[urs]

Nic,

As a happy and very satisfied Omega 2 / 007 T user, I've been following your thread with great interest.

Two things came to my mind:
First: How many forum members are located in Italy / Switzerland etc. who might be interested in a "HIGH level" headphone meeting ?(eg: just Omega & R10 !! - rather snobbish, I admit !!)

Any candidates ??

Second: There is a small HIFI manufacturer in Switzerland, PAWEL ACOUSTICS, who makes not only a professional-type STAX driver, but he also has a "sound-field-correction device" for STAX in his programme; Reportedly, this device creates a more-foreward projected soundstage.

Regards

Urs, Switzerland

 

[Nik]

Hi Tomcat,

nice to speak with you…

You are right, but the Omega is giving to me another kind of emotional feeling. You can to be captured by the intimacy of the R10 (sure!!!), but even by the openness of the Stax… just another kind of emotion. When we are near to an outstanding object, I think, the sensations are new experiences.

Another different I’m listening with the two queens are: the Stax is more sensible to the different quality of the recordings, and the R10 give a touch of musicality to each recordings so they became a little similar each others. For this the conclusion would be that the Stax is more precise in respecting the “original” recording (not the live event…).

zzz,

I think that the rotary pads are not for different response of bass (or sound presentation), but just for better placements in the head, respecting even the two different position of the right and left ears. You cannot to change a lot the pads’s position because the cable cannot be totally in another position as normally is (to the down direction).

Best!
Nicola

PS:

An Italian friend of mine has the new HD 650, he is testing them!!!

 

[zzz]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat You may be strangely misguided, but I love you nevertheless.

well, you expressed these points on numerous occasions, I just exaggerated them a little

.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nik I think that the rotary pads are not for different response of bass (or sound presentation), but just for better placements in the head, respecting even the two different position of the right and left ears. You cannot to change a lot the pads’s position because the cable cannot be totally in another position as normally is (to the down direction).

that may have been the original intent, but in any case the amount and quality of bass is affected greatly by the pad/cup orientation with respect to one's head (note that you can not only rotate the earcups but also the pads on the earcups themselves). it's black magic, mostly.

 

[eric343]

Quote:

Originally posted by urs Nic, As a happy and very satisfied Omega 2 / 007 T user, I've been following your thread with great interest. Two things came to my mind: First: How many forum members are located in Italy / Switzerland etc. who might be interested in a "HIGH level" headphone meeting ?(eg: just Omega & R10 !! - rather snobbish, I admit !!)

Gotta get Jatinder to bring his Orpheus... or do I have to go to europe next summer?

Quote:

Second: There is a small HIFI manufacturer in Switzerland, PAWEL ACOUSTICS, who makes not only a professional-type STAX driver, but he also has a "sound-field-correction device" for STAX in his programme; Reportedly, this device creates a more-foreward projected soundstage. Regards Urs, Switzerland [/B]

More information please!!!

 

[dparrish]

WELL...

I've been holding back a bit until now, but I auditioned the 007/007t/717 combo late last spring.

To cut to the chase, I sold the 007t (actually regret it, but I needed the cash) but kept the 007/717.

The 007t DOES have a bit more warmth/body in the midrange. Female vocals sound GORGEOUS. There is a bit more punch in the upper/mid bass which adds to the sense of pace.

However, the 717 is a bit more extended/clean at both ends and is also a bit more quiet than the 007t. I can certainly see someone preferring the 007t, but with my source (XA777ES) and listening tastes (classical/jazz), I liked the 717 better OVERALL for its more realistic presentation.

EITHER setup beats any other dynamic setup I've heard to-date.
As has been said earlier, the 007 phones have eliminated that upper glare that is so commonly present with dynamic setups I've heard. They DO NOT roll off the sound--they just seem to present the high frequencies more naturally and effortlessly.

 

[Nik]

"The 007t DOES have a bit more warmth/body in the midrange. Female vocals sound GORGEOUS. There is a bit more punch in the upper/mid bass which adds to the sense of pace."

dparrish


SPLENDID! I'm just looking for these improovment for my Omega... may be if really will be like you are telling, the Omega would be declared the best cans in the world... (IMO).

The R10/Angstrom system is helping me a lot in "tuning" my new Stax system...

Someone can tell me about the Ei tubes adopted in the driver? There are better 6FQ7 in the market?

Best!
Nicola

 

[zzz]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nik Someone can tell me about the Ei tubes adopted in the driver? There are better 6FQ7 in the market?

rca cleartops, rca blackplates, mazda.

