[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not being a total troll definitely works in your favour

Thank you....I've come to terms with my "fanboyism"

I'll certainly try out the STAX SR-X one of these days....as well as the Omega II. Your impression of the 404 and k1000 are very similar to my "quick" impression of them, so I'll definitely need to listen to the SR-X. I mainly stuck with Senns because I liked their interpretation of their soundstage (ie they're too laid back for some). This hobby takes money....no doubt about it

So I've just tailored a system for Senns....but the gratting Grados are what I pick up for when I want hard rock

I just like extremes

 

[smeggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thank you....I've come to terms with my "fanboyism" I'll certainly try out the STAX SR-X one of these days....as well as the Omega II. Your impression of the 404 and k1000 are very similar to my "quick" impression of them, so I'll definitely need to listen to the SR-X. I mainly stuck with Senns because I liked their interpretation of their soundstage (ie they're too laid back for some). This hobby takes money....no doubt about it So I've just tailored a system for Senns....but the gratting Grados are what I pick up for when I want hard rock I just like extremes

Ugh, the money...

Still, I have a few very nice cans that I really enjoy as you do and in the end that's what matters. Like the Senn, the SR-X has a solidity of sound to them which I feel is missing from the 404.

I view the 650 as creamery ice cream, thick and heavy. The SR-X is like sorbet, light and refreshing with a bit of tang.

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif System synergy is a double sword: it can either improve a headphone, or hamper it. I understand you're saying that the HeadRoom graph isn't totally indicative of the performance of the Omega II . I've been saying that to be tonally neutral, the graph shouldn't be dead flat on those graphs to begin with (because their models utilize the pinna of the ear). And it was just the overall consensus of what I tried to sumerize of what I've heard of electrostats, and were present in the few examples I have listened to (and yes, they're just a few examples and not indicative of all stats). Obviously, when you have a stunning source and amp, the "shortcomings" critisisms, etc, are way diminished and a headphone becomes more neutral. I would expect my HD650 would have a more even FRG on the Headroom graph, as I've picked out sources that are detailed, extended, and have a high gain. An electrostat doesn't have to have as expensive a source or amp to be neutral, in all probablity. Now that I have a really nice setup that is many times the price of my headphones, does that mean it would sound like a benchmark STAX? Obviously not....while I think it's tonally neutral for it's application (symphonies and electronica), it's still not going to be as bright or detailed as some. It's a type of tonality that I hear at concert venues (where there isn't as much transparency). So I think milkpowder had something with his impressions of the HD650 and 404: of course his impression of the HD650 is more the critical impression of the 650 (confounded when it's not on a stellar amp and source)....that the 650 can be too bassy and muddy: too extended for strings. Well one thing is for sure, if I do follow his advise and get one dynamic and one electrostat.....that means yet a lot more money for the Omega II and amp (hopefully my source would be good) I really need to leave this site

Yes, I certainly don't deny any objectives of those graphs, I'd have to take HeadRoom's word on that. I do think though, as you correctly identified, that what we see on those graphs is not always what we hear and nor does it really give us an accurate impression regarding the actual sound of a headphone when it's there on our head and working it's magic.

I would add that I would have to second smeggy's comments regarding the SR-X. I own the SR-X Mk3 myself and while these are not exactly common these days given their 1970's origins, at the going prices they're a great buy. They do have their flaws but their reproduction of instrument timbre stuns me at times. I won't claim they compete with the Omega II for my attention, they don't. They are though remarkably good though for music that plays to their strengths. Solo instrumental pieces sound especially good on them.

 

