[benjamind]

I'm still unsure as to which phone is truly better. All I really know is that the 750 provides some isolation whereas the 2500 does not. As to the overall sound quality - neutrality, frequency response, bass extension, soundstage, imaging, and transient response and of course any colouration of the sound, I have absolutely no idea what differences there are.

Which of the two has more 3-dimensional depth and width to the soundfield? Which one has the better upper-bass/lower-midrange? And finally, which one is more neutral?

I know that both have great treble, but which one has arguably better highs?

I've been doing an awful lot of reading up on these two headphones. I used to personally own the 750s but I don't think I gave them nearly enough burn in to really know what they sounded like. From what I remember they had a fairly recessed dip in the lower midrange/upper bass but I wasn't at all sure if this was because they needed burn in or because of the inherent frequency response or perhaps a flaw. The 750s I reviewed a long time ago actually had quite a few hours of runtime on them, so when I got my new 750s they sounded different. I sold them not too long after and I didn't use them a whole lot. Probably 72 hours of burn in and another 50 hours of listening on them. I was somewhat disappointed.

I've seen frequency response charts for both the 750 and 2500. The chart for the 750s confirmed my initial experience with my own 750s. But are these charts truly correct? Were the phones burned in when these charts were established?

I'm unsure of which phone to get. When I do get another set of Prolines I will burn them in for three weeks nonstop at moderate levels.

I do not need the isolation since I plan on using these in a pretty much silent room wherever I am (usually I visit relatives). So ruling out the differences in the isolation, which of these two phones is truly the better one? What are the real differences with respect to frequency response and imaging/soundstaging?

Any advice would be most appreciated,

Ben

 

[onvn]

i heard somewhere the 2 models share the same driver.. is it true??

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by onvn /img/forum/go_quote.gif i heard somewhere the 2 models share the same driver.. is it true??

Yes. But using same driver in open and closed casing brings different results.
2500 is considered better one. About the dip in frequency range, atleast frequency graphs of 2500 doesnt show anything like that compared to 750.

http://www.geocities.jp/ryumatsuba/proline750_f.gif
http://www.geocities.jp/ryumatsuba/proline2500_f.gif


Though you need to take graphs with grain of salt.

 

[Dexdexter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjamind /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm still unsure as to which phone is truly better. All I really know is that the 750 provides some isolation whereas the 2500 does not. As to the overall sound quality - neutrality, frequency response, bass extension, soundstage, imaging, and transient response and of course any colouration of the sound, I have absolutely no idea what differences there are. Which of the two has more 3-dimensional depth and width to the soundfield? Which one has the better upper-bass/lower-midrange? And finally, which one is more neutral? I know that both have great treble, but which one has arguably better highs?

Hi Ben,

I have both the PROline 750 & 2500, and based on the questions you've asked above, my answer would be the PROline 2500 in every case.

In terms of overall sound quality, they really are quite close to each other. So while the differences are marginal, they noticeable nonetheless, but really only when comparing the two one after the other (factoring-in about 10 minutes "buffer time" between the two since the ear needs time to adjust).

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjamind /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've seen frequency response charts for both the 750 and 2500. The chart for the 750s confirmed my initial experience with my own 750s. But are these charts truly correct? Were the phones burned in when these charts were established?

I'd forget about frequency charts. They only serve to color one's expectations and distract from the listening experience. Let your ears decide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjamind /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do not need the isolation since I plan on using these in a pretty much silent room wherever I am (usually I visit relatives). So ruling out the differences in the isolation, which of these two phones is truly the better one? What are the real differences with respect to frequency response and imaging/soundstaging?

Again, if I could only keep one, it would be the 2500s, no question.

Cheers, Dex

 

[spacemanspliff]

Don't forget that they like tubes!

 

[Kees]

2500.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

This should help
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showpo...&postcount=380

 

[Wmcmanus]

The 2500 is the open one, right? If so, that' the one I prefer. I've got them both but in all honesty have never spent a whole lot of time with either one of them.

Since January I've been on the road more than I've been home, and when there I've been busy with other things. I really do want/need to give them some serious listening time, along with the Denon AH-D5000.

