[pataburd]

NOT Deja vu. I also posted this on another thread comparing DT880 and Proline headphones. : )

 

[pataburd]

MILD (and momentary) REMORSE
Lately I've lamented the loss of my DT880. I sold them en route to the Proline 2500, via the ATH-A900LTD and the SA5000 (which I also subsequently sold). Tonight, after an extended listening session with the 2500, those lamentations are less pronounced.

THE SYSTEM
Source: Panasonic S47; Amp: Darkvoice 336i w/1x Mullard 6080 & 1x Sylvania 6SN7WGT; Cables: power~ Audio Magic XStream silver-coated copper (components), ErnieM PCK-12 (mains), ICs~ Bizzy Bee's very own Fro-Zen, circa 2004; Tweaks: Dakiom Feedback Stabilizers (R203 at source outputs and F203 at headphone out); Herbies Hal-O tube dampers and Ebony Domes, Gabon ebony blocks (used for footers and component dampers), PowerVar ABC-200 AC conditioner, Versalab Duplex RFI filter.

TRUE TO THE SOURCE
After listening to several genres of music and types of recordings, I've observed that the 2500 are ruthlessly revealing of a given disc's recording quality. In addition, I think that a lot of negative comments about the Ultrasone, along the vein of a "rolled off" or "metallic"-sounding high frequency response, are more likely attributable to less-than-good recording(s). For example, from Angela Bofil's "Angie" CD (Arista/1978), the first cut: Under the Moon and Over the Sky, is smooth and clear, vocally and instrumentally. However, in the next cut: This Time I'll Be Sweeter, the instrumentals sound harsh and Angie's voice exhibits a brassy degradation and distortion from what sounds like an "over-recording" of her vocal track. Two songs by the same artist from the same album, yet they sound vastly different: the first very good and the second very poor. Lee Rittenour's Wes Bound (GRP/1993) also sounded poorly recorded: brass was glary and congested; hard cymbal smashes were nearly intolerable. On the other hand, Fat Lady, by Gary Burton and The Berklee All-Stars on the JVC world class music SAMPLER CD (JVC/1988) sounded as near-perfect as I've heard anywhere: spacious, extended (from top-to-bottom), pure, crystal clear and balanced. Ditto for Ana Caram, every cut from her Bossa Nova CD (Chesky/1995) sounded simply superb.

HUMBLE MOD
Note that I did mod the 2500 with circular pieces of chamois cloth (made in Germany, no less!) placed beneath the earpads, but the jury is still out as to this mod's effectiveness. (I've been thinking about placing Blu-Tak, or strips of constrained layer damping, radially across the metal sheet that covers the driver. If "metallic" ringing is a legitimate gripe about the 2500's sonic character, then these metal sheets look like the most logical place to begin the modding experiments.) I think that the "chamois mod" (how embarrassing!) brings a subtle gain in transparency to the highs and helps solidify the 2500's (already solid) soundstage even more, but it may just as likely be the proverbial "placebo effect." We'll see.

AN HERETOFORE UNRIVALED CAPACITY
With this paragraph, I want to add/reiterate that the 2500 are unrivaled in their capacity to sort out complex mixes, anchor the instruments and/or vocalists solidly in large, spherical 3-D space, and clearly differentiate each element in that space: tonally, timbrally, rhythmically and dynamically. Even though this is an extraordinary, analytic feat for any set of headphones, the 2500 do not suffer in the least from a lack of well-textured, well-balanced, musical synergy in the process. On Taj Mahal's The "Natch'l Blues" (Columbia/1968), my favorite cut: Going Up to the Country, Paint My Mailbox Blue, three slide guitars (acoustic and electric) play together: one in the lower right, rear corner of the soundstage; one in the upper left, front corner; and one (Taj's lead) in the center of the soundstage, along the diagonal between the other two. The 2500 make it so easy to follow each guitar, to definitively localize and clearly differentiate the various melodic and rhythmic characteristics peculiar to each. I can't adequately describe how unique and utterly enjoyable a listening experience this is. And the bass--once you've gotten a taste of Proline 2500 bass, well it's just plain hard to do without thereafter.

