Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › TO TWEAK OR NOT TO TWEAK THE STAX 007A? THAT IS THE QUESTION
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TO TWEAK OR NOT TO TWEAK THE STAX 007A? THAT IS THE QUESTION - Page 5

post #61 of 122
12/6/08 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict View Post
Can't you just say, "The O2 Mk2 with spring and port mod are my second favorite estat." so we don't all have our O2 Mk2 value tank! Heck, my modded O2 Mk2 is still better than any Lambda or an ESP950. While the O2 Mk2 fails in the mids by still being a little too forward in the mids sometimes, the HE60 fails in bass impact and presence (too etherial and airy sometimes), so I put them on the same level so far (although I haven't listened to the HE60 since 11/08 with Sherwood).
Fully modded they are up there with the rest of the Omegas but I prefer the more balanced sound of the other models with the SR-Ω/007 getting most head time due to it's unique mix of the SR-Ω "ease" with the 007 precision.

Since you set is still a bit too forward in the midrange you might have to tweak the springs a bit more since the whole point of that tweak was to make the midrange stand out less.

The HE60 does lack bass presence but it is a very power hungry headphone and simply loves the Blue Hawaii. Damn shame there is nothing that that the BH can do about the messed up midrange...
Reply
post #62 of 122
12/18/08 at 9:46pm
Thread Starter 

PAD AND SPRING ORIENTATION

Since making the spring mod to the 007A I just don't see that there is a midrange problem with these phones. Or a bass weakness since they now sound close to the 404 in the depth of bass response.

I wonder if the mid range issues that some continue to complain about is due to the orientation of the ear pads or the spring. I looked at the notes from Stax and they did not say where to orient the D, just that a change in orientation could effect the bass.

Deadneddz, above, reported setting the pad so that the flat portion of the "D" shaped opening was behind the ear. This is the opposite of what I do. I assumed that the curved portion of the opening would go behind the ear just so that the curved part of my ear would fit there. This means that the seam is behind the ear, the opposite of what Spritzer does.

Whne I tried puting the flat portion behind my ear there seemed to be some subtle sonic changes. Not so much in the bass as in the mid range. I didn't especially like this setting, in part because it did seem to boost the midrange.

Similarly rotating the spring seems to make some sonic changes. I am able to rotate the spring while the ear pads are in position just by pushing them even though there is a cover over them. I wouldn't want to do this much because of possible damage to the cover but a bit of movement to experiment with the spring position would be fine.

For me having the flat part of the D ahead of the ear and facing slightly down seems to give me the best overall sound, i.e. good bass and smoothest midrange and treble. Also I prefer pointing the spring to the middle of the flat part of the D.

What works for me may not work for someone else, if only because the shape of the ears is different. Still I would suggest that anyone who is still unhappy with the midrange performance of the 007A should try different orientations of the pad and spring.
Reply
post #63 of 122
12/18/08 at 11:08pm
It turns out the remaining mids prominence is the fault of the Apogee mini-DAC, and switching to the Pico as a DAC preamp or the Lavry DA10 sounds better. But, the Lavry was a one day trial and I don't own one.
Reply
post #64 of 122
12/18/08 at 11:17pm
Buy two more SR-007s or if that is too expensive buy two SR-404s. Take the drivers out of the headphones and rearrange your current SR-007 in a 5.0 setup with two front channel speakers, two rear channel speakers with a center speaker. Uh, you might need to modify your amp too by adding some mega gigawatts to that thing. It would sound SWEET. Watching movies be awesome too! Imagine seeing Kurt Russel run from an explosion with 5.0 channel'd SR-007s! OMG! Even more cooler with a sub too probably.
Reply
post #65 of 122
12/19/08 at 2:06pm
The position of the earpads varies from head to head but they were intended to be used with the spring pointed forwards, just like the SR-Ω. They are contoured so that the drivers follow the shape of the ear and sit at the same angle as the ear. The Senn HE90 is different as it doesn't have contoured pads so the front of the headphones sticks out, helping create this wide but washed out soundstage. That being said Stax made the SR-007 adjustable for a reason so if you don't like them that way, change it.

