[nattonrice]

I think Stax learnt the hard way that you can't build amps like the diy ones we have now, loose money on each one sold, and expect to survive as a company...
 
 
Quote:

are Stax so lame that their own design (one they haven't changed for many years) can't drive their headphones at least decently?  

 

 

[juzmister]

It seems that headamp can stay in business
 
Can't stax make one of the DIY designs commercially feasible? Seems they haven't put too much thought into their amps in a long time

 

[Uncle Erik]

I own the O2, but just have the Xstata SS. I enjoyed the LCD2 in brief listens at CanJam, but still have a hard time tearing myself away from the HD-800 (stock) that I've been enjoying for a bit over a year. I intend to upgrade to a "proper" electrostat amp one of these days, but have a few more dynamic amps to build before I get there. That being said, I really enjoyed the LCD2. The tonality was pretty good and I plan to buy a pair one sooner or later. I will buy the JH13 first, however, because I need better IEMs.

 

[dreamwhisper]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ 

For me my modified HD 800 (and even the stock HD 800) has audibly the better technical performance than any electrostat known to me. I could easily demonstrate it by means of measurements. And some more evidence...
 

Wait, in the second link you provided a representative from Sennheiser says:
 
Quote:

no dynamic can ever be as fast and as responsive as an electrostatic - in the same way that a dynamic microphone can never be as fast and responsive as a condenser microphone.

John Willett
(Technical Support - Sennheiser UK)

 
And in more detail later on in the thread:
 
Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaloS It is rather stupid to have a disargeement about a technical aspect. Not exactly a matter of opinion here - transient responce on electrostatic headphones is superior to dynamics. ArmAndHammer: think of it like this: how fast does a driver settle after an impulse is sent to it? Slower drivers will introduce more distortion because they will oscilate more widely than the signal requires - faster drivers technically can follow the signal more faithfully. That's all... (and yes technically you want the fastest, but there are other issues at hand which make people choose not the fastest headphone).

This is the perfect and correct answer.

If you really want to know how fast a driver is - is to put a fast transient through it and measure how it reacts.

There is not only how fast it starts, there is also how fast it stops - and no dynamic can ever come close to an electrostatic.

 
I think one problem lies in finding an amp that can power the 'stat drivers faithfully, (which in the case of the 007 Stax no longer manufactures) and then measuring the attack/decay/transient speed has more relevance, but even then it still isn't the whole picture.
 
Anther important issue that is overlooked/not measured is the distortion that is introduced into the music by slower drivers, which Stax don't exhibit IME.
Even in complex passages Stax aren't overwhelmed, and keep asking for more.

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

I think Stax learnt the hard way that you can't build amps like the diy ones we have now, loose money on each one sold, and expect to survive as a company...

 

I don't understand this. It doesn't make any sense to me that a company would knowingly pair inadequate energizers for their flagship headphones, which are already very expensive, meaning the people who play in that segment of the market are into high-end gear anyway. So to cut down cost of production they cut corners on their flagship energizers, which in turn will drive their flagship headphones poorly, thus results in a bad reputation for the company and its products? How does this make any sense at all? And if indie developers can make money from making and selling very expensive electrostat energizers, why can't Stax do it too? I mean, parts would likely cost less for them since they can bulk in bulk, and manpower isn't necessarily cheaper for the indie guys since big companies can train low-cost labor to make these products? And as far as design goes, they have the R&D money and the kind of talent that designed these amazing headphones to begin with, and have expensive lab equipment. I refuse to believe that somehow indie developers are automatically and mysterious more talented, smarter, and work harder. So what gives?
 
My suspicion has always been that the Stax energizers are totally fine, and can drive their headphones as Stax had intended in their designs. I mean, can anyone show me a frequency response chart comparing the 007MKII's amped by the Stax flagship amps and one of these DIY or indie developed amps? Can we see distinct improvements? Has anyone ever tested these ridiculously expensive amps against the Stax ones in reasonable, logical tests?
 
