Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif The midrange is slightly coloured. With the wrong amp the bass gets too loose.
Yes I've owned L3000. They have rolled-off highs and a very constricted soundstage. I like the bass of the DX1000 better.
I find the bass of the PS-1 a "one-tone-bass", it has little detail and nuance.
Thank you for taking the time to reply Kees. I think I will try and find a DX1000 now to compare with the two.
Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif AKG K1000 warm
The PROLINE750/2500 have very sharp highs and a rather artificial tonal timbre that I don't like. The 2500 are to my ears clearly better than the 750 (the 750 have a hollow sound / echo in the midrange that the 2500 don't have) On the whole I find them very good, it is just these traits that bother me too much to really appreciate them.
I also owned the ED9, and compared to all my other headphones their highs (or upper mids some may call it) are muted. I find them to sound dark and veiled. And they also have this slightly artificial sound quality that prevents me from enjoying them. They don't have a natural timbre. Slightly exaggerated to make my point: An accoustic guitar sounds like it is made of plastic instead of wood.
To return to the subject: the PRO900 sound a lot more like the ED9 than the PRO750/2500. The most obvious difference being:They don't have these sharp metalic highs. I found them dark and heavy sounding. Especially compared to my DX1000.
Kees,
I can't help but wonder if there is some adjustment in your audio chain (such as in a graphic equalizer) that would be right for another pair of headphones but not the Pro 750 or 2500. And, this 'adjustment" is the factor that is causing you to have the negative opinion of the sound of the Pro 750 and 2500 that you do. From my personal experience, I have found that using any EQ setting other than a "flat" one with the Pro 750's degrades their sound. Their best sound is an absolutely "natural" no additional EQ setting adjustment one. Whereas, an "artificial" EQ setting may be necessary with some other headphones.
Originally Posted by subtle /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...or, the people that actually like Ultrasones and listen to them on a daily basis could perform the evaluation and give us much better feedback than someone who has just had them on loan for a few days. I mean, cmon...how can a few days translate in to six months? Isn't that about how long, or how many hours Ultrasones need to do their supposed break in process? One of you should make the purchase and then let us know in a few months how goes it.
ah i missed your point before. so i gather you're saying that you'd prefer someone with prior experience with ultrasones to test the pro900s. i would agree, although i don't think it should be a big issue, since i partly support kwarth's argument of "it sounds good or it doesn't." someone adapted to s-logic would likely make a more sound initial judgement on sq but we've all got pretty discerning ears here (otherwise we wouldn't be members on this forum
) and should be able to give everyone a general idea of what the pro900s sound like.
secondly, being in canada, getting my hands on the pro900s is made much more difficult than if i were in the US.
Originally Posted by Peter Pinna /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kees,
I can't help but wonder if there is some adjustment in your audio chain (such as in a graphic equalizer) that would be right for another pair of headphones but not the Pro 750 or 2500. And, this 'adjustment" is the factor that is causing you to have the negative opinion of the sound of the Pro 750 and 2500 that you do. From my personal experience, I have found that using any EQ setting other than a "flat" one with the Pro 750's degrades their sound. Their best sound is an absolutely "natural" no additional EQ setting adjustment one. Whereas, an "artificial" EQ setting may be necessary with some other headphones.
You can take a look in my profile to see my equipment.
I don't use eq and I used them on half a dozen different amps so I can very easily find the common denominator that has to be in the phones and rule out other factors.
I also had them for a long time (I think I was one of the first here that owned PROline750) and I don't think they are no good, they just have these things that bother me too much.
I can also imagine that if you primarily listen to electronic music (and electric guitars are electronic too) you will hardly, if at all, notice this artificial timbre, because these instruments don't actually have a natural timbre, so you don't have a point of reference.
You will notice if you listen to accoustic guitar, violin, cello, voices, classical music in general and a lot of jazz.
The over emphasised, rather harsh highs (this is not the same as sibilance by the way) are obvious I think.
Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can take a look in my profile to see my equipment.
I don't use eq and I used them on half a dozen different amps so I can very easily find the common denominator that has to be in the phones and rule out other factors.
I also had them for a long time (I think I was one of the first here that owned PROline750) and I don't think they are no good, they just have these things that bother me too much.
I can also imagine that if you primarily listen to electronic music (and electric guitars are electronic too) you will hardly, if at all, notice this artificial timbre, because these instruments don't actually have a natural timbre, so you don't have a point of reference.
You will notice if you listen to accoustic guitar, violin, cello, voices, classical music in general and a lot of jazz.
The over emphasised, rather harsh highs (this is not the same as sibilance by the way) are obvious I think.
i noticed all these things as well, but to a much lesser degree i guess, since they just don't bother me as much. i'm also pretty good with eq'ing so i've made some slight adjustments to the frequency balance of the pro750s (with very positive results).
Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can take a look in my profile to see my equipment.
I don't use eq and I used them on half a dozen different amps so I can very easily find the common denominator that has to be in the phones and rule out other factors.
I also had them for a long time (I think I was one of the first here that owned PROline750) and I don't think they are no good, they just have these things that bother me too much.
I can also imagine that if you primarily listen to electronic music (and electric guitars are electronic too) you will hardly, if at all, notice this artificial timbre, because these instruments don't actually have a natural timbre, so you don't have a point of reference.