 

[ldj325]

Unless you are in a big hurry, you might want to wait a little. Ultrasone is potentially rolling out new HP in a convention in Germany I a couple of weeks.
This may give you new options. It just depends on how urgent a buy this is for you.

But then again I don't take my own advice as I just bought a pair of Edition 9s. Oh, well, I had my reasons.

 

[pataburd]

Short follow-up to my previous post on the dedicated 2500 thread, which I've taken the liberty to reprint below (inside asterisks).

************************************************** ********
Ben,

Just got the Proline 750 yesterday. First listen was on my home system:

Panasonic S47 DVD/CD player
DarkVoice 336i headphone-/pre- amp w/1x Svetlana 6H13C & 1x RCA 6SN7GT
MAC Silver Braid IC
ErnieM PCK-13 PCs
PowerVar ABC-200 AC conditioner
DakiOm feedback stabilizers
Marigo Signature CD Mat
various ebony isolation and/or vibration control devices/tube dampers, etc.

Frankly, I was surprised. Before plugging in the 750, I didn't think I'd like them compared to the 2500, since the 750 are a closed design. However, I ended up liking them quite a bit, precisely due to their points of difference with the 2500.

The first thing I noticed was the shape of the soundstage. The 750 throws an ellipsoidal space (squashed along the vertical--"z"--axis, compared to the 2500's more spherical headspace). Also, there seems to be more front-to-back layering with the 750, since the soundstage is more prominent about the horizontal--"x-y" plane. So the 750 don't have the fanned-out, spherically characterized headspace of the 2500; there's more of a front-to-back sense of things with elements more closely occupying the same plane. The 750, although a closed design, certainly did not exhibit any sort of closed-in listening experience, though. But they discernably lack the openness of the 2500.

Overall, the 750 gave a "weightier" presentation. The 750's mids were tonally more developed and had a more musically credible naturalness and organic integrity, I think, compared to the 2500's more airy and whispy sound. Vocals, both male and female, had a more natural warmth, wetness, "peel" and gutteral character with the 750. Massed choral or ensemble voices were rich and well differentiated. (The King's Singers' "Annie Laurie: Folksongs of the British Isles" never sounded better.)

The closed design, being a bit quieter, made vocals--the entire midrange, actually--more immediate and intimate, too (Maureen McGovern sounded like she was in the room w/the title cut from her "Out of this World" CD). Decay from cymbal hits, string plucks and piano key strikes--although not as expansive and 3-dimensionally suspended as that heard with the 2500--was more prolonged due to the 750's better isolation from outside noise, as well.

Bass was undoubtedly punchier (more percussive), better defined and easier to follow with the 750; therein, lies its chief distinction from the 2500, making the 750 more suitable for rock and other harder driven musical venues. In keeping with my experience with the ATH-A900LTD (the only other closed headphone I've spent appreciable time with), with certain tracks there's a tendency for congestion, glare, what-have-you with the 750--especially on already bright recordings--due to the closed/captive nature of the design (but less so than what I experienced with the A900LTD).

At this point, the 750, while just beginning their break-in, still sound a touch edgy. Following suit with the 2500, I've inserted a circular piece of light, super-absorbant, yellow-orange cloth material (the kind you see advertized on TV or sold at state fairs, that can soak up a lot of water for its size) between the removable earpad and the driver plate. After the first listening session, the 750 sound very promising and very alluring, though.

Better than the 2500? No. The Proline 750 are very different, but every bit as enjoyable, in their own respect. I like them both quite a bit!

Just ordered the HFI 2200 ULE to hear the gold drivers. Am I simply nibbling along the Ultrasone "chum-line" right now? . . . with the Edition 9 on the big hook at the end? (I've already priced out a pair.) : )
************************************************** ********

FOLLOW-UP:

Just finished a 6-hour session on the DarkVoice 336i with the 750, and may end up preferring them to the 2500 (at least for the time being). Note, however, that I have also recabled with MAC Source PC and re-tubed with 1x Sylvania 6AS7G and 1x RCA 6SN7GT/smoke glass, so the overall delivery system is a bit different.

