Dunno. The return per dollar from a Lambda to a SR-00X is far greater than the return per dollar from an amplifier. With a $4000 budget for instance a young gentleman would be better serviced by a SR-009 + 323S than a Lambda Nova/Signature and a KGSSHV (or arguably a SR-007 and KGSSHV, depending on taste).
What is so fundamentally wrong with the topology of modern Stax amplifiers excepting non-NFB (727) and unregulated power supplies (virtually everything else)?
I would agree they are overpriced, but I think the same for all electrostatic driver units, first-party or third-party -- be it overhead, base cost of the BOM or some combination of the two.
I only like using it on special enjoyment occasions. Stax have a wow factor if you intersperse them with dynamic usage; I don't want to get used to the electrostatic sound.Too bad most R10s are rotting from the inside-out by now. I'm not convinced even a perfect R10 is really better than the HD 800 in non-subjective respects. I think the R10 played second-fiddle to the HE90 and Omega back in the day, but of course I'm biased.
Of course. I'm just curious as to what parameters were applied in the EQ'd chart to better understand what might be accounting for the change in decay behavior. Without those parameters, it just looks like a picture to me (it does a good job at showing "what" but doesn't even hint at "how"). How might nonlinear characteristics change with the application of linear EQ in any form? Just curious.
I would agree. The HD 800 is the only dynamic member I plan to keep in my stable (orthodynamics included). I'm still not fully convinced that the HD 800s are that difficult to tame (it was pretty much plug-and-play on my gear with predictable results), but it is certainly sufficiently revealing for a daily driver. I can't bear using Stax on the daily due to durability and reliability concerns.
What were the applied EQ parameters?
The amplitude for a given frequency band might just be hitting the -35dB cutoff point more quickly if it's attenuated. Just speculating since the context behind those charts in particular are rather vague in terms of methodology and context.
I've seen a HD 800 attenuated pretty much 6dB above 4KHz where the waterfall behavior down to -70dB didn't change significantly compared against some simple foam liner that attenuated just...
I've transitioned from my Omega to the HD 800 for general-purpose and I think the 800s get pretty close in resolution. Although the soundstage is more vast it doesn't have the ethereal qualities of the Stax -- that ethereality contributes greatly to perceived transparency and air IMHO.
The 800s are also much harsher in the treble but I'm heavily biased against electrodynamics in this area.