The Stax thread (New)

[gordie]

If this keeps up maybe we could lobby for an electrostatic forum. The first Stax thread was awesome, but I have to admit it is a bit of work to find anything specific in it - if it was a series of posts in its own forum that would serve future generations well.

-- Gordie

[facelvega]

Originally Posted by smeggy

I doubt you'd hear a difference with the new SR-X pads as it's no better at sealing and yes, the old ones peel off and he new ones come with a double-sided sticky tape ring, you press them into place and you're done.

When the old ones look like this you will:

Originally Posted by gordie

If this keeps up maybe we could lobby for an electrostatic forum. The first Stax thread was awesome, but I have to admit it is a bit of work to find anything specific in it - if it was a series of posts in its own forum that would serve future generations well.

A separate forum would just serve to keep the non-stax people from ever venturing into the fold. But I fully agree that the first Stax thread was getting ungainly as an information source.

[smeggy]

Originally Posted by facelvega

When the old ones look like this you will:

Oh those ones lol. ok, well maybe a slight difference.. I was at least expecting the pads to still be there.

[Carl]

Originally Posted by wower

My big delimma is: get a 404/727 system or a O2/323II system?? This choice is going to drive me crazy.

The answer is simply to buy the system with the headphone you enjoy more. 404s and Omega 2s have quite different sound signatures and one will appeal more to one group of people and the other will appeal more to another group of people.

[Snacks]

Originally Posted by Carl

404s and Omega 2s have quite different sound signatures and one will appeal more to one group of people and the other will appeal more to another group of people.

Carl - Since the 4070s has the same drivers as the 404, would it be safe to say that they share similar signatures? Or have you heard them yet?

As far as individual forums for different manufactures, i.e., AKG, AT, STAX, etc., that would be helpful; however, lesser referenced cans would probably fall off the radar or hardly recieve recognition. At least with the jack format you have numerous headphones that are being referred to any given day, at any given moment. IMO, there aren't enough members to warrant individual forums, yet. Many auto forums do this, but this ain't autos. However, I do hope to see the individual forums in the future.

[gordie]

I agree individual forums for each manufacturer would be too much.

I was suggesting a forum for all electrostatics (which are mainly Stax, but also Sennheiser and Koss), which I think would cover a lot of ground.

Also, regarding 404s vs. 4070s I can comment on 303s vs 4070s (and 303s are very similar to 404s): Comments regarding 303 vs. 4070 in K1000 vs. 4070 thread

-- Gordie

[Carl]

Originally Posted by Snacks

Carl - Since the 4070s has the same drivers as the 404, would it be safe to say that they share similar signatures? Or have you heard them yet?

Well they're closer to the 404 than the Omega II, at least.

Electrostatic transducers are all pretty sonically neutral. It's the headphone housing/cable and the amp that account for most of the sound signature.

[Snacks]

Originally Posted by gordie

I agree individual forums for each manufacturer would be too much.

I was suggesting a forum for all electrostatics (which are mainly Stax, but also Sennheiser and Koss), which I think would cover a lot of ground.

Also, regarding 404s vs. 4070s I can comment on 303s vs 4070s (and 303s are very similar to 404s): Comments regarding 303 vs. 4070 in K1000 vs. 4070 thread

-- Gordie

Thanks Gordie, I'll give that thread a read.
I read that wrong : an all inclusive electrostatic forum would be a really pleasant experience.

[Downrange]

+1 for separate "electrostatics" forum

Aside from my old Senn 570s, that's about all I have. (Not that they're that bad...)

[Goosepond]

Hi,

I'm a new member of the Stax club, or at least I will be in a few days. I just bought a T1 amp and a pair of 404's on AudiogoN.

I've already got a pair of 650's and a Meier PreHead. And also a pair of K1000's on the way along with a Moth si2A3. Has this place affected my judgement. Naaaah!

How can I go wrong.

I wonder if anyone knows why Stax doesn't still produce adapters anymore? Is it because they want to sell more of their amps?

Gene

[Johnny Blue]

Originally Posted by smeggy

I doubt you'd hear a difference with the new SR-X pads as it's no better at sealing and yes, the old ones peel off and he new ones come with a double-sided sticky tape ring, you press them into place and you're done.

This is re-assuring. I have a pair of SR-X Mk3s where the vinyl (?) has worn off, but the cloth beneath it remains (like the one on the right in the photo above). I actually find them quite comfortable like this: no sweaty ear syndrome (!), but I have wondered if the HF is lost a little because of its absorption into the cloth/foam.

[Andre Jute]

Originally Posted by Goosepond

How can I go wrong.

You already did, by coming here. If you are at all impressionable, these guys will soon have you believing you need at least an Omega 2 and an expensive aftermarket dedicated amp. It is a form of mass hysteria empowered by the Internet.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute]

Originally Posted by Goosepond

I wonder if anyone knows why Stax doesn't still produce adapters anymore? Is it because they want to sell more of their amps?

