Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › The Stax thread (New)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Stax thread (New) - Page 126  

post #1876 of 24765
I was looking for a SRXMkIII that I might cannabalize to get replace a bad transducer in the set I recently got and found another set on EBAY with the following warning.

"These STAX SR-X MARK 3 electrostatic headphones were bought as part of an auction I won. I am selling them as I already have another pair of Electrostatic Headphones. They were sold to me as having a fault on the left speaker. A friend took them apart and fixed a dodgy joint and got them working again! But they only seem to work fully when driven from an old type Stax energiser which has transformers on the output as my both of my energisers which are fully electronic produce a strange intermittent pumping noise in both channels"
What in Hades could be wrong here? There is no obvious reason I can think of for a set of these to work with a transforner but not an amp.

My first thought was that the "friend" just connected the bias and signal leads incorrectly. If so these might be ok for my purposes, or even if only one side is ok. How many ways can you screw these up?
post #1877 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post
I'm sad to hear you didn't like them but this is all about trial and error. I've never tried the Raytheon branded tubes since mine are marked Toshiba and in my modded T1 they were far and away the most neutral.
Maybe it's the amp?

Quote:
Btw. Was the biasing like the instructions I sent to you or has Stax changed something?
Instructions matched reality.
post #1878 of 24765
Btw, little comment in this thread on the GES amp... and somewhat inconclusive discussion on the amps forum. Does it really only output 500V peak-to-peak, like the Gilmore design on which it was based?

Edit: discussion seems to be a bit more conclusive now
post #1879 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by edstrelow View Post
I was looking for a SRXMkIII that I might cannabalize to get replace a bad transducer in the set I recently got and found another set on EBAY with the following warning.

"These STAX SR-X MARK 3 electrostatic headphones were bought as part of an auction I won. I am selling them as I already have another pair of Electrostatic Headphones. They were sold to me as having a fault on the left speaker. A friend took them apart and fixed a dodgy joint and got them working again! But they only seem to work fully when driven from an old type Stax energiser which has transformers on the output as my both of my energisers which are fully electronic produce a strange intermittent pumping noise in both channels"
What in Hades could be wrong here? There is no obvious reason I can think of for a set of these to work with a transforner but not an amp.

My first thought was that the "friend" just connected the bias and signal leads incorrectly. If so these might be ok for my purposes, or even if only one side is ok. How many ways can you screw these up?
The only time I've heard something like this the bias wasn't properly connected and cut in and out. There is no reason that an amp shouldn't be able to drive them instead of the adapter unless somebody did something wrong. I have noticed that many times people say the phones are functioning like new because they don't know any better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickamory View Post
Maybe it's the amp?
Could be. These amps are similar but not the same. Stax might have done some revoicing when they had to switch to the Ei and EH tubes

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickamory View Post
Instructions matched reality.
Good to hear
post #1880 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post
The only time I've heard something like this the bias wasn't properly connected and cut in and out. There is no reason that an amp shouldn't be able to drive them instead of the adapter unless somebody did something wrong. I have noticed that many times people say the phones are functioning like new because they don't know any better.
I think I will take a pass on these. I am afraid of holes in the diaphragms.

If anyone here has a set of SRXIII's with only one side running well, I would be interested.
post #1881 of 24765

MY CONCLUSION REGARDING THE WOO GES AMP WAS WRONG

MY CONCLUSION REGARDING THE WOO GES AMP WAS WRONG. SEE MY POST #103 AT THE FOLLOWING THREAD: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...=205708&page=5

The results of my evaluation of the Woo Audio GES amp are disappointing. This evaluation is shown as my post #66, at the following thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...=205708&page=3

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeg View Post
I guess that, at least for now, I'll stick with my motto, which is "if it sounds good, it is good".

BTW, another posting regarding the GES is #463 at http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...236593&page=19

So far there are only complementary postings about this amp.
post #1882 of 24765
Some impressions on the newest arrivals...

SR-Gamma

These phones are really small!! They use a cheaper headband then the Lambda series and the top of the strap starts to break down with age but it can be cleaned off and doesn't impact the comfort. The sound is very good over the board but they lack a little warmth and the housing vibrates with the bass and that gives an odd coloration but it's subtle. The treble is clear and extended but thin like the rest of the sound and the same goes for the midrange. There isn't much soundstage to speak off because the drivers are very close to the ears. This thin nature makes the harmonics sound a bit off but makes them a lot of fun to listen to.
They will never be considered reference quality and the earpads are way to small so they start to bother you pretty soon but they are a good step up from the SR-5.

SR-Lambda Professional

I bought a set of these some years ago but never used them all that much and they have been on extended loan for most of the time. Being the nut job I am, I bought a second set in near NOS condition to have around. On first listen it all came back to me why I loaned them away, the deeply recessed midrange, bright and peaky highs and the flappy and quite frankly strange bass. This midrange depression is very annoying and it never fully goes away. Voices and instruments sound like they are in a closed off room some meters back from the rest of the sound spectrum. The highs have the same slight brightness as the SR-Lambda but they aren't as smooth and natural, instead they are peaky and sound a bit off. The bass is very heavy handed and at the same time very flat and has no texture to it. This makes it sound slightly detached from the midrange almost like a Martin-Logan.

