[Sorrodje]

Quote:

Without a doubt my favorite pair of headphones are my pro 2900s. They are all around perfect. In my opinion they are the best you can find under $1000. Every other headphone I have I compare to them. They are very well built and feel like they can take a beating. You can't go wrong for the money.

 
pro 2900 costs 400 Euros here .. HFI-2400 200 ... Maybe pro 2900 would be a good future upgrade for me ?

 

[Rawdawg3234]

Quote:

 
pro 2900 costs 400 Euros here .. HFI-2400 200 ... Maybe pro 2900 would be a good future upgrade for me ?

When you're ready look me up and I might be ready to sell or trade mine. 

 

[obobskivich]

Without a doubt my favorite pair of headphones are my pro 2900s. They are all around perfect. In my opinion they are the best you can find under $1000. Every other headphone I have I compare to them. They are very well built and feel like they can take a beating. You can't go wrong for the money.

I (mostly) agree with this (I say mostly because they're in my top 5, but not #1 overall). They're an excellent headphone.

pro 2900 costs 400 Euros here .. HFI-2400 200 ... Maybe pro 2900 would be a good future upgrade for me ?

I think yes; imho the PRO2900 fixes all of the HFI-2400's flaws and improves upon its strengths.

 

[macrocheesium]

The PRO 2900 is great but overpriced IMO. I like my HM5 almost as much and that's a third of the price. They're a huge step up from the HFI-580, though.

 

[Rawdawg3234]

The PRO 2900 is great but overpriced IMO. I like my HM5 almost as much and that's a third of the price. They're a huge step up from the HFI-580, though.

Ha ha ha. I think you're running the 2900s out of the wrong amp IMO.
I'm not trying to sound like an ***** but your prob running them on some $80 ss without any kind of FLAC or lossless file.
If you own the 2900s I'd like to suggest a source and amp upgrade. You really won't be disappointed I can promise you that.

 

[macrocheesium]

Quote:

Ha ha ha. I think you're running the 2900s out of the wrong amp IMO.
I'm not trying to sound like an ***** but your prob running them on some $80 ss without any kind of FLAC or lossless file.
If you own the 2900s I'd like to suggest a source and amp upgrade. You really won't be disappointed I can promise you that.

 
I did. I didn't hear a difference so I went back. I use FLAC files, I've tried it with various receivers, and I got an iBasso D7 which sounded EXACTLY the same as my FiiO E10, so I sold it.

 

[obobskivich]

The PRO 2900 is great but overpriced IMO. I like my HM5 almost as much and that's a third of the price. They're a huge step up from the HFI-580, though.

This isn't just the PRO2900 - as you spend more the point of diminishing returns is very easily seen. Linear gains should never be expected despite geometric increases in price.

 

[macrocheesium]

Quote:

This isn't just the PRO2900 - as you spend more the point of diminishing returns is very easily seen. Linear gains should never be expected despite geometric increases in price.

 
I realize that, but the DT990 were about half the price of the PRO 2900 and were just as good.

 

[obobskivich]

I realize that, but the DT990 were about half the price of the PRO 2900 and were just as good.

Again, we cannot put things into a "Consumer Reports 1-to-10" scale system. Especially because we're talking about opinions, not some sort of qualitative ranking of "good."

 

[Sorrodje]

Quote:

I (mostly) agree with this (I say mostly because they're in my top 5, but not #1 overall). They're an excellent headphone.
I think yes; imho the PRO2900 fixes all of the HFI-2400's flaws and improves upon its strengths.

And what precisely are  these flaws corrected by pro 2900 in your opinion ?

 

[macrocheesium]

Quote:

Again, we cannot put things into a "Consumer Reports 1-to-10" scale system. Especially because we're talking about opinions, not some sort of qualitative ranking of "good."

 
I'm trying to look at this from a totally objective viewpoint. I actually like the Ultrasones much better than the DT990. However, I say that they are equal based on technical details like separation. I know that a totally objective viewpoint is impossible, but what I'm just trying to get at is that the PRO 2900 is overpriced based on it's technical abilities, when compared to other headphones.
 
In the realm of headphones, I don't think anything else is possible, sadly. Everything is opinion and there is no quantitative ranking; machines can't measure how good a headphone sounds. We just go by what other people say.

 

[HeatFan12]

They must have heard you macro, because the PRO2900s are on Amazon right now for $399...lol...Don't know what they usually go for though....Only one left atm...

 

[obobskivich]

And what precisely are  these flaws corrected by pro 2900 in your opinion ?

They're faster, have tighter bass, better soundstaging (which I attribute to the improvement on S-LOGIC Plus), and aren't "muddy" or "slow" with complex passages.

I'm trying to look at this from a totally objective viewpoint. I actually like the Ultrasones much better than the DT990. However, I say that they are equal based on technical details like separation. I know that a totally objective viewpoint is impossible, but what I'm just trying to get at is that the PRO 2900 is overpriced based on it's technical abilities, when compared to other headphones.

And my point is that your assessment of technical abilities here is subjective (which isn't a four-letter word; in the audio community I've noticed a huge naturalist/scientism thrust that seems to feel that rejection of subjective/qualitative data is somehow rational - I think that by and large there is a massive misunderstanding of subjective/objective, qualitative/quantitative, deductive/inductive, and how all of these relate to empiricism) - not based on measurement or similar. And even if it were, there's no empirically established preference data for headphones. Technically I think they're beyond most other cans, but not by a whole lot. Really that ~$600 bar is where you start seeing no real performance returns, and there's a lot of good headphones around $200-$300. For example the K701 or HFI-2400 - they're "nearly as good" as the PRO2900, but they don't give you that last inch. You pay about double for that. Honestly I think the HFI-2400 are an example of "very good" and the PRO2900 are "slightly better" - but again, you pay double for that improvement. Expecting them to double this intangible "performance" value over the HFI-2400 or K701 or whatever else is kind of nutty, but I understand where the belief comes from.

