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 1358  

post #20356 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post


And you've been abusing if the lcd2 lately haven't you ? smily_headphones1.gif
From all the measurements I've seen of the 009, including my own, the thing is flat down to 15Hz, show me the shelving are you talking about. Subjectively, the bass of the 009 is as good as it gets to my ears. One of the few staxes that really has impact while having this tight /tuneful quality that really highlights the recording specifics rather than overemphasize bass like so many phones do, which quickly gets old.

 

Haven't touched the LCD-2 in months, they are just so inferior to the HD800.  redface.gif

 

I know what I hear and I'm far from alone in describing the 009 sound this way.  After I wrote that I got two PM's thanking me for confirming that they weren't mad and there was something wrong with these "perfect transducers" as they are sometimes described.   Plenty of people will think these are the bees knees but why is system matching suddenly a word you use in context with Stax?  Normally we have just advocated better amps, better sources as Stax sets did portray what they were fed, be it good or bad.  Now you need the right amp with enough top end roll off and boomy bass and a tube source which would have been considered badly designed in the 1920's....

 

As for the measurements, I have no doubt Tyll did a good job but there is a lot more too this then just FR, waterfall plots etc, and our understanding of these is severely lacking.  I'm the first to advocate measurements but you have to know what to look for and that zero isn't always the best outcome.  If you design an amp simply for the lowest THD then you end with the O2 amp and utter garbage.  The reason for this is quite simple but it goes to show that measurements are just one point of reference and with THD you actually have an actual one number to work from.  Measure transducers and this becomes an epic headache as it's quite hard to measure them under real working conditions. 

post #20357 of 24765

I am not sure about 009.

 

After broken-in, the highs of my 507 had soften quite a bit,

Now the highs are very refined. very neutral, true to the source & recording.

 

The 507 require a good source (low jitter, low distortion),

otherwise their highs could be a problem..... sound "digital",harsh,etc

很中性的
 

Edited by pkshan - 12/17/12 at 9:16am
post #20358 of 24765

Oh god I agree with spritzer. I suppose it was bound to happen eventually.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post

Haven't touched the LCD-2 in months, they are just so inferior to the HD800. 

post #20359 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post

 

Haven't touched the LCD-2 in months, they are just so inferior to the HD800.  redface.gif

 

I know what I hear and I'm far from alone in describing the 009 sound this way.  After I wrote that I got two PM's thanking me for confirming that they weren't mad and there was something wrong with these "perfect transducers" as they are sometimes described.   Plenty of people will think these are the bees knees but why is system matching suddenly a word you use in context with Stax?  Normally we have just advocated better amps, better sources as Stax sets did portray what they were fed, be it good or bad.  Now you need the right amp with enough top end roll off and boomy bass and a tube source which would have been considered badly designed in the 1920's....

 

As for the measurements, I have no doubt Tyll did a good job but there is a lot more too this then just FR, waterfall plots etc, and our understanding of these is severely lacking.  I'm the first to advocate measurements but you have to know what to look for and that zero isn't always the best outcome.  If you design an amp simply for the lowest THD then you end with the O2 amp and utter garbage.  The reason for this is quite simple but it goes to show that measurements are just one point of reference and with THD you actually have an actual one number to work from.  Measure transducers and this becomes an epic headache as it's quite hard to measure them under real working conditions. 

 

I think there is a time domain thing that goes on with bass sound quality.  Not a "stored energy" issue so much, as would show up on a waterfall plot, but an issue that might show up in a tone-burst test.  It's something dynamic that would likely not show up in a frequency response test, which is static.  Just my 2 cents.

 

I have very limited listening experience with SR-009, so I cannot comment on their bass, but I think that IN GENERAL bass sound quality has a lot to do with dynamic behavior that is not well characterized by current test methods.

 

I think harmonic and IM distortion  under dynamic  conditions also plays a role in transducer sound that is not characterized by measurements currently considered standard.  The notion of a "distortion envelope profile"  if you will.


Edited by milosz - 12/17/12 at 10:28am
post #20360 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorbidToaster View Post

Oh god I agree with spritzer. I suppose it was bound to happen eventually.

 


I completely agree, and they are really overrated here. They sound, at best, like a 400$ can.

post #20361 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post


I completely agree, and they are really overrated here. They sound, at best, like a 400$ can.

Sound wise they have their merits. $400 is a bit harsh, but they certainly have comfort below what I'd expect for even $400.
post #20362 of 24765

I've been calling the LCDs overrated back when you could get banned for such blasphemy...glad to see now that I'm not (that) crazy. wink.gif

post #20363 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorbidToaster View Post


Sound wise they have their merits. $400 is a bit harsh, but they certainly have comfort below what I'd expect for even $400.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by n3rdling View Post

I've been calling the LCDs overrated back when you could get banned for such blasphemy...glad to see now that I'm not (that) crazy. wink.gif

Agreed. Actually to my surprise spritzer actually has the HD800's, besides all that stat gear huh.


Edited by DefQon - 12/17/12 at 4:26pm
post #20364 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post

 

Haven't touched the LCD-2 in months, they are just so inferior to the HD800.  redface.gif

 

I know what I hear and I'm far from alone in describing the 009 sound this way.  After I wrote that I got two PM's thanking me for confirming that they weren't mad and there was something wrong with these "perfect transducers" as they are sometimes described.   Plenty of people will think these are the bees knees but why is system matching suddenly a word you use in context with Stax?  Normally we have just advocated better amps, better sources as Stax sets did portray what they were fed, be it good or bad.  Now you need the right amp with enough top end roll off and boomy bass and a tube source which would have been considered badly designed in the 1920's....

