[ieee754]

How do these compare to K518DJ? I owned them for one day and returned because I found them too boomy, they sounded like there was only bass and nothing else. I read a lot of reviews about PRO 900 saying that there is strong bass but it doesn't overshadow other frequencies, so I'm very curious about them.

 

[Mr Sub]

   
This may help you:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/518319/ultrasones-commitment-to-customer-service

I tried using that information to get in contact with someone to resolve my issue. It seems that guy no longer uses that number or email adress. Thanks though.

 

[TechNerd]

   
totally agree with you! the pro 2900 are one of the most underrated hp ever made. They sound so freakin good but dont get a lot of reviews. It has been my hp for the past 3 years. I have heard many high end cans like t1,lcd2,he600,he500,hd800,etc and i still like the pro 2900's signature better. pair it with a good amp and hear the amazing quality!

I would also say that the mid-range Ultrasone headphones are totally underrated. The Pro 750 is an outstanding headphone that many feel is more balanced than the 900, but it hardly gets any positive feedback. I've also had the opportunity to purchase the now discontinued Pro 2500 open back headphone on closeout and it's outstanding. It's very similar to the Pro 750, but airier due to the open back design.

 

[devhen]

 
I would also say that the mid-range Ultrasone headphones are totally underrated. The Pro 750 is an outstanding headphone that many feel is more balanced than the 900, but it hardly gets any positive feedback. I've also had the opportunity to purchase the now discontinued Pro 2500 open back headphone on closeout and it's outstanding. It's very similar to the Pro 750, but airier due to the open back design.

 
Yep. I found the PRO 750 to actually be superior to the PRO 900 because they were essentially identical except that the PRO 750 has less bass quantity which lets more bass texture and resolution come through. Yet they are still bassy headphones. In fact they had the most bass texture and resolution of any headphone I've heard. Highly recommended.

 

[goldenSHK]

   
Yep. I found the PRO 750 to actually be superior to the PRO 900 because they were essentially identical except that the PRO 750 has less bass quantity which lets more bass texture and resolution come through. Yet they are still bassy headphones. In fact they had the most bass texture and resolution of any headphone I've heard. Highly recommended.

I disagree. If you want more mids and balance to the bassy sound, nothing in the Ultrasone Pro HFI lineup can top top the Denon/Fostex line of headphones in terms of balanced, detailed, bassy sound. However, the Pro 900s still have an edge against the likes of the Denons because the just have such crazy amount of bass and tightness. If you want to lessen that, the Denon D2k/D5k or the Fostex TH600 would be right up your alley - better than the 750 in pretty much all fronts except for ruggedness and portability. 

 

[devhen]

Originally Posted by goldenSHK /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I disagree. If you want more mids and balance to the bassy sound, nothing in the Ultrasone Pro HFI lineup can top top the Denon/Fostex line of headphones in terms of balanced, detailed, bassy sound. However, the Pro 900s still have an edge against the likes of the Denons because the just have such crazy amount of bass and tightness. If you want to lessen that, the Denon D2k/D5k or the Fostex TH600 would be right up your alley - better than the 750 in pretty much all fronts except for ruggedness and portability. 

 
Well I was only comparing the 750 to the 900 so I'm not sure what you disagree with. To my ears the 900 was identical to taking a 750 and applying EQ to the bass to increase its quantity. Doing that causes boominess that begins to mask some of the bass texture and bass resolution and further recesses the mids. Essentially the 750 is a 900 with less bass quantity in exchange for more bass texture & bass resolution and less recessed mids. And that's why, unless your main requirement is bass *quantity*, the 750 is superior to the 900 IMO.
 
I've listened extensively to the TH600 and it is hands down better than the 750 or 900. These headphones do no even come close to competing with the TH600 overall. However, as I said previously, the 750 had the best bass texture and bass resolution of any headphone I've tried and that's including the TH600. That is obviously partly due to the fact that the 750 has more bass quantity than the TH600 does (and the 900 has even more) which obviously lends itself to having more bass texture and bass resolution. You might be able to get better bass texture & bass resolution from the TH600 by further emphasizing the bass via EQ but in their stock form the 750 beats the TH600 in that one way. In every other conceivable way the TH600 is many leagues above the 750 or 900, particularly the 900 because of the more boomy bass and more recessed mids that I previously mentioned.

 

[goldenSHK]

   
Well I was only comparing the 750 to the 900 so I'm not sure what you disagree with. To my ears the 900 was identical to taking a 750 and applying EQ to the bass to increase its quantity. Doing that causes boominess that begins to mask some of the bass texture and bass resolution and further recesses the mids. Essentially the 750 is a 900 with less bass quantity in exchange for more bass texture & bass resolution and less recessed mids. And that's why, unless your main requirement is bass *quantity*, the 750 is superior to the 900 IMO.

See this is where I'd completely disagree again.Obviously, there's no right answer here and everything is very subjective, but the Pro 900 isn't a headphone I'd call boomy in any way even with the monstrous amount of bass it can dish out. If you look at the specs of the drivers on the Ultrasone site, the Pro 750s have different drivers (different frequency response not due to different cups/damping etc) than the Pro 900s, they just both happen to be plated with Titanium. It's obviously a personal preference for which headphone one appreciates, but having heard both the 750 and the 900, I can confidently say that I don't believe either headphone has boomy bass. If bass quality and quantity weren't important for me, I would have picked something more notorious around these forums. Also, another thing to note is that, sure, as the bass quantity increases the mids and highs do tend to get masked since in comparison to the large amount of bass, the other frequencies tend to take a back seat; that isn't the same thing as having loose and boomy bass. These two concepts are completely different in nature and a headphone (or speaker for that matter) can have tight, controlled bass while dishing out a very large quantity of it (albeit this is pretty rare, that is why the Pro 900s are highly touted by bassheads). 