You will notice if you listen to accoustic guitar, violin, cello, voices, classical music in general and a lot of jazz.
The over emphasised, rather harsh highs (this is not the same as sibilance by the way) are obvious I think.
Kees,
I rarely listen to electronic music. In fact, I listen mostly to acoustic instruments including all of those you mentioned and more. I listen to a lot of jazz and classical music and have been involved in production of jazz recordings. My opinion of the sound of the Pro 750's is very much the opposite of yours. I find the sound of instruments played via the Pro 750 to sound quite "natural". I do not find the "highs" to be harsh or "over emphasized" at all. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the Proline 750's are the most "natural sounding" headphones I've ever heard. But, then, I've never heard the Ed 9 or any of the Stax headphones among others. I particularly enjoy the sound stage of the Pro 750's as you may already know.
What would you say the color of the seats on airplane were?
Originally Posted by Peter Pinna /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find the sound of instruments played via the Pro 750 to sound quite "natural". I do not find the "highs" to be harsh or "over emphasized" at all. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the Proline 750's are the most "natural sounding" headphones I've ever heard. But, then, I've never heard the Ed 9 or any of the Stax headphones among others. I particularly enjoy the sound stage of the Pro 750's as you may already know.
Do yourself A BIG favor and try the AKG K 702.... ASAP!
And maybe, just maybe you will change your mind forever. LOL
Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do yourself A BIG favor and try the AKG K 702.... ASAP!
And maybe, just maybe you will change your mind forever. LOL
I own the PROline 2500 and I really enjoy them. However, I have notice that this are very controversial. You either love or hate them whithin seconds of trying them.
I would suggest that potential buyers try them out before they fork out their money. Same can be said for the HFI-780, try them before you buy them.
Originally Posted by mrarroyo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I own the PROline 2500 and I really enjoy them. However, I have notice that this are very controversial. You either love or hate them whithin seconds of trying them.
It is worse than that, I liked mine for a while but in the end I hate it =).
Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do yourself A BIG favor and try the AKG K 702.... ASAP!
And maybe, just maybe you will change your mind forever. LOL
Acix,
Thank you for your suggestion but I heard the K 701 before I heard the Proline 750. I have not heard the K702 but from what I've read about it, the sound of the K702 is supposed to be not that much different than the K701. The lower frequencies of the K701 are not strong enough to sound "natural" to my ears. The detail on the K701 is great but there have been times when I thought the K701 was slightly more detailed than the Proline 750 and then, there were other times when I thought the opposite was true. Whichever is correct, we are dealing with very slight differences between the detail aspect of the two headphones. Overall, because of the sound stage and the sound of the lower frequencies, among other reasons, I prefer the Proline 750.
Originally Posted by Peter Pinna /img/forum/go_quote.gif Acix,
Thank you for your suggestion but I heard the K 701 before I heard the Proline 750. I have not heard the K702 but from what I've read about it, the sound of the K702 is supposed to be not that much different than the K701. The lower frequencies of the K701 are not strong enough to sound "natural" to my ears. The detail on the K701 is great but there have been times when I thought the K701 was slightly more detailed than the Proline 750 and then, there were other times when I thought the opposite was true. Whichever is correct, we are dealing with very slight differences between the detail aspect of the two headphones. Overall, because of the sound stage and the sound of the lower frequencies, among other reasons, I prefer the Proline 750.
This statement shows that your first instinct is to compare tonalities. Nothing bad about that since that is what most people including me first listen to. You didn't mention realistic/organic sounding instruments though which was the original argument just a few posts ago
I can only conclude from reading this that you probably never listened to how accurate the timbres of each instrument sounds in acoustic recordings with both of these cans compared. Pls correct me if I'm wrong, this is just my assumption which I want corrected if mistaken.
Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif You didn't mention realistic/organic sounding instruments though which was the original argument just a few posts ago
I can only conclude from reading this that you probably never listened to how accurate the timbres of each instrument sounds in acoustic recordings with both of these cans compared. Pls correct me if I'm wrong, this is just my assumption which I want corrected if mistaken.
You're not wrong at all...
I call it, flat FR cans. As balanced FR headphones.
You call it, realistic/organic sounding.
The headphones can be realistic and organic only if they are flat FR, or balance FR.
You are close, but in the headphone world, flat might not neccesarily be accurate because of HRTF issues (angle of real sounds coming from different directions in real life interacting with ear reflections which contribute to accurate tonality and soundstage) which every manufacturer tries their own version of what should sound realistic.
I know what you mean though... In the speaker world, a flat response is usually ideal and probably the most important aspect in measurement to get realistic sounding music but you also need good dynamics and transient response which are not measured with frequency response.
basically we are still aiming for a flat response... With headphones, think of diffuse field eq and other methods to translate what is accurate in real life to the direct ear sound you get from headphones....
So yeah flat FR response + compensation for HRTF= realistic sound. Too bad there is no one company that has got it 100% right yet because our ear shapes are all different. With speakers, Its much easier to get right because sound coming from space has the same standard as sound coming from space whether it is played through speakers or from real instruments in front of you.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.gif)
