Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why are STAX headphones unwanted?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are STAX headphones unwanted? - Page 6

post #76 of 114
arnaud, aren't big circamaurals also rely on pinna reflections fto help acoustic space percetion? Thus it would make perfect sense to use an in-ear mike for an accurate binaural recording imo.
post #77 of 114

Yes I agree the Lambdas are great but the 202 system probably offers the best bang for the buck!  Vintage Stax are a great buy too but would suggest you avoid the elecret models.  Some of the Satx in my collection are 30+ years old and still sound great.

 

However IMHO the Omega 007 is a step up from the Lambdas in all respects but for it to really shine a decent amplifier and source is a necessity.  Unfortunately most of the current Stax amplifiers don't do justice to the 007, particularly the valve based versions which are under par. The 717/727 are better or some of the older solid state are acceptable too.  However; speaking from experience, if you want to really extract the maximum performance out of the 007 you should factor in a really good amplifier like the Headamp BHSE, Stax or DIY T2.  The Cavali may also be a possibility but I can't speak from experience there. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post

 

You don't even need a 007 MkI or MkII, try a lambda model.

 

My first experience of electrostatic headphones was a mini meet in London where there was a 303, a 507 and a 007 mk I - while I thought the 007 sounded just lovely - I was not the only one in the room who preferred the Lambdas to the 007. 

 

The idea that Stax is prohibitively expensive is just not true.

 

My first "big" headphone in this hobby was an HD650, while admittedly I bought it shop new at the time, it cost more than the simple Stax rig I got off ebay a few years later. In the time between I had spent a ridiculous amount on various sidegrades and upgrades and gear based around dynamic headphones. Two years since getting my humble stax rig and I haven't had the slightest inkling of "upgrading" from it - and I've heard almost every high end headphone on the planet since then. The Stax were not only incredible value for money, they've also saved me a load in messing around with "upgrades" ever since.


Edited by complin - 10/20/12 at 4:01am
post #78 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amarphael View Post

arnaud, aren't big circamaurals also rely on pinna reflections fto help acoustic space percetion? Thus it would make perfect sense to use an in-ear mike for an accurate binaural recording imo.

 

Yes, I agree that standard headphones aren't immune either. As a matter of fact, binaural recordings themselves can only give you so much realism because of 1) these variations between the measuring head and your own, 2) the removal of headphone / pinnae interaction as part of the binaural mix is headphone dependent.

 

Point 2 is mandatory unless you're going to play back through in-ear monitors. Even with iems, some correction may still be necessary if for example the mic is placed inside an artificial ear canal while the iem is at the entrance of the canal AND blocking it. If you're using a mic at the entrance of ear canal and having it partially blocked (for example these cheap mics you can buy to make your own binaural recordings), you still got issues with iem playback because of large difference between ear canal resonances (blocked entrance in iem case, somewhat open during the recording, fully open in daily life).

 

My understanding is that the problem with correction 2 is that it is somewhat headphone dependent hence you can never really guarantee a binaural mix is going to work "perfectly" with your headphone and esp. your pinnae.

post #79 of 114

Translated from German - Interesting article 8/4/2002 about Jürg Jecklins' current experiments in sound courtesy of AV Guide.CH ©1999 – 2012 avguide.ch gmbh switzerland http://www.avguide.ch/magazin/sound-image-und-space-mehrkanalige-aufnahmetechnik 

Sound, image and Space

Multi-channel recording technique

avguide visited during a recording sound engineer Jürg Jecklin at the Tonhalle in Zurich and learned the latest in the field of surround sound.

orchester400.jpg
 
 
 
 

 
 
Behind the three words sound, image and space is concealed the secret of a good surround recording. avguide visited during a recording sound engineer Jürg Jecklin at the Tonhalle in Zurich and learned the latest in terms of good tone.