I have never heard one of these non-Stax amps, so maybe if I heard one I'd understand what the fuss is all about, but based on my experience with dynamic headphones and amps, the amps do not make the kind of difference that people foam at the mouth about and describe with melodramatic hyperbole. The differences the amps make are minor at best, and almost inaudible in some cases during A/B tests. I have always felt that if any gear comparison required you to do focused A/B test with great concentration to hear the difference, then all you're doing is splitting hairs and throwing your hard-earned money away if you choose to buy the much more expensive one for the minuscule differences that you can't even hear reliably or easily. Maybe these non-Stax amps really are amazing and the difference is like night and day compared to the Stax amps, but until I get to hear them for myself, I will never know, and I'll be a skeptic until then.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[dreamwhisper]

Quote:

I think one problem lies in finding an amp that can power the 'stat drivers faithfully, (which in the case of the 007 Stax no longer manufactures) and then measuring the attack/decay/transient speed has more relevance, but even then it still isn't the whole picture.
 
Anther important issue that is overlooked/not measured is the distortion that is introduced into the music by slower drivers, which Stax don't exhibit IME.
Even in complex passages Stax aren't overwhelmed, and keep asking for more.

 
And even if electrostats when measured properly didn't have the fastest transient response, perhaps the reason why many people (though not JaZZ evidently) hear it as being faster is because of the lack of distortion.
 
This would indicate that transient response and speed are not as objective as previously thought but very much in the subjective realm and perception of speed being based on reference points such as lack of distortion, impact, treble emphasis, SPL... etc.
 
I personally hear lack of distortion as being fastest, followed by impact (particularly bass),
and I'm no longer fooled by treble emphasis like I used to be
I could add midrange transparency and detail (like with orthos) as well although at this stage in my audio journey I personally hear that as coming in after the first two.
 
Also, to my ears perception of speed is very closely linked to holistic sound reproduction.

 

[nattonrice]

The remark was directed at the original T2.

 
Quote:

It seems that headamp can stay in business
 
Can't stax make one of the DIY designs commercially feasible? Seems they haven't put too much thought into their amps in a long time

Headamp doesn't keep a warehouse stocked with bhse/kgss to ship when ordered. They are built for a niche community of buyers that understand there is an extended wait time (years from the original announcement to first unit shipping).
Considering the price of the higher end amps vs the size of stax as a company, I don't think they have the resources to invest in stocking quantities of ~$5000+ amps, let alone run a built to order system.
 
Edit1: there are other little things as well... Japanese aesthetics for one: tubes completely enclosed not able to dissipate the levels require for the operating points we run them at in diy/headamp designs, ect.
The original T2 either melts or fries your eggs for a year... and then melts.
 
Edit2: When I heard the energizer driving the o2mk1 I really enjoyed/loved it (that is the session that convinced me to lead up to getting a pair). Having a bigger and better amp is what it always is: if you can afford it, great.
 
Of course this is all imo and open to being proved wrong.

 

[Nevod]

All that, and besides, Stax is commercial company after all, and wouldn't pursue pure quality out of fun ( and when they did something along these lines with SR-Omega and SRM-T2, they went bankrupt and were sold, iirc). There has never been a competitor for O2, so there were no major upgrades. Per-order built commercial amps, like build by Headamp are too rare to pose any threat to Stax's financial state. Even here on Head-Fi, there's not many people with non-Stax amps.
 
So till the latest times, Stax didn't have any competition in the high-high-end headphone market. With all that fuss about LCD-2, perhaps, Stax will make a new amplifier, or even a headphone, though that seems unlikely. But I'm quite sure it would be as exclusive as T2 ( perhaps it will be a tweaked T2, actually).
 
Stats have a problem connected with large size of the radiating area, which leads to sound emitted from edges to arrive with delay compared with sound emitted from center. O2 addresses this issue, though.

 

[Solude]

Off topic the KGSS and KGBH aren't what I'd call small form factor amps.  I love mine but lets face it, it eats a lot of real estate on my desk.
 
I guess what I'd love to see is the 6Moons review.  They have been running a 32 Ohm Audio series, they use shots of LCD-2 in other reviews... I want to see the write up on them.  Then we'll have one point of view on pretty much everything head-fi at the top end.

