[kelly]

This is another poll of "beliefs." I'm not setting any prerequisites here. If you believe electrostatics are a better design philosophy for headphones, vote for that. If not, vote for dynamic. If you don't have a leaning either way, vote undecided.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

As of now there were 7 votes in total, and none of them for dynamic.

I voted for undecided. I only own dynamic cans, but have heard so much good press about electrostatics that I left myself the leeway to go either way. I have yet to hear that electros can produce the same amount of bass as dynamics can, but in the mids and highs they are better than dynamics.

Good dynamic cans are affordable and sound really good. Each successive set of cans has impressed me more than the last, and I'm happy with, and keeping, my current cans without any hesitation or reserve. I only wish I bought them earlier!!

Good electrostatics are more expensive, and out of my price range for a decent pair, so I will probably never own a pair, but I'm always interested in hearing a pair or two to see if they're worth all the hype and moola!!

 

[austonia]

price, special power requirements, and the near-universal opion that electrostatics have weak bass eliminate the need for these in my growing collection.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by austonia price, special power requirements, and the near-universal opion that electrostatics have weak bass eliminate the need for these in my growing collection.

"near universal" is interesting. Just to make sure no one thinks it's completely universal, I disagree quite a bit. Few headphones have bass as good as Stax as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Vertigo-1]

I agree with kelly on the bass that electrostatics are capable of. And on the price issue, the Stax SRS-3030 system is $779 from Audiocubes...a price not uneasily reached by most Headfiers who get a high end dynamic headphone + dynamic amp. Quite a number of Headfiers have a single amp or headphone that costs more than this system.

 

[JaZZ]

I voted for «undecided». Though supposing that «electrostatics are a better design philosophy for headphones», my standard headphones are my HD 600 and (to a lesser extent) my ER-4S. I'd like to listen to the newer, probably better Stax drivers, which possibly could change my preference, but so far I'm even too lazy to build a new headphone around the Stax Lambda Nova drivers lying around...

Based on my experience with the Stax Gamma, Sigma and Lambda models and primarily with my self-built two models based on Lambda and Signature Pro, I admit that electrostats are clearly superior in terms of resolution and soundstage, possibly also neutrality. It's nearly unfair to compare them with dynamic headphones, they leave no chance to them by swiching back and forth: they're much faster, clearer, more transparent, more airy and better balanced in most cases. The bass of the Lambda Pro was a weak point, but I guess the new models are better in this regard, as are my own ones, which leave nothing to desire with the bass.

Why do I prefer dynamic headphones in praxis? It may be due to the older drivers in my electrostats, among them the Signatures are known to be somewhat sharp... though not at all in my design, there is a certain lack of midrange substance with both models, although the mids are wonderfully neutral and free of colorations. The HD 600's mids are more present, more substantial and warmer, while nearly as transparent and neutral, and the highs are rounder, lack the ultra-high electrostatic resolution, but don't miss resolution at all if listening without comparison and sound very fast, too. It's bass is more substantial and solid, a bit «faster», but lacks the electrostats' fullness, blackness and extension.

All in all I just prefer the rounder sound of my HD 600 and the more tight and precise one of the Etys. But I'm interested in the SR-404 and the Omega II, which could very well change my mind.

JaZZ

 

[smokey]

I've heard excellent examples of both types of systems. However, I've not heard the best of either. Until such time as I do, my belief is that the success of the system lies not in the design philosophy, but in the implementation instead.

At least that is what I believe.

 

[carlo]

Quote:

my belief is that the success of the system lies not in the design philosophy, but in the implementation instead. At least that is what I believe.

Agreed.

I voted undecided because I haven't heard an electrostatic headpone, but I'm chiming in with speaker experiences since I suspect kelly is interested in the whole field of audio.

There are certain characteristics that I associate with Electrostatics: speed, minute transients reproduced with proper scale, non-emphasis on horns, lack of excess (box colorations, chuffiness, etc). All things that, while nothing is universal, they generally do better than all but the best dynamic speakers. The only flaws I associate with the technology is that its extremely placement and room sensitive, that a driver needs to be added to get full range frequency response (with a proper setting for the crossover, very hard to do with an electrostatic speaker in my experience), and they suck up power.