Problem child Surround Sound

Sky full of microphones: On the ceiling Jecklin stereo disc. On the stand: front-wheel for OSS 3-2-1 technology
Sky full of microphones: On the ceiling Jecklin stereo disc. On the stand: front-wheel for OSS 3-2-1 technology
In spring 2002, the Symphony Musikhochschule Winterthur Zurich, Zurich Tonhalle concert. Sound engineer Jürg Jecklin was mandated to implement them in a conventional CD stereo.Secretly, however, Jecklin used the opportunity to broaden his experience comes to surround sound.avguide Jürg Jecklin visited the control room and spoke with the inventor of Jecklin floats, as well as the legendary Transdyns Jecklinscheibe about his latest ideas in terms of multi-channel recording technique. One thing was quite clear: It takes far more than the largest possible number of microphones that is mixing it at will in some way on five channels to create the perfect surround sound.

The basic idea of ​​the "OSS 3-2-1" technology

The Mackie 24-channel recorder HardDisk (below) works with high-resolution 24-bit and 96 kHz sampling frequency. Top: Stereo-DAT.
The Mackie 24-channel recorder HardDisk (below) works with high-resolution 24-bit and 96 kHz sampling frequency. Top: Stereo-DAT.

With OSS called 3-2-1 Jürg Jecklin his surround recording technology, the test phase is not yet complete. But the basic ideas are clear, and outlined the division of responsibilities for the different sound channels clear. In order to be understood internationally, makes use of the usual Jürg Jecklin in the film industry with respect to sound vocabularies. with "sound" is meant the sound quality. Possible that they should be good, of course. The term "image" refers to mapping of the direct sound, so for example the acoustic projection of an orchestra. The term "W" denotes the left-right figure. The depth map "Depth" is available in 5 layers:Layer 0 is where is the speaker level. Layer 1 specifies the normal distance, where you put a violin, place and listen to a singer. In layer 2 are such a small chamber orchestra, or the strings of a major symphony orchestra. positioned behind the strings, the brass sit in the third layer in the Layer 4, the back of the orchestra plazierzte percussion group and possibly shown a choir. Layer 5 is used to display remote orchestras, which are primarily perceived in space. "Space" is the space of a recording. A monophonic recording is no "space". In "Space", a distinction between front-Space, Side Space, Back Space and Full Space. A convincing surround recording can be done in full space. A stereo recording has only a front-Space. That would be like when you listen to a concert from a box. Side-space would be heard in a bad surround recording, in which the sound is only coming from left-right would. Backspace comes from behind. full space can be properly implemented only with 5 channels, but also mono sound. Image can be realized in stereo. With surround sound you have the advantage that you have the front three channels. This enables a defined center.








 

The time of the two-channel recording is over

Not satisfied with the sound?
Not satisfied with the sound?
Even stereo recordings should be done three channels. The situation has changed: Even with the mediocre sound surround re-administration of a 5-channel system-Kompakt result compared to a stereo playback advantages. The sound is of course better with an expensive speakers. But the full space is missing. 
The question is: Will we get a better sound or full space? Space is often underestimated. We are continuously in an acoustic environment and are always there in a full space. The full-space, we have the time, he is the living room and not those of the concert hall or church. With a successful recording surround the relocation succeeds in the concert hall. 
Of course, all speakers used should be sound quality. There is, however, the amount of two expensive high-end boxes for five good speakers, so you better than only two. 
The world looks different now. Nevertheless, it goes with the surround sound on very resinous. The shops are still full of CDs and not full of music DVDs, or SACDs. The sound engineers and the industry to make only half-heartedly. Thus, the consumer is also only a very small range to choose from. 
In the near future, one can assume that more and more people have a 5.1 system at home, but certainly not a second set next to it in stereo. The matter is arranged around the TV around. Now you have recordings of audio-amplifier and 5.1 speaker configuration are made. In Vienna, at the Institute of Acoustics and experimental music in all control rooms in the AV amplifier with small Tannoy monitors use. It must also be taken to avoid being played on such a system stereo recording sounds good. This is now, for example, Dolby Pro Logic 2 is a very good playback capability.

