Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Stax Interview and Factory tour 12/12/12
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stax Interview and Factory tour 12/12/12 - Page 8

post #106 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

Tell `em I'll give them $30k for that T2. wink.gif

:) 

 

I've just thought about it, but why didn't they go back to making the SR-Omega when the company was revived? Sorry if this is me w/ random information that may not be true, but I remember seeing it somewhere. Would it have been costs, like in the cases of the R10 and the Orpheus? 

 

First time seeing electrostat speakers. They're mighty flat but easy on the eyes.

post #107 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrViolin View Post

smily_headphones1.gif 

I've just thought about it, but why didn't they go back to making the SR-Omega when the company was revived? Sorry if this is me w/ random information that may not be true, but I remember seeing it somewhere. Would it have been costs, like in the cases of the R10 and the Orpheus? 

First time seeing electrostat speakers. They're mighty flat but easy on the eyes.

I've thought it over, and I'm not joking. I'm willing to negotiate if they want to sell it (as long as it's 100% working). I'll try shooting over a respectful proposal.

The O2 is more sleek and modern-looking, and likely less expensive to build, so they moved on. I do wish they'd kept the original Omega alive, however, just for folks who don't mind special ordering them (same goes for the 4070, which I had to go through Hades to get my hands on).
Edited by Magick Man - 2/10/13 at 10:27am
post #108 of 234

Nah for REAL bass the Beveridge with acoustic lens beats anything I have ever heard! http://www.bevaudio.com/index.html

 

attachment.php?s=58428ae855c9da8a1b0de1d26b4d587c&attachmentid=1382&stc=1&d=1153270078

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurus View Post

 

 

 

One of the best electrostatic speakers during those days was the Dayton Wright Mk 11/111. ( http://www.dayton-wright.com/XG-8-Mk3.html ) It was the only one that could actually produce real bass. Unfortunately like most electrostatics during that time the reliability was pretty poor. Dayton Wright also made a mighty fine preamp (tho plagued with Emi/Rf problems). I owned the preamp but not the speakers.

 

Though, I did own a pair of Accoustats.  And the brand Accoustat is alive and well in China. At least it was in 2005, when I ran into owners who were displaying the product at a booth during the Guangzhou Import and Export Fair.  I will see if I can dig up some pictures.

post #109 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by complin View Post

Nah for REAL bass the Beveridge with acoustic lens beats anything I have ever heard! http://www.bevaudio.com/index.html

 

attachment.php?s=58428ae855c9da8a1b0de1d26b4d587c&attachmentid=1382&stc=1&d=1153270078

I agree Bev is the best overall speaker in existance - but NOT for bass. Original 2SW went through several subwoofer revisions, people were replacing subwoofers with other makes, and currently much of the activity at Beveridge were again subwoofers. I heard the original 2SW and if that thing has a flaw, it is bass. 

 

However - if your piggybank and room to place them are big enough, now you can order Beveridge One - the son of the late designer is carrying the torch admirably well and has among many improvements, updates etc decided to offer the big One - the only sample originally built back in the day no longer exists. That is big enough to get by without the need to use subwoofers - if you heard One, than I am:

 

1). Envious

2). Believe you that even Aichille's heel of Beveridge (2SW), the bass, must be out of this world

 

Bev is simply more advanced than ANY other ESL, be it speaker or headphone. It is "upside down" ESL ( google for patent ), with low impedance diaphragm and high impedance stators. This basically allows for feedback to be applied to each and every point on the diaphragm down to the molecule - achieving unheard of low levels of distortion and practically perfect dynamic range. Nothing else can touch Bev at low levels - if you know the difference at low levels between dynamic speakers and ESLs - the game, at an entirely different level, repeats itself with ESLs and Bev.

 

If I win a lottery or anything of the sort, fetching the anything but inconsiderable sum these behemoth babies cost, there is no prize for guessing where this money will be going. Bev, heard at fair in Milan, Italy in 1979, is still the most powerful impression any piece of audio gear made on me.

 

Unfortunately, never heard Dayton Wrights. But they should be capable of extraordinary high SPLs for ESLs ( due to use of gas instead of air in their electrodes, allowing for greater efficiency and robustness - plus improved polar response, as barrier between air and gas acts like acoustic lens - a VERY clever and patented second/third generation of ESLs) - coupled with the bass to match. It is the only ESL that was/is capable of approx 120 dB SPL with sufficient power ( close to 1 kW ).


Edited by analogsurviver - 2/10/13 at 11:21am
post #110 of 234

The output of bass in the BEV's was anemic at the best as the SPL level just did not do it.  But it was the cleanest (transparent) sounding ESL out there.

 

I heard them at a store that later had DW develop a speaker line for them and the dealer then dropped the Beveridge line.
 


