[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by stan23 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.

See post immediately above.

 

[TMC]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti 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.

Ehm... just read my previous post again, because you're still doing the same thing and I still don't think it makes any sense.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by stan23 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.

I've listened to lots of headphones, and most of them suck, including Sony's.

 

[stan23]

and yet you have never heard of Etymotics

I'm done here. My sincerest apologies to JMedeiros for hijacking his thread (great comparison btw!)

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by stan23 ok, I emplore you to listen to other cans... Then come back and we can talk.

OK, for the record, I have owned V6's (twice) MDR-85's, MDR-84's, MDR-CD999's, MDR-D55's, MDR-D77's, MDR-E888, MDR-E565, MDR-CD1000, Stax SRX Mk III, and Stax Lamdas.I have also listened to numerous other headphones from time to time, such as JVC and Sennheiser. The price generally determines the quality (surprise surprise!). The ones I own now are the best I can afford. I'm sure that the current top Stax unit trounces my 20-year old Lamda, just as I am certain that my 20 year old Lamda will beat ANY current dynamic phone.

 

[stan23]

Quote:

I emplore you to listen to other cans... Then come back and we can talk

 

[HighwayStar]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti to the point of ludicrousness.

Exactly !

 

[nArKeD]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti OK, for the record, I have owned V6's (twice) MDR-85's, MDR-84's, MDR-CD999's, MDR-D55's, MDR-D77's, MDR-E888, MDR-E565, MDR-CD1000, Stax SRX Mk III, and Stax Lamdas.I have also listened to numerous other headphones from time to time, such as JVC and Sennheiser. The price generally determines the quality (surprise surprise!). The ones I own now are the best I can afford. I'm sure that the current top Stax unit trounces my 20-year old Lamda, just as I am certain that my 20 year old Lamda will beat ANY current dynamic phone.

Why comment on stuff you've never even listened to?

Edit - Also, there is something in the audio world known as synergy. This is all the components working together to cancel out the imperfection of each individual component. Because, Guess What? Some people on Earth have realized that nothing is perfect. Even if your electrostatic headphones are perfect in every way it still doesn't mean it sounds better when combined with your source, cables, and amplifier. You may argue that each component in the Stax system has been tuned to make each system sound its best. But, how is that better than a similar set of compromises with another system? Especially if whoever tuned the Stax has a different physiology or perception of sound than you.

 

[markl]

Quote:

well, the reason CD3000's sound so good is how closely they approximate to electrostatic derivers.

Arrrr har har har har har.....

Well, at least you made me laugh....

Mark

 

[Uncledan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti OK, for the record, I have owned V6's (twice) MDR-85's, MDR-84's, MDR-CD999's, MDR-D55's, MDR-D77's, MDR-E888, MDR-E565, MDR-CD1000, Stax SRX Mk III, and Stax Lamdas.

Oh I see, you try to use those headphones to compare with Stax. Now I know why you think dynamic phone suck.

 

[elnero]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti ... They could not, however, compete with the Stax in transient response or ultimate detail, or freedom from the slightest traces of colouration.

I'm sad to be the one to have to break the news to you buddy but every piece of equipment that is made to reproduce sound has colorations. And again transient response is but one aspect of a headphones performance. Sometimes there can be too much of good thing for some people.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti ...NO DYNAMIC PHONE CAN EQUAL AN ELECTROSTATIC AT ITS BEST.

By this thinking if you apply the same rule to speakers (after all it's only physics, right

) then there would be no need for high end dynamic speakers. Yet, like Jude, I've heard a lot of electrostatic speaker systems and while many were impressive I couldn't live any that I heard. As I said above, a bit too much of a good thing for my liking.

Now sticking to a parallel between the world of speakers and the world of headphones. Even if the CD1000's used the exact same driver as the CD3000's it doesn't mean they will sound the same. Plenty of speaker builders source their components from the same driver manufacturers. Many designs from different companies use the exact same drivers yet do not sound anything alike. It's all in how the driver is utilized. So your statements of the CD1000 sounding basically the same as the CD3000 really doesn't hold any water.

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncledan Oh I see, you try to use those headphones to compare with Stax. Now I know why you think dynamic phone suck.

lol

[size=xx-small]Edit:Spelling/grammatical mistake.[/size]

 

[FCJ]

John,

Actually, this thread can help you and save you some money.

Since 20 year old Stax phones are superior to anything out there, why don't you just sell the AKG K-1000s, nOrh amp, and the Sony 3000s and go on ebay and buy a vintage Stax setup (say, the SR-5s) for around $100. Think of the savings! Plus, you'll have a superior setup. You can take the money you make on the sale and take a great vacation.

See, isn't this hobby easy.

 

[radrd]

Quote:

See, isn't this hobby easy.

No, this hobby is a bunch of crap; unfortunately I enjoy it too much to stop.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by elnero I'm sad to be the one to have to break the news to you buddy but every piece of equipment that is made to reproduce sound has colorations. And again transient response is but one aspect of a headphones performance. Sometimes there can be too much of good thing for some people. [/SIZE]

1. This I know. The lighter the diaphragm (among other things) the less the colourations. You can never have "too fast" transient response. That's absurd. The purpose of a diaphragm is to move air. The faster is moves, the more accurately it moves.

Quote:

By this thinking if you apply the same rule to speakers (after all it's only physics, right ) then there would be no need for high end dynamic speakers. Yet, like Jude, I've heard a lot of electrostatic speaker systems and while many were impressive I couldn't live any that I heard. As I said above, a bit too much of a good thing for my liking. [/SIZE] [/B]

The amount of air to be moved to make a loudspeaker LOUD ENOUGH to hear in a big room is the problem. Headphones are right next to your ear, and the power requirements are MUCH less. Electrostatic speakers have always been limited in loudeness and bass for these very reasons.

Quote:

Now sticking to a parallel between the world of speakers and the world of headphones. [/SIZE] [/B]

None exists

Quote:

Even if the CD1000's used the exact same driver as the CD3000's it doesn't mean they will sound the same. [/SIZE] [/B]

Agreed, but they're only 2 inches from your ear. Do the math. Any other factors will be far less significant.


Quote:

Plenty of speaker builders source their components from the same driver manufacturers. Many designs from different companies use the exact same drivers yet do not sound anything alike. It's all in how the driver is utilized. So your statements of the CD1000 sounding basically the same as the CD3000 really doesn't hold any water. [/SIZE] [/B]

Different altogether. Drivers are used in a system that has crossovers and boxes. Headphones have ONE driver (almost always) no crossovers, and the box is much less of a factor.

lol

Edit:Spelling/grammatical mistake.


Sorry for the length of this reply, but I really could not edit your comments out: In short, you're wrong on almost all these points.

1.

 

[minya]

Mike. What if I went out and bought a pair of CD3000s AND a pair of Omega II's... and.... I *gasp* - I ... preferred the MDR-CD3000s to the obviously superior sound of the Stax Omega II's? I mean, is that even possible?

Obviously, if that happened, headphones would be the last thing on my mind because I'd start to **** out of my mouth, eat out of my *******, and gravity would be reversed (for me, at least) so I could never leave the house lest I soar up towards the stratosphere with nary a thing to stop me, save a rogue jetliner, perhaps.

In order to preserve the fabric of our delicate space-time continuum from tearing, I promise to always prefer the clearly superior Stax headphones to any and all dynamic headphones.

- Chris, doing his part to save the world