Distribution of tasks

Jürg Jecklin with two students
Jürg Jecklin with two students
Looking at the matter from the video-film side, has one of the five channels in the broad sense "Sound, Image and Space". The center channel takes over the dialogue. Front left and front right are for the voice-over (technical term from the film industry) is used, so for sound generator, which are located forward, but not in the picture. The rear channels produce background noise. The .1 channel plays only in the low frequency Keller called "low frequency effects". This division of work is convincing and accepted by consumers. 
Even with Jecklins OSS 3-2-1 technology, there is a very similar distribution of tasks.Instead of dialogue would be the soloist, and instead of off-the orchestra sound. These two pieces of information are recorded separately and a strict Verkoppelung would be disastrous. Reason: The left-right balance can always adjust quickly, so even a layman.But the optimal balance between left / right and center, is very difficult to find. It must be assumed that the center speaker a bit louder, some quieter times. So you have to take an image insensitive to differences in the level of the center channel. This is the case, if something else entirely present on the center channel sound, as on the left-right channels. If the soloist So from left-right separated, you can select it louder or quieter without the sound collapses into itself. 
In other words: can one needs to vary with the center channel volume without having to do the voiceover something. This is the movie soundtrack with dialogue in the center channel of the case. For music, it is more difficult because it is hardly possible to separate completely the soloist. If it louder in the wake of the center channel makes the whole spatial relationships change. Now comes the task of distributing OSS 3-2-1 technology with Image (3) Space (2) and Low Frequency Effect (1) for the course.

Miking

Two discs for optimum surround sound
Two discs for optimum surround sound
For the voice-over sets up a Jecklin his discs with two ball microphones. 
A mounted in the middle of super-cardioid microphone takes the information for the center channel. This allows the center channel may be varied in level, without at the image of the off-tone remains the same. It is possible, a soloist in the middle pull approach, and the sound of the orchestra remains untouched. Would be in the center channel to the soloist even as the wind section of the orchestra positioned behind it, would produce a level of variation, a drastic change, possibly even a collapse of the overall sound quality.Additional microphones may therefore only be assigned to the voiceover.

The thing with the Space

Incur from the rear must be a ghostly impression of space, so a virtual reality from a different room. The reality has gespenstigste one with an artificial head, at least in terms of space. You must now use a simulation method. What comes from the front, immediately locates it in the image. What appears on the mandatory side, one feels as a space. After Jecklins should view the area behind the side effect of producing non-speakers, but the listener will be drawn up. The whole should also work in the traditional 5.1 speaker arrangement. 
Jecklin now uses the space for a second disc, the microphones are directed to the back and kidneys characteristic. This is because, the space signal can not contain direct sound components. Two omni would still first the direct sound from the orchestra, before arriving reflections would. Consequently Jecklin is now two kidneys in parallel and separated by a moderate intensity of this disc. Thus, only the rear half-space is taken up, the orchestra will disappear completely.

Final Thoughts

What is lacking at the moment, a Surround recording technique, which generally convinced. Now there are certain points not so good and unfortunately many good shots.Each experiment and see what the other does. On the Jecklin developed by Jurg OSS-3-2-1-recording technique is reported in avguide further. The plan is a blueprint for even a surround recording kit, which can also be used by the amateur with great success. One thing is certain: Jürg Jecklin has caused with his stereophonic Jecklin disc a sensation.The time for a surround configuration is right.

Sound engineer Jürg Jecklin

 

 

- Worked 30 years at Radio DRS, including 10 years as chief engineer. In addition, 
freelance work for the record industry. - For his work as a sound engineer, he developed the electrostatic headphones Jecklin FLOAT, the OSS technique with the so-called Jecklin disc, and the sound processor TRANSDYN. - During nine years he was technical advisor to the company MB in Obrigheim (D) and taught for 15 years at the Music Academy of Basel, acoustics and "work with denMedien" - teaching in-service training for sound engineers of ZNM and the ZEPRA - Published approximately 400 articles in various national and international journals 3 Books: the Speaker Book, music recordings, mono-stereo Quadro to work. recording and playback of music - Current Job: Professor at the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna, Institute for the Theory of sound. . Director of the Institute for Electroacoustics and Experimental Music (3 or professors, 4 assistants, 39 lecturers and 150 studentsCurrent developments: Kleinmonitorbox, professional headphones, methods for objective quality assessment of loudspeakers - Residence: primary residence 7603 Vicosoprano, a second home in Vienna - Email Address : floatsound@cs.com

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

I will try to answer "headphone " part in not too distant future. The best I found regarding spaeakers and crosstalk is this : http://www.polksda.com/srsreview.shtml. Today, what seems the most promising is this : http://www.ambiophonics.org/

 

I am searching for something/anything that will at least begin to reproduce music at similar accuracy as binaural/AKG K1000 is capable of - on two speakers. Conventional stereo fails completely and surround is even worse when serious music listening is concerned. Two speaker arrangement is something that is the easiest to accomodate into living space for acceptable performance - WAF factor included. 

