[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by ServinginEcuador The second lesson is that not that many people can afford electrostatics. That automatically makes you "elite" in the sense of being one of only a few percentage of people here.

Do you really mean to say that not many people can afford the Stax SR-007 and Sennheiser HE-90 headphones, in particular?

Electrostatic headphones are a technology, after all... in fact one can make a pair of DIY electrostatics, or buy a NOS model. Someone was selling a pair of 1982 Stax for US $60 in the Gear For Sale/Trade, and the ad is probably still there.

Furthermore... I suspect a lot more people could afford the Sennheiser Orpheus or Stax Omega II, but choose to put their money into other areas instead. It's not like they cost as much as a new car or anything, and most people own cars.

If a person feels that somehow the electrostatic technology itself is better than electromagnetic... great. Very few people are listening to electrostatic headphones or speakers in 2003 (or horn speakers, or turntables, or tubed gear). Does that make a person "elite?" Depends on their attitude and that of others, I suppose. Some might call it elite, others might call it old-fashioned and silly.

 

[Sovkiller]

The Orpheus do cost as much as a car.......

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sovkiller The Orpheus do cost as much as a car.......

Ok... just barely...

Anyway, I suspect many people could afford them if they wanted them badly enough -- it's a matter of priorities.

P.S... here's an Orpheus review by... heyyy, someone all of us know (or have heard of anyway):

http://www.epinions.com/elec-review-...2-37CDA5C2-bd4

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by slindeman ...I struggled a long time wondering why every headphone that wasn't severely rolled off in the treble sounded so dang harsh to me ... Electrostats are far from perfect, but they seem to excel in the areas that affect me the most. I find dynamic headphones lacking despite expensive amps ... or sources... I mean I can tell in 5 minutes that the treble is going to annoy me. Like I said, electrostats don't do everything right, but they do a lot less wrong than any dynamic headphone I've heard. Maybe I'm just super-sensitive to bad things going on in the treble, but anyway that's been my experience so far. None of this is meant to offend anyone, it's just the way things turned out for me.

So you certainly aren't a snob. I can really reproduce the preference for electrostatic headphones and foil transducers, so it's no problem to me - as long as no general inferiority of dynamic headphones and thus ignorance with their advocates are deduced.

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but have you ever heard a good vinyl playback system through dynamic headphones? The reason I ask is that many feel digital is weakest in the high frequencies (can be harsh, grating and otherwise unrealistic for many reasons -- jitter, poor dithering, brickwall filters, ad infinitum). Perhaps this is a situation where electrostatics smooth over "digititis" rather than some inherent superiority in elecrostatic technology.

Good points! I also have the impression that elecrostatics smooth the edges of the music, both disturbing ones (resulting from electronics inadequacies) and such that are essential for the musical tension to me. While I admit that they seem to have a higher resolution and greater detail clarity than dynamic headphones, I don't find their presentation to be more realistic overall. (The generalization is intended, because there's a common trait with electrostatics in comparison to dynamic headphones.)

Most obvious is their watery character. It's a beautiful picture to perceive the music like curling waves on a water surface. But once it comes to the stones that here and there protrude the surface, they all seem to be wet and slick. That's where I think dynamic headphones do the reality more justice; they have a wider spectrum of sonic colors, and although the water may appear slightly less realistic and smooth, the stones have quite the right surface: some of them wet and some dry, as they should.

Apologies in advance in case that there is an electrostatic headphone that unites the best of both worlds and which I haven't heard yet. So far I prefer the sound of (good) dynamics. That said, I would never state it's the only valid way. Who knows, maybe once I've heard the Omega II (e.g.)...

There are indeed some headphones that to me are overrated and seriously flawed, hiding their flaws behind some fake realism and dynamics: the current Grado line. So I have to confess to feel a bit like a snob, sniffing at them. Not that I'm proud of that (I even concede that I could be wrong to a certain degree), but I guess to be a snob in certain areas is human.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ There are indeed some headphones that to me are overrated and seriously flawed, hiding their flaws behind some fake realism and dynamics: the current Grado line. So I have to confess to feel a bit like a snob, sniffing at them.

Ouch... that's liable to turn some heads.

I recently sold off my SR-60 (ucck) and bought an SR-225 (couldn't resist at the price)... if I don't like them I'll agree with you finally, and depart "Team Grado SR" for better shores.

