Arnaldo
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Posts
- 232
- Likes
- 28
I decided to take the plunge on the Edition 10 a few months back, in spite of a negative predisposition after reading through Head-Fi threads on the subject. Thus my absolute surprise that some objectionable opinions felt off the mark by a wide margin. Instead, the Ed 10 offered a startlingly crystalline and electrostatic-like presentation, but with the punch of dynamics phones. It also kept the precision of the closed-back models in the Ultrasone Edition line, but with the wider and deeper soundstage of open-back designs. And we're really talking about wide-open spaces here, an almost surround-like presentation in a very un-headphone manner. As an aside, the Ed 10 is also one of the most comfortable and lightest - for its size - of all the headphones I've tried.
These positive impressions got me wondering whether the basic issue might be that because of the Ed 10's stratospheric and admittedly excessive list price, Ultrasone voiced it specifically for certain listeners of high-resolution recordings. This assumption could also explain critical views expressed by some who favor electronic music, which is by nature highly processed, equalized, compressed, and as such, less suited as a source of evaluation in this case. In contrast, many headphones have been tailored to compensate for heavy equalization and compression. So, someone who listens to electronic music with emphasized mid to high frequencies might prefer a Denon AH-D7000 instead. OTOH, the Denon's bass tends to sound boomy and undefined with orchestral material containing a lot of distantly miked percussion and double-bass.
Regardless, the Ed 10 and classical SACDs work well together, and compromises by Ultrasone over its measurements were likely made with this kind of music in mind. For instance, two of my favorite SACDs are an Exton recording of Stravinsky's Petrushka and Pulcinella with the Netherlands Radio Philharmonic conducted by Jaap van Zweden, and a Linn recording of Bach's Easter and Ascension Oratorios with the Retrospect Ensemble. Suffice to say that the texture of the orchestral landscape as reproduced by the Ed 10 is viscerally realistic - I can literally sense the texture of the strings across the vast soundstage. And the deep percussion on Petrushka sounds gloriously thunderous but perfectly controlled, as does the sparkling presentation of the overtones and transients of the piano.
With all this in mind, one reason why people feel so strongly about the Ed 10 may be that it exposes flaws on favorite recordings. Personally, I would not audition it with either low-resolution (44.1 kHz/16 Bit PCM) material or with multi-generation transfers of analog tapes. Instead, the Ed 10 is more likely to shine with state-of-the-art (DSD and High-Rez 24 Bit PCM) acoustic recordings. Then there are those who dislike it out of resentment with the cost, although I actually purchased it for substantially less than the advertised price, possibly because of the negative publicity on Head-Fi. So, as a happy Ed 10 owner, my sincere gratitude for saving me a bundle. Now, I'd appreciate if folks could just do the same for the SR-009/Blue Hawaii combo, and knock a few grands off the price as well...
These positive impressions got me wondering whether the basic issue might be that because of the Ed 10's stratospheric and admittedly excessive list price, Ultrasone voiced it specifically for certain listeners of high-resolution recordings. This assumption could also explain critical views expressed by some who favor electronic music, which is by nature highly processed, equalized, compressed, and as such, less suited as a source of evaluation in this case. In contrast, many headphones have been tailored to compensate for heavy equalization and compression. So, someone who listens to electronic music with emphasized mid to high frequencies might prefer a Denon AH-D7000 instead. OTOH, the Denon's bass tends to sound boomy and undefined with orchestral material containing a lot of distantly miked percussion and double-bass.
Regardless, the Ed 10 and classical SACDs work well together, and compromises by Ultrasone over its measurements were likely made with this kind of music in mind. For instance, two of my favorite SACDs are an Exton recording of Stravinsky's Petrushka and Pulcinella with the Netherlands Radio Philharmonic conducted by Jaap van Zweden, and a Linn recording of Bach's Easter and Ascension Oratorios with the Retrospect Ensemble. Suffice to say that the texture of the orchestral landscape as reproduced by the Ed 10 is viscerally realistic - I can literally sense the texture of the strings across the vast soundstage. And the deep percussion on Petrushka sounds gloriously thunderous but perfectly controlled, as does the sparkling presentation of the overtones and transients of the piano.
With all this in mind, one reason why people feel so strongly about the Ed 10 may be that it exposes flaws on favorite recordings. Personally, I would not audition it with either low-resolution (44.1 kHz/16 Bit PCM) material or with multi-generation transfers of analog tapes. Instead, the Ed 10 is more likely to shine with state-of-the-art (DSD and High-Rez 24 Bit PCM) acoustic recordings. Then there are those who dislike it out of resentment with the cost, although I actually purchased it for substantially less than the advertised price, possibly because of the negative publicity on Head-Fi. So, as a happy Ed 10 owner, my sincere gratitude for saving me a bundle. Now, I'd appreciate if folks could just do the same for the SR-009/Blue Hawaii combo, and knock a few grands off the price as well...
Yeah the K1000, SR-007, 009, R10, HE-90 etc are all just not accurate in the treble, thank god the ED10 got it right 
!