 

I know this is head-fi, but some people would rather "die" than wear headphones, let alone stuff some objects in their ear canals - happened more than once a person would fiercely decline listening to either headphones or IEMs nomatterwhat - during demos of my own recordings.  That is how real world really looks like, regardless for our love towards headphones. 

 

 

post #80 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by complin View Post

Yes I agree the Lambdas are great but the 202 system probably offers the best bang for the buck!  Vintage Stax are a great buy too but would suggest you avoid the elecret models.  Some of the Satx in my collection are 30+ years old and still sound great.

 

However IMHO the Omega 007 is a step up from the Lambdas in all respects but for it to really shine a decent amplifier and source is a necessity.  Unfortunately most of the current Stax amplifiers don't do justice to the 007, particularly the valve based versions which are under par. The 717/727 are better or some of the older solid state are acceptable too.  However; speaking from experience, if you want to really extract the maximum performance out of the 007 you should factor in a really good amplifier like the Headamp BHSE, Stax or DIY T2.  The Cavali may also be a possibility but I can't speak from experience there. 

 

 

I think its hard to say something is comprehensively better than something else when the judgments are subjective. I could objectively agree that the 007 mk 1 was technically better than the 303 in many ways, but that doesn't stop me subjectively preferring the sound of the 303, of finding closer to what my ears hear as neutral. It's not uncommon to find people who prefer the 007 mk 1 to the, again technically better, 009 either.

post #81 of 114

By better I don't mean technically on paper but that a properly configured 007 you get more of everything you already have with the Lambda.  

 

Improved headstage, transparency, timbre, texture and layering of the sound.  You realise that yes electrostatics do BASS!

Not the one note stuff you often get with dynamics but you can clearly hear the bass lines in the music.  Just try something with Jaco Pastorius or Charlie Mingus swinging along. basshead.gif

John Bon Jovi is damn impressive too!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post

 

I think its hard to say something is comprehensively better than something else when the judgments are subjective. I could objectively agree that the 007 mk 1 was technically better than the 303 in many ways, but that doesn't stop me subjectively preferring the sound of the 303, of finding closer to what my ears hear as neutral. It's not uncommon to find people who prefer the 007 mk 1 to the, again technically better, 009 either.

post #82 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by complin View Post

Translated from German - Interesting article 8/4/2002 about Jürg Jecklins' current experiments in sound courtesy of AV Guide.CH ©1999 – 2012 avguide.ch gmbh switzerland http://www.avguide.ch/magazin/sound-image-und-space-mehrkanalige-aufnahmetechnik 

Sound, image and Space

Multi-channel recording technique

avguide visited during a recording sound engineer Jürg Jecklin at the Tonhalle in Zurich and learned the latest in the field of surround sound.

orchester400.jpg
 
 
 
 

 
 
Behind the three words sound, image and space is concealed the secret of a good surround recording. avguide visited during a recording sound engineer Jürg Jecklin at the Tonhalle in Zurich and learned the latest in terms of good tone.

Problem child Surround Sound

Sky full of microphones: On the ceiling Jecklin stereo disc. On the stand: front-wheel for OSS 3-2-1 technology
Sky full of microphones: On the ceiling Jecklin stereo disc. On the stand: front-wheel for OSS 3-2-1 technology
In spring 2002, the Symphony Musikhochschule Winterthur Zurich, Zurich Tonhalle concert. Sound engineer Jürg Jecklin was mandated to implement them in a conventional CD stereo.Secretly, however, Jecklin used the opportunity to broaden his experience comes to surround sound.avguide Jürg Jecklin visited the control room and spoke with the inventor of Jecklin floats, as well as the legendary Transdyns Jecklinscheibe about his latest ideas in terms of multi-channel recording technique. One thing was quite clear: It takes far more than the largest possible number of microphones that is mixing it at will in some way on five channels to create the perfect surround sound.