 

[Nik]

Good, zzz. Thanks! Can you give some web page indication for that tubes? Brazil production is even good?

Best!
Nicola

 

[zzz]

cleartops are extremely common and fairly decent. the rest is harder to find, though some dealers probably carry them. I never used and I never plan to use any of those tubes, I only know about them because I heard of these particular brands being referred to as `good` by the people with amplifiers that require them (stax 006t/007t and various non-stax stuff).

 

[darth nut]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nik Someone can tell me about the Ei tubes adopted in the driver? There are better 6FQ7 in the market?

Mullard CV2493s have very extended and open highs, with a full bottom and midrange. Telefunken 6dj8s sound tonally neutral and transparent, also very nice in their own way. I have 4 of each.

Both the Teles and the Mullards do not sound warm, if 'warm' means a clockwise tilt in the frequency spectrum about a fulcrum at 1kHz. Both are pretty expensive (for 6dj8s) and are available from Upscale Audio. I've not experimented with the ones suggested by zzz.

I compared the 007t with the older SRM-T1S before. The 007t sounds warmer (more specifically a richer middle-midrange and lower-midrange and even upper bass). I borrowed the 007t for 2 weeks from the local dealer. I have not heard the 717.

The 007t was voiced to give the Omega II a richer midrange and lower-midrange than the old T1S. The 007t sounds more SET-like than T1S. Fans of the SET sound may like the 007t as compared to T1S.

Now on to a different topic.

I think we need to give Nik here the credit for being such a gentleman. How many people can do what he just did? Imagine yourself having spent a lot on an uber-amp for headphone X. Then you buy headphone Y to cross-compare to headphone X. Wouldn't the natural, human-all-too-human, inclination be to bash or put down headphone Y? Is it easy to admit that headphone Y is the equal of headphone X plus uber-amp? Yet this was what Nik did, by jointly crowning them the "two queen sisters". (It was quite enlightening to finally know the real gender of headphones.)

I am not talking about whether you or I or Nik prefers X to Y or Y to X. My point here does not rest on whether X is better than Y, or vice versa. I'm talking about the person, not the two headphones. The mere fact that you have invested so much money on a system based on X, yet have the open-mindedness to even consider anything else as being an equal, is amazing.

 

[Mastergill]

Quote:

Originally posted by darth nut I think we need to give Nik here the credit for being such a gentleman. How many people can do what he just did? Imagine yourself having spent a lot on an uber-amp for headphone X. Then you buy headphone Y to cross-compare to headphone X. Wouldn't the natural, human-all-too-human, inclination be to bash or put down headphone Y? Is it easy to admit that headphone Y is the equal of headphone X plus uber-amp? Yet this was what Nik did, by jointly crowning them the "two queen sisters". (It was quite enlightening to finally know the real gender of headphones.) I am not talking about whether you or I or Nik prefers X to Y or Y to X. My point here does not rest on whether X is better than Y, or vice versa. I'm talking about the person, not the two headphones. The mere fact that you have invested so much money on a system based on X, yet have the open-mindedness to even consider anything else as being an equal, is amazing.

Yeah, but IMO that's just mean the X setup is not worth the $50k, i knew that from the beginning. I have also to admit that Nik trust his ears and that's just the way to do.
Also when you have a ****load of money that's quite easy and fun to do that kind of comparison

 

[urs]

Pawel Acoustics, Switzerland makes this “sound-enhancer”, which is installed in-line before the STAX amp; I've only heard it once during a HIFI exhibition. While there was a distinct difference, I can't comment whether it's just different or really better. From memory I recall the unit is dedicated to a particular STAX earphone/driver combination.
(Cost WAS around 1900 Swiss Francs / USD 1360)

The other PAWEL unit is a 19" rack-type solid-state STAX driver amp, which, if I remember correctly, includes the above sound-enhancer. I haven't heard this one though, neither do I know it’s specs, etc. (Cost WAS around ? 6’000 Swiss Francs / USD 4300 ??)
I'm currently trying to get more info from Pawel and I'll keep you posted.

Regards

Urs

 

[JaZZ]

I've heard the Pawel Sound Enhancer with the Omega II and was quite convinced of its ability to make the Omega sound more natural and neutral, just a bit overcompensating to my ears. It's primarily the upper mids which are enhanced, both in «binaural» and «diffuse-field» position. «Binaural» is sort of crossfeed processing with additional frequency-response equalization adapted to the concerning Stax model, whereas «diffuse-field» is what it's called: diffuse-field equalization. I slightly favored the latter with the majority of the recordings, but some sounded best with «binaural», and both EQs were (slightly) superior to the original sound IMO.