[Downrange]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre Jute /img/forum/go_quote.gif No loudspeaker is uncoloured. Some are less coloured than others. Electrostats are less coloured than most. The same applies to earphones. It is the transparency of electrostatic earphones that make them so good for classical music. That applies especially to chamber music, voices of any scale. Presently I'm playing my way through all the Handel oratorio, on Quad ESL while my family is awake, on Stax 202 while I work into the night after they go to bed. It's a seamless experience Some say that the downside is that electrostats, floorstanders and earphones both, lack bass slam; that they do, but that doesn't mean they lack bass; it is the bass "slam" that lesser speakers (and amplified music, which of course doesn't apply to classical music) have accustomed people to which is artificial, in fact dirty, nothing but harmonic distortion. Electrostats have enough nice clean bass so that you are tempted to turn the volume up to enjoy more of it. (Don't -- you will damage your ears. In fact, those who lack self-control with the volume knob should stay away from electrostats. Clean decibels will harm your hearing quite as quickly as dirty decibels; it's the number of decibels that matter, not the culture of each decibel!) Electrostats do superbly with acoustic music, probably because they move too short a distance for materials to distort badly, probably also because the push-pull dipole membrane is a more "natural" sonic construct that cone speakers. As corollary evidence, I offer the wonderful clean bass you can get from a properly constructed horn with a Lowther driver, which moves about 1mm max. The Stax earphones do not seem to me to differ all that much but they can be sensitive to the driving amp. However, we can make too much of an obsessive muchness of small differences. The Stax amps in the factory-matched packs seem pretty good amps and pretty good value too (I've heard the ones at the extremes of the current range, the 252 and the 007t). The key consideration for me, as a constant concert-goer (I reviewed live and recorded music for over forty years), is that an electrostat reproduces something nearer the sound one hears in the concert hall than any other earphone. So I think that, unless you are one of those audiophiles forever looking for a reason to "upgrade" your gear, any of the Stax earspeakers and the matching amp will give a superior rendition of classical music to that available from the non-electrostatics. The modern Stax is also the most comfortable earphone I know to wear for several hours at a time, which matters if you want to play an example of one of the more extended classical genres through at a sitting. HTH. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Very good post. This mirrors my experience with the Stax 2020 and classical music. Earlier today, I listened extensively to the new SR-001 Mk II's I got recently, and they are very nice. Then I put on the 2020s again tonight, and, ahh... just so much better in every way - soundstage, clarity, tone, bass impact, etc, etc..

I don't have ESLs, but do have large Maggies I got many years ago, and agree about the "seamless" aspects of switching between planar loudspeakers and Stax. You just get used to the "right" sound of music, and classical is one of those genres that, once heard in real space/time, gives the lie to a false representation whenever it's heard. Stax do a great job capturing that rightness of classical music, for me.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirumu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I certainly don't deny any objectives of those graphs, I'd have to take HeadRoom's word on that. I do think though, as you correctly identified, that what we see on those graphs is not always what we hear and nor does it really give us an accurate impression regarding the actual sound of a headphone when it's there on our head and working it's magic. I would add that I would have to second smeggy's comments regarding the SR-X. I own the SR-X Mk3 myself and while these are not exactly common these days given their 1970's origins, at the going prices they're a great buy. They do have their flaws but their reproduction of instrument timbre stuns me at times. I won't claim they compete with the Omega II for my attention, they don't. They are though remarkably good though for music that plays to their strengths. Solo instrumental pieces sound especially good on them.

It is an interesting thing I've noticed with impressions of headphones: it's just human nature to be taken to a certain set or house sound, and then guage other headphones from that. With what has been said on this post, though, no one has argued about an electrostat having more transparency. I think what does get into arguements most is when we start trying to say what's "neutral". As I've now come to an understanding that most headphones can be "neutral" for given applications. You want more soundstage and range for a symphony: although there are some would want more transparency then what certain phones may have. Though you want less soundstage and a brighter emphasis for a small ensemble or a particular rock genre.

But most of all, I know I should stop reading this thread, because now I'm being swayed into wanting to buy STAX again

You and Smeggy are evil I tell you

My finger is hovering around the keyboard ready to call up e-bay to see if a SR-X is on. If the Omega II is there, there's no hope!!!

 

[smeggy]

Neutrality? Transparency? Resution? Soundstage? Phah!

I just like the sound. There's way too much technogiberish spouted about phones. Just find what you like and enjoy it.

I really couldn't care less about what many here find soooo important. The SR-X is far from perfect by any measure but it doesn't stop them sounding damn good...TO ME.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Neutrality? Transparency? Resution? Soundstage? Phah! I just like the sound. There's way too much technogiberish spouted about phones. Just find what you like and enjoy it. I really couldn't care less about what many here find soooo important. The SR-X is far from perfect by any measure but it doesn't stop them sounding damn good...TO ME.