I'll add to this that headphones at $1000 or better compared to the PRO2900, as rawdawg pointed out, don't really get you a whole lot (if anything) beyond more luxury or exoticism. Preference aside (so some people may dislike the sound signature of the PRO2900 but find the similarly priced MDR-SA5000 more appealing; neither are technically incompetent though (honestly you get beyond that starting at that $200-$300 bar, in *most* cases)).

In short, I think we're on the same page!

In the realm of headphones, I don't think anything else is possible, sadly. Everything is opinion and there is no quantitative ranking; machines can't measure how good a headphone sounds. We just go by what other people say.

Not necessarily. There are measurable, observable, and repeatable facts in most anything - even things that involve human subjects. There just aren't a lot of them established in audio, because there's so many conflicting interests and political/economic agendas at work. Very few people just go out and "find truth" for the sake of doing it - there's almost always some sort of profit or political motive behind it. The lack of empirically established preference data is a big issue when it comes to measurements though. So while we can go out and look at measurements that compare the PRO2900 and DT990 (GoldenEars has both in their measurement book), there's nothing that says out-right "well this feature is good and this feature is bad." That data just doesn't exist (but that doesn't mean it cannot exist; Ultrasone has actually done some of the preliminary research in that area already, but for whatever reason they seem to have stopped recently).

They must have heard you macro, because the PRO2900s are on Amazon right now for $399...lol...Don't know what they usually go for though....Only one left atm...

They've been up for $399 from Amazing Deals Online (the FBA you're seeing on Amazon) for a few weeks now. List is $599 (at least at launch it was), but Ultrasone doesn't even sell them direct for that much (they're regularly $499-$549; $449 is not uncommon though). Which seems fairly typical for Ultrasone - they run around half to three-quarters of MSRP; just like the HFI-2400 which are regularly $180-$220, but list is around $350. If only they let the Signature and Edition lines behave in the same manner.

 

[macrocheesium]

Quote:

For example the K701 or HFI-2400 - they're "nearly as good" as the PRO2900, but they don't give you that last inch. You pay about double for that. Honestly I think the HFI-2400 are an example of "very good" and the PRO2900 are "slightly better" - but again, you pay double for that improvement. Expecting them to double this intangible "performance" value over the HFI-2400 or K701 or whatever else is kind of nutty, but I understand where the belief comes from. 

The lack of empirically established preference data is a big issue when it comes to measurements though. So while we can go out and look at measurements that compare the PRO2900 and DT990 (GoldenEars has both in their measurement book), there's nothing that says out-right "well this feature is good and this feature is bad." That data just doesn't exist (but that doesn't mean it cannot exist; Ultrasone has actually done some of the preliminary research in that area already, but for whatever reason they seem to have stopped recently).

 
I can definitely see that, and there is no way that I'm ever upgrading past this point. I've been here long enough to know that 2x price =/= 2x performance. It's crazy enough that I paid double the price of the DT990 just for a different sound signature... but oh well, such are the sacrifices of an audiophile. 

 
 
Sure you can measure differences between headphones, but can you get actual quantitative data showing, for example, which one has better separation or detail resolution?

 

[obobskivich]

I can definitely see that, and there is no way that I'm ever upgrading past this point. I've been here long enough to know that 2x price =/= 2x performance. It's crazy enough that I paid double the price of the DT990 just for a different sound signature... but oh well, such are the sacrifices of an audiophile. 

Heh, I agree with this one. I think Ultrasone is in that weird category with Grado though - there's no way around it, if you like their presentation and their coloration, they are the only option. Which makes price even weirder to compare. For example we could sit and argue Sony v AKG v Beyerdynamic v Sennheiser for neutrality/accuracy/flatness/etc all day, and there's no clear-cut winner. But if you like S-LOGIC, there's only one fix.

Sure you can measure differences between headphones, but can you get actual quantitative data showing, for example, which one has better separation or detail resolution?

You'd have to be able to qualify those terms out of audiophile land; like I said, empirical preference study. In other words you'd have to take a listening panel and let them identify something that has "good detail resolution" and then work backwards. The problem is that we're trying to *start* with quantitative, inductive methods to produce applied results. And that isn't how it works in a rational sense - you build up to that.

Here's a somewhat morbid example that I can think of, based on an OT discussion in the lounge:

You can measure the muzzle velocity and kinetic impact energy of a bullet. And you can measure it's penetration depth through various substances. You can do this with a whole mess of guns and bullets and build a nice big chart (or book of charts) that show all of these differences. And you can come out and say "well this round goes the fastest!" or "this round went the furthest through our test substance!" or "this one hit with the most kinetic energy!" and then declare them best.

But does that tell you which one will kill the deer? Or kill the deer most efficiently?

What if I told you in the above experiments we were comparing airsoft and BB guns and shooting them at potato chips? Or what if we were comparing howitzers and shooting them at k-rails? Does this change the scope of your thinking about things?

And none of those will fit into the actual scientific method - sure it'd be fun to go play with howitzers but that isn't really starting at the right point, or with the right questions.