 

[JaZZ]

 

   
Wait, in the second link you provided a representative from Sennheiser says:
 

No dynamic can ever be as fast and as responsive as an electrostatic - in the same way that a dynamic microphone can never be as fast and responsive as a condenser microphone.

John Willett
(Technical Support - Sennheiser UK)

 
And in more detail later on in the thread:
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaloS It is rather stupid to have a disargeement about a technical aspect. Not exactly a matter of opinion here - transient responce on electrostatic headphones is superior to dynamics. ArmAndHammer: think of it like this: how fast does a driver settle after an impulse is sent to it? Slower drivers will introduce more distortion because they will oscilate more widely than the signal requires - faster drivers technically can follow the signal more faithfully. That's all... (and yes technically you want the fastest, but there are other issues at hand which make people choose not the fastest headphone).

This is the perfect and correct answer.

If you really want to know how fast a driver is - is to put a fast transient through it and measure how it reacts.

There is not only how fast it starts, there is also how fast it stops - and no dynamic can ever come close to an electrostatic.

 
John Willett is not really a Sennheiser representative, but a recording engineer using Sennheiser microphones. And when it comes to microphones, he's obviously right. No conventional dynamic microphone reaches up to 50 kHz like some condenser microphones manage. When it comes to headphones and speakers, he's obviously wrong. «There is not only how fast it starts, there is also how fast it stops – and no dynamic can ever come close to an electrostatic.» Especially with this statement.
 
As I see it, the problem is in the membrane surface. The tiny membranes of electrostatic (condenser) microphones allow for very low moving masses and correspondingly fast attack and decay. Standing waves on the membrane are no issue (in view of the concerned wavelengths). But the larger the membrane surface, the more accentuated this problem. While the membrane is driven with virtually equal force throughout its whole surface, the effective inertia (term used for simplification) isn't equally distributed, since only the middle can vibrate freely, whereas the borders are fixed on a frame. The result is an increasingly erratic decay with increasing surface.
 
Still the attack is very fast – certainly one of the main criteria for the impression of quickness. But decay is slow compared to dynamic headphones, the more so the best ones. Which may be the main reason for the preceived lack of impact and attack with transient events such as drum beats.
 

I think one problem lies in finding an amp that can power the 'stat drivers faithfully (which in the case of the 007 Stax no longer manufactures) and then measuring the attack/decay/transient speed has more relevance, but even then it still isn't the whole picture.

 
I don't dispute that different amps sound different. But no amp can control the decay of an electrostatic membrane. Even the effect of damping factor and back EMF in dynamic transducers (although to a minor degree in headphone drivers) isn't present in electrostatic transducers. The only thing that can be expected from «better» designs is a better power control in the amp itself (with respect to instant power-supply capability).
 

And even if electrostats when measured properly didn't have the fastest transient response, perhaps the reason why many people (though not JaZZ evidently) hear it as being faster is because of the lack of distortion.   This would indicate that transient response and speed are not as objective as previously thought but very much in the subjective realm and perception of speed being based on reference points such as lack of distortion, impact, treble emphasis, SPL... etc.

 
So far that's only speculation, since corresponding data are lacking. However, in the speaker world electrostatic transducers usually show (clearly) higher harmonic distortion than dynamic transducers. On the other hand I have to agree: Electrostatic headphones sound remarkably clean and transparent to my ears and provide the impression of especially high resolution. But there's a caveat: To some extent this effect is caused by a special kind of inaccuracy. Keep in mind that the moving membrane works between two stator grids. So the produced sound waves have to be pressed through tiny holes, making for an acceleration of the air during this phase. Additionally the grids represent enormous reflective surfaces on which and between which the sound waves get reflected multiple times before they reach the ear. I know the sonic effect of such an array from my speaker-builder career. You can try it yourself on your home speakers: Place a fine metal grid about 1 mm away from the tweeter. It will produce a metallic glare with a slight accentuation of sharpness. The latter is caused by the acceleration of the air molecules (like it's cultivated in compression-chamber drivers), the former by the reflections on the grid.
 

Also, to my ears perception of speed is very closely linked to holistic sound reproduction.