P.S. - on an interesting note, I just picked up the vintage 80's Stax SR34 selling on the Gear For Sale forum (curiosity got the better of me and my poor wallet)... this may be a chance to experience at least some of the general characteristics of electrostatics (well... they're electrets, but close). Gotta love vintage toys

.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch Do you really mean to say that not many people can afford the Stax SR-007 and Sennheiser HE-90 headphones, in particular?

No, I mean a complete electrostatic setup, from the amp to the cans too expensive for most to handle. I know that the Stax SR404 headphones sell for $400 at AudioCubes and, IIRC, less at EIFL, and that Srajan at 6Moons rated them as being much better than the SR303s, and not worth the upgrade. It's not that just the cans and amp are expensive either, it's the need to then upgrade the upstream components to give them better sound or to sound good. Bad cabling will cripple a pair of Stax, and good cabling costs. When you add up the investment that it takes to go with Stax, amp & cans & cabling, not that many can afford it.

Electrostatic headphones are a technology, after all... in fact one can make a pair of DIY electrostatics, or buy a NOS model. Someone was selling a pair of 1982 Stax for US $60 in the Gear For Sale/Trade, and the ad is probably still there. [True, but how many here have EVER built their own electrostatic headphones? 2 maybe 3 with one or so more trying in the near future? Plus, I have heard from a few people that the newer Stax lineup has much more to offer than the older stuff.

Furthermore... I suspect a lot more people could afford the Sennheiser Orpheus or Stax Omega II, but choose to put their money into other areas instead. It's not like they cost as much as a new car or anything, and most people own cars.

That's the point. Not many can truly afford it both because they might not want to spend that kind of money, and that they need to pay their rent and eat afterwards.

Quote:

If a person feels that somehow the electrostatic technology itself is better than electromagnetic... great. Very few people are listening to electrostatic headphones or speakers in 2003 (or horn speakers, or turntables, or tubed gear). Does that make a person "elite?" Depends on their attitude and that of others, I suppose. Some might call it elite, others might call it old-fashioned and silly.

I was using elite within quatation marks for a reason. They aren't elite due to their owning "the world's best product" they are elite as in one of the smallest crowds of people who own these products. And Eric is one of the elitist since he owns the HE90s. There are only some 3-4 people here that own those.

I guess my choice of the word elite was bad. I couldn't come up with a better word, so I used elite to describe rarity and not superiority.

 

[ph0rk]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ Good points! I also have the impression that elecrostatics smooth the edges of the music, both disturbing ones (resulting from electronics inadequacies) and such that are essential for the musical tension to me. While I admit that they seem to have a higher resolution and greater detail clarity than dynamic headphones, I don't find their presentation to be more realistic overall. (The generalization is intended, because there's a common trait with electrostatics in comparison to dynamic headphones.)

Well, the nonrealistic feeling might have something to do with the fact that they use condenser mics to record the music, and most engineers use dynamic headphones and/or sealed box or ported dynamic speakers.

or maybe you've grown up listening to dynamic speakers all your life and are used to the cone distortion.


I personally have never been a fan of electrostatics, ribbon speakers, or magneplanars; i think people should listen to music the way god (henry kloss) intended: a 2 way bass-reflex speaker, or headphones.

audiophilia is rife with people that believer in one technology over another mostly because of the mysticism surrounding it. I.E. horn speakers, magneplanars, etc etc. Most of the time the bits and pieces they point out as sounding more "real" coming out of their particular technology is either pretty insignificant (flat extension to 100khz instead of only 40khz, for example.) or they gloss over pretty glaring issues other users might have. (ever listen to some electrostatic floorstanders that don't have dynamic woofers built in? where's the beef?)

listen to two groups of people bitch over the finer points of scotch and bourbon (i.e. which is "teh bestest"). and you'll see what I mean.

Some things are just a matter of taste.

 

[Geek]

Eric343, that's what I thought- I am so unfamiliar with the Stax high end stuff that not only do I know little about it sonically, but that I know not of equipment specifications.