They shocked me so much that I'll have to agree with the Stereophile review from 1984 and say, compare them to the other Lambdas before you buy. For my tastes the normal bias Lambda and the Signature are much more neutral phones, though each in their own way and with their own flaws. I suspect that most of these could be rectified by removing the fiber glass inside the cups (it worked wonders on the SR-Lambda) but since this set is in such good condition I won't dare to try it. The collector in me wants these to be like they are so I'll have to buy a new set just to try out my theory.
post #1883 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post
Some impressions on the newest arrivals...


SR-Lambda Professional

I bought a set of these some years ago but never used them all that much and they have been on extended loan for most of the time. Being the nut job I am, I bought a second set in near NOS condition to have around. On first listen it all came back to me why I loaned them away, the deeply recessed midrange, bright and peaky highs and the flappy and quite frankly strange bass. This midrange depression is very annoying and it never fully goes away. Voices and instruments sound like they are in a closed off room some meters back from the rest of the sound spectrum. The highs have the same slight brightness as the SR-Lambda but they aren't as smooth and natural, instead they are peaky and sound a bit off. The bass is very heavy handed and at the same time very flat and has no texture to it. This makes it sound slightly detached from the midrange almost like a Martin-Logan.

They shocked me so much that I'll have to agree with the Stereophile review from 1984 and say, compare them to the other Lambdas before you buy. For my tastes the normal bias Lambda and the Signature are much more neutral phones, though each in their own way and with their own flaws. I suspect that most of these could be rectified by removing the fiber glass inside the cups (it worked wonders on the SR-Lambda) but since this set is in such good condition I won't dare to try it. The collector in me wants these to be like they are so I'll have to buy a new set just to try out my theory.
It is so confusing keeping track of the Lambda variations. In a sense every Lambda since about 1988 is a Lambda pro, however, here I assume you are discussing the original Lambda pro, which is listed on the Stax history page from 1982.

As I understand the differences between models, there are 5 notable design differences among the Lambdas:

1) High Bias (pro) vs. low bias,

2) Fiber backing behind the transducers, vs no fiber,

3) Copper honeycomb stators vs. wire mesh

4) High vs low capacitance cables

5) Diaphragm thickness, currently about 1.35 microns?

This Lambda pro is, I assume High bias, w fiber backing, w copper honeycomb stator, w. high capacitance cable and thick diaphragm.
post #1884 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by edstrelow View Post
It is so confusing keeping track of the Lambda variations. In a sense every Lambda since about 1988 is a Lambda pro, however, here I assume you are discussing the original Lambda pro, which is listed on the Stax history page from 1982.

As I understand the differences between models, there are 5 notable design differences among the Lambdas:

1) High Bias (pro) vs. low bias,

2) Fiber backing behind the transducers, vs no fiber,

3) Copper honeycomb stators vs. wire mesh

4) High vs low capacitance cables

5) Diaphragm thickness, currently about 1.35 microns?

This Lambda pro is, I assume High bias, w fiber backing, w copper honeycomb stator, w. high capacitance cable and thick diaphragm.
These are the 1982 models. They are identical to the SR-Lambda except for the diaphragm/stator spacing. Same cable (original ribbon cable), 2um diaphragm, glass fiber in the earcups and perforated plates for stators.

In 1987 there was the SR-Lambda Signature (there was no Pro in the name) and they used the 1um diaphragm, no glass fiber in the earcups and the PC-OCC cable and perforated plate stators.
post #1885 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post
... For my tastes the normal bias Lambda and the Signature are much more neutral phones, though each in their own way and with their own flaws.
I'm glad someone else likes the original Lambda. My Lambda Pro's sound real good with my SRM-1mkII Pro, but every time I put on the Lambda (low bias) phones it's like going back to Quad 57's. They just make music enjoyable.

They are a good bargain used.

AudioD
post #1886 of 24765
Is is possible to put lambda pads on the Gamma? The Gamma-Pro would probably be my choice for running as a transportable rig with the SRM-212. Not that such a rig is going to happen any time soon.
post #1887 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiod View Post
I'm glad someone else likes the original Lambda. My Lambda Pro's sound real good with my SRM-1mkII Pro, but every time I put on the Lambda (low bias) phones it's like going back to Quad 57's. They just make music enjoyable.

They are a good bargain used.
No, don't make the normal bias Lambdas FOTM yet, I want to pick up a pair first!
post #1888 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiod View Post
I'm glad someone else likes the original Lambda. My Lambda Pro's sound real good with my SRM-1mkII Pro, but every time I put on the Lambda (low bias) phones it's like going back to Quad 57's. They just make music enjoyable.

They are a good bargain used.

AudioD
Very, very good headphones. You should try them with the fiber glass removed. They are IMO much better like that, more effortless and relaxed.

The Pro's are good but the older brother is simply better to these ears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duggeh View Post
Is is possible to put lambda pads on the Gamma? The Gamma-Pro would probably be my choice for running as a transportable rig with the SRM-212. Not that such a rig is going to happen any time soon.
Node the Lambda pads are too long. The SR-007 pads are a bit too big but they could work. I just tried them on top of the Gamma pads and that urned them into bass monsters.
post #1889 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirumu View Post
No, don't make the normal bias Lambdas FOTM yet, I want to pick up a pair first!
They are rising in price fast on ebay but they are still much cheaper then the Pro's. Many think that the normal versions are simply outdated and obsolete junk and that's fine by me...
post #1890 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirumu View Post
No, don't make the normal bias Lambdas FOTM yet, I want to pick up a pair first!
What's that...normal bias lambdas are superior to pro bias Lambdas
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › The Stax thread (New)