LARGE-SCALE ORCHESTRAL PIECE
Next up was Schubert's 9th Symphony (my favorite Schubert symphony), performed by the Concertgebouworkest Amsterdam, conducted by Leonard Berstein (Deutsch Grammophon/1989). This fairly large-scale, orchestral piece came through quite well: balanced, dynamic and accurate, the different orchestra sections firmly fixed in three-space and easy to place and/or follow; and with detail upon emergent detail (I could hear the musicians breathing and turning the pages of their musical score). I will concede truthfully, though, that the 2500--for all the things they consistently do well--did fail to convey the scope and grandeur of this piece in the manner of the (sigh!) DT880. Tomorrow, God willing, I'll put the 2500 through their ultimate, large-scale orchestral paces with Bruckner's 3rd Symphony, and report back. : )

ALL THAT JAZZ
Next-to-last was The Dave Brubeck Quartet's jazz milestone: Time Out (Columbia 20-bit Remaster/1997). The cymbal hits on the Take Five cut were sparkling, I could clearly denote the concentric swell and ungulation of the sound pressure fronts from the crash hits, and lose myself in the seemingly endless decay of the rider taps, with each successive strike dissolving oh-so slowly into the other. The stand up bass conveyed deep, solid, plucky and articulate notes. Paul Desmond's inimitable saxophone solos, and Brubeck's piano, were a tonal delicacy.

THE SAME THING, ONLY DIFFERENT
Last, Pat Metheny's "Secret Story" (Geffen 20-bit/1992). I listened to the first ten cuts. Wow, this guy is amazing! Metheny wrote every song on the album and, except for the accompaniment of the London Orchestra, he plays every instrument, too! This album's venue may not attract every Pat Metheny fan, but it's become one of my favorites over the years, and it's definitely in my cadre of "reference recordings," enlisted for testing the effectiveness of practically every addition, deletion or any other sort of would-be upgrade to my ever-changing audio system. In all honestly, never has this CD sounded quite as "big" and wide open, and so chock-full of surprising, delightful new detail. The 2500's remarkable clarity, balance and rich, musical texturing brought new vitality to a disc I've easily listened to more than a hundred times already.

DROOPY EYELIDS ADIEU
It's 4:14 a.m., EDST, and I'm not missing the DT880 (2003) quite so much now. Boy, I sure am pleased with the way these Ultrasones sound! Good night to all you folks living in the imagi-nation of Head-Fi, and particularly to you faithful few who currently travel inner-state 2500. : )

 

[Zoide]

pataburd: Thanks for the impressions. I'm especially grateful for your mention of Taj Mahal. I'd never listened to their stuff, but I'm not listening to "The Natch'l Blues" and it's excellent!

 

[pageman99]

Pataburd, nice post. I pretty much agree with everything you've said, especially the part about solid soundstaging and the 2500's ability to sound "big".

I don't know quite what it is or how it does it, but the Ultrasones sound so much more rich than any other headphones I've tried. So much so that I've picked up the 750's, which are also excellent.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pataburd /img/forum/go_quote.gif I want to add/reiterate that the 2500 are unrivaled in their capacity to sort out complex mixes, anchor the instruments and/or vocalists solidly in large, spherical 3-D space, and clearly differentiate each element in that space: tonally, timbrally, rhythmically and dynamically. Even though this is an extraordinary, analytic feat for any set of headphones, the 2500 don't seem to inordinately suffer from lack of a well-textured, well-balanced, musical synergy in the process.

Excellent observations, and I fully agree. The midrange on the 2500 is perhaps the best I've heard short of the Grado HP1. I love the way the 2500 can portry space yet keep everything cohesive, musical and timbrally accurate.

 

[pataburd]

Well, I just swapped out my Guerrilla Audio Pure Copper Cable ICs for the MAC Palladiums. All I can say is "WOW"! Much--if not all--of the glare and harshness is gone from the treble that was evident (in varying degrees) before. The sense of space is greatly enlarged, too, with a wonderful feeling of "intersticial" quiet pervading within the space itself. These findings further attest to the revealing nature of the Proline 2500 with respect to recordings and upstream sources/cables.

Now I'm glad I spent the money on the IC upgrade rather than buy (read: replace/re-purchase) the DT880 (something I'd been considering). I'm looking into a power cord upgrade as well, with MAC SPC and/or HC cables. The 2500 warrant the best of everything I can affordably muster upstream of them. They respond noticeably well to system improvements, providing an extra, even more delightful measure of everything I am continually coming to appreciate about them with each new sonic "tweak."

As for the DT880: they are a more distant (and proportionally less lamented) memory today than they were yesterday. Beyer? Beyer who? : )

 

[pataburd]

Prior posts had hinted that the Proline 2500 did not fare well at all, or at least fared not as well as the DT880, in conveying large-scale orchestral pieces.

Well, with the advent of the MAC Palladium interconnects, that apparent inequality has all but disappeared. Add the MAC Source PC and that inequality no longer exists. Soundstage is very, very large, open/uncongested, detailed and well delineated for such pieces with the 2500+MAC Palladium/MAC SPC combination. Khachaturian's Masquerade Suite, especially the sweeping, rollicking parts, sound absolutely stunning!

