Stax Sr-X Mark III Impressions
May 9, 2006 at 7:01 AM Post #137 of 223
Wow. I ran a google search on a new headphone I bought from Bozebuttons, and came across this thread.

I am every much enjoying my "new toy" phase with the SR-X and SRD-6/SB. It's interesting because my experience has been largely with dynamic headphones that, to some degree, have sonic similarities with electrostats.

I'll be honest, the SR404 and O2's never interested me, but hearing some of Stax's older offerings, I became quite curious which is why I started on this foray.

I find it interesting the early posts compare the soundstage to the UM2. Interesting but not surprising. The width of soundstage is not the strength of this Stax (unless somone raises a particuarly amazing amp or deficiency in my modest little setup.) But even though I get superior soundstaging from my dynamic headphones, there is a welcome tonality and texture to the edges of the sound that is rewarding. Yes, these are not bass monsters, but neither am I (except with new Grado GS-1000 and flats), and I find the tight bass that's here to be satisfying enough.

This is very curious indeed. I'm on a trip to Japan soon. I suppose I will have to go toe to toe with those Japanese headphiles willing to go nuts over older Stax.

Best regards,

-Jason
 
Aug 19, 2006 at 3:20 AM Post #138 of 223
Well I thought I would bring this thread back from the dead to mention that I had to seperate my speakers and Sr-X mk III system. So without an amp, I did some research and come upon the Behringer A500. This is a great amp. It is only $180 and is stable to 4 ohms. It operates in class AB and has about 160W per channel at 8 ohm. You will need a pre amp with it though, right now all I can use is the bottom 10% of the knobs. It sounds as good as the panny; the sound spectrum is all there and so is the fun.
 
Aug 22, 2006 at 4:58 AM Post #139 of 223
Quote:

Originally Posted by johnmatrix
...I did some research and come upon the Behringer A500. This is a great amp. It is only $180 and is stable to 4 ohms. It operates in class AB and has about 160W per channel at 8 ohm. It sounds as good as the panny [emphasis mine]...


Eh? A cheap non-MOSFET class AB amp sounds as good as the vaunted digital-amp Panasonic XR55?

It's the Revenge of the Bipolars! Run for it!
 
Aug 22, 2006 at 8:33 AM Post #140 of 223
Quote:

Originally Posted by wualta
Eh? A cheap non-MOSFET class AB amp sounds as good as the vaunted digital-amp Panasonic XR55?

It's the Revenge of the Bipolars! Run for it!



Maybe that class D etherealness wasn't to his taste?
 
Aug 27, 2006 at 8:08 PM Post #141 of 223
I love them both and don't really favor one over the other. I was forced to change amps due to the splitting of my system and my research led to me the Behringer. It does have a fuller sound and represents an excellent deal in audio like the panny. Unfortunately I don't know how it really sounds until I get a preamp and get to move the dial past 8 o'clock.

Edit: Any suggestions for the preamp?
 
Sep 23, 2006 at 8:11 AM Post #143 of 223
Quote:

Originally Posted by tyre
Hi folks, I just recently got a pair of SR-X/mk3 cans and SRD-7. I'm noticing sibilance in the vocals of various music, has anyone else experienced this?


I've heard similar comments but I don't see it as unnatural; real vocals contain sibilance..........

Also, it may have something to do with your source equipment. If you run the X-III with a budget amp it really doesn't sound like it should.
 
Sep 23, 2006 at 11:44 PM Post #144 of 223
Quote:

Originally Posted by tyre
Hi folks, I just recently got a pair of SR-X/mk3 cans and SRD-7. I'm noticing sibilance in the vocals of various music, has anyone else experienced this?


I wouldn't worry. Ever seen a frequency response graph for the most commonly used pop vocal mics, like the Shure SM57? Whoa. Wonder no more. Now if you're talking Kathleen Battle..

What amp are you running?
 
Sep 23, 2006 at 11:54 PM Post #145 of 223
Stax will have a bit of "electrostatic etch" that might be exacerbated by their highly revealing nature to begin with. If the vocalist isn't using an industrial strength pop stopper, you'll probably hear some sibilance when the air leaves a slightly chappy lip. Part of the charm of Stax, although I got rid of it by using a tube preamp before the energizer.
 
Sep 24, 2006 at 12:12 AM Post #146 of 223
Ah, but these are the mighty SR-X. No treble etch here. Thoroughly snubbed down, these. Still, I like your chapped lips saga, and the way you cruelly-- it had to be done-- tore the charm away by using tubes. That'll show 'em!
 
Sep 24, 2006 at 12:27 AM Post #147 of 223
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lloyd297
If you run the X-III with a budget amp it really doesn't sound like it should.


Quote:

Originally Posted by wualta
What amp are you running?


A Technics class-D receiver, 100wpc. Not the greatest but it has plenty of power to spare.
 
Sep 24, 2006 at 5:13 AM Post #150 of 223
As Wualta says, recordings often over-syllablize the voices and stats are quick enough to not tone them down and make them sound more respectable, as good little well-trained dynamic phones have been trained from birth to do.

The important thing about sibilance is that it should sound "SSSSSS". If it sounds "THHHH" or even "FFFFFFFFF" then there's a problem. OTOH if it sounds "SZZZZZZZZ" then you have a pair of Lambda's on your head.........
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top