The basic idea of ​​the "OSS 3-2-1" technology

The Mackie 24-channel recorder HardDisk (below) works with high-resolution 24-bit and 96 kHz sampling frequency. Top: Stereo-DAT.
The Mackie 24-channel recorder HardDisk (below) works with high-resolution 24-bit and 96 kHz sampling frequency. Top: Stereo-DAT.

With OSS called 3-2-1 Jürg Jecklin his surround recording technology, the test phase is not yet complete. But the basic ideas are clear, and outlined the division of responsibilities for the different sound channels clear. In order to be understood internationally, makes use of the usual Jürg Jecklin in the film industry with respect to sound vocabularies. with "sound" is meant the sound quality. Possible that they should be good, of course. The term "image" refers to mapping of the direct sound, so for example the acoustic projection of an orchestra. The term "W" denotes the left-right figure. The depth map "Depth" is available in 5 layers:Layer 0 is where is the speaker level. Layer 1 specifies the normal distance, where you put a violin, place and listen to a singer. In layer 2 are such a small chamber orchestra, or the strings of a major symphony orchestra. positioned behind the strings, the brass sit in the third layer in the Layer 4, the back of the orchestra plazierzte percussion group and possibly shown a choir. Layer 5 is used to display remote orchestras, which are primarily perceived in space. "Space" is the space of a recording. A monophonic recording is no "space". In "Space", a distinction between front-Space, Side Space, Back Space and Full Space. A convincing surround recording can be done in full space. A stereo recording has only a front-Space. That would be like when you listen to a concert from a box. Side-space would be heard in a bad surround recording, in which the sound is only coming from left-right would. Backspace comes from behind. full space can be properly implemented only with 5 channels, but also mono sound. Image can be realized in stereo. With surround sound you have the advantage that you have the front three channels. This enables a defined center.








 

The time of the two-channel recording is over

Not satisfied with the sound?
Not satisfied with the sound?
Even stereo recordings should be done three channels. The situation has changed: Even with the mediocre sound surround re-administration of a 5-channel system-Kompakt result compared to a stereo playback advantages. The sound is of course better with an expensive speakers. But the full space is missing. 
The question is: Will we get a better sound or full space? Space is often underestimated. We are continuously in an acoustic environment and are always there in a full space. The full-space, we have the time, he is the living room and not those of the concert hall or church. With a successful recording surround the relocation succeeds in the concert hall. 
Of course, all speakers used should be sound quality. There is, however, the amount of two expensive high-end boxes for five good speakers, so you better than only two. 
The world looks different now. Nevertheless, it goes with the surround sound on very resinous. The shops are still full of CDs and not full of music DVDs, or SACDs. The sound engineers and the industry to make only half-heartedly. Thus, the consumer is also only a very small range to choose from. 
In the near future, one can assume that more and more people have a 5.1 system at home, but certainly not a second set next to it in stereo. The matter is arranged around the TV around. Now you have recordings of audio-amplifier and 5.1 speaker configuration are made. In Vienna, at the Institute of Acoustics and experimental music in all control rooms in the AV amplifier with small Tannoy monitors use. It must also be taken to avoid being played on such a system stereo recording sounds good. This is now, for example, Dolby Pro Logic 2 is a very good playback capability.

Distribution of tasks

Jürg Jecklin with two students
Jürg Jecklin with two students
Looking at the matter from the video-film side, has one of the five channels in the broad sense "Sound, Image and Space". The center channel takes over the dialogue. Front left and front right are for the voice-over (technical term from the film industry) is used, so for sound generator, which are located forward, but not in the picture. The rear channels produce background noise. The .1 channel plays only in the low frequency Keller called "low frequency effects". This division of work is convincing and accepted by consumers. 
Even with Jecklins OSS 3-2-1 technology, there is a very similar distribution of tasks.Instead of dialogue would be the soloist, and instead of off-the orchestra sound. These two pieces of information are recorded separately and a strict Verkoppelung would be disastrous. Reason: The left-right balance can always adjust quickly, so even a layman.But the optimal balance between left / right and center, is very difficult to find. It must be assumed that the center speaker a bit louder, some quieter times. So you have to take an image insensitive to differences in the level of the center channel. This is the case, if something else entirely present on the center channel sound, as on the left-right channels. If the soloist So from left-right separated, you can select it louder or quieter without the sound collapses into itself. 
In other words: can one needs to vary with the center channel volume without having to do the voiceover something. This is the movie soundtrack with dialogue in the center channel of the case. For music, it is more difficult because it is hardly possible to separate completely the soloist. If it louder in the wake of the center channel makes the whole spatial relationships change. Now comes the task of distributing OSS 3-2-1 technology with Image (3) Space (2) and Low Frequency Effect (1) for the course.

