[Greeni]

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverrain /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the 900 burn-in takes as long as the HFI-780 burn-in, then do *not* bother listening to them until after 200+ hours, or you risk being shocked with the SQ.

I am just curious if anyone is using burn in disc for new cans like these that requires prolongation. I use "Isotek Full System Enchancer & Rejuvenation Disc" for my main speaker system with good result. I have not tried them on burning in headphones though.

 

[klobnitrones]

wow did this thread die

 

[Gladstone]

I have one on the way currently to test. I'm very curious how it fits in between the PRO 750 and the Edition 9.

 

[hawat]

I think they will take a while to burn in

.
After about 100 of hours of burn they actually sound much better.
The bass on mine have gotten less out of control but they are still bigger than the bass on the E9 which are already bigger than those of the 2500 after burn in.
With the bass not hiding the rest of the sound as much as they did when I just received them, they actually start to sound closer to the 2500 than the E9, just with much more bass and a bit less bright (which is actually a good thing for most people i think

) and the same lack of mids compared to the E9.
This lack of mids + huge bass still make them feel a bit unbalanced but I think there is still hope for the pro 900 with more burn in.

 

[silverrain]

So, it seems that maybe the HFI-780 is the Ultrasone with the most highs?

For those of us that need or prefer extra punch in the highs, like with Grados.

My PRO 750 has a smidge less highs than the 780, but still okay.
My PRO 2500 had a smidge less highs than the 750, so I sold them.

Has anyone heard an Ultrasone with more highs than the 780 (without totally losing that great bass, of course)?

I had high hopes for the new 900, but now I wonder...

 

[hawat]

I don't know the pro 750 but from what I read they are supposed to be similar to the pro 2500, except that they are closed design.
If this is true then the pro 900 will have a bit less focus on highs than the pro 750 as well.

 

[NiceCans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawat /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know the pro 750 but from what I read they are supposed to be similar to the pro 2500, except that they are closed design. If this is true then the pro 900 will have a bit less focus on highs than the pro 750 as well.

 

[hawat]

Well if its not true just ignore that or does your

means something else?
Kinda hard to answer to just that

 

[silverrain]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawat /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know the pro 750 but from what I read they are supposed to be similar to the pro 2500, except that they are closed design. If this is true then the pro 900 will have a bit less focus on highs than the pro 750 as well.

FWIW dept.: I edited my post above, to include the 2500, and put them in perspective, too.

 

[subtle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverrain /img/forum/go_quote.gif For those of us that need or prefer extra punch in the highs, like with Grados. Has anyone heard an Ultrasone with more highs than the 780 (without totally losing that great bass, of course)?

Yeah...they're called the Edition 9's.

 

[hawat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by subtle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah...they're called the Edition 9's.

I find the E9 actually a bit less bright than the pro 2500. That is why i didn't recommend him the E9

 

[subtle]

I was simply referring to the quality of the highs spectrum on the ED9, and I thought that was what silverrain was alluding to as well. My comments had nothing to do with "brightness" as I don't find the ED9's, or Grado's for that matter, to be "bright".

The only other Ultrasone I have owned was the PL750 and I literally sold it a day or two after receiving the ED9's. They just couldn't compete. The midrange was recessed and the quality of the highs and bass region found on the ED9's was easily a tier or two higher than the 750's.

 

[hawat]

Oh agreed then

I also think the e9 is in a different league than my other ultrasone headphones for the same reasons

 

[Gladstone]

My first impressions on the PRO 900...

First of all, these are the most comfortable Ultrasones yet, lovely!

I am pleasantly surprised by the sound, which imho doesn't sound like the Edition 9 at all, but neither like the PRO 750. Like someone else said, I believe, if anything they sound more like the open PRO 2500. The 900 has a big soundstage, high resolution, very detailed and unmasking (not sure if it's unmasking as the PRO 750/2500 yet). The bass however is much too overpowering, too big, not anywhere as good or controlled as the Edition 9's bass. As with all Ultrasone HP's they have long burning-in times, so I'm sure this is the same with the PRO 900.

 

[Greeni]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladstone /img/forum/go_quote.gif My first impressions on the PRO 900... First of all, these are the most comfortable Ultrasones yet, lovely! I am pleasantly surprised by the sound, which imho doesn't sound like the Edition 9 at all, but neither like the PRO 750. Like someone else said, I believe, if anything they sound more like the open PRO 2500. The 900 has a big soundstage, high resolution, very detailed and unmasking (not sure if it's unmasking as the PRO 750/2500 yet). The bass however is much too overpowering, too big, not anywhere as good or controlled as the Edition 9's bass. As with all Ultrasone HP's they have long burning-in times, so I'm sure this is the same with the PRO 900.

Now that's some (relatively) positive response.... I just laid my order for the 900. I was considering the Stax before, but as I go on long term travel from time to time the 900 with a portable headamp seem more convenient. Thank you, keep us posted.