Anyway, the 750, after about 30 hours have really opened up; soundstage was staggeringly large about 2/3 of the way into the listen (Pat Metheny's "Cathedral in a Suitcase" from his Secret Story disc). Cables are breaking in, too: the MAC cables are incredibly open. Coupled with the break-in on the 750, I truly had an "out-of-the-headphone" experience as the Ultrasones virtually eliminated all walls and took me into the wide open spaces, where no headphones had taken me before. The glare or congestion noted previously are completely gone, too, eliminated by further break-in of the 750 themselves and/or the MAC Source PC cables.

As I'd observed before I'll reiterate here: I think the 750 offer a more fully developed midrange and punchier bass than the 2500. During this last session, the 750 actually sounded more open than the 2500, but the 750's soundstage is more "planar" (with rather sizeable width, respectable depth, but not as much height and sphericity as the 2500). With the 2500, because of their spherical head space, it's easier to pinpoint voices and instruments, but I will venture to say that the 750 have a more "naturally" formed sound stage.

Unfortunately, I did not have the 2500 on hand this weekend; otherwise, I would have switched out the 750 and done a direct comparison between the two, and perhaps been able to sort out the effects of the new cable (and the tube changes) from the differences between the headphones themselves.

The DarkVoice, which as you know uses the 6SN7, really makes the 750/2500 come alive musically; I really like the 6SN7, and feel that the Bada PH-12 design (which I am in the process of purchasing) will exploit the best sonic traits of these great tubes, adding the MosFET output to solidify--or "solid statify"--the bass. I'm hoping that the 2500/750 take well to the Bada. I've heard that the PH-12 does not fare well with low impedance headphones like the Grados, which I think have slightly lower impedance than the Ultrasones.

 

[benjamind]

Pataburd, what was your impression of the frequencies between 200 and 400hz on the 750s? I know from my experience there was a noticeable dip where the upper bass and low mids were. It made male voices seem thinner.

I felt the 750s were decent headphones. I didn't burn my own ones in for that long. I haven't heard the 2500s enough to make any meaningful comparison.

I know the soundstage on the 750s was very speaker-like, but I was told the 2500 had the more speaker-like sound due to their open design.

I'm so confused by this comparison of soundstage that you are elaborating on. Which one is more speaker-like? Which one would you be more likely to be mixing on for music production?

Ben

 

[pataburd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjamind /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pataburd, what was your impression of the frequencies between 200 and 400hz on the 750s? I know from my experience there was a noticeable dip where the upper bass and low mids were. It made male voices seem thinner. I felt the 750s were decent headphones. I didn't burn my own ones in for that long. I haven't heard the 2500s enough to make any meaningful comparison. I know the soundstage on the 750s was very speaker-like, but I was told the 2500 had the more speaker-like sound due to their open design. I'm so confused by this comparison of soundstage that you are elaborating on. Which one is more speaker-like? Which one would you be more likely to be mixing on for music production? Ben

Ben,

For me, the 750 convey a greater sense of width and front-to-back depth, but less height and holography, than the 2500 (w/the 2500, there seems to be more sound equally generated around the front of the head as well as the top, sides and back). The 2500 suspend images more discernibly in 3-D space, and constituent parts are more analytically portrayed and easier for the listener to sort out and place. Think of a circle rotated about its diameter (2500) vs. an ellipse rotated about its minor axis (750) then cut in half (with the functional half more rearward than forward), and that's the difference in headspace I'm trying to convey.

That said, the 750 sound more speaker-like to me, with the soundstage assembled more naturally, more in keeping with the way the musicians may have actually been oriented during the recording. This may simply be a function of a more analytic headspace (2500) vs. a more holistic/synergistic headspace (750), with parts more segregated vs. aggregated, respectively. The 750 has more "bloom," with sounds inter-radiating, pulsing from inside/outside each other and less of the sense of uniquely bounded elements (as w/the 2500). With the 2500 you get less overlap/mixing between elements and more individuation. Put another way, you get more "within" or intra-action w/the 750, and more "between" or inter-action w/the 2500.

The 2500 sound quicker, have more finesse and are generally more refined sounding than the 750. But the 750 have a nice warmth, weight and solidity to them: brass tones are richer and purer, for example. Right now, I tend to leave the 750 on my ears for longer periods of time. I think they sound more organic--proportioned and mixed more like live sound, musical and more apt to make you forget you're wearing headphones than the 2500.