 

As for the measurements, I have no doubt Tyll did a good job but there is a lot more too this then just FR, waterfall plots etc, and our understanding of these is severely lacking.  I'm the first to advocate measurements but you have to know what to look for and that zero isn't always the best outcome.  If you design an amp simply for the lowest THD then you end with the O2 amp and utter garbage.  The reason for this is quite simple but it goes to show that measurements are just one point of reference and with THD you actually have an actual one number to work from.  Measure transducers and this becomes an epic headache as it's quite hard to measure them under real working conditions. 

 

I think you're shooting the messenger Birgir. The 009 simply lets it through and some are not liking it as it is. You can't have it both ways, and as such, I actually respect Audeze for what they're trying to achieve.

 

Now, as for your discussion on bass performance of the 009, I assume you're referring to the need to have mid-bass/lower bass emphasis in headphones to subjectively compensate for lack of chest impact? Because as far as measurements go, provided a good seal (a proper dummy head and soft cushion like the 009 is no problem) and good measuring gear (such as Tyll's apparatus), there is no question the bass performance can be effectively and accurately measured and the 009 shows well there.

 

Many are grateful for your pointing out the Omega 2 mkII porting which messes up the bass and I very much agree with you. For the 009, if anything, Stax tried harder than ever to ensure a stiff electrode and frame to minimize the bass distortion. It is a sealed design with the earpad/diaphragm/cavity resonance tuned at 50Hz. Due to the coupling acoustic-mechanical coupling mechanism, it goes down flat to measurable range (just like the LCDs which has the same sealed earpad/baffle plate design type).

 

Distortion in general is very low per Tyll's measurements. And subjectively it is as clean, delineated, and impactful as I've heard from Stax gear. That's using the "terrible" SRM-727 stock amp so I can't imagine what will come out of the BHSE. You mention about "measuring them in real working conditions". The thing is, Tyll's measurements are JUST THAT. It's taking the microphone SPL and the input signal into BHSE, the signal levels are typical from operating conditions. Distortion was measured at 90 and 100dB SPL, which is way higher than I ever listen to.

 

So, I don't know, we probably are looking at different graphs or something? http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/comparing-world-class-headphones-stax-sr-009

post #20365 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post

 

I think there is a time domain thing that goes on with bass sound quality.  Not a "stored energy" issue so much, as would show up on a waterfall plot, but an issue that might show up in a tone-burst test.  It's something dynamic that would likely not show up in a frequency response test, which is static.  Just my 2 cents.

 

I have very limited listening experience with SR-009, so I cannot comment on their bass, but I think that IN GENERAL bass sound quality has a lot to do with dynamic behavior that is not well characterized by current test methods.

 

I think harmonic and IM distortion  under dynamic  conditions also plays a role in transducer sound that is not characterized by measurements currently considered standard.  The notion of a "distortion envelope profile"  if you will.

 

The impulse response shows that and if there really was a severe issue in the transient response at LF, it would show right up in the impulse response because of the rather long decay time at low frequencies (that's the ringing stuff in the mid-highs which is not particularly straightforward to see in an impulse or step response due to fast decay).

 

The one thing you may be alluding is the fact an electrostatic transducer is working in stiffness region below the first resonance (which is ~50Hz for the 009) while a traditional dynamic transducer operates in piston motion in that range. So, conceptually, you could raise the point of some form of distortion / compression effects. But in practice, this shape of the transducer has nothing to do with the pressure wave that results from it. Be it a piston or a stretched diaphragm like and estat or ortho, they all drive a small acoustic space which is again in stiffness controlled region (no acoustic modes in the earcup cavity there) and you get uniform pressure across the earcup.  

 

This may be hard to visualize so have a look at this, it is a contour plot of SPL inside and outside a stat headphone (not the 009 but conceptually it's the same thing) at the fundamental resonance frequency (60Hz here) where the diaphragm, earcup cavity, ear pad, and frame (assumed rigid here) were all modeled. You can clearly see the diaphragm fundamental resonance but the SPL in the earcup is basically homogeneous (and will remain like that until 1kHz or so, e.g. until it can sustain standing waves):

1000

post #20366 of 24765

Cool stuff as always, arnaud. 

post #20367 of 24765

Seriously.  Excellent explanation & visual.

post #20368 of 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3rdling View Post

Cool stuff as always, arnaud. 

Agreed. Good stuff arnaud.

 

All I really know is that I found the SR-007 (mkI and mkII) to be just good, but never good enough to make the plunge. I preferred the LCD-2s (and especially the LCD-3s). I've heard them many times over the years and on some really good setups...but the motivation to plop down my hard earned $ was never really there. 

 

Now the SR-009s with my SRM-727II all I can say is wow! Had them now for about 6 weeks and the new toy syndrome hasn't worn off. These have displaced my beloved LCD-3s as my prime go to cans and work with every genre of music I've thrown at them (rock, metal, jazz, classical, acoustic, alternative, even old school Macedonian folk music). I find their bass is better defined than either the LCD-3 or HD-800s, their mids simply magical and never had issue with their detailed treble. They are imaging monsters and only come in second to the HD-800s in terms of expansiveness.

 

I never thought I'd be a card carrying member of the Stax Mafia, but here I am...and rather proud of it. 

post #20369 of 24765

As am I...Though with this new found love of Harbeths (should have a pair soon) I feel I might be 'converted' once again. 

 

If I downgraded it'd probably be to an LG+HD800...Or maybe just stay in the Mafia and find a 404LE.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

I never thought I'd be a card carrying member of the Stax Mafia, but here I am...and rather proud of it. 

post #20370 of 24765

That stuff is really interesting arnaud! Keep it coming.

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)