They just moved on with their market. Back in the middle decades of the last century, an amp cost quite a bit of money. It was cheaper making a matching box than a full amp, and probably all their customers wanted to pay for. (I don't know what earspeakers and adapter boxes cost then but certainly they were treated as expensive items; the Stax phones I used in the 1960s at the recording studio my advertising agency owned were kept in a locked wooden box and taken out only when I worked in the studio.) It was probably a smart move on the part of Stax to use pre-existing amps, to make a necessary connecting box as relatively cheaply as possible. Then.

Today a silicon amp, at least, is cheap to make, and the hybrid tube OTL amps Stax makes not much more expensive. Here you should read "cheap" and "expensive" in relative historic terms, and relatively to the high labor and probably wastage costs of making electrostatic earspeaker units. The key cost (next to the case!) is probably the transformer, and that would be the same for an amp and for an adapter box (different kinds of transformers but the cost would be pretty closely related).

Furthermore, it does appear that there has been a change of philosophy at Stax. The cynical might say that this is simply an extension of the line of argument above: that Stax is more responsive to their market, or even follows fashion more closely. Whichever it is, to those of us not overimpressed with the design of Stax amps of old (the design compromises once you understood the topology sat very uneasily with the incredibly high price), the modern Stax amps are impressive (at their respective prices), especially to those of us with tube DIY backgrounds. Underlying this movement, almost dragging the Stax amps into the 21st century by the scuff of their necks, one might reasonably imagine that some opinion-former at Stax decided that the most direct path between source and earphone -- which is clearly not an unknown and possibly unmatched amp PLUS an adapter -- would give the electrostat the best chance to deliver the finest sound. A decicated amp of Stax's own design follows logically, and is made possible at a price the market clearly wants to pay by the advance of electronic time, as described above.

Personally I would like to think that this beneficial sequence happened as the result of hard thought and not just haphazardly because time passing made creeping changes possible.

There will be cries of outrage. There are many here who consider some old Stax earspeaker and its matching adapter box superior to the current crop of earspeakers with their matching dedicated amps. It is possible. However, electrostatic speaker technology has not advanced much in half a century. An electrostat is an electrostat, a nice clear sound. What has advanced is our understanding of how the housing, the cable and the positioning of the diaphraghm in relation to the ear influence the various qualities of the perceived sound. Electrostatic earphone hi-fi is no different from other hi-fi in at least this regard: where cables or other additional elements (all the way up to deliberate EQ) make a difference, it is because of solecisms of design in other aspects of the chain. It thus seems to me likely that, if the owner's amp plus adapter is perceived as superior to the modern amp for driving earspeakers, personal choice or familiarity and adaptation to the quirks of the owner's amp might play a large part. In other words, the adapter box gimmicks some problem right, in exactly the same way that in normal hi-fi a high-capacitance cable can accidentally gimmick mismatched components into giving a "better" perceived sound. But your modern Stax earspeaker already comes engineered with cable that releases the full frequency band of which the factory's recommended matching amp is capable. That is why the amp is matched to it. There is nothing left to gimmick right. (Some other time I will explain why I think that the ever higher frequencies the Stax earspeakers are capable of is a mistake, and why the amp or the cable should be used to filter these down. I mention it now as an example of how hi-fi is never as simple as I, or anyone else, can sometimes make it look by simplifying complex relationships to make a debating point. There is thus in fact something left to gimmick right. But who knows whether the adapter box does the business?)

Don't you just love speculation?

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[audiod]

Hi Everyone,
I’m new to this forum, but certainly not new to electrostatic headphones. I got the Koss ESP-9’s when they first came out. I got my first Stax headphones (SR-3 with a SRA-3s amp) in the early seventies. I’m including some pictures of my current family of headphones and drivers. I would like to see some pictures of your family of headphones, especially the rare and hard to find. I wish I found out about this thread a long time ago. Better late than never.

Guess the make and model numbers and win a trip to Jamaica (just joking!).

AudioD

[smeggy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Blue

This is re-assuring. I have a pair of SR-X Mk3s where the vinyl (?) has worn off, but the cloth beneath it remains (like the one on the right in the photo above). I actually find them quite comfortable like this: no sweaty ear syndrome (!), but I have wondered if the HF is lost a little because of its absorption into the cloth/foam.

Hi Johnny,
the set I have came with old worn pads as well. the foam inside was collapsed and all the vinyl was missing but they are actually more comfy than the new pads. As you said, less sweaty and a softer, more conforming fit. I didn't notice any change in sound after swapping them out but I'm not a detail oriented listener, I'm a sound signature listener. The difference, if you notice one, will be minimal as even new pads are thin and absorption will be small at these distances.