Well said

I view headphones like beer.....My creamy smooth HD650 Guinness of a stout just sounds perfect for what I listened to today: Johnny Cash, Gyorgy Ligetti, and Brahms. Sometimes I need to reach for my hoppy SR325i IPA. Sounds like the SR-X might be the first electrostat I could try buying: the consensus seems that it's pretty gosh darn good for small ensembles. Maybe it's like an ESB for strings

 

[Carl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snacks /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which amp? There aren't many outside of KGSS/KGBH/ES-1 and now Woo, but which one will serve up the "stat" impact? ^^This is interesting to know...now I feel even more clueless. , but it's a start... "On which stax or electrostat earspeaker, HE60/90, 303/404?" So based on what's listed in your profile: Sennheiser HE60 Stax 4070 Stax Sigma Pro Koss ESP/950 Stax SRX mk3 Stax SR50 Are all impactful sounding stats, right/wrong? More than likely, impactful and storytelling in their own way. This is also good to know... In reference to modern headphones and technology, you must be referring to all types of headphones, not just electrostats, correct? Impact is definately more engaging that extension; however, a good mixture of both, IMO, is essential. Although, getting a clear idea is almost as diffult as getting a review or opinion on ______ <-- insert your subject here! I wholeheartedly agree, but it sure is nice to hear how everyone's opinion can differ on any given headphone. Let your own ears be the judge...that's what "you've" got to do, otherwise one could get really .

I don't think you quite get what I'm trying to say. There is no particular amp that is "it" for electrostatics. And there is no headphone (or speaker for that matter) which is 100% perfect and linear throughout the audible range.

With a well suited amplifier, irrespective of which namebadge graces the front plate, driving a suitably decently designed pair of electrostatic headphones you can achieve bass response that is rather close to that which is on the disc you're playing. Whether the resulting product will sound like it does live will depend on what you're listening to and how it was recorded. If you're listening to unmiced classical, and sitting in roughly the same part of the auditorium as where the microphone is placed (if not, see: Grado/Sennheiser dichotomy), the resulting effect, bass impact inclusive, can be very close to that of the live performance with electrostatics. A studium rock concert by contrast will tend to have highly distorted amplification - 2000W class a/b solid state amplifiers, high powered bass horns, active crossovers - that electrostats in a home system are simply incapable of adding (would you want them to?). The studio recording will have a far less coloured sound, so the final product should sound rather less tactile and agressive/dynamic.

So, once we narrow down exactly what it is we want the electrostats to reproduce (and certainly there will be quite a few who don't like that sound, and prefer the characterisitic colourations of cone speakers better. They certainly aren't "wrong" for holding that view), the objective is to get the electrostats to reproduce as close to that goal as possible.

To throw out a few axioms based on my own experience, the amp needs to meet certain requirements in terms of slew rate, voltage swing, lack of distortion and component colouration, and control of the speaker/stability. It doesn't need to be perfect! You certainly don't need to fork out 10 grand on an amp to get them close to that ideal. Better amps are of course better, but as long as they are sufficiently capable in the above areas, even something rather humble will work rather well.

Now I don't want it to come across like I'm putting the boot in to Stax's amps - they are not bad amps - but I feel given the price they aren't as good in the above catagories as I'd like them to be.

So, after all this, am I going to offer onto you a glimpse of the satori of The One True Amplifier that will drive your electrostatics to perfection? Nope, no way. How am I to know what you consider to be musical nirvanna, how I am I to know how well every last amplifier ever made by man (there's a lot!) will perform? All I could do if I tried is tell you about my musical nirvanna, something that could be the total polar opposite of your own.

The only thing I can do is help you find the methodology on how to find your own path, not lead you down the path myself. I can tell you (albeit, filtered subjectively) what things make an amp suitable for driving electrostatics, but if you expect me to go "buy this particular amp here with these options and use it with this cable and this power cord, and it'd be perfect", then my only response can be "sorry".

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSloth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Take this from the perpective of someone who has a pair of electrostatic loudspeakers, but: There is little technical merit to that statement without qualification. Firstly, as a rule, very close up electrostatics have terrible waterfall plots (in the very nearfield). I.e. though the electrostatic diaphragm might move overall as one transducer, at a more minute level it moves somewhat chaotically - chaos of that kind is high frequency in nature. I'm not saying that it is necessarily audible and thereby destructive, but it is fundamental to the medium.