I agree with this. – Don't get me wrong: I like the sound of electrostatic headphones, so much so that I have taken care to adapt it to my personal sonic preference (in the form of my own angled-drivers designs based on Stax drivers). But what's plainly wrong is to call electrostats the only correct and accurate way of reproducing music. Just like dynamic headphones, they have their fortes and their shortcomings. I happen to (currently) be more captivated by the latest dynamic developments, as they sound more realistic and adequate to my pair of ears. Moreover, one of the recent releases (the HD 800) excels at many important parameters, one of them being harmonic distortion (see e.g. Tyll's CanJam measurements).
.

 

[juzmister]

Sure, but it doesn't mean that they have an sustainable competitive advantage. Headphones are becoming popular again, especially on the high end...Think of all the "reference" phones that have been released over the last two years. I wonder what their plan is.. 
 

 

[juzmister]

HD800, Beyer T-1, Jade, HE-5, LCD-2...and those are just the ones that are currently in production 

 

[Nevod]

 
Quote:

 
 
John Willett is not really a Sennheiser representative, but a recording engineer using Sennheiser microphones. And when it comes to microphones, he's obviously right. No conventional dynamic microphone reaches up to 50 kHz like some condenser microphones manage. When it comes to headphones and speakers, he's obviously wrong. «There is not only how fast it starts, there is also how fast it stops –and no dynamic can ever come close to an electrostatic.» Especially with this statement.
 
As I see it, the problem is in the membrane surface. The tiny membranes of electrostatic (condenser) microphones allow for very low moving masses and correspondingly fast attack and decay. Standing waves on the membrane are no issue (in view of the concerned wavelengths). But the larger the membrane surface, the more accentuated this problem. While the membrane is driven with virtually equal force throughout its whole surface, the effective inertia (term used for simplification) isn't equally distributed, since only the middle can vibrate freely, whereas the borders are fixed on a frame. The result is an increasingly erratic decay with increasing surface.
 
Still the attack is very fast – certainly one of the main criteria for the impression of quickness. But decay is slow compared to dynamic headphones, the more so the best ones. Which may be the main reason for the preceived lack of impact and attack with transient events such as drum beats.
 
 
I don't dispute that different amps sound different. But no amp can control the decay of an electrostatic membrane. Even the effect of damping factor and back EMF in dynamic transducers (although to a minor degree in headphone drivers) isn't present in electrostatic transducers. The only thing that can be expected from «better» designs is a better power control in the amp itself (with respect to instant power-supply capability).
 
 
So far that's only speculation, since corresponding data are lacking. However, in the speaker world electrostatic transducers usually show (clearly) higher harmonic distortion than dynamic transducers. On the other hand I have to agree: Electrostatic headphones sound remarkably clean and transparent to my ears and provide the impression of especially high resolution. But there's a caveat: To some extent this effect is caused by a special kind of inaccuracy. Keep in mind that the moving membrane works between two stator grids. So the produced sound waves have to be pressed through tiny holes, making for an acceleration of the air during this phase. Additionally the grids represent enormous reflective surfaces on which and between which the sound waves get reflected multiple times before they reach the ear. I know the sonic effect of such an array from my speaker-builder career. You can try it yourself on your home speakers: Place a fine metal grid about 1 mm away from the tweeter. It will produce a metallic glare with a slight accentuation of sharpness. The latter is caused by the acceleration of the air molecules (like it's cultivated in compression-chamber drivers), the former by the reflections on the grid.
 

I agree with this. – Don't get me wrong: I like the sound of electrostatic headphones, so much so that I have taken care to adapt it to my personal sonic preference (in the form of my own angled-drivers designs based on Stax drivers). But what's plainly wrong is to call electrostats the only correct and accurate way of reproducing music. Just like dynamic headphones, they have their fortes and their shortcomings. I happen to (currently) be more captivated by the latest dynamic developments, as they sound more realistic and adequate to my pair of ears. Moreover, one of the recent releases (the HD 800) excels at many important parameters, one of them being harmonic distortion (see e.g. Tyll's CanJam measurements).
.

