Originally Posted by spritzer
The impressions are useless as you don't know the source, the recording or the amplification used. How are you going to draw any meaningful conclusions with all those variables? There have been accusations of sneaky MOT's who run the sound through eq and filters to shape the sound so it has to be a part of the equation. Then we have the aforementioned lemming mentality which is the worst of the worst. Very few people are willing to go against the grain and post something negative about a product especially after glowing reviews from somebody else.
Our plan was to build 3 identical amps but only on the outside. On the inside would be 3 very different ways of driving Stax headphones, one excellent and two lacking but those would be tailored to be pleasing to the ear. No way to tell the amps apart, all would run as hot, have the same sockets, knobs etc. No doubt in my mind that the less than stellar designs would win out in such an environment.
I've clearly TWICE established the fact that I provided the source / recording / material, and if you need an explanation as to why the KS and the LCD2 can't share the same amp, well, there's simply no hope for you. Could Drew have duped everyone by running a modified EQ on their material? Sure, I suppose it's possible. However, it's equally possible that a bunch of narrow-minded Stax fans purposely blackballed a competing electrostatic company's first headphone. Am I definitively claiming one or the other happened? No. All I can say is that my thoughts (and the thoughts of others) on the prototype CLEARLY differ from those of the Stax family that reviewed the commercial product in this thread. Hopefully the fall NYC meet actually takes place and I have the opportunity to compare them again, but until then, we'll never know.
As far as testing your hypothesis, why, exactly, would listeners choose the, "less than stellar design" over the "excellent design?" In particular, why would they make that choice at a meet as opposed to at home?