but that says more about presentation than refinement. :xf_cool:

Hope this helps.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top