As for comparing the bass of the SR-007A to the 404 is good as they both suck...! Just kidding but a Mk1 will show them both off with ease when it comes to bass depth, texture and clarity. What has always bothered me with the Lambda line is their bloated and sloppy bass (relatively) which is one of the reasons why I'd always take a ESP950 over any Lambda. Same deal with the He90 which promises a lot of deep clean bass but can do neither. As you can see I'm not a fan of the overblown bass which is reflected in my mods to the A/Mk2.
Reply
post #66 of 122
12/19/08 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post
The position of the earpads varies from head to head but they were intended to be used with the spring pointed forwards, just like the SR-Ω. They are contoured so that the drivers follow the shape of the ear and sit at the same angle as the ear. The Senn HE90 is different as it doesn't have contoured pads so the front of the headphones sticks out, helping create this wide but washed out soundstage. That being said Stax made the SR-007 adjustable for a reason so if you don't like them that way, change it.

As for comparing the bass of the SR-007A to the 404 is good as they both suck...! Just kidding but a Mk1 will show them both off with ease when it comes to bass depth, texture and clarity. What has always bothered me with the Lambda line is their bloated and sloppy bass (relatively) which is one of the reasons why I'd always take a ESP950 over any Lambda. Same deal with the He90 which promises a lot of deep clean bass but can do neither. As you can see I'm not a fan of the overblown bass which is reflected in my mods to the A/Mk2.
I sold my SR-Lambda Signature after 11 months, but kept the APS ESP-950 you sold me. Thanks again!
Reply
post #67 of 122
12/19/08 at 3:54pm
I believe that the thickest part of the earpads are meant to sit behind the ears, where the back of the head curves away. This means that the straight part of the D should be behind the ears, and the seams facing front.

I think that people should wear their headphones anyway they wish, and orient the earpads however they sound best or are most comfortable.

But I also think that those who wear the O2's with the thickest part of the earpads facing front have unusually-shaped heads.
Reply
post #68 of 122
12/19/08 at 4:53pm
^ I am with you.
The shape of pads seem to match my head shape in the same way. Meaning the thick part of the pads behind/below the ear, and the seem in the upper front.
Reply
post #69 of 122
12/22/08 at 8:48pm
Thread Starter 

EAR PAD ORIENTATION

My 007A came from EIFL with a copy of the 007 (Mk1) instructions in English. These did not specify an orientation for the pads, it just stated adjust for the best bass. Does the 007A instruction say anything?

This past weekeend I tried the orientation that most seem to be using, i.e. the thickest part at the rear of the head. This of course means the curved part at the front. I still had the spring pointed forward.

I really didn't like the sound. It seemed to bring the mids up too much. Possibly what many are complaining of. Maybe that's why several of you don't like the 007A.

After a few hours I reversed the pads.

Certainly it makes sense to have the thicker part of the pad behind the ear so that you get a good fit behind the ear. However, this then cuts down on the room for the pinna of the ear since there is now a straight, rather than curved section behind the ear, which is itself more or less curved.

I wonder what Mr. Stax was trying to do here. I recall that when I got my 404's many years ago from the US dealer, the thicker part was at the front and the fit was not so good. It was only when I replaced the pads years later, that I realized there was a difference in thickness around the pads and placed the thickest portion behind and below the ear.

Possibly Stax means to have the thicker part of the 007A at the front. I did have to do some bending of the headband to get a good fit though, but that was worth it to get a better sound, at least to my ears.
Reply
post #70 of 122
12/22/08 at 9:40pm
I believe the thickest part of the pad is intended to be behind the ear (regardless if you have an MK1 or MK2), since the pinna is more or less flush with the face. Where as there is a significant depression behind the pinna where the mastoid process and rear of the temporal bone and such are. Hence a thicker pad is needed in order to seal this gap.
Reply
post #71 of 122
12/22/08 at 10:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Pak View Post
I believe the thickest part of the pad is intended to be behind the ear (regardless if you have an MK1 or MK2), since the pinna is more or less flush with the face. Where as there is a significant depression behind the pinna where the mastoid process and rear of the temporal bone and such are. Hence a thicker pad is needed in order to seal this gap.
True but what about the curvature of the ear? My ears fit more comfortably in the pad with the curved part to the rear and pointing slightly up maybe 20 degrees.