 
For the membrane and frame point - the width of the membrane which is 'doming' due to material tension near frame is only about 1 cm wide, the remaining membrane moves as a uniform flat surface. Such a problem would be more noticeable in microphones exactly due to their smaller problems, but even in them, it is non-present. There is no inertia of the diaphragm - the tension actually works to dampen the diaphragm, so if the signal is not present, the membrane stops, immediately - it is damped by air. Amplifier is not needed to control the decay.
But, there is a problem with large size of the diaphragm. Sound has to travel noticeably longer distance from driver's edge, than from the center, look on it from geometrical point of view.
What you see as slow decay on waterfall plots, is not the diaphragm slowly coming to stop, it's sound still coming from driver's edges, while sound from the center has already come. The really fast decay of the membrane is smeared by these delays.
Omega2 addresses this issue by using a driver where only the center area of the driver has perforations and hence emits sound.

The lack of attack is more probably due to dynamic range limitations, coming from not-so-large volume excursion of 'stats, or from amplifier being unable to drive stats properly, which is more probably the case - the capacitative nature makes them way tougher than any other type of transducer.
 
 
Moving on, there is no reflections of sound from the stator grids - the holes and distances between them are much smaller than wavelengths on any audio frequency, only noticeably in ultrasound reflections do come into play. On the other side, there is problem of secondary emission from the stator - the force acts upon it as much as on the diaphragm, and if the stator's not stiff enough, it'll emit sound on its own, resonating at it's mechanical resonance - and the resonance frequency would be high enough to be noticeably unpleasant. That's, I guess, the reason why many people prefer wire stators to perforated list ones - well-tensioned wires are less resonance-prone than thin and drilled metal sheet, which is just too easy to bend. Again, this can be remedied by stator supports, and headphones have smaller stators, which won't bend so easily.
 
The harmonic distortion of a 'stat is way lower than of a dynamic driver, an ortho driver can be comparable though. There are even some measurements of a DIY ESL headphone, showing very low distortion, also showing that, particularly, distortion at low frequencies can be further  reduced by higher diaphragm surface resistance.
 
The particular implementations may have their problems, but ESL technology is way superior than conventional voice-coil-and-dome dynamic driver even in theory. Dynamics have too many compromises, the only serious problem with 'stats is driving them.

 

[spritzer]

A couple of things on the Stax amps.  The T1 (and all the later amps which use the same circuit) was introduced in 1987, well before the launch of the SR-Omega or even before Stax started the massive design project which was the Omega series.  This isn't a bad amp by any means, in fact it is rather good save for the choice of tubes.  The 6CG7 has a maximum plate voltage of 330V and very limited power handling.  Now this means not a whole lot of power is at play here and the amp doesn't like to be pushed in terms of volume level.  Now the SRM-600 should fix some of this by using the excellent ECC99 from JJ which can handle a lot more voltage and power.  I haven't heard one yet but if a T1 should find it's way to me here in Iceland I will modify it for use with a ECC99 and see how it sounds. 
 
Now to to properly drive the SR-Omega (and any later Omega model) Stax designed the SRM-T2 which is quite frankly a beast of an amp.  It's 18kg and runs hot enough to cook eggs (around 60°C) but in terms of design it is superb.  At it's core is the basic SRX design from 1968 (same design as Single Power used with very bad results) but with so much stuff piled on that you almost can't spot it.  Now the problem here is the cost of making something like this.  Stax sold the T2 for 470.000Yen and never made any money on them even with the rather simple power supply design.  Hell if our DIY version were to be sold commercially it would never be less then 20k$ and a lot more if said commercial venture used dealers/distributors etc. 
 
This then brings us to the problem Stax are facing.  Unlike somebody like Justin at Headamp which has very little overhead and sell his products mostly direct, Stax is a large company with people on staff and dealers distributors all taking their cut of the pie.  Lets take some imaginary product Stax makes and start with the basic parts cost of 100$.  For Stax to break even on each unit made they have to charge 3-5 times the cost of the parts to cover labor, design, inventory etc and have a bit of profit too.  This brings us to 3-500$ which in Japan (as Stax is the distributor there) would be the price to the dealers.  They would all probably take 100% as markup (not unusual in the audio world given the low rate of turnover) so the final price could be around 700-1000$. 
 
