Quote:
Quote:
So how much more than the Sr007mkII do you think this would actually cost Stax to produce?
Where did this "double the price, no three times the price, no six times the price!" line of speculation come from?
It doesn't actually seem to make a lot of sense to me.
It all came from the video interview which was conducted with the chief technical officer of Stax ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKTuBjI4Cp4 ). My wife was kind enough to go through the video with me because I am nowhere near strong enough in Japanese to follow the talk in detail.
Anyway, the gist is:
- Goal was to create a new electrode for 50 years of stax
- Ideally want a stiff electrode but
- 1. Too thin an electrode cause residual vibration (bad)
- 2. Too thick an electrode (stator plates) causes too much air resistance through the perforations (bad)
- This time the electrode is made of three perforated metal plates (manufacturing by etching process)
- The three layers are fused under high temperature and pressure which yields a thin but stiff electrode
- Soundwise, you can clearly hear the difference with a "powerful" sound
- The demerit of the new electrode is manufacturing cost which stems from 2 main reasons:
- 1. It takes three etched metal plates to manufacture the new electrode (usually only 1 layer?!)
- 2. The special tool for fusing the 3 layers is very expensive such that total cost of manufacturing of the electrode is 5 to 10x higher than traditional ones
Now, does that explain the expected doubling in price compared to the Omega 2? I am not sure. But the frame is machined aluminum so some cost must go in there as well. Finally, the Stax person clearly mentions this is a statement product, not in the same class as the Omega2, so I guess part of the pricing strategy might also go with that... Sad but expected given that the competition has been releasing "inferior" (imo!) products in the 1500USD-3000USD range... However, I can't imagine Stax sell 2000 units a year at 6kUSD a piece!
The stators of the new design certainly looks like a throwback to the Omega, i.e. the very thin mesh, strengthened with spokes. But that design proved faulty, since evidently the two parts tended to separate, hence the 007's. However it looks like someone at Stax just didn't want to give up on the Omega reinforced mesh stator design. I hope that Stax has really got it right this time, but any return to an older failed technology makes one wonder how long the new model will hold together. While I realize that any company's advertising must be taken with a grain of salt Stax has already stated that they had the best stators in the 007A after the problems with the original Omega.
"SR-007 MK2 is the flagship model that aims to achieve the peak among STAX electrostatic speakers. They possess strong drive power in respect to the diaphragm due to the provision of an area in which there are no holes whatsoever on the outer ring of the electrodes (fixed poles) that were completed after an extended process of design and productions of prototypes". ""
http://www.stax.co.jp/Export/SR007mk2.html
This implied to me that they had made an advance over the Omega driver when they put out the 007's. Now they seem to be saying that fine mesh is best but it needs reinforcing, but that creates cost issues and makes one wonder about the reliability.
Quote:
Quote:
i would suspect that if Stax finds that to them, this headphone is the best thing they've ever done they will consider the price to go along with that, but it would be a shame for them to presume that and then be wholeheartedly wrong when people who have heard the SR Omega and Omega 2 unanimously start preferring the older flagships. My guess is in the 4-5k range, but if it is lower than 4 they will ultimately make more money as more people will buy them.
By the time I post, you guys had already answered everything, oh well.
.
DavidMalher, I know I may be biased by the new toy syndrome / high-end look of the C32 but from my experience, the C32 is really better than the Omega 2 mkII. I can't imagine a unanimous preference for the older guys. Of course, some of that may have been due to the mkII defaults and maybe ease of drive of the C32 (such that it wouldn't be as much of a jump when using a better amp than 727A). But I still expect the C32 to outshine the Omegas when driven by a top amp and fed by high end source. Who knows, the difference might be even more stunning?
Given people are ready to spend 3kUSD for an Edition 10 which, imo, does not sound anywhere near that price level, I can easily imagine people justifying a 5kUSD spending for the C32.
Seems like a classic engineering conundrum, we've got this great product but it costs a bundle to make. I would think that especially in the current time of economic downturn if Stax puts the price too high it simply won't sell enough units to pay for itself. I mean I can't just go to the bank anymore and refinance the house to take out some cash for new toys.
We also forget that there is a history of prices going down on Stax products. I paid a lot more for an early 404 than they were selling towards the end of the product lifetime, i.e. before the new Lambdas became available. It seemed that even the 007's were about 3K at one point yet I bought mine a few years ago for $1,800.00.
So assuming the new design is as good as it seems
and meets the test of reliability, it too may come down in price.
In my opinion, the 007A's benefit from one or more of Spritzer's mods, but I don't think many people have tried these. Also all Stax phones seem to scale up well, i.e. the better the source and amps, the better they sound. I recall the experience of listening to the BHSE with different phones at Canjam in LA. The advantages of the 007A over the Sigma/404 as regards detail and frequency response became much less obvious with this very good amp, making ita draw between these two phones. But the 007A never showed the openness of the Sigma/404, One may find similar issues between the C32 and 007, i.e. the better the amplification, the old designs start to sound a lot better and close the gap in performance between the new and old designs.