Make no mistake the 750 and the 900 do definitely sound similar and a lot of arguments can be made for or against if the 900 is worth the extra premium over the 750, but the 900 doesn't have the boomy bass that is normally associated with lower quality drivers that can't handle massive low end response. I've heard a lot from many people who really dislike the Pro 900, and a majority of their complaints are that these cans have recessed mids which is completely accurate (like you mentioned); it is almost impossible to have one piece of the frequency response be so exaggerated without overpowering the rest to some degree, but none of these people have claimed the 900 bass is loose, boomy, and uncontrolled. In fact, you're the first person. Again, obviously this is an opinion based discussion, but I just wanted to point out that having loose bass and overpowering the mids are different concepts which can and sometimes do (but not always) overlap. 

 

[TWerk]

The only time the bass on the pro 900 is boomy is when it is not amped well. The same is true of my D2000. Proper amplification will get rid of any perceived bass bloat. 
 
I owned both 750 and 900 and ultimately, I felt the 900 was the one to keep. When using DAC + AMP on the Pro 900, the sound was overall improved across the board compared to the 750. If running straight out of an ipod, they sound pretty similar. Both are great headphones, but preference for me (amped) is the 900. Then again, I listen to almost all EDM music so YMMV.

 

[TWerk]

In addition, the pads make a huge difference! When worn down, the driver sits closer to the ears, bass ups another notch, treble seems to fall back a little bit. Putting new pads on my Pro 900 (I actually used a spare 750 pair I have) gave them new life. 
 
The new pads give a little more space between the ear and the driver, which improves the sound. If you feel the bass is boomy, might need to get some new pads if yours are worn down.

 

[devhen]

@goldenSHK: Fair enough. I'm probably just using the wrong terminology. When I say boomy I mean the bass is so exaggerated that it is overtaking other frequencies and even masking texture and detail within itself because of the huge quantity which to me I hear as a "boom" but boomy bass is a specific thing that is talked about a lot and probably isn't exactly what I'm describing. I'm just talking about bass quantity that 1- further recesses the mids compared to the 750 and 2- "booms" my ears uncomfortably (I can't listen to the 900 at high volume for very long at all before becoming quite fatigued, a problem I didn't have with the 750) and the "booming" of the bass quantity reduces the amount of bass texture and bass resolution I am able to hear and perceive. Otherwise I found the two to sound identical and my guess would be that despite the slightly different listed specs they are using the same drivers. But as you say, so much of this is subjective and I don't mean to imply that I am 100% correct.
 
I bought the PRO 900 hoping to get everything the PRO 750 was and more. That was absolutely not, to me, what I got. I got the same headphone as the PRO 750 but with a significant amount of additional bass quantity that ended up doing more harm than good. To each his own. I agree with the earlier comment that the PRO 750 doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. I found mine on an Amazon deal for $175 and to me it was superior to the PRO 900 which as you know can be very expensive. I got my PRO 900 for just $220 and even at those prices I found the PRO 750 to be superior. That is to say, I found the PRO 750 objectively superior regardless of cost.
 
@TWerk: I'm amping these with my Lake People G109 so yes they are being amped plenty adequately but I got the same results out of my portable devices. Also, both the 750 and 900 were using 100% brand new pads.
 
EDIT: Maybe I should have instead used the words "too big" "cavernous" and "echoey" to describe the PRO 900's bass because all three of those words came to mind when listening to them. Disregarding what the official audio terminology of "boomy bass" is supposed to refer to, I found the PRO 900's bass "boomy" in a general sense. My first reaction was "wow, what's with all this boom?" To put it even less articulately, my experience with the PRO 900 goes something like this: "*BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM* .... ouch it hurts and some of the bass texture is getting lost in there. No thanks."
 
EDIT 2: Maybe I mean "bloomy" rather than "boomy"? I'm just not sure. I'm not very good with using proper terminology, I tend to just use whichever words come to mind while I'm listening.

 

[money4me247]

@devhen, sounds like bloated vs. woolly (

lol@wolly)
http://www.head-fi.org/t/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary

 

[parakeetman007]

I'm thinking of buying a pair, but I would like to know some more cons of these headphones before I do so.

 

[Oregonian]

The cons I've heard

Screechy treble (I never had this experience)
Bass too strong (um, that's impossible to me).

I like them as much as most of my higher end stuff and the bass is incredible.

 

[SpyderMan]

+1 on that.

 

[goldenSHK]

  I'm thinking of buying a pair, but I would like to know some more cons of these headphones before I do so.

It really depends what you'll use these cans for. I take them places with me and often times drop them in my backpack or luggage. They are a great durable, portable headphones you can use a ton of places. These cans aren't genre masters by any means unless you do some EQing on them which I don't mind doing so I pretty much exclusively use these cans on the go because of their build quality and unmatched bass response (both in tightness and amount). It's really kind of hard to get headphones with such durable frame and foldable hinges at this tier of sound because most of the headphones are either large, non-folding or somewhat delicate and not good for carrying around (Denons, AKG, Sennheiser, MrSpeakers etc). I can see why someone would want to opt for the Alpha Dogs/Mad Dogs though for their full size portable headphone of choice. The Pro 900s do have a pretty expansive soundstage for a closed can as well, but Mad Dogs handle all music very well without any EQing required. Personally, I prefer the ability to have such massive bass when called for that the smaller planar driver just wouldn't be able to produce without distortion. If you're looking for good portable cans that can handle many (but not all genres) with accurate and powerful bass, these are for you. If you want to give up some bass ability for a more clarity and darker background go Mad Dogs (haven't heard the Alphas yet).