[carlo]

I'm currently trying w2002s (courtesy of smokey) and have tried r10s (courtesy of edwin), I'm finding that I like the effect of a soundstage behind my ears - as if the headstage goes farther back in my head. Haven't had that from a dynamic headphone before, but the HP-1 layered notes in between the farthest and closest instruments (side to side) better than the two closed cans I've tried.

Where do electrostatics fall in this regard? Their reputation leads me to believe they get the side to side stage well, but what of front to back?

I understand that its hard to answer the question without general statements, but any input or experience is much appreciated (I haven't heard an electrostatic headphone, only speakers).

thanks,
carlo.

 

[Vertigo-1]

carlo, the following two links should thoroughly answer your questions.

http://headwize2.powerpill.org/ubb/s...=5117&fdays=20

http://headwize2.powerpill.org/articles/soh_art.htm


I would weigh in my thoughts, but there is simply no way for me to articulate them anywhere near as well as darth nut can. Nor do I feel the need to with the presence of such amazing writeups.

 

[JaZZ]

The Stax Lambda Pro I owned had an outstandingly huge soundstage compared to my then dynamic headphones. This also applies to the Signature Pro which I once auditioned and to an even greater extent to the Sigma Pro – with the latter at the expense of clarity and midrange. To my ears it's primarily the merit of the large diaphragm which impacts a great outer ear area, thus causing the reflections our ears identify as natural free-field hearing. I don't know the Omegas, but guess that even the II has a greater headstage (although obviously rather perceived as «in the head») than conventional dynamic headphones.

The secondary cause for the perception of a soundstage may be the resolution of a headphone – which provides a lot of information about the spatial arrangement of the sound sources on the recording. In this regard there's probably no other principle that can equal electrostatics. But from this perspective I also rate the soundstage of the Etys rather high, although not at first glance.

JaZZ

 

[carlo]

Vert - exactly the information I was looking for, thanks.

JaZZ - thanks for sharing your perspective, perhaps the scale I'm finding is due to the diaphram size, now I need to arrange to try some Staxes

 

[kelly]

All hail Vertigo, keeper of the Stax library.

 

[smokey]

Carlo,

If you need some Stax' I've got a set of 303s with the SRM-T1 amp you can borrow.

Someday I'm gonna get really brave and have someone build me one of KG's tube electrostatic amps.

It's really too bad that I tried to solder only once in my life. I ended up toasting a perfectly good Radio Shaft strobe light kit. All it ever did was smoke.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by smokey It's really too bad that I tried to solder only once in my life. I ended up toasting a perfectly good Radio Shaft strobe light kit. All it ever did was smoke.

The origin of "smokey" is finally revealed.

 

[carlo]

smokey,

I'm taking you up on that, thanks man

carlo.

 

[Vertigo-1]

I should probably chime in with one thing that darth nut didn't seem to mention too much of (the horror of that). In my experience, interconnects + a power cord change have played a particularly big part in how much depth imaging I got. Take a singer's voice for instance. The higher up I scaled with interconnects, the farther away the voice would appear to come from. And I don't mean that the voice sounds laid back and thin. I mean that the singer genuinely seems to be singing in front of me in that wonderful little headstage the Omega IIs throw. Now it's at a point where I feel if I raise my hands about 5 inches in front of my nose, I'd block out the singer's voice. Crazy good stuff.

 

[Matthew-Spaltro]

Unfortunatley I can not afford elctrostatics right now. Working at a dead end job. crappy job.

 

[carlo]

Vert,

Damn man, I can only imagine how good that sounds. I agree with your and Jazz's perspective on detail/resolution - when a system produces the smallest transients and the low level (volume, not frequency) information the soundstage tends to fall into place on its own, performers and notes settle into a spot and the rest can be placed relative to it.

I really enjoy the w2002's stage, its more open and less confining than the r10 to my ears, but at the same time there's a glow to notes, a sense of sweetness, that I find pleasing but far from accurate. I've been listening to a lot of early/low production rock and roll through them and they're perfect for that application, but at the same time they aren't giving me the crystal clear picture I'm looking for from a primary headphone. Stax is interesting to me because their reputation in terms of detail retrival and speed, coupled with a great soundstage, may be what I'm looking for. Essentially I'd love to audition a headphone that has the side to side stage and the purity of notes of the hp-1 with a soundstage that creates a large percise enviorment. The hp-1 (which is still my headphone reference) has excellent placement depth wise but is relatively shallow, a comprimise I'm willing to make since it also doesn't exaggerate. Now if I can get that precission with a bigger stage...

How green is the grass over in Staxville?

carlo.

 

[kelly]

carlo
The SR-404 has cantered drivers like the W2002 and R10 and may give you more of the soundstage you're looking for than the SR-007. It's far cheaper, too. I'm not saying you won't like the SR-007 mind you, but this is something to consider. You could get the 404 from EIFL and then build the Gilmore solid state amp. That'd be a relatively low investment and something you could easily sell as a package if you decided to move on to the SR-007 and/or hybrid amp later (or if you end up going some other route).