What I really think is that Stax should have made the curved portion thicker so that it could be placed behind the ear and still have a good fit. As it is the design seems contradictory in its purposes.

These phones can be made to work, and well, but I did end up bending the metal bands to get it to seal well behind the ears. I find it very odd that Stax left this aspect of the use and design unspecified.

At any rate if you don't like the sound as is, try reversing the pad orientation. You can just swivel the pads in their cup and then spin the spring without even removing the pads. But you have to do it fairly carefuly.

Maybe this should be considered another mod to these phones.
Reply
post #72 of 122
12/22/08 at 10:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by edstrelow View Post
True but what about the curvature of the ear? My ears fit more comfortably in the pad with the curved part to the rear and pointing slightly up maybe 20 degrees.

What I really think is that Stax should have made the curved portion thicker so that it could be placed behind the ear and still have a good fit. As it is the design seems contradictory in its purposes.

These phones can be made to work, and well, but I did end up bending the metal bands to get it to seal well behind the ears. I find it very odd that Stax left this aspect of the use and design unspecified.

At any rate if you don't like the sound as is, try reversing the pad orientation. You can just swivel the pads in their cup and then spin the spring without even removing the pads. But you have to do it fairly carefuly.

Maybe this should be considered another mod to these phones.
But the "fat" part of the pad that rests behind the ear is flat and not curved (speaking in the vertical plane, the skull slopes backwards in the horizontal plane- which is why I feel the flat/fat "D" is a fine design choice). The area behind the ear isn't curved like the pinna itself.

The pads on both the MK1 and MK2 share the same "D" shape and I think most people are able to get a proper seal with this configuration (at least with the Mk1).

edit: I am going to express an unpopular opinion and say that you might want some reference when modding the SR-007A to see the direction you want to go, personally I would use the SR-007 MK1 (like spritzer chose to). On the converse, if I was an unhappy SR-007 MK1 owner I would want a reference such as SR-007 MK2. Again IMO, and sorry if it's not the popular opinion here- as a former SR-404 owner I would not use it as a reference as a comparison to my SR-007.

The reason I say this is because right now you can only go off what you've read about the SR-007 MK1, and that's pretty difficult (IMO) to try and tweak something that you haven't experienced first hand.
Reply
post #73 of 122
12/22/08 at 11:04pm
Thread Starter 
I am not sure if we are disagreeing or not. I still think Stax screwed up the pad design. The curved part of the D should be behind the ear but that portion should be thicker than the flat part.

However, my main point is that I started out putting the curve of the D behind then ear, unlike many other 007A users and that I also liked the sound from Day One, unlike several users. I didn't hear the "midrange honk" and other vices that some in this forum have complained about.

I did find Spritzer's spring mod to be a definite improvement though smoothing out the midrange/upper midrange further and adding some deep bass . But I didn't like the sound after plugging the port.

So I guess my personal tweaks are 1) flattening the spring, 2) reversing the ear pads (and bending the metal head bands to get a better fit).

If you are happy with the 007A sound ignore this thread. If not try one or more of the three mods.
Reply
post #74 of 122
12/22/08 at 11:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post
Damn shame there is nothing that that the BH can do about the messed up midrange...
What exactly is it that you find so messed up about the midrange? Is it too forward perhaps?
Please enlighten me, because it would help me placing your (often interesting) posts in perspective.
For example, you disliking the SR-007A might be explained simply because you dislike its more forward midrange.
Reply
post #75 of 122
12/23/08 at 12:09am
It was too forward for me.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › TO TWEAK OR NOT TO TWEAK THE STAX 007A? THAT IS THE QUESTION