Miking

Two discs for optimum surround sound
Two discs for optimum surround sound
For the voice-over sets up a Jecklin his discs with two ball microphones. 
A mounted in the middle of super-cardioid microphone takes the information for the center channel. This allows the center channel may be varied in level, without at the image of the off-tone remains the same. It is possible, a soloist in the middle pull approach, and the sound of the orchestra remains untouched. Would be in the center channel to the soloist even as the wind section of the orchestra positioned behind it, would produce a level of variation, a drastic change, possibly even a collapse of the overall sound quality.Additional microphones may therefore only be assigned to the voiceover.

The thing with the Space

Incur from the rear must be a ghostly impression of space, so a virtual reality from a different room. The reality has gespenstigste one with an artificial head, at least in terms of space. You must now use a simulation method. What comes from the front, immediately locates it in the image. What appears on the mandatory side, one feels as a space. After Jecklins should view the area behind the side effect of producing non-speakers, but the listener will be drawn up. The whole should also work in the traditional 5.1 speaker arrangement. 
Jecklin now uses the space for a second disc, the microphones are directed to the back and kidneys characteristic. This is because, the space signal can not contain direct sound components. Two omni would still first the direct sound from the orchestra, before arriving reflections would. Consequently Jecklin is now two kidneys in parallel and separated by a moderate intensity of this disc. Thus, only the rear half-space is taken up, the orchestra will disappear completely.

Final Thoughts

What is lacking at the moment, a Surround recording technique, which generally convinced. Now there are certain points not so good and unfortunately many good shots.Each experiment and see what the other does. On the Jecklin developed by Jurg OSS-3-2-1-recording technique is reported in avguide further. The plan is a blueprint for even a surround recording kit, which can also be used by the amateur with great success. One thing is certain: Jürg Jecklin has caused with his stereophonic Jecklin disc a sensation.The time for a surround configuration is right.

Sound engineer Jürg Jecklin

 

 

- Worked 30 years at Radio DRS, including 10 years as chief engineer. In addition, 
freelance work for the record industry. - For his work as a sound engineer, he developed the electrostatic headphones Jecklin FLOAT, the OSS technique with the so-called Jecklin disc, and the sound processor TRANSDYN. - During nine years he was technical advisor to the company MB in Obrigheim (D) and taught for 15 years at the Music Academy of Basel, acoustics and "work with denMedien" - teaching in-service training for sound engineers of ZNM and the ZEPRA - Published approximately 400 articles in various national and international journals 3 Books: the Speaker Book, music recordings, mono-stereo Quadro to work. recording and playback of music - Current Job: Professor at the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna, Institute for the Theory of sound. . Director of the Institute for Electroacoustics and Experimental Music (3 or professors, 4 assistants, 39 lecturers and 150 studentsCurrent developments: Kleinmonitorbox, professional headphones, methods for objective quality assessment of loudspeakers - Residence: primary residence 7603 Vicosoprano, a second home in Vienna - Email Address : floatsound@cs.com

 

 

 

I am an  admirer of Mr. Jecklin. I do use OSS or Jecklin Disk to record most of my non binaural recordings. Jecklin OSS is a  definite PITA to reproduce correctly in the room - results vary according to the type of speaker used, sometimes in a day/night diametrally oposite way - same recording, same room(s), different speaker(s) > VERY big difference(s). Things get even more unpredictable when both room(s) and speaker(s) are changed at the same time.