I'm pretty fond of the high end dynamic sound though, so It's gonna take some serious sonic purity to change my mind

Cheers,
Geek

 

[eric343]

Geek - Hey, if you're ever in Seattle, drop me a line

 

[Geek]

No problem. I need a vacation anyways ;p

Cheers,
Geek

 

[slindeman]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but have you ever heard a good vinyl playback system through dynamic headphones? The reason I ask is that many feel digital is weakest in the high frequencies (can be harsh, grating and otherwise unrealistic for many reasons -- jitter, poor dithering, brickwall filters, ad infinitum).

I have a vinyl playback system at work but I don't really know how it compares to good ones. It's a vintage Philips GA-212 going into a vintage Marantz receiver for the phono preamp. I'm using a Grado blue cartridge. Sounds great to me, but I haven't heard many turntables.

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch Perhaps this is a situation where electrostatics smooth over "digititis" rather than some inherent superiority in elecrostatic technology.

I don't know, my SR-404s don't seem to smooth over anything. They are very revealing headphones and seem to have more detail, especially in the treble, than even the Omega IIs, although I didn't hear the IIs at their best. Their treble is slightly boosted compared to headphones like HD600, Etymotics, or Grado HP-2s. Yet the bizarre thing is, even though I know they are brighter, when I compare them to my HD600s the Senns sound brighter. With the SR-404s I hear all the details, yet the treble doesn't irritate me like it does on dynamic headphones.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by slindeman I don't know, my SR-404s don't seem to smooth over anything. They are very revealing headphones and seem to have more detail, especially in the treble, than even the Omega IIs, although I didn't hear the IIs at their best. Their treble is slightly boosted compared to headphones like HD600, Etymotics, or Grado HP-2s. Yet the bizarre thing is, even though I know they are brighter, when I compare them to my HD600s the Senns sound brighter. With the SR-404s I hear all the details, yet the treble doesn't irritate me like it does on dynamic headphones.

I noticed one of your other headphones are Grado SR-80's. I just sold off my 60's due to nasty shrillness and generally ugly treble... hopefully the SR-80 is not what you had in mind when you talked about irritating treble with dynamic headphones (yeah I know you mentioned HD600, etc. but it's easy to unconsciously have a particular pair of cans in mind when talking about irritating factors... happens to me pretty often).

Anyway... I'm not sure what it is about electrostatic force moving the drivers on a pair of cans that would be so much better and less irritating than electromagnets moving the drivers. The more I think about it, the more I tend to believe this has a lot more to do with particular brands/models and not so much with the two technologies. Maybe the Stax SR34 will clear up this issue for me a little.

 

[Chops]

You know what needs to happen here?.....

Magnepan needs to make their own magneplanar headphones. I really do think they could pull it off and be successful with it.

After many auditions, I prefered my Maggies over Martin Logan electrostats for a couple reasons. 1) The Maggies have a broader sweetspot where the Logans were very beamy. 2) Other than the dynamic drivers the Logans use for extended bass over the Maggies, the mids and highs seemed to be pretty close in line with eachother, however the top-end of the Maggies seem a little sweeter to me.

I always say, simpler is better, and the Maggie design is much simpler than any electrostatic design.

 

[slindeman]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch I noticed one of your other headphones are Grado SR-80's. I just sold off my 60's due to nasty shrillness and generally ugly treble... hopefully the SR-80 is not what you had in mind when you talked about irritating treble with dynamic headphones (yeah I know you mentioned HD600, etc. but it's easy to unconsciously have a particular pair of cans in mind when talking about irritating factors... happens to me pretty often).

Actually I don't own Grado SR-80, it's Stax SR-80. Kind of confusing since its the exact same model numbers.

Those are my Stax electrets. I did own both the Grado HP-2 and SR-125 for awhile, and I have heard every current Grado model.

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch Anyway... I'm not sure what it is about electromagnets moving the drivers on a pair of cans that would be so much better and less irritating than electrostatic force moving the drivers on a pair of cans. The more I think about it, the more I tend to believe this has a lot more to do with particular brands/models and not so much with the two technologies. Maybe the Stax SR34 will clear up this issue for me a little.

I was fine with dynamics for many years before I found electrostatics. In fact I didn't connect the dots until I had headphones that didn't fatigue me anymore. Then I began noticing the difference. Since all 4 electrostatics I've heard don't have the problem and all 15+ dynamics do I have to assume their is something inherently different in the technologies that my ears can detect.

 

[Sugano-san]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dusty Chalk Maybe it's because there is no such thing as low-end electrostatics?

Stax SR-001.