Now for the rest of the world it's even more expensive as you have to factor in the cut which the distributor takes (varies but could be 50% or even more), any local taxes, cost of shipping which is all added on top of the local dealer cost.  Now this doesn't just apply to Stax, it applies to all companies with a retail network.  As it stands now, the 007t and 727 are about as expensive as Stax can make an amp and I know for a fact that they have no plans for re-introducing the T2.  Simply can't be done with any fiscal sense...
Quote:

 

 
I'm not a fan of HD800 but It's a little unfair comparison, don't you think? SPL amps hasn't good synergy with HD800, it's sad combination according to me, cold etc. Try something like Leben CS300 and then I'm sure you will change your mind.

I'm not a fan of the SPL amps either.  I've had much better results with Dynalo and some very nice DIY tube amps in the past but still doesn't change my opinion of the headphone. 

 
Quote:

Yes it is,but Tyll said he could not measure electrostatic headphones,you would have to ask Tyll the reason why, I never did.
 

The first issue was the lack of a Stax extension cord going into the "measurment chamber" and the second lack of good amplification on hand.  That's why Tyll decided we would measure them at a later date when something like a KGSSHV or Blue Hawaii would be at hand. 
Quote:

Absolutely just my opinion (posted here before), but I don't know how you guys could wear those weird thin-padded O2 earpieces very long.
It's like someone took the stuffing out and put pebbles in there. Nice vocals with the 007t amp, though. ('owned them for 9 years.)

Yeah, 9 years is a long time with the same set of earpads.  I for one change them out every two years but I've since changed to the SR-007Mk2 which should last longer, sound better to my ears and are more comfortable.  They are also the only replacement part available from Stax...
 
Quote:

 
In other words: You consider yourself the benchmark when it comes to technical performance, whereas in my case it's just sonic preference? I strongly dispute your claim. For me my modified HD 800 (and even the stock HD 800) has audibly the better technical performance than any electrostat known to me. I could easily demonstrate it by means of measurements. And some more evidence...
 
I'm not saying it is better in every criterion, but in some essential criteria, such as decay spectra.
 
 

I for one am not going to judge your choice of the HD800, they are certainly far better then the garbage which is the HE-5 (also touted by many as the new world standard a few months ago)...

 
And in what technical criteria is the HE-5 worse than your favorites? I think the use of the term garbage is unjustified by any means, since the measurements don't look too bad. I suppose it just doesn't fit your taste. (I haven't heard it, BTW.)
 
 

.... but I'd personally use a better amp than any of the Meier Audio stuff. 

 
Please show me where the Meier amps lack in terms of technical performance! I think the Symphony is one of the most neutral and accurate amps around. That's not an empty claim, but something I've found out in comparison to my all-time reference: the direct connection of a high-impedance headphone (in the past: HD 650, nowadays: HD 800) to the line out of the Bel Canto DAC2. Maybe your ideal is a sound that's more euphonic or spectacular than just neutral and accurate.
 
 

The SRM-727 is also an odd duck, so much so that I'm looking for one to rip apart so that I can come up with hopefully an easy fix to the messed up output stage. Still we all have our taste to cater to so each to his own. 

 
And how do you know what a neutral and accurate amp is supposed to sound? I'm not saying the SRM-727 is the epitome of an electrostatic amp. On the other hand I don't want to spend more money than my budget allows (the same as with dynamic amps). Also, it's not my only electrostatic amp. Moreover I have auditioned quite a few, and while they make a difference, it's not one that can make the characteristic weaknesses of a transducer principle appear and disappear. – I must say I'm quite a bit shocked by your arrogant and elitist attitude.
.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.... ohh wait a minute, no I didn't.  Disagree all you like, I couldn't care less.  If you think a heavier driver, driven single ended can match a fully balanced driver which is lighter then the air it is pushing then something is very wrong. 
 
As for amp design, you clearly haven't got a clue.  Meier amps aren't as bad as Rudistor or ALO but their not that far off.  How neutral amps are is measure so you just stay shocked while I put you back on my ignore list where you belong. 

 

[Solude]

Easy gents.