or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › The Stax Thread III
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Stax Thread III - Page 130

post #1936 of 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilency View Post
 

Defqon is a good guy. Hopefully he will be back.


I didn't say that he's not a good guy ;) maybe some discussions got out of hand , that can happen no matter how good your intentions are.

post #1937 of 5884

Could we go back on the Stax topic again please chaps :D?

post #1938 of 5884

Hi all,

For me, with my Omega ( 1993 ), the T1 is best on everything compared to SRM1 MK2 PRO.

Scene much greater, and sound far less metal

 

 

PS : I support you Defqon.

post #1939 of 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by rx79ez08 View Post

 

I have had the LS for sometime. I found that while there is some emphasis on treble, it is quite manageable. Unlike headphones like Grado and the ATH-AD900 which is too sharp for my liking.

 

Coincident to your post, my AD900 is why I find myself here. I had been listening to a pair of stock mobile in-ears while on holiday, wishing that I had packed the AD900 the whole time. When I returned, I was anxious to listen to the new album. I put my cans on, pressed play, and was disgusted. The audio-technica squealed like a pig. I enjoyed the songs more on the freebie pair. Why had the 900/700s been so sensationalised in Australia? Stax setups were niche and joyless, they said.

 

Its inaccuracy was now obvious to me. I demanded accuracy, and knew from my calibrated flat panels that accuracy gives the most pleasing and usable result. My first step was to equalize the missing low frequency energy according to graphs on the internet. This improved the sound. I then discovered that the frequency peaks were position dependent like most other headphones, except the normal wearing position was the problem. The AD900 must be pushed forward to the point of being worn supra-aurally to be tolerable. And still, I had to listen to sine sweeps and parametrically equalize the peaks at 3.8 and 6.8 kHz further. The rather poor channel matching above 2 kHz also worsened the result. These could be made tolerable, but never trustworthy nor pleasing.

 

They also needed an amplifier now, after -10 dB pre-amp gain.

 

I then came across Mr Rin Choi's Stax measurements, and discovered that the audio transducer had essentially been perfected with the SRM-Monitor. And so I'll buy the 3170 and convolve it with the ED-1 FIR. I might also experiment with a bass boost to fit the Olive-Welti target response. It's an expensive purchase, but what is a lifetime of pleasing listening worth?

post #1940 of 5884
Good luck i suppose, but the 307 is especially edged.
post #1941 of 5884

No evidence to indicate the ED-1 wouldn't effectively compensate the 307.

 

Besides, thirty years have passed. Computers are now ubiquitous, and PEQ is free, lossless and offers complete control. It surprises me that so few people use it. Everyone seems to prefer buying and ebaying endlessly.

post #1942 of 5884

Just a random though, are people who have their Stax lose balance or other strange issues using NOS DAC's? Last week I had a non-band-limited noise tone from a faulty grounding out of a PC sound card going through my headphones at reasonably good volume for about half an hour before I noticed (didn't have them on at the time), and they went completely unstable and the charge balance was totally weird for the whole night but they eventually returned to normality by the next day.

post #1943 of 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude_500 View Post
 

Just a random though, are people who have their Stax lose balance or other strange issues using NOS DAC's? Last week I had a non-band-limited noise tone from a faulty grounding out of a PC sound card going through my headphones at reasonably good volume for about half an hour before I noticed (didn't have them on at the time), and they went completely unstable and the charge balance was totally weird for the whole night but they eventually returned to normality by the next day.

 

I've only used a NOS DAC with all Stax gear I've had and currently have ... a MHDT Labs Stockholm ... running via optical out from a PC ... 

 

Nothing but love ...

 

Good luck (not likely that it's related to NOS vs. Oversampling DACS ... can't imagine why, anyway.

post #1944 of 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by dripf View PostNo evidence to indicate the ED-1 wouldn't effectively compensate the 307.

 

Besides, thirty years have passed. Computers are now ubiquitous, and PEQ is free, lossless and offers complete control. It surprises me that so few people use it. Everyone seems to prefer buying and ebaying endlessly.

In linear terms, anyway. Nonlinear distortion is another beast but electrostatics seem to operate so well in those dimensions that it isn't as big of a deal as with dynamics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude_500 View PostYes, an amplifier will get more and more distortion as it gets closer to railing output. So an amplifier running with +-300V rails with a 500Vp-p output will have more distortion than the same amplifier running with +-400V rails with a 500Vp-p output. But as a result, most designs are just going to run at the maximum reasonable voltage for that topology, so this ultimately just becomes a distortion figure at a desired level. 

 

In essence, just because an amplifier has high voltage rails doesn't mean it has less distortion than an amplifier with lower rails. For instance, a Woo WES has more voltage overhead (I think +-600v rails) than a Blue Hawaii, but a Blue Hawaii has WAY less distortion than a WES just because of its topology. 

 

So in conclusion, anyone who says "that amp has more voltage overhead so it'll have less distortion" doesn't know what they're talking about. The ONLY time this is valid is if topologies are identical i.e. person x made a Blue Hawaii with +-400v rails and said it has less distortion than someone else's identically constructed Blue Hawaii who used +-300v rails.