Whatever slight advantage the DT880 may have had in this regard (in my mind and to my ears, anyway) has been neatly and wholly eliminated. I am now free and unshackled in my almost scandalous preference for the Proline 2500, quite far above and beyond any other headphone I've heard to date. : )

The Proline 750 are en route as we speak, too. : ) I repeat: I am glad, very glad, that I bought the Ultrasone Proline 2500!

 

[benjamind]

I can't wait for a comparison between the 750 and 2500. I am thinking of getting the 750s, but if the 2500s are better I'll stick with them. I am not sure if the 2500 or the 750 model has the better soundstage of the two?

I assume open design headphones have better soundstage, but when it comes to Ultrasones I could be entirely wrong. I used to own the 750s and the soundstage on them was pretty enormous. But I wonder if the 2500s are even bigger?

Ben

 

[blessingx]

The 2500s have a spherical coherent soundstage, however its anything but large. It's almost closed sounding in distance out extension. I'd temper the enormous expectations.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjamind /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't wait for a comparison between the 750 and 2500. I am thinking of getting the 750s, but if the 2500s are better I'll stick with them. I am not sure if the 2500 or the 750 model has the better soundstage of the two? I assume open design headphones have better soundstage, but when it comes to Ultrasones I could be entirely wrong. I used to own the 750s and the soundstage on them was pretty enormous. But I wonder if the 2500s are even bigger? Ben

The 2500 is the best of the two PROlines IMO, the soundstage is more coherent and bigger, and has more air between the intruments, at the expenses of a huge leakage...

 

[Zoide]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 2500s have a spherical coherent soundstage, however its anything but large. It's almost closed sounding in distance out extension. I'd temper the enormous expectations.

I think that the soundstage can be quite large, but it depends heavily on the recording. They certainly won't introduce an artificial reverb-y sense of space (à la CD-3000), nor a very distant presentation (à la HD-650).

 

[blessingx]

Well even if they're artificial or distant (which means far away, right?) that doesn't mean they're not much larger.

I've been putting the 2500s (already burnt in) through the ringer the last week with a ton of music I know well and again while I think the soundstage is quite coherent, and the S-Logic soundstage is three-dimensional, the large soundstage claims are the most misleading, and thus disappointing, to me. Just trying to temper those for others so they can approach the phones on their own terms. The overall distance out is certainly large compared to Grados, but compared to Senns, Beyers, AKGs, etc.? The 2500s sound like closed phones (but the intimidate nature may help with their coherence), but while still leaking noise.

The 2500s have other strengths.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well even if they're artificial or distant (which means far away, right?) that doesn't mean they're not much larger. I've been putting the 2500s (already burnt in) through the ringer the last week with a ton of music I know well and again while I think the soundstage is quite coherent, and the S-Logic soundstage is three-dimensional, the large soundstage claims are the most misleading, and thus disappointing, to me. Just trying to temper those for others so they can approach the phones on their own terms. The overall distance out is certainly large compared to Grados, but compared to Senns, Beyers, AKGs, etc.? The 2500s sound like closed phones (but the intimidate nature may help with their coherence), but while still leaking noise. The 2500s have other strengths.

Note that the size of the soundstage can be dependent upon the listener as much as the equipment. What happens in the brain has much to do with how we perceive these more subtle musical clues. I still think mood, blood pressure, emotional factors, etc; can be a great influence in how we hear our music and which headphone do better for us at different times.

 

[dw6928]

I found the soundstage on the 650s (w/Zu) much more claustrophobic than the 2500s.

 

[pataburd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 2500s have a spherical coherent soundstage, however its anything but large. It's almost closed sounding in distance out extension. I'd temper the enormous expectations.

BlessingX,
My experience with the 2500 soundstage seems to be more recording-dependent. With some recordings, like Pat Metheny's "Secret Story" to space was very big, along all three axies. I was listening to Phil Keaggy's "The Wind and the Wheat" last night (through the DarkVoice 336i w/1x Svetlana 6H13C and 1x RCA 6SN7GT--great tube combo, BTW), and the soundstage was really expansive and 3-dimensional. On the other hand, some cuts on Ray Stevens' Greatest Hits (e.g., "The Streak") had severely constrained space, while others (e.g., "Mississippi Squirrel Revival") threw a big space.

I think the 2500 often net unfavorable impressions that are really due to limitations in recordings, sources and/or upstream cabling. The 2500 pretty faithfully pass onto the listener what's been fed into them.

Right now, I am waiting for a pair of the 750, but have a feeling that the open 2500 will, after comparison, emerge as my preference. Who knows? The only other closed phone I seriously auditioned was the ATH-A900LTD. It was really great with small-scale studio recordings, especially female vocals, but seemed to get congested as the scale and intensity of the music grew.

PatABurd