What exactly is the relevance of an unspecifed plot for an unidentifed loudspeaker to any of the headphones discussed here?

 

[Carl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow /img/forum/go_quote.gif What exactly is the relevance of an unspecifed plot for an unidentifed loudspeaker to any of the headphones discussed here?

The physics he talks about is true for electrostatics in general. I don't know if it affects the sound.

Cone speakers likewise have their little quirks, also not necessarily audible. Real world electrical components of course all have their failings.

 

[Snacks]

I just returned back...this thread has went haywire.

--bt--

Carl - It's all good...thank you for the input.

--bt--

A lot of good information being passed along here; however, as it has been said numerous times, let "your" ears be the judge. And, once I get all the necessary components together, I plan on doing just that. I am very hopeful that I will soon find the sound that I like, and when that time comes, I will be done with this place, albeit from an enjoy the music/component standpoint.

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl /img/forum/go_quote.gif The physics he talks about is true for electrostatics in general. I don't know if it affects the sound. Cone speakers likewise have their little quirks, also not necessarily audible. Real world electrical components of course all have their failings.

I doubt that a waterfall-type measurement from a headphone speaker would show the same results as a loudspeaker, whether electrostatic or not. If you are talking measurements you can only talk about what precisely you are measuring. Generalizing to other situations is an unsound use of the original measurments. In any event he was discussing an anonymous measurement from an unnamed speaker.

 

[Carl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow /img/forum/go_quote.gif I doubt that a waterfall-type measurement from a headphone speaker would show the same results as a loudspeaker, whether electrostatic or not. If you are talking measurements you can only talk about what precisely you are measuring. Generalizing to other situations is an unsound use of the original measurments. In any event he was discussing an anonymous measurement from an unnamed speaker.

Well physics is physics. Electrostatic speakers of all shapes and forms don't move back and forth in a completely linear manner, and that's a scientifically provable fact. Even if the measurements he described turned out to be completely flawed, the point he was trying to illustrate with them is no less accurate.

A better way to argue against it would be to suggest that the very high frequency and very low amplitude of such ripples is unlikely to be audible.

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is an interesting thing I've noticed with impressions of headphones: it's just human nature to be taken to a certain set or house sound, and then guage other headphones from that. With what has been said on this post, though, no one has argued about an electrostat having more transparency. I think what does get into arguements most is when we start trying to say what's "neutral". As I've now come to an understanding that most headphones can be "neutral" for given applications. You want more soundstage and range for a symphony: although there are some would want more transparency then what certain phones may have. Though you want less soundstage and a brighter emphasis for a small ensemble or a particular rock genre.

I generally don't talk about neutrality since I'm not sure if I consider it important to my enjoyment of music so it's not something I've put much thought into. If I'm used to any house sound it's probably Shure since I've listened to the top of their line for the best part of three years straight now. Even today my E500s get far more listening time than my O2s since most of my listening is outside my home. To a large degree Shure IEMs sound significantly different to the electrostatics I've heard so I'm not sure what to read into the fact I like both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif But most of all, I know I should stop reading this thread, because now I'm being swayed into wanting to buy STAX again You and Smeggy are evil I tell you My finger is hovering around the keyboard ready to call up e-bay to see if a SR-X is on. If the Omega II is there, there's no hope!!!

Hehe, well to me the SR-X MK3 does on occasion seem to go for relatively low prices so I don't consider it that too evil a suggestion. Paid about US$160 for mine including a SRD-7 transformer box. Just need regular speaker amp of some sort to drive them.

Resisting the Omega II on the other hand is easy. Find a US dealer's website and look at the price of a combo for the SRM-717 or SRM-727 amp and SR-007 headphones. Think for a moment what else you could do with that money. I'll be impressed if at that moment you still seriously want them.

 

[Carl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirumu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Resisting the Omega II on the other hand is easy. Find a US dealer's website and look at the price of a combo for the SRM-717 or SRM-727 amp and SR-007 headphones. Think for a moment what else you could do with that money. I'll be impressed if at that moment you still seriously want them.

Yeah, you could get an HE60+EA-4 and a few CDs on the side.