The Stax thread (New) - Page 38

If you really want to run a full-size Stax like a Lambda, you could try to get one of the older Battery-run amps (SRDP, SRDX etc.) They have space for 8 "c" cells. Just make sure you get one that has pro outlet.

Would you mind sharing more about this? What have you experienced regarding the fit of the headband, its proper fit, etc.??

For me and my gigantic head (it's enormous ) I had to bend the two metal bars at the break outwards so it's almost a continuous arc. This gave me a much better bass response and more mellow and natural bass and added a bit of sparkle to the highs. They were also a bit more comfy because their grip was a little looser. They are supposed to be adjusted in this manner because they can't swivel to fit the ear like 99.999% of all headphones out there. I've seen pictures of one pair where the arc was a 90° turn in the middle and there was another sharp bend next to each driver.

The user should experiment with the bend. If the bass is a little anemic they are pressing to hard on the head and if the bass is boomy they might be a bit too loose. This isn't a definitive guide but it is a start.

Another thing to consider is the condition of the earpads. The leather will hang on for ever but the foam lasted only 2.5 years on my set. If the foam in the pads are gone the bass is all soft and tubby and it's very hard to get the phones to fit correctly. The pads should pretty stiff to the touch and they are a pain to exchange . You should also rotate the pads so as the seams are facing the temples or forward at a 45° angle.

Thanks, only had mine a couple of weeks! I'll experiment with your findings and see what I hear.

Please do. For me this is essential to fully "get" them and what they can do. The other biggie is a very clear and uncluttered system sonics vise.

I'm curious as to where most OII owners in fact have their seams at.
Mine are facing directly forward at the 3'oclock postion. And it sounds best there. I have tried it at the temple but they simply don't fit right at all there for me.

I have my seams at 1:30 o'clock.
Tried lots of different positions, but always return to this one. Cause it provide a good seal, and hence no booomy bass

Now, this is interesting. I too, have kept them pretty much directly forward (on line with my nose.) At first, I really didn't like them at a 45 degree angle up, but now I'm not sure. I'm listening back and forth to lots of familiar stuff here, and what I'm hearing is that the 45* position reduces mid-bass a little, seems to spread the soundstage a little (although, I wasn't sure and still am not that it's better or perhaps less focused), and, just like Spritzer said, gives a "bit more sparkle" (or extension?) to the highs.

OK, listening to "Love Theme" from Blade Runner by Vangelis, I just rotated them back to the normal position. There IS a difference, dang it! but I can't decide which is better. Awfully close with this style music...

Hmmm... one of the best tests would be one of the old 35mm Cozart/Fine Mercury recordings - back later.

I vary the position slightly. I found the best sound with the | of the D earpad hole at the back of my head, so the seam pointed forward. Combined with a pulldown it sounded great, but because of the gigantic size of my head, this caused issues with the headband arc.

Mostly I wear them with the earpad seams pointing towards my eyes. ad with a light pressure which still seals all around.

OK, Mercury CD 432 011-2 Byron Janis Schumann Piano Cto No. 1, Op. 23 - listening to the Intermezzo, there's no question to me that the soundstage is more compact and better focused at 90* (seam pointing to nose). The 45* (temple) setting spreads the piano across about 20 percent more of the stage than the 90* setting, yet, the tonalities are very pleasant. This is a tough choice.

Could it be Stax designed these (and they did come wrapped from the factory thusly) for the perpendicular line to be straight up and down parallel to a plumb line dropped by the ear, in other words, with the seam pointing straight ahead? Apparently, and I'm swagging my rear off here , the soundfield is constructed by having the roughly semicircular front and straight wall back. When they are rotated out of this alignment, the soundfield is skewed a bit, elevated maybe, but tonalities are different, maybe improved.

OK, now with the seams approximately half-way between nose and temple. This seems to be a good compromise between a tight image of the piano in its own space, the overall soundfield, and the tonalities, but I'll have to listen more. Is it possible all these little tweaks of positioning have as much to do with the shape of one's ears as the design of the 'phones??

Thanks for the ideas, anyway, Spritzer!

(BTW, associated equipment Apple Lossless rip from iTunes to Airport Express optical to Electrocompaniet ECD-1, Silver Resolution balanced to SRM-007tII.)

It is a very personal issue but it is great to be able to vary the fit of the phones so much. The He90 on the other hand only fits my head in one way and it's not the most comfortable position... I read people ranting about how stupid this is but too me it is pure genius.

The last point is how the space inside the ear pad is used. The front of my ears touches the inside of the pad so the earflap is directly under the driver. I feel they are the most neutral in this position.

Glad to have put some ideas in your heads

This is one of the reasons why it's so sad that the SR-007 is overlooked by so many people just because they are cheaper then the HE90. They are a tough nut too crack but when you do they pay dividends.

I agree. The rotation of the pads has a significant effect on the sound but also the position of your ears within the pads like you say. I generally have the seams pointing at my temple and vary the position of the headphones relative to my ears depending on the music. With my ear touching the back of the pads there is a little more brightness and the headstage opens up to the front with benefits in terms of imaging. I find well recorded tracks tend to sound quite astounding in this position. With the front of my ears touching the pads they sound more neutral which yields more consistent results with a wider variety of music. I don't think my current source, amp(s) and interconnects really let my O2s show their true potential in this position although it shows enough that I can see the potential is there. Needless to say I have upgrades in mind.

[QUOTE=terance;2774338] I use 2300 maH NiMh rechargheables with mine and get more than 5 hours per charge. Have tried the external 4x cell arrangement mentioned on this thread and don't clock any audible improvement - for me they sound the business with the standard 2x internal cells.

I've compared O2s to HE90s several times, and IMO HE90s perform far better, which justifies their higher cost. I think that buyers of HE90s, rather than O2s, do so because of this superior performance.