Edited by gurus - 2/10/13 at 11:30am
post #111 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurus View Post

The output of bass in the BEV's was anemic at the best as the SPL level just did not do it.  But it was the cleanest (transparent) sounding ESL out there.

 

I heard them at a store that later had DW develop a speaker line for them and the dealer then dropped the Beveridge line.
 

You certainly could put it that way. 2SW, which was and still is the best Bev ever to reach anything approaching widespread use, was limited in bass and did have its issues with subwoofer.

 

DW ( Dayton Wright ) was/is a very capable firm, unfortunately never heard any of their products.

 

Fast forward to present day - Bev One should be capable of reasonable SPLs in bass - with unheard of precision. And if you really require bass non plus ultra, there is always Eminent Technology rotary sub woofer - which no other technology can match. Together, they should make up the ultimate speaker system. If properly mounted/positioned/adjusted. Not likely to happen for me in this lifetime, I am afraid. Compared to the sum of money required to assemble such a system, ANY headphone is a very inexpensive way out. And if you do not have dedicated listening room, far more rational decision - what good is a speaker that is let down by the room it is positioned in ? 

 

Bev has for an ESL very unusual placement requirements, that usually go in its favour. They are positioned against the wall, preferably the longer one of the room - not away from anything as usually required by dipole radiators, which is 99% of all ESLs. Can play also in small(ish) rooms - with the exception of Quad 63, any large(r) ESL requires BIG room (>50 m square) in order to start to sing. It was amusing but not funny to hear Acoustat Monitor ( larger version of the original Acoustat X with one additional panel and same high voltage tube amp ) first in BIG room ( georgeus ) and then in

normal sized smaller room - funeral. Due to lack of such big room, I dropped ESLs (and other full range dipoles) as potential candidates, but Bev is another story. Who knows, perhaps one day...

 

Since this is a Stax thread - I only saw Stax ESLs at fair, never got to hear them. They were unpopular due to even for ESL very low efficiency and hence requirement for high quality high powered amps = read very expensive, even in ESL arena.. But those who did hear this combo all said they were/are up with the best - if your listening levels are moderate.

 

Stax was unique in approach to polarizing voltage or bias - BB suffix meant this was done by batteries ( like several kilovolts for speakers, requiring say 1500 pcs of 3 V cell batteries per speaker ... ) and not usual voltage multiplier circuit that has high ripple and can only be used because of large RC constant ESLs are usually built with. If anyone has first hand experience about sonics of normal powered and battery powered bias of otherwise same Stax model, be it speaker or headphone, please comment. 

post #112 of 234

Room placement and amplification is critical.

Not like conventional speakers forward facing but are placed down the side of the room facing each other. Also ideally should be used with the amplifier originally designed for it

The enclosure is tuned for an LF boost (it's a Helmholtz resonator) so you need to find the best placement in the room.  I think for this reason a subwoofer was developed later to make this easier. 

Most impressive speaker ELS or not I have ever heard, but you need to have a huge room to put them in so ideal if you have a mansion biggrin.gif

Afraid I had to make do with Quad ELS 57's

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurus View Post

The output of bass in the BEV's was anemic at the best as the SPL level just did not do it.  But it was the cleanest (transparent) sounding ESL out there.

 

I heard them at a store that later had DW develop a speaker line for them and the dealer then dropped the Beveridge line.
 


Edited by complin - 2/10/13 at 2:08pm
post #113 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post


I've thought it over, and I'm not joking. I'm willing to negotiate if they want to sell it (as long as it's 100% working). I'll try shooting over a respectful proposal.

The O2 is more sleek and modern-looking, and likely less expensive to build, so they moved on. I do wish they'd kept the original Omega alive, however, just for folks who don't mind special ordering them (same goes for the 4070, which I had to go through Hades to get my hands on).

dang! wait... did they call you daddy warbucks b/c you have a lot of money to burn? Well, hope you'll be able to get it if they want to sell it.

 

Ah... but the omega still looks pretty cool IMO (gives off that tank-build feeling). That would be nice if they'd do that :)

post #114 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrViolin View Post

 

Ah... but the omega still looks pretty cool IMO (gives off that tank-build feeling). That would be nice if they'd do that :)

If you're referring to the original SR-Omegas, they are far from having the strongest build, I'm even scared to move the box mine are sitting in till I get some proper amplification going on, note: the headband spokes that go into the housing are very very fragile.

post #115 of 234
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

I've thought it over, and I'm not joking. I'm willing to negotiate if they want to sell it (as long as it's 100% working). I'll try shooting over a respectful proposal.

 

It's for display only and probably wouldn't work if plugged in.

post #116 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

It's for display only and probably wouldn't work if plugged in.

