Electrostatic vs. Dynamic Headphones
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:40 PM Post #91 of 327
Quote:

Originally posted by purk
Mike,
I have no problem about you saying CD1000 is much worst than your Stax, since you own them. But,

Why can u be so sure about this? Did u get a Phd. in Physics or something???


By the way, what is the current top Stax model that corresponds to the Lamda design?
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:43 PM Post #92 of 327
Quote:

Originally posted by purk
Mike,


Why can u be so sure about this? Did u get a Phd. in Physics or something???


Do you understand how electrostatic drivers work? Do you know how thin the Stax membranes are? Do you know how much they weigh compared to a dynamic phone? Those are the factors that distinguish an electrostatic such as the Stax from a dynamic such as the CD3000.
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:44 PM Post #93 of 327
Mike,
With all due respect...
Quote:

By the way, what is the current top Stax model that corresponds to the Lamda design?


Will the new design make your old stax better than the CD3K? I don't think you have a valid arguement here. You should get yourself a CD3K....listen to them first....and make a conclusion.


Purk
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:48 PM Post #94 of 327
It'll be good to compare a equivalently priced system... A CD3K with the top-rated <>$800/£800 amp and a 4040. The 4040's go for about £1100 here so they must be about $1100 in the US?
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:48 PM Post #95 of 327
Why do you like playing with wooden tennis rackets. By physics, I think your wooden tennis rackets are outmatched by all the spiffy new technological composites.
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:49 PM Post #96 of 327
Quote:

Originally posted by purk
Mike,
With all due respect...


Will the new design make your old stax better than the CD3K? I don't think you have a valid arguement here. You should get yourself a CD3K....listen to them first....and make a conclusion.


Purk


I'm sorry, I don't follow you here. Please explain. I was talking about whether the current top Stax unit would be better than the best dynamic available, by consensus here the CD3000 (or at least among the very best). I say yes, without even having to think about it. the current top Stax unit will beat any dynamic phone, hands down.
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:49 PM Post #97 of 327
Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti
Do you understand how electrostatic drivers work? Do you know how thin the Stax membranes are? Do you know how much they weigh compared to a dynamic phone? Those are the factors that distinguish an electrostatic such as the Stax from a dynamic such as the CD3000.


Mike even you must see how one-dimensional your arguments are about something as complex as one's enjoyment of music. Just because electrostatics have a faster transient response it's a physical proof that they must sound better? That's just way too huge a simplification to bear any value of total musical enjoyment.
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:50 PM Post #98 of 327
Quote:

Originally posted by stan23
you guys are not gonna change mikes mind.

In his mind (world) the Eggo D77s are the BEST DYNAMIC portable headphone bar none.

When asked about the Etymotics... "never heard of them"
rolleyes.gif


This guy looks to be set in his way.

"sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here"

biggrin.gif



I don't want to agree with that, but NOW I DO!!!!
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:53 PM Post #100 of 327
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim D
Why do you like playing with wooden tennis rackets. By physics, I think your wooden tennis rackets are outmatched by all the spiffy new technological composites.


that's a good qestion, thank you very much. It is not a technological issue. The current configuration of the tennis court was finalized about 1882. The racquet technology at that time 9to say nothing of ball technology) was factored into the decisions about net height and dimensions of the service lines etc. These were all adjusted concurrently with the technology then available, on grass courts. So, you see, to use MUCH more powerful racquets and MUCH livlier balls on hard courts with a net and court that was designed for wood racquets and slower balls and grass makes no sense at all. It changes the game to the point of ludicrousness. Watch any match from the 70's on tape and you'll see what I mean. The game changes so much that it destroys it. You should read my posts on google.rec/sport.tennis.
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:55 PM Post #101 of 327
Quote:

Originally posted by JMedeiros
oh my poor, poor thread....alas, I knew it well....LOL
smily_headphones1.gif


Heh yeah sorry about your thread man, I guess you'll need to start a new one for any follow-ups as I for one hardly remember what this thread was about in the first place
tongue.gif
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 10:56 PM Post #102 of 327
Quote:

Originally posted by TMC
Mike even you must see how one-dimensional your arguments are about something as complex as one's enjoyment of music. Just because electrostatics have a faster transient response it's a physical proof that they must sound better? That's just way too huge a simplification to bear any value of total musical enjoyment.


well, the reason CD3000's sound so good is how closely they approximate to electrostatic derivers. By using more powerful magnets and lighter, stiffer diaphragms compared to other makers, Sony has achieved in a dynamic headphone something closer to electrstatic quality than has been available in the past.
 
Mar 31, 2003 at 11:06 PM Post #105 of 327
Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti
Try looking at this:

http://www.stax.co.jp/ENG/HOW-ESP.html

Here's home page:

http://www.stax.co.jp/


ok, I looked at the page. Does this magically mean that you have sampled other cans other than your stax and D77s?

I emplore you to listen to other cans... Then come back and we can talk.
very_evil_smiley.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top