I've got Joe Williams on the RAM-modded Samsung HD-841, G&W T2.6F w/2x Amperex-Holland 6DJ8, MAC Palladium IC, MAC Source PC, DakiOms, Marigo Signature Mat, etc. Will do some a/b-ing between 750/2500 in the upper bass, lower mids as the day progresses.

PatABurd

 

[jamato8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pataburd /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ben, For me, the 750 convey a greater sense of width and front-to-back depth, but less height and holography, than the 2500 (w/the 2500, there seems to be more sound equally generated around the front of the head as well as the top, sides and back). The 2500 suspend images more discernibly in 3-D space, and constituent parts are more analytically portrayed and easier for the listener to sort out and place. Think of a circle rotated about its diameter (2500) vs. an ellipse rotated about its minor axis (750) then cut in half (with the functional half more rearward than forward), and that's the difference in headspace I'm trying to convey. That said, the 750 sound more speaker-like to me, with the soundstage assembled more naturally, more in keeping with the way the musicians may have actually been oriented during the recording. This may simply be a function of a more analytic headspace (2500) vs. a more holistic/synergistic headspace (750), with parts more segregated vs. aggregated, respectively. The 750 has more "bloom," with sounds inter-radiating, pulsing from inside/outside each other and less of the sense of uniquely bounded elements (as w/the 2500). With the 2500 you get less overlap/mixing between elements and more individuation. Put another way, you get more "within" or intra-action w/the 750, and more "between" or inter-action w/the 2500. The 2500 sound quicker, have more finesse and are generally more refined sounding than the 750. But the 750 have a nice warmth, weight and solidity to them: brass tones are richer and purer, for example. Right now, I tend to leave the 750 on my ears for longer periods of time. I think they sound more organic--proportioned and mixed more like live sound, musical and more apt to make you forget you're wearing headphones than the 2500. I've got Joe Williams on the RAM-modded Samsung HD-841, G&W T2.6F w/2x Amperex-Holland 6DJ8, MAC Palladium IC, MAC Source PC, DakiOms, Marigo Signature Mat, etc. Will do some a/b-ing between 750/2500 in the upper bass, lower mids as the day progresses. PatABurd

Excellent presentation of what you are hearing. It is enjoyable and enlightening to read your comments.

 

[pataburd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjamind /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pataburd, what was your impression of the frequencies between 200 and 400hz on the 750s? I know from my experience there was a noticeable dip where the upper bass and low mids were. It made male voices seem thinner. Ben

Ben,
Have been listening to male vocals for the last few days, a/b-ing the 750 and 2500: Joe Williams; Frank Sinatra; George Benson; Lambert, Hendricks and Ross; Jackie Paris and Annie Marie Moss. (RAM-modded HD-841/G&W T2.6F w/2x Amperex-Holland 6DJ8)

Truthfully, I don't hear a decided dip that makes male vocals sound thin. Instead I hear what I think is a better-integrated (upper w/middle w/lower) midrange from the 750. Male vocals, to me, sound fairly "meaty" and robust throughout the whole midrange spectrum, with perhaps some upper-/mid- range emphasis (w/the 750).

Wait . . .

Actually, when listening to male/female duets (so the male's voice is gauged alongside the female's, e.g. Jackie Paris and Annie Marie Moss singing "Fish Fry"), there seems to be perceivably a bit more roundedness, throatiness and resonance in the lower mids/upper bass register in Paris's voice in reference to Moss's on the 2500, although upper-/mid- mids are more solid, clear and immediate on the 750. It's a tough, subtle call, but perhaps the 2500 better distinguishes the male from the female voice in such duets.

Tomorrow, God willing, I'll have the new MAC HC power cables in house. Then, it's Bryn Terfel, the DarkVoice, the 750 and the 2500. Now, if I can find a duet with Bryn and Cecilia Bartoli, I'd be all set! : )

Patrick

 

[xinoxide]

ive seen numerous graphs, and ive actually never even seen 2 graphs match.

i do know that sometimes the cans ship(proline 750's) with different holes covered on the MU metal bufferboard. try covering different ones, makes for some interesting changes. this is considering the fact that even though the proline 2500's are open cans, they dont have these holes in the metal bufferboard. :]