 

It is very frustrating - a Jecklin Disk recording might be perfect reproduced on one setup and only listenable on another.  Best results I have achieved by 

point source (dynamic ) speakers, either full range or coaxial - followed by line sources , followed by dipoles. I still have to give Quad point source ESL ( ESL 63 and its succesors) a try, as I imagine they should excel with OSS.

 

It is painful to hear what little remains from the potential of OSS when reproduced over say "conventional three way speaker".  I always try to "tour" around friends with a new recording in order to get an idea how it sounds "on average" - but that "average" simply does not exist in real life.

 

Gave me many sleepless nights.

 

Based on above experience, I fear the proposed OSS 3-2-1 will be even more vulnerable to the effects directly contributable to the actual speakers used for reproduction. Microphones do have their polar patterns strictly defined and can be mixed/blended to whatever specification one chooses -

yet there is absolutely no  guarantee the end user, the listener, would use speakers with specs that support any given type of the recording.

 

Try to convience a horn type speaker enthusiast to use anything else that offers better polar pattern ( needed to correctly reproduce Jecklin Disk/OSS )

and loose the dynamics and punch admittedly only really achievable with horns - if you do not end up persona non grata in the process, consider yourself very sucessfull. 

 

I wish Mr. Jecklin all the best, as he fully deserves recognition for his inventions, past and on-going - but without offering a reasonable playback speaker system compatible for the proposed OSS 3-2-1, after it will be finished/completed, there is little hope for others to embrace the system as a whole.

 

Ask yourself a fairly simple question - how many really well set up quadrophonic or surround systems outside fair demos you actually know and have acces to  ? Do you see another multi channel system to actually establish itself in reasonable future, say 10-15 years ?

 

This is why I would like a two microphone/two speaker system - and to do with it maximum that can be done.  

 

post #83 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by complin View Post

By better I don't mean technically on paper but that a properly configured 007 you get more of everything you already have with the Lambda.  

 

Improved headstage, transparency, timbre, texture and layering of the sound.  You realise that yes electrostatics do BASS!

Not the one note stuff you often get with dynamics but you can clearly hear the bass lines in the music.  Just try something with Jaco Pastorius or Charlie Mingus swinging along. basshead.gif

John Bon Jovi is damn impressive too!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post

 

I think its hard to say something is comprehensively better than something else when the judgments are subjective. I could objectively agree that the 007 mk 1 was technically better than the 303 in many ways, but that doesn't stop me subjectively preferring the sound of the 303, of finding closer to what my ears hear as neutral. It's not uncommon to find people who prefer the 007 mk 1 to the, again technically better, 009 either.


It is very subjective when you get to high end. I totally hated how the 007 sounded compared to the 009 or Lambas, I disliked the new generation X07 series Lamba too. The joy of have a extra pair of great dynamic rock phone did help with my liking of the Lamba for something different.

post #84 of 114

Can I connect  my Lambda Pro with STAX SRD-7 to a CD player via RCA out  (http://www.pacificvalve.us/DOGE6.html).

instead of connecting it to my speaker mono block amps ? or do I need STAX SRM-1 . MK-2 for that? 

thanks 

post #85 of 114

No.

Yes.
 

post #86 of 114

Most dynamic cans sound like plastic toys when compared to a stax lambda,

 

they are veiled,dirty,unnatural,not linear,with some plastic-like sound texture.

it's something like mobile phone camera  vs SLR camera


Edited by pkshan - 11/29/12 at 1:48pm
post #87 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkshan View Post

Most dynamic cans sound like plastic toys when compared to a stax lambda,

 

they are veiled,dirty,unnatural,not linear,with some plastic-like sound texture.

it's something like mobile phone camera  vs SLR camera

As a owner of a modded Lambda and a handful of other dynamics headphones, I realise both the advantage and the disadvantages that the stats have over other full size headphones with different driver designs. Calling most dynamic headphones sounding like plastic toys is just too much.

 

They are different.

post #88 of 114

He did say 'most', and i tend to agree. Theres a sense of coherency  and effortlesness to Staxes which even dynamics that posses 'stat-esque speed (SA5000, AD2000, HD800) can't match IME. Probably the combination of the laser-beam imaging, background blackness and the relative eveness of the FR has something to with it. Only dynamic pair that matches these traits are the K1000, minus the imaging im my short time with them thus far. The K1000 do not quite have the resolution of my SR-007A but they more than make up for it with an amzing dynamic range (going from quite to loud, not just FR). The Sony PFR-V1 also have very good DR, but lack body and not as flat sounding as the K1000 and Stax. 

