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 172

post #2566 of 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcoarment View Post
 

 

(...)

 

Or maybe it'll get here, my ears will be overwhelmed with levels of detail that I never thought possible, all of my lossy recordings will sound awful, my cheap cables will corrode to dust, you'll be proven right, and I'll immediately order a $5,000 tube amp. I suppose we'll see.

We won't, you will. Since reviews of things you have never heard are enough to convince you, there's not much I can contribute here...

post #2567 of 4047
Ooh dear, more ridiculous claims.
Quote:
Many regard the high-end all-tube amps as the best because they roll off the high end, and that's pleasing to many, but I learned that I actually don't want that — to me, a rolled-off high end is a flaw to be avoided. I see "warmth" as reducing detail, and that seems like a waste of an electrostatic. That's one reason why I'm only considering solid-state amps.

Honestly, why do we have people saying such unfounded rubbish? Yes 1950's radiogram bought by Dad, but seriously, modern well designed tube amps can and do have full frequency responses.
Listen to a BHSE my friend, then learn for yourself!

Many of the best high end amplifiers have tubed output, many tubed regulated power supplies as well. Solid state can also achieve. But please stop this 'all tube based designs are rolled off'

Go to some meets, go to some demo's at a decent high end hifi dealers, go listen and learn, stop standing at the bottom of the hill and saying you know....
post #2568 of 4047

As astrostar59 said, modern tube designs can measure very well. People like high-end tube amps not "because they roll of the high-end" (many of them don't, btw), but rather because they have a sort of unique character. The tone, soundstage, holographic sq..... of a really good tube amp is quite stunning, at least to my ears.

post #2569 of 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcoarment View Post
 

 

This is the kind of thinking that gets people to perceive differences that aren't there and spend too much money (and advise others to do the same).

 

Your correlation between price and quality is a fallacy. Some great stuff is expensive, but some isn't — and not all expensive stuff is great. Not every "upgrade" is really an upgrade in anything but price, and not every "requirement" is really a requirement.

 

 

.......   Do I really need a $5,000 boutique amp for these $3,500 headphones? Well, I'm willing to find out.

 

 

 

I find it interesting how people slide back and forth between adjectives relating to (sonic) quality/performance  and price as if they were interchangeable.  You are correct that not every expensive component is better than every less expensive component.  It does not follow from that, that no expensive component is better than any less expensive component.  

 

As for your last comment -- 'need' is not the correct term here, and skews the argument.  Clearly nobody needs this stuff the same way that they need air and nutrition, e.g..  I for one, am curious what you might end up deciding, once you've had a chance to hear a true reference-level system, which also complies with your sonic taste......

 

 

We can have Scully and Mulder hint one down for you....

post #2570 of 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3X0 View Post
 

Oh, I know. I meant that I was unsure why the Omega would be particularly difficult to drive, though I suppose it has a larger transducer.

 

I wasn't able to distinguish an audible improvement with a KGSSHV but this was not in my own home. Whereas other individuals are vulnerable to confirmation bias in subpar listening conditions (i.e. meets), I tend to behave contrariwise.

do you mean you exhibit a discomfirmation bias?  :ksc75smile:  isn't that just as bad?   Karl Popper must be spinning in his grave.  (I suppose I should Google to find out if he's even dead yet).   

post #2571 of 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzman View Post
 

do you mean you exhibit a discomfirmation bias?  :ksc75smile:  isn't that just as bad?   Karl Popper must be spinning in his grave.  (I suppose I should Google to find out if he's even dead yet).   


Died in 1994 ;) And yes, any bias is a problem if you are looking for objectivity.

post #2572 of 4047
Tube amps are flawed based on limits in technology just like analogue recording and storage were. Digital and solid state are in another league . It's a fact. That's not up for discussion. What is and needs to be considered is personal preference. That can't be accounted for so there is no point in arguing about it.
Edited by James-uk - 6/13/14 at 3:43pm
post #2573 of 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoupRKnowva View Post

I will wholeheartedly agree with Marco that the 009s running off a cheaper amp/dac is going to sound better than the same amount spent on a cheaper headphone but nicer dac/amp. The headphones make the single largest difference in the sound of the rig.

I get your point, but I also think this is one of those dangerous generalizations.  I think this needs to be argued at the level of specific pairings, one vs. the other.  It is tru that transducers are more colored and less 'perfect' than electronics, but there are limits on how far that can be factored into these kinds of comparisons.  What I think is closest to the truth is that you have to weigh the pros and cons of various pairings each of which adds up to a similar dollar total.  Veer to far in one direction with either the electronics or the headphones and you will end up with a poor sounding combo.  

 

 

sorry for 3 disputatious posts in rapid succession - .  I had the day off today, and should be less cranky (of course the 12 hour fast and then 5 plus hours at the hospital for testing may have something to do with it.

post #2574 of 4047

Technically this is true in some respects (objective measurements) but it's not borne out by subjective listening IMO, particularly in audio amplification and in driving electrostatic headphones specifically.