OK, thanks. I'm curious to test this in practice. I've played with some fair orchestral and opera recordings and would like the validate any presence of audible distortion before considering anything greater.

 

I'm not really a fan of tube designs so I tend to stay away from them (I feel the same way with power amplifier topologies). It seems the only suitable transistor-based "upgrade" would be a KGSSHV but I did not observe a confident improvement when I sampled it, even with demanding material.

 

For clarity, I am not in search for an amplifier that performs the best as far as amplifiers can perform (i.e. in theory). I am interested in the most affordable amplifier that performs the best as far as I can hear (i.e. in practice).


Edited by 3X0 - 4/3/14 at 1:51pm
post #1945 of 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3X0 View Post

 

OK, thanks. I'm curious to test this in practice. I've played with some fair orchestral and opera recordings and would like the validate any presence of audible distortion before considering anything greater.

 

I'm not really a fan of tube designs so I tend to stay away from them (I feel the same way with power amplifier topologies). It seems the only suitable transistor-based "upgrade" would be a KGSSHV but I did not observe a confident improvement when I sampled it, even with demanding material.

 

For clarity, I am not in search for an amplifier that performs the best as far as amplifiers can perform (i.e. in theory). I am interested in the most affordable amplifier that performs the best as far as I can hear (i.e. in practice).

 

Realize that the BH (and T2 if you want to go that route) is for all intents and purposes a solid state amplifier. The tubes are convenient output stages, but given the topology it doesn't express the characteristics of a typical tube amp (that is, there are no warm lush 2nd harmonics out of a blue hawaii).

 

Except in extreme situations, it is unlikely you will be able to perceive the difference in rail voltages for reasonable selections in any double blind test. Instead, you'll probably want to use a spectrum analyzer if you really want to see the differences.

post #1946 of 5884
Quote:
 Let me say that my first-hand experience with the KGSSHV was less than revelatory.

Interesting. I see you run the SR-007s Mk1 or Mk2? and a Stax 323.

 

I also use the SR-007 MK2.5s with a SRM-717, but I feed it from my Audio Note pre-amp out and run

the Stax without it's volume i.e. flat out at Class A. The sound I am getting is a lot more dynamic and

lively than direct from my DAC into the Stax amp with it's volume control switched in.

 

I can listen very loud if I want, with no audible clipping, so I wonder if the stories of the SR-007s being

difficult to drive is so accurate?

 

I have tried the system with Delta-Sigma DACs but I found I preferred None Oversampling tubed based types

fed by a server with good SPDIF conversion outboard.

I would recommend trying a NOS DAC if you can. The front end is key to getting a great sound on the Stax, as if

ruthlessly reveals everything. It would be cheaper than going for a mega amp like a KGSS or BHSE.

post #1947 of 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude_500 View PostRealize that the BH (and T2 if you want to go that route) is for all intents and purposes a solid state amplifier. The tubes are convenient output stages, but given the topology it doesn't express the characteristics of a typical tube amp (that is, there are no warm lush 2nd harmonics out of a blue hawaii).

 

Except in extreme situations, it is unlikely you will be able to perceive the difference in rail voltages for reasonable selections in any double blind test. Instead, you'll probably want to use a spectrum analyzer if you really want to see the differences.

That's very interesting -- I was under the impression that tubes in the output stage are what might contribute significantly to the "tube sound." From my experience with power amplifiers I was under the impression that a very good valve amplifier would sound similar to a very good transistor amplifier. I believe "lesser" tube implementations (allegedly WES?) introduce too much voluntary distortion and randomness to the sound for me to chance it.

 

The bold is precisely what I wanted to know; thanks for sharing your expertise on the matter. I might arrange for a properly controlled test between the 323S and the KGSSHV when I have the chance (perhaps also the BHSE if I'm lucky enough to borrow one). But I imagine I'll be sitting pretty for a bit until I feel like breaching practical performance limits (maybe when I'm in my 30s or 40s or something).

post #1948 of 5884
Yes, the Wes is very very colored. I somewhat like its sound but from a purely technical standpoint many consider it to be a very poorly designed amplifier. If you don't like lush tube sound most definitely avoid the Wes. It is true that a well designed tube amp sounds quite similar to solid state. The BH just takes it a step further by adding global feedback and a solid state input stage.
post #1949 of 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude_500 View Post

 

Realize that the BH (and T2 if you want to go that route) is for all intents and purposes a solid state amplifier. The tubes are convenient output stages, but given the topology it doesn't express the characteristics of a typical tube amp (that is, there are no warm lush 2nd harmonics out of a blue hawaii).

 

What about distortion caracther of 6DJ8/6922/ECC88 input stage on the T2?

post #1950 of 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgazal View Post
 

 

What about distortion caracther of 6DJ8/6922/ECC88 input stage on the T2?

 

It might distort a little, but it's a very well designed input stage. It might account for the ever so slightly laid back tonality of the T2 compared to the BH (or so they say, I've not heard a T2). In general, I don't understand why the T2 is better than the BH. It's got the same output stage and a seemingly unnecessary tube input stage.

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 › The Stax Thread III