 

*sigh* They sould make more earspeakers, not just simple heaphones.

post #89 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amarphael View Post

He did say 'most', and i tend to agree. Theres a sense of coherency  and effortlesness to Staxes which even dynamics that posses 'stat-esque speed (SA5000, AD2000, HD800) can't match IME. Probably the combination of the laser-beam imaging, background blackness and the relative eveness of the FR has something to with it. Only dynamic pair that matches these traits are the K1000, minus the imaging im my short time with them thus far. The K1000 do not quite have the resolution of my SR-007A but they more than make up for it with an amzing dynamic range (going from quite to loud, not just FR). The Sony PFR-V1 also have very good DR, but lack body and not as flat sounding as the K1000 and Stax. 

 

*sigh* They sould make more earspeakers, not just simple heaphones.

+1 for that  earspeaker *sigh* !

 

Are you guys aware of the JVC Carbon Nanotube dynamic phones? They meet/ exceed the dynamic range of both Stax Lambda Pro/ SRM1MK2 and AKG K 1000 - they enabled me to unearth some defects in ultra acclaimed audiophille recordings both of the mentioned "cans"  failed at discovering. They can play pianissimo of a single instrument that can be clearly heard while the rest of the orchestra is thundering away. My only gripe is small/congested  soundstage compared to the two mentioned incomparably more costly possibilities.

post #90 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post

 

An

 

I

Now I reiterate: the K1000 is NOT a binaural transducer, you're making misuse of the word and it is confusing. I restate also: something like a K1000 is DETRIMENTAL to playback of binaural records because each driver bleeds to both ears and it uses the pinnae relfections / diffraction to work just like speakers. Only way to make the K1000 work for binaural type recordings like you mentioned to is actively remove the cross-talk from left speaker to right ear and vice versa + somehow remove the pinnae effect even though this is unique to each user.

 

Exactly. 

 

  I have not tried replaying binaural recordings with and AKG 1000, but have tried them with the Stax Sigmas, which are conceptually similar, i.e. drivers placed ahead of the ears, and binaural does not sound right on such phones.  You need a more conventional phone.   As you note there are different modes of binaural recording and for some modes , an IEM may give the best playback.   As COMPLIN notes above, AKG had developed a fairly sophisticated approach to this problem.

 

The Sigmas and AKG K1000 do however create some semblance of a natural soundfield with conventional stereo recordings and that is their great strength. (BTW I own three sets of Sigmas)

 

I have also had the Polk SDA 1's for many years and chose them over the then-available Quad stats.  They do a good job of eliminating the crossfeed and can give precisely localized audio images which are almost tactile.   It's quite instructive with them to switch their cross-feed elimination speakers off and on and hear the set go from conventional stereo to enhanced imaging. They do however have a sweet spot beyond which the effect disappears,  but then  they just revert to sounding  like good conventional speakers.

 

On a related issue, I am amazed at the use of crossfeed simulators to try to make headphones sound like speakers.  These just add spatial distortion.  If more people had heard systems like the Polk SDA they would understand this issue better.  

 

There appears to be a belief, put out by various headphone amp makers, that crossfeed will give rise to a sense of externalization of sound (i.e. sound apparently located in the external word, rather than inside the head as with most headphones except the Sigmas and K1000).  

 

The argument is that because speakers create crossfeed, this is what makes speakers' sound appear externalized. However externalization is the result of the fact that the sound source is externally located and  thus creates a characteristic type of pinna reflection.  All the crossfeed in the world is not going to make the sound appear externalized. This is an example of the truism that "correlation does not prove causation."  Crossfeed has nothing to do with externalization and is the enemy of precise spatial localization.  If amplifier crossfeed makes your phones sound like speakers that's fine, but you are just buying into your speakers' inherent deficiencies. Some people say they use it because they find stereo too hard to take through headphones;  that's also a personal decision but then I have a bunch of old mono recordings that you will really love.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why are STAX headphones unwanted?