In fact scientists have now realised that the vacuum tube has much to offer and are actively developing combined solid state and vacuum tube devices.  http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-vacuum-channel-transistor/22626/

 

"NASA and the National Nanofab Center in South Korea are working on a miniaturized "vacuum channel transistor" - a best-of-both-worlds device that could find application in space and high-radiation environments.

Vacuum tubes, or thermionic valves, have almost disappeared from our day-to-day life, save for some purist sound rigs and high-power radio base stations. Their replacement - solid-state transistors - are easier to manufacture, cheaper, lighter, last longer, and consume much less power. Valves, on the other hand, are more robust in high-temperature and high-radiation environments and yield a higher frequency/power output than standard transistors.

NASA/Nanofab researchers are developing a device the combines the best aspects from both vacuum tubes and solid-state transistors. Their prototype "vacuum channel transistor" is only 150 nanometers in size, can be manufactured cheaply using standard silicon semiconductor processing, can operate at high speeds even in hostile environments, and could consume just as much power as a standard transistor."

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by James-uk View Post

Tube amps are flawed based on limits in technology just like analogue recording and storage were. Digital and solid state are in another league . It's a fact. That's not up for discussion. What is and needs to be considered is personal preference. That can't be accounted for so there is no point in arguing about it.
post #2575 of 4047

Just because an amp has a tube in it doesn't make it a tube amp.  I know that sounds weird, but a lot of amps are hybrid amps, meaning they use both transistors and tubes.  In fact, most "tube amps" for electrostats are hybrid amps.  The BHSE is closer to being a solid state amp than a tube amp.  In fact, one could make the argument that tubes are ideal for driving electrostats.

 

Also, amp "roll off" is a grossly exaggerated and misguided phrase.  Most of the time you're looking at a max of something like -1.5 dB @ 20 kHz.  Likely not even audible, and certainly not important.  "Roll off" is really only meaningful for the actual transducers, unless you're using something especially terrible like the Zanden DAC.

post #2576 of 4047

Forgive me for assuming all tube amps have rolled-off highs — that's the most frequent characteristic that I see other people (and reviews) citing about the difference. When I've tried tube amps before, I've either detected no difference at all from (good) solid-state, or that rolloff. Usually no difference at all.

 

But, as I said, that was just one reason I wasn't considering tubes. The two others:

 

- Tubes can be finicky, and eventually burn out. I don't want to tube-roll. I don't want to buy NOS tubes from Russian missiles on eBay (again). I don't want to have to figure out what to replace them with, and where to get more, when they die. I don't want to diagnose a weird imbalance or noise in one ear when a tube gets flaky. I want an amp that works the same way every time.

 

- Tubes seem to pick up noise more easily, and I'm surrounded by computers and phones and tablets with cellular radios all the time. When I spent some time with a couple of tube amps at home, I had problems with my most sensitive and detailed headphones — the Beyer T90 — having audible noise from both tube amps that they didn't get with two solid-state amps in the exact same setup. And from what everyone says, the SR-009 are particularly sensitive and detailed.

 

Are these concerns unfounded?


Edited by marcoarment - 6/13/14 at 6:17pm
post #2577 of 4047

I wasn't aiming my post at anyone in particular, there just seemed to be some misconceptions being posted.  I agree that the differences between sources and amps are blown pretty out of proportion, and think the headphone is by FAR the most important part of the chain.  If I were in your situation I'd look at one of the current production SS Stax amps or a vintage SRM-1 or SRM-T1.  Note the latter uses tubes and does indeed have a 'tubey' sound, so I'm not sure you'd prefer it.

 

Tubes are more finicky/less set and forget than transistors.  As for the noise problem, it could be a number of things and really depends on what kind of noise you're talking about.  It could be bad power/regulation, sensitivity/impedance of the headphones, chassis shielding design, etc.

post #2578 of 4047
I thought people jumped on STAX gear, but I've been trying to sell my 006T for months. I really enjoy it but its too nice haha I don't deserve an amp of that caliber on my desk.
post #2579 of 4047

Anyone here use (or have heard) a Schiit DAC with the KGSSHV / 009?

post #2580 of 4047

I dont think its anything to with it being a Stax amp but just that people are short of money at the moment. Just the cost of living, food rent, energy etc. On UK forums there is lots of great equipment, some at bargain prices but its just not selling. I think you will find DIY amps can be even harder to sell and get back anywhere near the investment back you put into them.

I also think Stax amps are dissed here far too much, there is always something better at a price, but how many other commercial headphone amps are still fully functional after three or four decades?

   

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchGFX View Post

I thought people jumped on STAX gear, but I've been trying to sell my 006T for months. I really enjoy it but its too nice haha I don't deserve an amp of that caliber on my desk.
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