 

[carlo]

kelly,

Hmm, you've got me pondering again. HP-1, w2002... from the headphones you've nudged me to try I know you've got my tastes and listening preferences pretty much down, I'll certainly audition a 404 if the opportunity presents itself.

thanks for the recommendation,
carlo.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by carlo I really enjoy the w2002's stage, its more open and less confining than the r10 to my ears, but at the same time there's a glow to notes, a sense of sweetness, that I find pleasing but far from accurate. ... Essentially I'd love to audition a headphone that has the side to side stage and the purity of notes of the hp-1 with a soundstage that creates a large percise enviorment. The hp-1 (which is still my headphone reference) has excellent placement depth wise but is relatively shallow, a comprimise I'm willing to make since it also doesn't exaggerate. Now if I can get that precission with a bigger stage...

Something strange is going on if the W2002 sounds more open than the R10. The R10 has the biggest most well defined sound stage I've heard out of a headphone. It's one of the major strengths of the R10. The W2002 can't come close.

The HP-1 simply doesn't have the definition that the R10 does. I'd describe the R10 as a headphone that has *increased* purity of notes relative to the HP-1, with a large well-defined soundstage. The HP-1 lacks focus compared to the R10.

The problem with comparing the two is that the HP-1 will sound good through most systems, while the R10 is possibly the most hypercritical headphone I've heard. It will lie down, become undynamic, and let the soundstage collapse if something in the signal path isn't what it wants. The HP-1 will soldier on. I have yet to find a system that makes it sound bad (OK, headphone jack of a portable can do it

)

It sounds like the R10 you heard wasn't happy (a sound I'm all too familiar with). It sounds good in many ways, but you become accutely aware of its deficiencies. However, that's curable. What you're looking for sounds like what I've got. An effect I've never heard out of any other headphone is the audience in a live recording. It conveys the audience not as crowd noise, but as a set of individuals in a well-defined space. It's got depth as well as width.

I've got to admit that Vertigo-1's description of the Stax has me intrigued. The soundstage of the R10 is mainly to the rear. If the Stax can throw a stage in front of me, with the same quality of sound as the R10, I want 'em!

 

[carlo]

Hey Hirsch,

You've obviously spent more time gearing systems around the r10 than I have (or anyone else this side of Italy I imagine), my impressions of the headphone are only based on a few hours with the headphone and two very different amps.

The major difference between the w2002 and the r10 in terms of soundstage is in the boundaries: the r10 has a distinct fish eye presentation to it: lead/center instrument large and the surrounding musicians sounding (both in placement and reflection) as if they're on opposite corners of a long hall. My major complaint about that headphone is those boundaries are essentially the same from recording to recording: bigger here and tighter there, but still disjointed. The w2002, while being smaller in scale, creates a space with rounded off boundaries and in the end sounds less restricted - its not fish-eyed.

Now, the HP-1 can't make the farthest instrument real far like the R10 can, but the intermediate space - between the center and the farthest instrument (side to side) - is ruled by it. Performers, instruments, and notes can live inbetween with the old Grados, with the Sony its either right in front of me or too far away. The HP-1 creates solid, distinct leading lines for performers, each one carved out and solid, while the R10 fuzzes them out and at times increases their scale.
Quote:

The HP-1 lacks focus compared to the R10.

I feel the opposite: the HP-1 to my ears is sharply in focus, the R10 is slightly blurred. I'm particularly stuck by your comments that the HP-1 is the more forgiving headphone, happy regardless of amp, since in my experience (I spent several weeks with the HP-1 with the Max, a couple incarnations of Melos amps, and the HP-4 during the same audition as the R10) it simply reflects whats going on upstream. I don't doubt that the R10 is a picky bitch, afterall she did seduce me, but demanding and transparent are two very different things to me.
Quote:

I'd describe the R10 as a headphone that has *increased* purity of notes relative to the HP-1, with a large well-defined soundstage.

I'd agree with you if we were only talking acoustic instruments, however the R10 (once again in my short time with them) doesn't get the attack or impact of the first pluck/notes well enough on electrics (especially double bass and Strats) to pass in that regard. The HP-1, while less haunting and without the realistic decay of the R10 on acoustics, gets the speed and definition of attack and the wholeness of a note better. Its as close as I've gotten when it comes to headphones, and thats why, to date, its my reference. The R10 comes in second, but would probably win if I only listened to small chamber sets or acoustically based music.

Just to make it clear, I'd take the R10 over the w2002 in a heartbeat - it has better tone, decay, and aced the Joni Mitchell's Blue test. I'm still sizing up the Audio Technica but it hasn't grabbed me the way the R10 did (and the R10, on Blue, did it in a way that I haven't forgotten). My comments about the w2002 and R10 in the earlier post was just about what I'm looking for in terms of soundstage, nothing more.

carlo.