That's a shame. I sent them an email, but likely it would just waste their time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrViolin View Post

dang! wait... did they call you daddy warbucks b/c you have a lot of money to burn? Well, hope you'll be able to get it if they want to sell it.

Ah... but the omega still looks pretty cool IMO (gives off that tank-build feeling). That would be nice if they'd do that smily_headphones1.gif

No, because I'm an old, bald guy who adopted a little girl who was homeless. biggrin.gif
post #117 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post


That's a shame. I sent them an email, but likely it would just waste their time.
No, because I'm an old, bald guy who adopted a little girl who was homeless. biggrin.gif

:^just searched up daddy warbucks and looked at your profile :) makes sense now. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DefQon View Post

If you're referring to the original SR-Omegas, they are far from having the strongest build, I'm even scared to move the box mine are sitting in till I get some proper amplification going on, note: the headband spokes that go into the housing are very very fragile.

Ah, I see. That's one misleading appearance it has.

post #118 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
....Since this is a Stax thread - I only saw Stax ESLs at fair, never got to hear them. They were unpopular due to even for ESL very low efficiency and hence requirement for high quality high powered amps = read very expensive, even in ESL arena.. But those who did hear this combo all said they were/are up with the best - if your listening levels are moderate.

 

Stax was unique in approach to polarizing voltage or bias - BB suffix meant this was done by batteries ( like several kilovolts for speakers, requiring say 1500 pcs of 3 V cell batteries per speaker ... ) and not usual voltage multiplier circuit that has high ripple and can only be used because of large RC constant ESLs are usually built with. If anyone has first hand experience about sonics of normal powered and battery powered bias of otherwise same Stax model, be it speaker or headphone, please comment. 

One thousand five hundred 3V batteries in series, viz., Vpp=+4.5kV?  This seems ideal for an amplifier with 7025A drivers, dual-EL34 ultralinear power-output stages (with 10:1 step-up transformers) and all-tube bias supply (quad diodes of type TBD).  Does this also apply to the Earspeakers, or do they have lower requirements for PO and bias?

post #119 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrViolin View Post

Ah, I see. That's one misleading appearance it has.

 

The SR-007's MKI & II are built like tanks though, the original Omega no, the SR-009's look even sturdier.

post #120 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcschmerker4 View Post

One thousand five hundred 3V batteries in series, viz., Vpp=+4.5kV?  This seems ideal for an amplifier with 7025A drivers, dual-EL34 ultralinear power-output stages (with 10:1 step-up transformers) and all-tube bias supply (quad diodes of type TBD).  Does this also apply to the Earspeakers, or do they have lower requirements for PO and bias?

It does apply to earspeakers, there were transformer boxes with BB suffix - but no amplifiers for earspeakers with BB/batteries for polarizing voltage/bias.

Forgot the non pro voltage for earspeakers ( it is lower ), but pro bias for Stax is 580 VDC ( NOT Vpp - that applies to drive signal - peak -to-peak amplitude PO ). The output of Stax amps is approx 1500 Vpp - so that output devices with rating of approx 800-900 V can be used. Unfortunately, since TVs became pancakes, no large scale need for semiconductors with this voltage rating and ever scarcer availability of solid state devices that can be used.

 

Yes, the most rational amplifier for driving ESL is something along your lines - tubes, step up transformer with the minimum step up ratio that achieves

full drive for the ESLs - done. It is perhaps the best compromise reagarding performance, cost, and above all, safety. High voltage "direct drive" amps are lethal and are getting ever more illegal in various parts of the world.

 

The worse thing is to have usual tube amp with step down transformer to power dynamic speakers - and then high step up ratio transformer in ESLs - first is totally redundant and detrimental to SQ in ESL scenario, second is much worse than a say 1:10 step up transformer, leading again to reduced SQ. This describes at least 98,7654321 % of all tube driven ESLs in real life. Now I know some of the best sounding combos are just like described - but that performance could have been achieved at much reduced cost.

 

Trouble is, market insists on conventional amps as known to majority - and audiophilles go ballistic every time they feel their liberty to match a gerbil with a kangaroo is in slightest way constricted. Produce anything with a prescribed/unremovable cable - you automatically loose prospective customers who use XY cable exclusively in their system - etc,etc. Acoustat and Beveridge top offerings were dedicated high voltage amps without any  transformers in the signal path - which is the best option, as at least in Beveridge case, there is no way you can achieve the same control over speaker diaphragm by using transformers. Yet both were forced to use transformers in later models, simply because of cost/unwillingness to use built in amp and insisting on using conventional amp . Nowadays, legislation has to be added to this list.

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 › Stax Interview and Factory tour 12/12/12