On the other hand, comparable dynamic speaker systems (ie: Dynaudio's Audience line to the Maggie 1.6QR, the big Silverlines to the 3.6) generally give a sense of impact and at times better tone than the electrostats in their price range. With a proper and well designed cabinet dynamic speakers can sound very, very good.

So I don't know, undecided.

 

[wildmonkeysects]

I agree: implementation being the key concept.

Although I am of the genotype with a preference for electrostatics, I would have to vote undecided...have not heard the W1000, F-1, et al yet. Nor the Grace...

In a gross oversimplification, when I want magic and involvement, it's planar time; when feeling a little more kicked back I reach for the dynamics.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by carlo Agreed. I voted undecided because I haven't heard an electrostatic headpone, but I'm chiming in with speaker experiences since I suspect kelly is interested in the whole field of audio. There are certain characteristics that I associate with Electrostatics: speed, minute transients reproduced with proper scale, non-emphasis on horns, lack of excess (box colorations, chuffiness, etc). All things that, while nothing is universal, they generally do better than all but the best dynamic speakers. The only flaws I associate with the technology is that its extremely placement and room sensitive, that a driver needs to be added to get full range frequency response (with a proper setting for the crossover, very hard to do with an electrostatic speaker in my experience), and they suck up power.

Although I don't feel this would effect your vote of undecided, I did want to clarify.

This poll does NOT pertain to electrostatic speakers. My intention here was to only ask what you think the best technology for HEADPHONES is. Some of us (or at least one of us) believe that some problems inherit in electrostatic and dynamic speakers do not plague electrostatic and dynamic headphones. Thus, for anyone who hasn't voted yet--please vote accordingly for which technology you believe is better *for headphones.*

 

[carlo]

kelly,

Ah. I need to start paying attention to what forum I'm in.
Sorry

carlo.

 

[Anders]

I voted electostatic, not because I am very convinced but by some fast considerations. I have only owned a Stax electret many years ago. However, some of the best rated systems ever have been electrostatic and seem to be better on most parameters. Presently, only Stax develops electrostatic systems and the best compete well with the best dynamic headphones. The main drawback with electrostatics commercially seems to be that you must buy a seemingly expensive system with a special headphone amplifier instead of a cheaper add-on headphone. When you add the cost of a high quality headphone amp there is no real cost difference.
With an increased demand for high quility headphone reproduction, more developers may emerge and someone may succeed in combining electrostatic refinement with more bass impact (not saying that it would be another than Stax).

 

[Nightfall]

Even if it was unintentionally off topic, I think thats a very accurate description of electrostatic speakers, Carlo. Nice work. They didnt begin to win me over until I heard what Martin Logan started to do with the ReQuests, and especially since then. There arent many speakers, at any price within sanity that I would dump my Legacy Focus system for, but I could be swayed if someone were to offer me a great deal on the ML Prodigies! And I might kill people to have the Statements and associated necessary amplification. Okay, I might kill "some" people! <g>




Quote:

Originally posted by carlo Agreed. I voted undecided because I haven't heard an electrostatic headpone, but I'm chiming in with speaker experiences since I suspect kelly is interested in the whole field of audio. There are certain characteristics that I associate with Electrostatics: speed, minute transients reproduced with proper scale, non-emphasis on horns, lack of excess (box colorations, chuffiness, etc). All things that, while nothing is universal, they generally do better than all but the best dynamic speakers. The only flaws I associate with the technology is that its extremely placement and room sensitive, that a driver needs to be added to get full range frequency response (with a proper setting for the crossover, very hard to do with an electrostatic speaker in my experience), and they suck up power. On the other hand, comparable dynamic speaker systems (ie: Dynaudio's Audience line to the Maggie 1.6QR, the big Silverlines to the 3.6) generally give a sense of impact and at times better tone than the electrostats in their price range. With a proper and well designed cabinet dynamic speakers can sound very, very good. So I don't know, undecided.